Mar. 31, 2023
By Email Vanessa A. Countryman Secretary U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 205499–1090 rule- RE: File No. S7-30-22; Release No. 34-96494; Regulation NMS: Minimum Pricing Increments, Access Fees, and Transparency of Better Priced Orders Ms. Countryman: Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. As a household investor, I am very concerned about the state of the current markets. This includes the amount of data that is hidden within the current system, professional entities front running household investor trades, the repeated delay in the release of swap data, the repeal of previous regulations brought about by system failures, the failure of enforcement of existing rules and regulations, failures of self-regulating entities to comply with rules and regulations, waiving of margin requirements at will solely for the benefit of professionals, the trading restrictions placed on household investors by professional entities due to their failure to hedge risk, the ability of professionals to continue trading during halts on securities, spoofing trades to affect the security price and bid/ask spread, the failure of household investor purchases to affect price discovery, the internalization of household security purchases, the failure of household investors to obtain the best price for their securities, the conflict of interest of professional entities used to bend markets to their benefit, ability to continuously fail to deliver sold securities, failure of the system to force deliveries or reverse trades, failure to settle trades in a timely manner give the current state of technology, the use of algorithms to enact high frequency trading strategies, central clearing of trades by an extension of large bank entities, beneficial ownership by household investors where voting rights are not guaranteed, a system where votes are reduced to match the official released security numbers regardless of the quantity of actual securities sold, unaudited central clearing houses; professional entities claiming to represent household investors in an effort to receive favorable regulations; just to name a few. This proposed rule begins to address some of the above listed concerns. I strongly support the Commission's proposed tick size regime but not less than $0.005 of trading increments, and recommend clear and unambiguous language in the rule structure to avoid any confusion or litigation. The Commission, instead of allowing rebates and other inducements in the marketplace, establish a zero or very low fee structure to eliminate the potential for trading for the sake of volume. The Commission should implement a variable minimum pricing increment model that applies to both quoting and trading of NMS stocks to promote fair and transparent pricing across trading venues. While reducing the access fee caps is a step in the right direction, completely eliminating exchange rebates would further enhance transparency and fairness in the market. I would recommend accelerating the implementation of the revised round lot definition and odd lot dissemination on the SIP to enhance reporting efficiency and reduce delays. It is by the improvement of the system and market for household investors that the Commission can begin to regain public confidence and trust in the market, particularly in light of recent events like the GameStop controversy. The Commissions enforcement of rules and regulations needs to be improved. Failure to deliver securities should be forced to settle or reversed. Continued failures to deliver securities should not be possible. Rule and regulation violations should be assigned fine amounts that will serve as a significant deterrent for breaking the law. The perpetrator should not be able to make any profit for improper behavior. Furthermore, repeat offenders should lose their licenses instead of receiving fines that amount to a cost of doing business. Offenders should be made to admit fault, return profits, and should not be eligible to start new businesses in the financial sector. As a household investor, I would support an additional 0.64 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). The price improvement provided by these wholesalers is minimal and not worth the damage they bring to the market. As a household investor, I would rather pay commission to avoid being routed through a wholesaler, especially one with a long record of flouting the law like Citadel Securities. As a household investor, I fully support the harmonization of tick sizes across all exchanges. No exceptions, no "reasonable" or vague language. Clear rules, cited by clear language. 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 suggest that the definition of tick-constrained, whatever it is, should apply to as much of the market as possible. The rule would be watered down if the definition is too narrow. The important thing is that everyone trades and provides quotes according to the same rules. Make it clear you very much dislike the presence of rebates and other inducements in the marketplace - they are simply payment for order flow by another name. Household investors prefer the fees were reduced to zero, but a small $0.001 fee would be acceptable - No higher. Household investors support the inclusion of odd-lot information in the SIP. Odd lots are a majority of trades and should have a greater impact on price. Make it clear you want odd lots to impact the NBBO and have a concrete effect on both price and broker's duty of best execution. Sincerely, A Concerned US Citizen ------- Forwarded Message ------- From: concerncitizen007 <> Date: On Wednesday, November 2nd, 2022 at 12:00 AM Subject: Release No. 34-94313; File No. S7-08-22 Short Position and Short Activity Reporting by Institutional Inverstment Managers To: rule- <rule-> By Email Vanessa A. Countryman Secretary U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 205499–1090 rule- Re: Release No. 34–94313; File No. S7–08–22 Short Position and Short Activity Reporting by Institutional Investment Managers Ms. Countryman: Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. Short selling has serious consequences that represent risks to the financial system, and deterioration to the value of the security by diluting the ownership and voting rights. The Commission should require daily public disclosure of short positions. The Commission should not do the bare minimum. Section 929X of Dodd-Frank states that the Commission must require reporting of short selling activity once per month AT A MINIMUM. The Commission must require more as the technology is readily available to accomplish this autonomously. Proposed Rule 10c-1 requires intraday reporting of lending. Proposed Rule 13f-2 can and should require daily reporting of short selling without delay of posting publicly. ETFs must be included in the rule because they can be used to synthetically short vulnerable stocks and circumvent regulations. Individual securities have been limited to reporting data at the limit of 140% and ETFs such as XRT have been reported to be shorted over 1000%. These percentages represent one portion of the issue related to hidden short positions. Only with access to data on the short-selling of ETFs, can an individual investor gain insight into how the ETF liquidity is affecting the owner securities value. PDF attachments of published findings are included for additional context to the concerns and issues related to lack of transparency and related risks. Sincerely, A Concerned Citizen