Subject: Re: SEC Proposal on Regulation NMS: Minimum Pricing Increments, Access Fees, and Transparency of Better Priced Orders (No. S7-30-22)
From: Greg Kopanski
Affiliation:

Mar. 07, 2023



Hi,  


Here's an addendem with help from ChatGPT better wording points of my opposition in a more direct way:  


I am writing to express my strong desire for fairness and change in the rules and enforcement of the securities industry. As a household investor, I am deeply concerned about the current state of affairs in the market and the lack of accountability for broker-dealers who engage in illegal activities. I believe that every rule the SEC passes is only as good as the enforcement that backs it. Therefore, I want to see higher fines that actually serve as a significant deterrent. Too often, broker-dealers receive fines that amount to nothing more than a cost of doing business. This must change. Some broker-dealers should lose their licenses instead of receiving fines that are outweighed by their ill-gotten gains obtained through “honest mistakes”. Furthermore, I would gladly pay 12 cents more a share to avoid being routed through a wholesaler that has been charged over 70 times by the United States government. It is unacceptable that firms with a long record of flouting the law like Citadel Securities can still operate in the market without consequences. I fully support the harmonization of tick sizes across all exchanges. It is unjust for some exchanges to receive special treatment and leverage that advantage to build monopolies in some areas of the market. All exchanges should quote and trade in the same increments to prevent monopolistic control of the market. I also dislike the presence of rebates and other inducements in the marketplace. They are simply payment for order flow by another name. Instead, I would prefer access fees to be reduced to zero. I support the tick size regime proposed by the Commission, and any structure that is clear and does not rely on vague language. Clear language and a clear and unambiguous tick size rule structure are strongly preferred. Please do not include vague language in the application of your rules. I believe the inclusion of odd lot information in the SIP is crucial for individual investors to make better investing decisions. The majority of trades in the market are odd lots, and the exclusion of odd lot information from the NBBO is a problem. I urge the Commission to look into a way to fairly and proportionately include odd lots in the calculation of the NBBO. In conclusion, I urge the SEC to prioritize fairness and accountability in the securities industry. The markets are supposed to be fair - so make them fair. I hope you will consider my suggestions for rule changes and enforcement to improve the market for all investors. 


Thank you. Fairness and change are needed and this rule brings much more of that to households like mine. I'm optimistic the people who are able to have the power to enforce will have the courage to do so. 



Greg Kopanski 


On Tue, Mar 7, 2023, 12:50 AM Greg Kopanski <gregkopanski@gmail.com> wrote: 

Hi! 


House holder here, father of 2. Invested in securities that are adversely impacted by the problems this rule sees to fix. 


Fix pricing improvement, odd lots special status, etc. Why different rules for certain people/companies who themselves profit at the expense of others? They are NOT providing value, taking it with the fake price improvements to the X decimal. It's a trick meant to increase profits from householders like me. There's no need for increments that ordinary people can't actually use (only parallel in my daily life outside of financial markets is 9/10 of a cent additions to gas). Why the special conditions that cost me money through buying frome shares at 20.002 but listing for penny increments. Also why don't all shares even those below 99 have the same impact to prices? We need fairness in our markets! 


I read my son a book called Fair Shares. It teaches fairness. A bear character only needs one chair to reach the pears from a tree, while a rabbit character needs two. One chair each then isn't fair. Citadel and Virtu are able to reach free pears, households like mine can't get any. We're in need of a cop on the beat who helps give the rabbit another chair so he can get pears too. 


Thank you SEC for this proposal and helping bringing fairness to our markets. 


Greg Kopanski