Apr. 20, 2022
I want to make this comment as cordial and respectful as possible, but when rules proposed that are in direct conflict with retail interests with sole beneficiaries being bad actors with inescapable debts I get angry. Respectfully, are you out of your mind? Who’s interests are truly in mind with this filing? The market already lacks transparency and accountability for large institutions, so I’m EXTREMELY disappointed this rule is even being proposed. This rule would increase avoidance of true market price discovery through onward lending. It also removes the infinite risk of naked shorting entirely, and in so doing the deterrent of engaging in what is supposed to be very risky business practice. It's all upside for market makers which excessively naked short securities, and all downside for those on the wrong side of their shorting. How does this rule contribute to a "fair" market by any means? Please explain to me how I AM benefiting from this proposal as a retail investor. FTDs are already "reset" through a variety of methods such as using deriviatives not allowing them to reach their 30 day mark where the security needs to be "delivered." This is very frustrating to see rules like this being proposed that only favor reckless institutions. Hopefully you'll consider the words of retail investors more with your decision making. This is completely unacceptable and borderline criminal.