Oct. 15, 2021
Good Afternoon, I am a retail investor. In my view, the proposed changes regarding trading suspensions don't align with the stated purpose of the changes. Relevant: "Proposed Rule 7.13 would permit the Chair of the Board of the Exchange, or the CEO, or the officer designee of the Chair or the CEO, to suspend trading in any and all securities trading on the Exchange whenever in his or her opinion such suspension would be in the public interest. No such suspension would continue longer than a period of two days, or as soon thereafter as a quorum of Directors can be assembled, unless the Board approves the continuation of such suspension." And also: "The Exchange believes that the proposed change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, protect investors and the public interest because identical authority to suspend trading already exists on each of the Exchange’s affiliate exchanges, and therefore is not novel" Here's how this reads to me as an individual, independent investor: We want to grant a handful of individuals the legal authority, at their own discretion, without oversight or debate and without input from ALL parties who would be directly or indirectly impacted, to suspend trading in any security for any reason if, in their opinion, it would be in the "public's best interest." Identical rules being in place elsewhere does NOT adequately illustrate the idea that this type of (seemingly unsupervised) control helps achieve a "free and open market and national market system;" in fact, this proposed rule change seems to effectively allow blatant abuse for any reason at all and relies entirely on "opinions" of the Chair or CEO about whatever they claim is "the public interest." I have questions: 1. Under what circumstances would/should these new abilities be exercised? How are relevant precedents adhered to by the CEO, Chair and Board in order to prevent abuse or lopsided financial outcomes in favor of one party over another? 2. Who would actually be impacted by these trading suspensions, directly and indirectly? Who would benefit, who would suffer? 3. Would financial institutions be able to continue trading suspended securities outside of lit exchanges, while retail investors are effectively locked out of their own investments? 4. Who, exactly, is "the public?" 5. Who determines "the public's best interest?" On what criteria? How is that sentiment documented and regulated, and is it publicly available for review and input? If so, where and how? 6. Is there ANY oversight or process that would place checks and balances on how such potentially market-breaking "opinions" are formed? 7. Would there be ANY opportunity for individual investors to recoup financial loss if they are affected negatively by those suspensions? 8. Are there limitations to how long said suspensions may be extended by the Board? If so, are they clearly defined to the public? Why or why not? 9. Under what mechanisms can investors compel accountability if/when these proposed abilities result in financial loss? 10. What, exactly, is compelling this rule change? Why now? Due to the wording in this proposed rule change, it seems to me that these suspensions can be both arbitrary and effectively indefinite. Giving an individual or small group of individuals unilateral control of American markets in this manner seems to have enormous potential for abuse and financial harm without due process or proper consideration of the consequences. How vague language like this even makes it past BASIC REVIEW is beyond me, and I'm not even a lawyer. In my opinion, the only plausible reason to so poorly define these abilities would be to use them against those who least understand them, namely, retail investors. Until a specific reason for this ability is made public, this mechanism would seem to introduce a potential point of failure to the NYSE (potentially of spectacular consequence) that is completely unnecessary. Why this would be necessary with all the existing rules supposedly preventing fraud is beyond me. It is my opinion that this type of vaguely defined executive control with such clear potential for abuse has no place in a free market system. In summary: I am firmly opposed to this proposed rule change, novel or not, and will continue to be a vocal opponent of it and rules like it through all available avenues should this rule change go into effect. If, at any point in time, these new suspension abilities are used to directly benefit any financial party over another, especially to the detriment of myself or other individual investors, I will take legal action as appropriate. I will also make sure every one of my personal contacts, as well as ALL of my representatives at EVERY level of government, get sick and tired of me telling them about it. I'm hopeful that I will receive direct and honest answers to my questions through the proper channels. Thank you, Wesley Tillman