Dec. 31, 2022
December 31, 2022
Dec 31, 2022
I support the proposed Regulation Best Execution, at face value, however believe it falls short without additional measures to ban payment-for-order-flow outright, along with the other conflicts of interest listed below (item # 5).
1. The Commission should explicitly define \"customer\". As a retail investor, I'm unsure if the intended recipient/beneficiary of best execution is clear enough for our dear market participants, and it seems ripe for misinterpretation by bad-faith actors.
2. For Proposed Rule 1100/1101, I have little faith in the broker-dealers' integrity when it comes to reviewing the execution quality of customer orders and making informed judgments, particularly when there appears to be an increasingly alarming number of \"glitches\" with market data.
3. For Proposed Rule 1102, requiring the report to \"be presented\" to the board of directors/governing body seems ripe for misinterpretation by bad-faith actors without additional clarity or measures such as: attestations/approvals, internal/external audits, etc.
4. Does this proposed regulation go far enough to prevent broker-dealers from skirting this proposed regulation through cross-border activities with other market participants be it broker-dealers, exchanges, market makers, etc.?
5. I echo other commenters in that action is required to (in no particular order):
a) eliminate of failure-to-delivers and enforce mandatory buy-ins
b) ban payment-for-order-flow
c) ban dark pools
d) ban naked short selling
e) audit the DTCC regularly
f) adopt same-day (T+0) settlement cycles for securities transactions
g) ban order spoofing
h) enforce consequences for repeat findings/violations beyond punitive fines, including but not limited to: admissions of guilt, convictions, asset/profit forfeitures, and revocations and lifetime bans of the relevant licenses required to operate
P.S. SROs like FINRA are ineffective as evidenced by the state of U.S. markets.