You will read in the case: “Better Markets, Inc. (“Better Markets”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that promotes the public interest in the financial markets through comment letters, litigation, independent research, and public advocacy. It fights for a stable financial system, fair and transparent financial markets, and rules that protect investors from fraud and abuse. Better Markets’ sole objective is to advance the public interest through its advocacy, as it has no commercial or financial stake in any of the cases or causes in which it participates, including this one. One of Better Markets’ primary goals is to eliminate the structural weaknesses and inequities in our securities markets. Those markets are increasingly fragmented, fragile, and unfair, as firms like Citadel and a handful of other privileged market participants enjoy clear and indefensible advantages by virtue of their high-frequency trading capabilities. Using ultra-high-speed computerized trading algorithms coupled with preferential data access—essentially the right to see the cards held by all the other players at the table—these firms generate virtually guaranteed trading profits day in and day out. These predatory trading strategies continually pick the pockets of countless retail investors for reasons utterly divorced from fundamental analysis of corporate value and rational capital allocation. Their activities drive away retail investors from transparent exchanges; reduce liquidity and price transparency; and ultimately undermine confidence in the integrity of our stock markets. This is a plague on our equity markets that prevents them from fully serving their intended purposes of helping entrepreneurs access capital and helping investors build wealth. These inequities must be addressed, and to that end, Better Markets has long advocated for reforms to prevent a privileged few market participants, such as Citadel, from profiting at the expense of the vast majority of investors, most of whom are hardworking Americans struggling to save for retirement and meet their other long-term financial needs.

Better Markets has an interest in this case because a ruling in favor of Citadel will undermine rather than promote fairness, liquidity, and transparency in our markets and thus impair their ability to function as intended. In creating the D- Limit order, IEX has developed a creative, effective, and narrowly-tailored remedy against predatory high-frequency trading firms engaged in latency arbitrage. The SEC rightly approved it, adhering to all of the principles governing rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). And the vast majority of established market participants strongly supported it. Yet Citadel now seeks to nullify IEX’s beneficial innovation, motivated by a desire to safeguard its profitable business model regardless of the heavy and ongoing cost to the broader public interest. Better Markets therefore seeks to defend IEX’s D-Limit order type and the SEC’s decision to approve it.”