Oct. 14, 2021
Hello, I am a retail investor, SR-NYSE-2021-60 was brought to my attention and it would appear that the effective date of this new rule is November 6th, 2021. Here are the link’s to the rules I am referencing: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/rule-filings/filings/2021/SR-NYSE-2021-60.pdf https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/rule-filings/sec-approvals/2021/(SR-NYSE-2021-60)%2034-93309.pdf In regards to this rule change about “Trading Suspensions”, I had some questions I would like clarified in regards to this rule that will be going into effect: Under Paragraph A, Subsection 1: “Proposed Rule 7.13 would permit the Chair of the Board of the Exchange, or the CEO, or the officer designee of the Chair or the CEO, to suspend trading in any and all securities trading on the Exchange whenever in his or her opinion such suspension would be in the public interest**.** No such suspension would continue longer than a period of two days, or as soon thereafter as a quorum of Directors can be assembled, unless the Board approves the continuation of such suspension.” Can you define what determines an “opinion” in the “public interest”. This language as it is written appears to be deliberately vague and overbroad to give overreaching powers. Is there a system or a thought process that would generate such an option? Is there any time of balance test provided? Under Paragraph B: “The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather would harmonize the Exchange’s rules with those of its affiliate exchanges and provide for consistent authority to suspend trading across the Exchange and its affiliate exchanges” Can you provide clarification as to how this rule change will not impose a burden on competition? In general, as the rules are written on their face, there are couple issues that I would like to bring to your attention: Should a suspension of trading occur for a period of no more than two days, does this suspension apply to all levels of trading, this is to include a suspension of trading by Market Makers, Institutional Investors, Hedge Funds, government pensions, retail investors? Should this rule have to go into effect at the “opinion” of the Chair of the Board of the Exchange, or the CEO, or other designee, then can one presume, no entity regardless of size can execute any trade whatsoever? That means no individual retail investors or any other entity with the power to trade on the market be it the open market or darkpools can trade the suspended security? This question must be asked, due to the events of Jan 28 2021, where brokerages for retail PCO’d (position closing only) a certain number of securities exclusively to retail investors while allegedly colluding with MM’s and hedge funds. If in the event a suspension of trading is made, based on opinion, will that opinion and a reasonable justification be provided for the public interest at the time it is made and the suspension is in place? What are the means of informing retail investors, or any interested party invested in a security that is going to be facing a trading suspension? Is it up the brokerages to disseminate this information? What course, if any is provided to challenge such trading suspensions? When taking the written rules at face value, these bestow upon the receivers a de facto carte blanche toolcase of powers akin to a dictatorship that, make no mistake, will effectively disrupt the free market with retail investors set to take the biggest burden of the measures. Finally, the justification that this rule is protect and ensure the perfect mechanism of a free market and a national market system to protect investors and the public interest. Can you please cite an example where in this is the case? Is the protection from supposed “pump and dump” schemes found in penny stocks? Is it protection from rapid drops in stock price? Or could it be protection from a “naked short squeeze” situation? I feel these questions require full and sincere responses. This is largely due to the face, as the rule is written, on its face, it would appear that this is simply in place to protect large firms (MM and institutional investors) from their mistakes going against the narrative given lately by the SEC director Gary Gensler to protect retail and the fair market. Retail investors have been reminded and shown time and time again, there is always inherent risk in the markets and investment. When retail makes a trade and that trade looses money, there is no protection for them. There is always risk. However, this rule does not seem to be in place to look out for any other investor other than the large MM’s and institutions. Any clarification on my aforementioned questions in a timely manner would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for time and attention. Regards, W. C. Alexander