Apr. 20, 2022
I am writing as a concerned retail investor, very much against the implications of the rule you proposed. After doing my own research into the article, it is very clear to me that the rule in fact acts against the interest of retail investors like myself. It does that by increasing possibility for avoidance of true market price discovery through continuous lending. It also significantly lessens the infinite risk of naked shorting. That practice, as I am sure you are aware, is by nature very risky and for a good reason. Without that risk, the institutional investors are free to essentially gamble with taxpayers and retail investors money, posing systemic risk to the integrity of US stock market. What we need is more transparency in how stock market works to level the playing field between retail and institutions, especially considering the widening wealth gap and soaring inflation, among other problems our society faces. The proposed rule acts in the opposite direction. It’s extremely unsettling that the people who are at the top of the market can be the ones who control how it works. I consider that transparancy essential for a fair and sound economy, as well as for the democracy. Having said all that, I hope whoever this concerns, will reevaluate their position and withdraw that ruling completely.