Jul. 25, 2022
Hello, I am writing to make my comment on the proposed rule change SR-OCC-2022-803 (referred to as This Rule, from here). Having read the outline rule change request, I find this a troublesome request on several fronts. Firstly, this appears to be very preferential to OCC members to insulate them from bad bets that only they can see, and putting the consequences for such reckless behaviour onto the pensions of hard working individuals who actually provide value to society. This reads much like a bailout not from government, but from unsuspecting people who never consented to rescuing gamblers. As we’ve seen in the past, the taxpayer is the liquidity lender of last resort, but accessing such relief must come with conditions equal to the level of the screw-up, ie firm resume by windows, fines, and even jail time for those responsible. What would the pensioners’ recourse be when they discover they’ve been fleeced to bail out yet another reckless institution? My second gripe with this rule lays with the CFTC, Rosten Bentham and the bad comedy joke that was the suspension of swaps reporting until 2023. We do not know what is happening in the dark on that side of swaps, and as such are not given sufficient information to evaluate the necessity of this rule change or the consequences of not imposing it. It is my opinion that no such favourable rule change be allowed until some light is shone into the source of the risk. To allow such without seeing the magnitude of the problem is outright irresponsible, and may just kick the can further into a bigger problem that the rest of us pay for, while the perpetrators get off with a fine vastly smaller than the profits reaped and no admittance of guilt. White collar crime enforcement is a toothless imitation of justice in the world these days, and this rule seems to further enable perpetrators to E cape the consequences of their actions. Thirdly, and lastly, the application for no advanced warning of dipping into such liquidity seems an undue risk and expense being imposed on such institutions. If the OCC wants to force exchange of securities for capital, they should have to clearly declare why, with enough time for such counter parties to research the request, be able to see the reasons why themselves, and to have the option to deny providing such relief. SROs like the OCC already act like feudal lords over our peasant population, this rule stinks like Prima Nocta. If they so desperately need this capital, they should have to be clear as to why it’s favourable to them to sacrifice peoples’ hard-earned pensions in favour of their hoarded riches, and those institutions (who had no part in the decisions that lead to events such as a member default) should have the right to say no. I hope my concerns are heard, thank you for reading. Regards, Aaron Jarman