February 18, 2022
In the current times of the American people questioning the security and outright validity of our securities markets, decreasing settlement time of investor trades serves only to benefit all involved. The propensity for delayed or re-routed trades in a market allowed to create liquidity on whims is nonsensical, T+0 is ultimately necessary for investor confidence and markets risk structure. Acknowledging that changes in settlement period incur costs both financially and labor wise for market makers and broker-dealers, why should we take an interim measure to achieve our end goal? Will the eventual restructure to T+0 from T+1 not result in similar if not greater costs? If we are to shock a system as core to the US financial stability as this we must make efforts to minimize not the costs and labor, but the long standing effects it has on the efficacy and security it lends to those it serves. That would be every last United States citizen regardless of participation in these markets.
Retail trades suffer specifically although not exclusively, from woes of leniency in settlement periods via broker-dealers routing trades to institutions front running liquidity. How will this extend in hand to prevent order-batching to (OTC) Darkpools that have been shown to smother retail sentiment and price action as thousands of trades are collected and then purchased through hidden trading markets for a different price than the trade agreement. While I believe T+1 is definitely a correct step to take, it is not the only sure footing we can find. Implementation pathways of blockchain technology should ultimately be the goal outlined in Part IV as market participants abuse current settlement tactics far too ingrained in our archaic markets for even T+0 to solve. I do believe Mr. Gensler is leading us, the American people, towards better and more secure markets and I hope the honorable members who serve with him take a sense of responsibility and pride out of their service.
Thank You