Mar. 9, 2023
March 9, 2023
I write in response to the SEC's proposal to amend its supplemental standards of conduct, File No. S7-02-23.
In Part IV, the SEC asserts that the APA, RFA and SBREFA do not apply. This assertion is incorrect.
As a spouse of an SEC employee, all my securities transactions are required to be pre-cleared and reported by my spouse. This is the case even though my spouse does not (and would never) tell me nonpublic information relating to their work and the assets that I am trading are not marital assets. I am thus a non-agency party whose rights are already substantially affected by the existing rules. The proposal would further affect my rights, and would also affect the rights of my business counterparties because my personal investing activity would be affected.
Part of my assets are managed by a small adviser who qualifies as a small entity under the RFA. This adviser may not have the ability to report trades to the SEC electronically and, even if they were able to develop this ability, it would likely impose costs on them that the SEC did not consider in its proposal, did consider alternatives for and did not solicit comment on. If the proposal is adopted as written and my adviser is not be able to comply with the electronic reporting requirement, I will need to move my assets out of the adviser's management, which would impose costs on me due to needing to find a new adviser and impose costs on my adviser in the form of reduced management fees. If the SEC wishes to move forward with mandatory electronic reporting requirement, it should comply with the law and solicit comment from small entities who would be affected.