Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) News Release
The Commission's overly simplified view, reflected in the Proposal, fails to acknowledge the full extent of benefits that volume-based pricing brings to market dynamics and investors and ignores the superiority of market-based pricing mechanisms over central planning. The Senators requested the Commission withdraw the rulemaking in order to preserve market liquidity and efficiency.
"Volume-based pricing is a long-standing practice that encourages a vibrant, competitive marketplace, benefiting a broad spectrum of market participants," the Senators wrote. "Volume-based pricing is commonplace across various industries, promoting competition and rewarding entities for their contributions to the market."
"As the Commission concedes, the Proposal will likely lead to wider bid-ask spreads, reducing market depth and efficiency by diminishing incentives for large order placements by liquidity providers," the Senators continued. "For investors, broader spreads mean higher trading costs, directly impacting their ability to execute trades efficiently and at optimal prices. These negative consequences would not only disrupt today's well-functioning trading environment by making it costlier and less appealing for all market participants, but also potentially increase market volatility."
Rounds is joined on this letter by Republican members of the
Read the full text of the letter HERE or below.
We are writing to express our concerns regarding the
Volume-based pricing is a long-standing practice that encourages a vibrant, competitive marketplace, benefiting a broad spectrum of market participants. Volume-based pricing is commonplace across various industries, promoting competition and rewarding entities for their contributions to the market. This practice has played a critical role in enhancing market liquidity, facilitating efficient price discovery, and maintaining the stability of financial markets.
Despite these facts and without sufficient justification, the Proposal would explicitly prohibit volume-based pricing, suggesting it creates barriers for smaller brokers. However, these assumptions are inconsistent with the realities of existing market operations and competition. In fact, the Proposal's adverse impact on smaller brokers and the broader broker-dealer ecosystem is likely to be significant. The Proposal would likely stifle smaller brokers' competitive capabilities and result in market consolidation, reduced choice, and potentially increased costs for investors.
As the Commission concedes, the Proposal will likely lead to wider bid-ask spreads, reducing market depth and efficiency by diminishing incentives for large order placements by liquidity providers. For investors, broader spreads mean higher trading costs, directly impacting their ability to execute trades efficiently and at optimal prices. These negative consequences would not only disrupt today's well-functioning trading environment by making it costlier and less appealing for all market participants, but also potentially increase market volatility. In a market where bid-ask spreads are wider, the cost of entering and exiting positions becomes significantly higher, discouraging trading activity and liquidity provision, which are foundational aspects of a healthy financial ecosystem. This cycle of reduced liquidity and increased trading costs would undermine the competitive dynamics of the markets, ultimately harming retail investors and affecting the broader economy by impeding efficient capital allocation and risk management.
We agree with SEC Commissioner
Both Commissioners Peirce and Uyeda emphasized in their statements that the Proposal could disrupt established market practices without providing clear evidence of the need for such sweeping changes. Their insights raise significant questions about the Proposal's potential to stifle competition, particularly affecting smaller market participants who stand to lose from the elimination of volume-based pricing incentives.
The Proposal's overly simplified view fails to acknowledge the full extent of benefits that volume-based pricing brings to market dynamics and investors and ignores the superiority of market-based pricing mechanisms over central planning. Therefore, we request the Commission withdraw the rulemaking in order to preserve market liquidity and efficiency.
Read this original document at: https://www.rounds.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/rounds-leads-banking-committee-republicans-in-urging-sec-to-withdraw-proposal-to-prohibit-volume-based-pricing-for-nms-stocks



Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) News Release
Expanded Hours for Fedwire Funds Service & National Settlement Service
Advisor News
- 2026 may bring higher volatility, slower GDP growth, experts say
- Why affluent clients underuse advisor services and how to close the gap
- America’s ‘confidence recession’ in retirement
- Most Americans surveyed cut or stopped retirement savings due to the current economy
- Why you should discuss insurance with HNW clients
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- Ameritas: FINRA settlement precludes new lawsuit over annuity sales
- Guaranty Income Life Marks 100th Anniversary
- Delaware Life Insurance Company Launches Industry’s First Fixed Indexed Annuity with Bitcoin Exposure
- Suitability standards for life and annuities: Not as uniform as they appear
- What will 2026 bring to the life/annuity markets?
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
- Ga. Dems criticize Senate challengers for end of insurance subsidies
- Open Forum: Is that the way the ball bounces?
- Democrats criticize Georgia US Senate challengers for end of health insurance subsidies
- ICE is using Medicaid data to determine where immigrants live
- Column: Universal Health Insurance Could Cure Most Of What Ails This Nation’s System Today
More Health/Employee Benefits NewsLife Insurance News