Mar. 27, 2023
Every rule the SEC passes is only as good as the enforcement that backs it. I want to see higher fines that actually serve as a significant deterrent. I think some broker-dealers should lose their licenses instead of receiving fines that amount to nothing more than a cost of doing business - a cost that is often outweighed by the ill-gotten gains obtained through “honest mistakes”. 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 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. Do the right thing for everyone. Best, -- Shalen Tejwani