April 20, 2022
This proposed rule seems like yet another bandaid solution to a problem that in reality needs a complete overhaul. Adding another layer of complexity to allow entities to avoid their obligations of closing out positions by using more leverage/collateral (the quality/legality of which is in question) sounds like a recipe to further enrich bad actors at the expense of retail. I don't think this rule change is at all aligned with principles of a fair and free market and is certainly not in the interest of retail investors. Why should anyone be allowed to avoid covering a short position, as an example, by just providing \"collateral\" to reset the timer/clock on when those shares need to be delivered?