Date:    01/30/2000  11:52 AM


Subject: Release No. 34-42343, File No. SR-NYSE-99-47
To SEC authorities
     
Why are you considering this ruling?  I am fairly new to this profession 
(daytrading),  yet i can eek out a decent living on 10 to 15K  in my account, 
with a 2:1 margin.  I have excellent instruction and guidance,  I spend several 
hundred dollars per month on data,  education, and coaching, and have spend even
more on learning programming and purchasing and configuring all the technical 
equipment.
     
Someday keeping 25K will not be an issue,   but at this point (if you enact 
this) you are essentially putting me out of work,  and denying me the 
opportunity to pursue my life and carreer in a direction that I have dreamed, 
aspired,  and worked very hard for for quite some time now.
     
This proposal  makes no sense from the standpoint of supporting the daytrading 
individual.  It reeks of protectionism of the brokerage firms and houses who do 
not like us entering into their traditional domain.  If you are going to allow 
them to assume risk,  scalp,  and remove money from the market (which comes from
investors ultimately by the way),  then you must continue to allow that public 
to compete with them, unrestricted)  at their own game.
     
As the SOES butchering that came in the past (when you granted them tier limits 
and several other selfserving benefits),  you are cowtowing to big money 
interests who dont desire or intend to give the little guy a fair break.
     
If a firm does not want to grant an individual margin priviledges then that is 
that firms business,  that is what a competive free market place is all about. 
To attempt to regulate in this manner is not in the spirit of a level playing 
field and restricts the freedom of the individual to pursue their goals.  What 
talent,  what potentially great traders and future contributions to our society 
will be jeopardized if you persue this unfair legislation.
     
You want to reduce risk to daytraders?  Then entice the daytrading industry to 
pursue self-education,  certification,  give them a chance to police and improve
themselves.  It is well known that 'self-regulation' is the best of all worlds 
for governmental authorities to obtain from industries.  I have no problem with 
embracing certification standards and promoting education and discipline.  But 
those who are affected must be the architects of that change.
     
Respectfully Submitted,
     
Tom Wilkes