April 20, 2022
Our current market structure is problematically opaque and convoluted, and this proposed rule would make these systemic problems unfathomably worse. The mission of the SEC is \"to protect investors maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets and facilitate capital formation.\" Nowhere in that mission statement does it state that the SEC is responsible for supplying what would in essence be an unlimited well of liquidity for financial institutions who fail to deliver an asset. If a financial institution fails to deliver an asset, a fair, orderly and efficient market would require that institution to purchase said asset on the open market to satisfy its obligation. Any other \"solution\" to failing to deliver is nonsensical in a fair market. There should be no need to novate (replace with a new contract) an institution's unsatisfied contract to the NSCC. Financial institutions, as well as ANY member of a fair, orderly and efficient market, should be held responsible for satisfying their contracts. If I, as a retail investor and participant in the market, am required to satisfy my contracts, I expect all other market participants be held to the same standard. If the SEC intends to carry out its Mission Statement of protecting investors and maintaining a fair market, ALL market participants must be held to the same standard. The fact that this rule has even been proposed is appalling, please dismiss it with prejudice.