Mar. 3, 2023
March 3, 2023 I as an individual investor support the proposal (File Number S7-01-23), however I would like it to be known that I feel although the proposal is greatly hindered in its endeavor to prevent or mitigate the exploitation of synthetic-asset-backed securities and various instruments due entirely to the fact that within the very same Securities Act (Section 27B(c)) it affords blatant exceptions to certain risk-mitigating hedging activities, liquidity commitments, and bona fide market-makers. Financial Entities such as these have a storied and documented history of eschewing proper market conduct and receiving a slap on the wrist in response for repeated violations. If (Section 27B(c)) were to remain as it currently does un-amended or un-altered to reinforce the proposed initiative, it would render the whole endeavor moot. It is well within the means of hedge-funds and market-makers to use their sophisticated processes and paradigms to utilize these exceptions to function beyond the ever-watchful observation of oversight authorities. To simply entertain the proposal expounded within Section 27B of the Securities Act without accounting for or attempting to mitigate any exploitation possible via (Section 27B(c)) would make this proposal near useless in preventing another incident like that of the Market Crash of 2008. The unmonitored assembly of a financial Russian doll of poor graded securities and instruments in a manner that obfuscated the fact to consumers and investors had dire consequences not only for the global market as a whole but also for the livelihood of the people. Manipulation such as this was not simple it was structured, approved, and adopted by a cascading list of respected financial institutions. Not only did these same financial entities make and promulgate it, they were even short against the chimeric financial monstrosities they brought to being, only in the end to be bailed out by the suffering tax-payers whom were the victims.