Feb. 3, 2024
Dear reader at the Securities and Exchange Commission, I am writing to ask if the Securities and Exchange Commission is considering removing margin requirements for an individuals' speculative investments during times of personal financial distress? And if not, why is the Commission considering propping up a two tiered system that continues to protect market makers and people already in power while ignoring the problems they cause to everyone else. If SR-OCC-2024-001 does indeed remove margin requirements during times of distress, it seems as though the governing commission you're a part of is supporting and providing the infrastructure to allow large financial firms and institutions the permission to make risky bets that set us as a country up for failure. It would seem to further strengthen the idea of these institutions being "too big to fail." Or put another way, a demonstration of the government sponsoring their bad behavior. I would ask you and others in your institution to look at 2008, and ask yourself if the behavior of these financial giants SR-OCC-2024-001 references, have stopped gambling recklessly. It would seem that by considering implementing SR-OCC-2024-001, they have not. Why should the American public once again protect them from their mismanaging finances? If they have once again failed catastrophically, then they need to fail. The American public will suffer either way, but one path leads to a chance of accountability and a chance to change fundamental problems in the inner workings of markets, whereas SR-OCC-2024-001 seems to pass the bill on to those standing around watching market makers (firms like Citadel, Morgan Stanley) set the world on fire and then get patted on the back, and asked to do better while they pay off their executives with taxpayer funds. I'm tired, please stop. Daniel Roberts Sent with Proton Mail secure email.