Apr. 20, 2022
The following is my comment for File Numbers SR-NSCC-2022-03 & SR-NSCC-2022-801 I am writing as a retail investor in the United States, very concerned about the implications of the rules you have proposed. After going through the files several times, it is very clear to me that the rules are for Institutional Investors and not Retail Investors, whom SEC is supposed to protect. Reminders: "At the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), we work together to make a positive impact on America’s economy, our capital markets, and people’s lives. For more than 85 years since our founding at the height of the Great Depression, we have stayed true to our mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation. Our mission requires tireless commitment and unique expertise from our staff of dedicated professionals who care deeply about protecting Main Street investors and others who rely on our markets to secure their financial futures." "We protect investors by vigorously enforcing the federal securities laws to hold wrongdoers accountable and deter future misconduct." If those quote above (that are straight off your website) are true then why is the Fire Sale Risk Mitigation (Sec 13 of SR-NSCC-2022-03) in there when it is straight out of SR-NSCC-2021-010, that was withdrawn. It has the same language. Even though I am but one on this email thread, I am one of many as Retail Investors that feel, we are not being allowed to secure our financial futures through the markets with the support of the SEC. The SEC is supposed to investigate all security crime how big or small. If Institutional Investors had there way to do there Fire Sale Risk Mitigation they would do so by increasing possibility for avoidance of true market price discovery through continuous lending. It also significantly lessens the infinite risk of naked shorting. That very risky and for a good reason. Without that risk, the Institutional Investors are free to essentially gamble with taxpayers (I.E.: middle class and especially lower class) and retail investors money, posing systemic risk to the integrity of US stock market. Which has already taken place before, Great Depression, the 1970's, 2008 and many other not so extreme times, but I know you catch my drift. What we need is more transparency in how stock markets work to level the playing field between retail and institutions, especially considering the widening wealth gap and soaring inflation, among other problems our society faces. If we continue to make the rich richer, because it's happening, trust me. Every single time we have inflation like we have now, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets stuck with the bill. The proposed rules acts in the opposite direction, that the SEC stands for and what our country stands for. I consider that transparency is essential for a fair and sound economy, as well as for our Republic. In conclusion, I sincerely hope and pray, for whomever this concerns, will reevaluate their position and withdraw these rulings completely and from future debate.