October 16, 2021
The following comment is in regard to:
SR-NYSE-2021-60
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Its Rules to Add New Rule 7.13
Comment will be organized by making reference from the proposed rule change followed with a comment. At the end of the comment final thoughts will be made.
Comment 1:
Proposed Rule 7.13 is identical to the rule text governing Trading Suspensions currently in place on the Exchanges affiliate exchanges NYSE American LLC (NYSE American), NYSE Arca, Inc. (NYSE Arca), NYSE Chicago, Inc. (NYSE Chicago), and NYSE National, Inc (NYSE National).4 The Exchange is proposing to add Rule 7.13 to the Exchange in order to harmonize the Exchanges rules with those of its affiliate exchanges and to provide for consistent authority to suspend trading across the Exchange and its affiliate exchanges.
While I understand the idea of harmonizing the exchanges, whos to say this proposal is guiding harmonization in the right direction, what good has halting trading done in the past. Maybe the proposal should be to remove the previous rules allowing for halting for multiple days. Anytime through my years of trading, any halting made for more than a few minutes has caused a great uproar with retail traders who are the lifeblood of the stock exchange. What is the ultimate benefit of halting trading for retail investors and do the negative effects outweigh these benefits. These previous rule changes allowing for halting are old rules proposed and signed in by those who do not have retail traders in their best interest. I, along with every retail trader I know, strongly stand against any halting in the stock market. People are already losing hope in those with the power to make rules such as this and that negative outlook will only be strengthened if this rule is accepted.
Comment 2:
The proposed change would further remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because it would permit the Chair of the Board of the Exchange, or the CEO, or the officer designee of the Chair or the CEO, to act in the public interest to suspend trading in any and all securities trading on the Exchange when he or she believes that such a suspension is warranted. Such a suspension would not impact the ability of NYSE-listed securities to trade on an unlisted trading privileges basis other markets.
The fact that this rule change is being proposed including the last sentence is absurd. How can this possibly be seen to prevent manipulation if the open market gets completely locked while still allowing for dark pools to continue trading. Im enraged, how is free and open market possibly connected to locking the open market while keeping dark pools running. How do you suppose that works in real life and what is the real reason the halting would take place? Example: We have two groups, A and B. Group A did their research and decide to invest in a company. Group B sees things different and bets against the company. The company turns out to be a good investment, Group A grows causing the stocks price to climb significantly. While the price is climbing those who bet against the company start to lose money. (THIS IS LITERALLY HOW THE MARKET IS SUPPOSE TO WORK, THERE IS NO ISSUE TO RESOLVE, AND SHOULD BE THE END OF MY EXAMPLE) Now, because Group B is more powerful then Group A, trading is halted to stop the volatility BUT, Group B also has permission to use dark pools and is able to get out of their bet in the absolute opposite way of open and free. If we continue to say that Group B is always the more powerful group, this rule will never be used if it looks to hurt their investment. Group A always loses and the fact that this sentence, Such a suspension would not impact the ability of NYSE-listed securities to trade on an unlisted trading privileges basis other markets. is enough to cause a giant movement in retail traders. Retail traders are tired of being taken advantage of and are currently looking to new fair markets to use in the future. My last comment cannot be understated.
Comment 3:
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 Exchanges rules with those of its affiliate exchanges and provide for consistent authority to suspend trading across the Exchange and its affiliate exchanges.
How could it be seen that this rule, or the other already implemented rules, do not cause issues with competition or burden. Before this rule is implemented, the public deserves to see a good example of how this protects them and does not hurt them. How is competition not effected if only retail investors get their hands tied behind their back.
Final thoughts:
I believe this rule change should not be implemented and goes against the publics interest, and further, does not protect investors. A suspension should be made by the SEC. What is the reason standing today that this rule has not already been implemented on the main NYSE market while allowed on other exchanges? You will never convince the public this is going in their favor. We watch, year after year, those who propose these rules to make absurd amounts of money while so many people are fighting for their literal lives, the disconnect between the two parties is outrageous. Retail investors have historically been taking advantage of and this rule comes as no surprise. But please know, the future IS HERE. Implement this rule or others like it and you will see just how important and impactful retail investors are. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but very soon. New exchanges are only being made because of the giant lack of faith in our current system.
Thank you