Mar. 20, 2023
I fully support this rule being passed, for the reasons I will outline below. Please implement it absolutely as soon as possible. However, I strongly believe that enforcement is the only thing that makes a rule meaningful, and I want to see higher fines that include all profits from the violation, as well as a punitive percentage of at least 5x the profits made from the violation to discourage future rule-breaking. After a certain amount of repeat violations that begin to show a pattern of willful negligence or downright market manipulation, I strongly believe that broker dealers should lose licenses and be banned from the markets. 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 (https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/firm/firm_116797.pdf). I would gladly pay commission to avoid being routed through a wholesaler, especially one with a long record of flouting the law like Citadel Securities. I fully support the harmonization of tick sizes across all exchanges. I was shocked to learn that some exchanges get special treatment and are able to leverage that special treatment to build monopolies in some areas of the market. All exchanges should have to quote AND trade in the same increments. Some exchanges shouldn’t be granted an unfair advantage over others. It leads to monopolistic control of parts of the market that counteract and eventually kill the positive benefits of competition. The markets are supposed to be fair - so make them fair. I dislike the presence of rebates and other inducements in the marketplace - they are simply payment for order flow by another name. I would prefer you reduce access fees to zero; no "take". I support the tick size regime proposed by the Commission, and would also support any structure that is clear and does not rely on vague language. For example, some funds and firms might request language like "has a reasonable amount of liquidity at the NBBO", which translates to "I can ignore the rule if I feel my lawyers can help me get away with it". Loose language makes enforcement difficult or impossible, and wastes taxpayer dollars on needless litigation time. 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 support the inclusion of odd lot information in the SIP, and applaud the Commission's efforts to provide individual investors with more information with which to make better investing decisions - especially concerning which firms are allowed to handle our orders. Two years ago, the majority of trades in the markets were odd lots (55%; from https://bettermarkets.org/newsroom/key-highlights-dennis-kellehers-testimony-march-17-house-financial-services-gamestop-hearing/). For certain tickers, this proportion is certainly much higher. Why are the bids and offers of so many orders kept invisible? If the Commission were to remove odd lot information from this rule, my faith in the U.S. markets would become even more damaged than it already is. I believe the exclusion of odd lots from the NBBO is a problem. Odd lots are now a majority of trades in the markets. Within some stocks, they are the vast majority. The exclusion of odd lots from the price of a stock amounts to the exclusion of most individual investors - most of the voting public. Please look into a way to fairly and proportionately include odd lots in the calculation of the NBBO. Thank you very much for considering my comments on the proposed rule change, and I fully support implementing this rule as soon as possible. The longer that wholesalers can promise improvement on fractions of cents, and use this to steal orders and internalize them, the longer that individual investors are losing money, and having their orders routed in ways that actively undermine their own investments. Sincerely, Ryan Bermel Scientist Resident of New Mexico