May 5, 2024
Public Comment on SR-OCC-2024-001 - Objection to Proposed Rule Change To Whom It May Concern, I am in vehement opposition to the proposed rule SR-OCC-2024-001 by the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC), which outlines adjustments to margin requirements during periods of heightened market volatility. This proposal, while ostensibly aimed at enhancing market stability, appears in no uncertain terms to serve as a protective measure for Clearing Members engaged in high-risk trading activities, particularly excessive short selling and infernal creation of virtually non-stop fails-to-deliver, which I condemn as it destabilizes market integrity and, much more importantly, irritates me personally. Firstly, the proposed rule's mechanism to frequently adjust margin requirements ostensibly aims to mitigate risks during volatile market conditions. This approach fundamentally and predictably misconstrues the root cause of such volatility—often the direct result of speculative and risky trading practices by the very Clearing Members it seeks to protect. By enabling these entities to continue with minimal financial repercussion, the rule perpetuates a cycle of risk and speculation that threatens the broader market ecosystem. Moreover, the rule's provisions appear to be a tacit acknowledgment of regulatory capture—an alarming trend where regulatory bodies are influenced by the industries they are tasked with overseeing. This influence undermines the regulatory intent of protecting the public interest and maintaining fair market conditions. It is disconcerting that the rule is almost certainly intended to shield those whose actions should, under more robust regulatory scrutiny, be curtailed rather than accommodated. The frequent adjustments to margin requirements also introduce an element of unpredictability that can itself be a source of market instability. Market participants, especially smaller investors, find it increasingly difficult to navigate an environment where financial requisites can shift abruptly and without transparent justification tied to their own actions. Though, this presumes that there would be appropriate justification found somewhere that would be objectively acceptable and I submit that there is not. If the rules constantly need adjusting because of market participants’ actions, perhaps it is not the regulator’s duty to coddle and protect. Dare I posit that the market participants (i.e. the whole of the Clearing Members) should be held liable for every single poisonous drop of their terrible actions and choices and the involved should be imprisoned. Furthermore, it is deeply concerning that the proposal includes redactions of information critical for a comprehensive understanding and evaluation of its full implications. Such opacity is antithetical to the principles of transparency and accountability essential to public trust and effective oversight. The redaction of vital data not only hinders the ability of stakeholders to provide fully informed commentary but also raises serious questions about the motives behind obscuring such information. I, for one, trust not a single one of the Clearing Members’ abilities to behave in an aboveboard fashion and clipping data like this, as though some sort of classified material would be hilarious if not so infuriating. I strongly urge the Commission to disclose all redacted information immediately, ensuring that all stakeholders have access to the complete data necessary for an accurate assessment of the proposed rule's impact. This step is crucial for upholding the integrity of the regulatory process and fostering a genuinely fair and open dialogue. In conclusion, SR-OCC-2024-001 does not merely adjust technical parameters within the existing regulatory framework; it actively shifts the burden of risk in a manner that favors speculative, high-risk activities by major financial players, to the detriment of the overall market health and fairness. I urge the SEC to reject this rule, taking into account the broader implications for market stability and the integrity of regulatory practices. I look forward to the rejection of this proposed rule and will thoroughly enjoy the bawwing that will no doubt result from the Clearing Members once this thing gets powerbombed into the dirt as it deserves. V/r, Joshua Russell Analytic Methodologist pistrisastri@gmail.com