Subject: SUBJECT: SR-OCC-2024-001 34-99393
From: Ilya Vinnichuk
Affiliation:

Feb. 7, 2024

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on 
SR-OCC-2024-001 34-99393 entitled "Proposed Rule 
Change by The Options Clearing Corporation Concerning 
Its Process for Adjusting Certain Parameters in Its 
Proprietary System for Calculating Margin Requirements 
During Periods When the Products It Clears and the 
Markets It Serves Experience High Volatility". 
1 have several concerns about the OCC rule proposal, 
HIGHLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL, AND DO NOT 
SUPPORT IT'S APPROVAL! 
I'm concerned about the lack of transparency in our 
financial system as evidenced by this rule proposal, 
amongst others. The details of this proposal along with 
supporting information are significantly redacted which 
prevents public review making it impossible for the public 
to meaningfully review and comment on this proposal, 
and this proposal should be rejected on that basis alone. 
These rules create an unfair marketplace for market 
participants, especially retail investors, who are forced to 
face the consequences of long-tail risks while the OCC 
repeatedly waives margin calls for Clearing Members by 
repeatedly reducing their margin requirements. For this 
reason, this rule proposal should be rejected and Clearing 
Members should be subject to strictly defined margin 
requirements as other investors are, 
Per the OCC, this rule proposal and these special margin 
reduction procedures exist because a single Clearing 
Member defaulting could result in a cascade of Clearing 
Member defaults potentially exposing the OCC to financial 
risk. Thus, Clearing Members who fail to properly manage 
their portfolio risk against long tail events become de 
facto Too Big To Fail. 
For this reason, this rule proposal should be rejected and 
Clearing Members should face the consequences of 
failing to properly manage their portfolio risk, including 
against long tail events. Clearing Member failure is a 
natural disincentive against excessive leverage and 
insufficient capitalization as others in the market will not 
cover their loss 
This rule proposal codifies an inherent conflict of interest 
for the Financial Risk Management (FRM) Officer. While 
the FRM Officer's position is allegedly to protect OCC's 
interests, the situation outlined by the OCC proposal 
where a Clearing Member failure exposes the OCC to 
financial risk necessarily requires the FRM Officer to 
protect the Clearing Member from failure to protect the 
occ. 
Unfortunately, rubber stamping margin requirement 
reductions for Clearing Members at risk of failure vitiates 
the protection from market risks associated with Clearing 
Member's positions provided by the margin collateral that 
would have been collected by the OCC. For this reason, 
this rule proposal should be rejected and the OCC should 
enforce sufficient margin requirements to protect the OCC 
and minimize the size of any bailouts that may already be 
required. 
As the OCC's Clearing Member Default Rules and 
Procedures Loss Allocation waterfall allocates losses to 
3. OCC's own pre-funded financial resources (OCC 's 
"skin-in-the-game" per SR-OCC-2021-801 34-91491 [10) 
before "4. Clearing fund deposits of non-defaulting firms" 
any sufficiently large Clearing Member default which 
exhausts both "1. The margin deposits of the suspended 
firm" and "2. Clearing fund deposits of the suspended 
firm" automatically poses a financial risk to the OCC 
As this rule proposal is concerned with potential liquidity 
issues for non-defaulting Clearing Members as a result of 
charges to the Clearing Fund, it is clear that the OCC is 
concerned about risk which exhausts OCC's own 
pre-funded financial resources. With the first and 
foremost line of protection for the OCC being 1. The 
margin deposits of the suspended firm", this rule proposal 
is blatantly illogical and nonsensical. 
If this rule proposal is approved, mitigating the procyclical 
margin requirements directly reduces the first line of 
protection for the OCC, margin collateral from at risk 
Clearing Member(s), so this rule proposal should be 
rejected, made fully available for public review, and 
approved only with significant amendments to address 
the issues raised herein. 
In light of the issues outlined above, please consider the 
following modifications: 
Increase and enforce margin requirements commensurate 
with risks associated with Clearing Member positions 
instead of reducing margin requirements. Clearing 
Members should be encouraged to position their 
portfolios to account for stressed market conditions and 
long-tail risks. This rule proposal currently encourages 
Clearing Members to become Too Big To Failin order to 
pressure the OCC with excessive risk and leverage into 
implementing idiosyncratic controls more often to 
privatize profits and socialize losses.