From: webmaster@sec.gov [mailto:webmaster@sec.gov] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 7:20 AM To: oieaform@sec.gov Subject: OIEA complaint OIEA COMPLAINT FORM 2001-08-09 07:20:17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Send Form Information:] Send to firm or company: Yes [Tell Us About Yourself:] First Name: Stephen Last Name: Swigoda Middle Initial: J. Title: Dr. Street Address: 641 Gayley Ave., #112 Address (cont.): City: Los Angeles State/Province: CA Zip/Postal Code: 90024 Country: USA Work Phone: 310-208-8030 Home Phone: FAX: Email: loose_leaf_2001@yahoo.com [Tell Us About the Firm or Individual you Have A Compliant Against:] Firm Name: The SEC and NASD Rules Committee Type of Firm: Other Individual's Name: Street Address: Address (cont.): City: State/Province: Zip/Postal Code: Country: USA Work Phone: Home Phone: FAX: Email: Web Site: How Did Company Initially Contact you? [Tell Us About Your Investment:] Type of Security: Security Symbol: Security Name: Did you hear about the investment on the Internet? Did you buy or sell the investment online? [Tell Us About Your Complaint:] What are you complaining about? Other Please describe your complaint in detail: Dear Honorable and Notable Members of The SEC Rules Committee I am writing in regards to your proposed daytrading rules change involving a minimum account size of 25,000. This is absolutely un-American... First and foremost --- you are turning your back upon traders who helped build NASDAQ and other markets and paid tens of thousands of dollars in SEC fees in the process. Basically, you are telling John Smith that he cant live the American dream --- he cant turn his 10,000 into a living, etc.... 2nd, to institute this rule at the end of the summer is perhaps the most insulting aspect of your proposal --- the summer months are typically the slowest times for traders and any capital rule changes would be more appropriate at years end. 3rd, as one of the few SOES traders who worked on the floor in 1987, I am appalled at the implications of this rule change. SOES is for small order execution. If you are now turning your back on the traders that the system was intended for, then you should change the name to IOES --- institutions only execution system. This is corporate communism at best. In fact, these rules changes could act to cause market instability because market participants will become increasingly affiliated with institutions. We all know what happened when the solvency of the small order execution system was left in the hands of institutions. A system of suits for suits equals insolvency. At this rate, the corporate stalinists may eventually rewrite the historical record of their cowardice on October 19, 1987. It was perhaps the largest swindle of the American people ever committed. Remember that this is the reason why we have SOES and large settlements were extracted from the perpetrators of those! unethical 1987 activities. I remember not even wanting to look at a NASDAQ listing in a newspaper for years after seeing what happened to large floor traders involved in NASDAQ stocks on October 19, 1987. Yet, that days true victims were the American people --- typically ACTIVE TRADERS with account sizes less than 25,000. Please dont take my patriotic views and language excesses as offensive, I am merely a concerned American. 4th, your actions could open up the door for class action lawsuits against the SEC in order to recoup the SEC fees paid by market participants. If a fraction of SEC fees was refunded to the majority of affected traders, most would be at the 25,000 threshold. I hope the SEC has a one billion-dollar fund to pay out all of the lawsuit money to traders victimized by the new communist trading community. Its time to be Americans gentlemen. You gladly took the money of participants seeking out the American dream and now you are saying thanks for building our electronic systems by excluding those that contributed greatly to the growth of the systems. And more importantly, you are being disrespectful to ACTIVE TRADERS with account sizes less than 25,000 who suffered through many of the technological growing pains of these new electronic systems. 5th, I am offering further suggestions if you deem my views as valuable. I have been in contact with and voiced my concerns to Dave Anderson of the NASD office in Los Angeles. Again, if I can be of assistance with my uniquely qualified perspectives here in Los Angeles, you may contact me. Stephen Swigoda 641 Gayley Avenue, #112 Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-208-8030 What copies of documents are you able to provide to us? Canceled Checks? Advertising or Marketing Materials? Correspondence to and from Firm? Notes of Conversation with Firm? Other? [Tell Us What Action You Have Taken:] Have you complained to the firm? Have you contacted other regulators? If yes, whom? NASD (National Assoc. of Securities Dealers)? State Regulators? Other Federal Regulators? Foreign Regulators? Stock Exchange? Exchange Name? Other Regulators? Name? Have you taken legal action? If so, please describe. Mediation? Arbitration? Court Action? Describe the details: Problem Reporting Information: Server protocol: HTTP/1.1 Remote host: Remote IP address: 63.210.120.176 User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 compatible MSIE 5.01 Windows 95 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -