The New York Stock Exchange plans to launch NYSE Texas
ir.theice.com
ir.theice.com
May as well be buying OTC
It could also help dynamize investments by providing shorter exit pathways, making it easier for investors to recycle capital into new startups.
Most of the cost in going public comes from federal securities law, not exchange rules.
If a company doesn’t like nyse/nasdaq rules there are many other places to list, so changing one of nyse’s own venues names is unlikely to add any value for a small company looking to go public.
TSE would be the Tokyo Stock Exchange
FTFY
From a functional standpoint, absolutely no difference. There is an extremely high probability NYSE TX remains in Mahwah (where the current NYSE Chicago platform is; it’s really just a rebranding). TXSE has already said they’re going to put their systems in Secaucus with “everyone not NYSE or NASDAQ”.
I wish one of these venues would have the conviction to put their whole kit in Dallas, or somewhere else in TX, but the industry would throw a fit because of what it would mean for the cost to access the market.
> I wish one of these venues would have the conviction to put their whole kit in Dallas
To be fair, few people actually host in Mahwah or Carteret anymore. The HFT game is essentially closed, as the price of entry in terms of knowledge and capital is too high.
Most people just prefer a comfy Equinix DC with all modern amenities, where NYSE, Nasdaq and all other markets & brokers have a latency-stable point of presence, such as NY4.
I think that's really just a matter of the media giving bad press to HFTs "because it's scary". The boring reality is that not much people care, and HFTs are really not that important on the grand scale of things. We're talking about maybe 4/5 firms worldwide making single to low double digits billions in P&L, from an activity that is most likely overall positive, or say net 0 if you're a bit cynical. Good for them.
That is a fair amount of money being soaked up by a few firms. If low latency trading was banned real humans could compete for that money.
This argument is precisely Luddite and a strange position for anyone on this particular forum.
You're gonna need to physically collocate those people if you are trying to ban computers and latency based trading. Possibly in a "Pit" maybe in a building called an "Exchange" in places with a lot of financial services people like say NY or Chicago. Probably need to have some sort of membership/license requirement due to finite space. I dunno. Sounds like a novel concept that's never been tried.
As soon as you re-introduce distance, latency becomes a factor again. How do you eliminate "low latency trading" and prioritize "real humans" without putting them in the same room?
What do you actually propose here?
One way to reduce the impact of latency is to do away with continuous trading and move to frequent but discrete auctions. But this would just increase volatility.
Imagine if every X minutes / hours stocks moved Y% like they do at market open, as all the information that was disseminated since the last auction was re-priced in.
If anything the long term trend has been towards longer continuous trading sessions to reduce those types of jumps.
A consideration is once you do this, the business model of exchanges changes a lot (they make a ton of money on colo).
So they need revenue elsewhere, so maybe free retail trading goes away again, who knows.
Honestly, that's not even a peanut compared to what more typical finance institutions manage and earn.
Your typical institutional investor (pension funds, insurance company, fund of fund, bank, etc) manages in the 100s to 1000 billions. Each.
The whole HFT industry probably makes what a single institutional investor earns by buying US debt at 1%.
The HFT industry really is just a small microcosm, it just so happens that it triggers dreams and fantaisies in the public mind.
> If low latency trading was banned real humans could compete for that money.
But that's what we had before, and was it better ? I don't think having 1000s of trader monkeys buying and selling while refreshing their price feeds or shouting in a pit is any better.
At the end of the day, as long as there will be market inefficiencies, there will be arbitragers. I don't see the point of kicking those arbitraging at 1us to replace them with people arbitraging at 1s or 1m.
HFT, in a weird way, democratized market making while lowering spreads.
Remember it wasn't that long ago that spreads were 10-100x as wide as they are today, PLUS transaction costs were $5/10/50 per trade.
HFT & payment for order flow is what has made stock trading the low fee environment it is today.
I get how payment for order flow would help enable this current low upfront fee trading system we have today, they're managing to get their money from places other than direct fees. I don't exactly get how HFT also makes it low cost. Could you further explain that? Is it that mostly the people paying for the order flow is pretty much exclusively HFTs, and if they didn't exist the order flow market wouldn't exist?
Making up numbers here, if the HFTs manage to squeeze a dollar of profit out of the order flow data after buying my trade data for a dollar (two dollars of spread they manage to find), is that really better than me paying a dollar or two in fees for that order? It would be interesting to see the real values in question here on such things to actually gauge what is better for an average trader now trading in the low to zero fee trade market.
Because most HFT firms are also market makers. You can see them basically as middlemen that are mandated by the exchange to provide liquidity on both bid and ask by the market. These liquidity mandates reduce the spread for other traders, and in exchange market makers have lower, or even positive fees (i.e. they are _paid_ to trade).
Usually, market makers use these rebates to earn money by taking a passive order risk on behalf of an aggressive order from a flow they bought.
Think of it that way:
You're an exchange, you want people to trade on your platform, that's how you earn money.
For people to trade on your platform, you need liquidity, actual shares to buy and sell. So you invite market makers on your platform, and sign a contract with them, along the lines of "you have 0 trading fee but in exchange you need to provide $X of liquidity on bid and ask at any time and ensure a spread <Ybps".
Market makers accepting to on-board now have to somehow make a living while providing liquidity, but this is a risky business, because they are basically market making for people that are _more_ informed than them (they have adverse selection by design), and they have to respect their mandate of providing liquidity. That is, if a stock goes down, and people start selling it, the market maker still need to provide liquidity for sellers and buyers, which means maybe he will have to actually buy these shares that are tanking.
Usually the pure market making mandate is close to 0 profit, unless you spice it up with some other strategy. Taking passive order risk, netting order flow, maybe short term technical alpha, etc.
You can think of market makers and HFT basically as the same people. If you trade at high frequency, you're playing on micro changes in price, there's only so much a stock price can realistically move in 1s. HFT is only viable if you have very low, or no transaction cost. That's why there's a natural overlap between HFTs and MM.
There was no consolidated tape and obligation for exchanges to route your order for Best Execution. There was no National Best Bid Best Offer.
There was just whatever price the exchange your broker sent your order to filled you at.
Some exchanges cough NASDAQ cough used to do things like display sub-penny quotes even though they only filled at full penny increments. So they could attract flow advertising prices they wouldn't file you at. See Rule 612.
Let's say you buy $10k of some $50 stock today and decide to sell tomorrow. In the old days you'd have paid say $10 to your broker to buy, and $10 again to sell. Your bid-ask spread in isolation of any price changes in the stock would be 25cents per share x ($10k / $50 = 200 shares) = another $50 in spread. So you're all-in transaction costs would have been $70.
Now you probably have a no-fee brokerage, and generally a penny spread. So same formula is 1cent per share x (200 shares) = $2 in spread + $0 in fees. So you're all-in transaction costs would be $2.
$2 vs $70 on $10k round trip investment. 2bps vs 70bps.
In the current political environment, I don't see SEC (or any other gov't agency) growing courage anytime soon. Well, other than DOGE acting like an energy vampire growing stronger off of its victims.
Furthermore, the wireless stuff is commoditized at this point. You can just rent to be on the wireless that Apsara (et al) offer, and while some have private networks, there's not enough money left in the trade (see above) to be worth it if you don't already have one.
This is combined with liquidity moving away from public exchanges (both the lits and darks) towards being matched internally/by a partner (PFOF matching), which is purely a win for retail traders and is its own force that isn't going away. (Go on robinhood and buy 2 shares of SPY. It fills instantly. People love that. You can't just go get 2 shares of SPY off the lits, so where dyou think those are coming from?)
Traditional HFT is dead. The only extent any of the firms are still alive is the extent to which they've moved on to other trades, many of which are so much less latency sensitive that the microwave edge doesn't really give you enough alpha to be worth it.
(I worked for a firm for a long time that didnt move on to other trades... so I'm quite familiar with the scene.)
Why can't you just get 2 shares on an exchange?
This is pretty much just a legacy thing, but so many technical systems have this assumption built in that while odd-lot trading (trades not in the round lot size) has become a little more common on the exchanges, it’s still treated weirdly by the various systems involved.
But also, it’s better for you as a retail investor, to get them from a middleman, because they will generally give you a better price than the exchange. They will give you a better price because retail traders tend on average to be worse at trading than the overall market. You should take advantage of that, regardless of your actual ability level.
For stocks like SPY (those over $500 per share!), the vast majority of orders are odd lots.
This article is many years old and already has data strongly in that direction: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/odd-facts-about-odd-lots-202...
And even if they could "just" do so, internal matching typically provides better price improvement on the NBBO than even the best execution you could get off the lits.
Edit: But yes TBC, you're correct that odd lot trades aren't unusual. But you're seeing trades there by actual market participants, not retail orders. They're not just trying to get those 2 shares, there's a broader strategy and they're aware of all the above nitty gritty.
In example 3, the NBBO for stock ABC is 495--500, but there is also an odd lot offer for 497 on exchange. If a Robinhood customer sends a market buy order, then Citadel is allowed to fill it for 499.999 even though it's better to send to the exchange. (And if they then pick up the odd lot themselves, it's easy arbitrage.)
By the way, while you're correct about some of your claims, odd lot executions definitely have to occur within the NBBO. (How could it be otherwise?) Otherwise, in the example above, Citadel would give an even worse price!
Round lots are excluded from the NBBO so that the NBBO can't be as easily influenced by quantities of shares that don't represent any material price signal. 1 share of practically anything but BRK class A represents ~nothing. Less than a round lot on a price level is basically no liquidity available at that level.
Even if there wasn't, I guess at least half the trading on stocks is through CFDs and not cash, so lots aren't even a thing for most investors.
Also I have pondered, to put it very simply, why wouldn't it be profitable, since the markets fluctuate, to gamble small amounts constantly at where they most often (this is more complex but you could simply draw line as well) cross a line, such that you can always lose everything, and then sell every time it goes over that line & buy when it's below regardless of how much you would make?
So what, then is the exact information value of these candy bars of when the stock has not changed value? What do they tell us? And moreover, are they consistently valued, since the primary tail risk seems to be (probably, I am not expert) market crash, which means one would expect each to have the unchanging candy bar to relative to future performance, so that if we have a reasonable assumption of market crash probability, then some pattern should emerge & things should make sense?
I believe it's trivial to formalize this point & honestly fruitless to not to figure it out, but I will post this comment & perhaps later on return to this. To me the primary here is that the candy bar is what matters, and that if any markets like my [0.00, 5.00] market exist, my strategy would be profitable in those.
Moreover, I think in trading strategy the idea that one wants to guess how fast they can cross the threshold to not to lose, to be able to "Martingale" as you out it is valuable & kellyable.
I mentally tripped over by forgetting that if stock costs 500 + [0,10] (where it fluctuates) normally, you must in order to participate even without any fees pay 500 + [0,10] and not just the [0,10].
Currently NASDAQ and NYSE have a stranglehold on this, to the extent that tech companies anywhere in the world are much more likely to list on NASDAQ in particular as opposed to their local market.
For an overview of how much flows through each venue, CBOE has this nice summary page.
Nasdaq and NYSE have significant volumes because people think they have significant volumes (as circular as that reasoning is). There are entire entities on the fund/investment management side of the industry that are content to do their entire risk adjustment (meaning, trading) in the closing auction, and the dominant closing auction is on the primary listing exchange (just because...well, as I highlighted above).
There was a brief period in the mid aughts when Nasdaq (through the INET and BRUT acquisitions) and BATS were able to compete with the more dominant NYSE due to monstrous discrepancies in system performance, but as all of the markets evolved over the last 15-20 years they are all (at least as far as the vast majority of market participants are concerned) effectively identical in pure technical performance.
IEX tried. I think they had a few listings for a while, but it just didn't work out.
LTSE really wanted to get into this business and I think they are trying by some sort of dual listing strategy, but I think that just costs the listing company even more fees and like... what's the point?
And as mentioned CBOE's BATS has a bunch. But I think they are just low volume four letter ETFs.
I think cracking the code would consist of offering a service that really solves a problem that the listing company's CFO or investor relations team has such that only the listing venue could solve.
At any rate, good luck to those who try, so far its just a trail of gravestones of those who tried and failed.
LTSE is trying to be principled, but I see this similarly to the TXSE/NYSE TX thing where they're trying to capitalize on a cultural issue that is fleeting and the general public really doesn't care about.
Poor BZX has never really recovered from botching their own IPO. Similar to how Nasdaq lost a bunch of business to NYSE following the Facebook IPO fiasco. As a corporate board I imagine you'd really need to justify why you would take the extra risk of working with an unproven exchange when it comes to your first day of trading.
They were also making a play at trying to capture listings for companies looking to reincorporate in TX (think of it as a 'social issue' campaign; same as what the LTSE guys are shooting for).
That all said, I definitely do not disagree with you. While I think they at least have more justification to launch a venue than MEMX did, I am highly skeptical of their ability to pull listings business away from NY. The Big Board and Nasdaq have it on lock.
I realize this is probably super complex, but can you explain this more? Specifically, what does cost mean in this context? Is this in terms of listing on an exchange, or cost benefit such as being physically further away from NYSE or Nasdaq?
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopat...
More or less, in practice your US broker has to respect "best execution", meaning it cannot offer you a price worst than the "NBBO", which is the composite of all US stock markets.
In practice though, I expect most companies listed in NYSE Texas to be solely listed there.
> “normal NYSE” vs “NYSE Texas”
There's already _a lot_ of "NYSE" markets and segments. Some exist because of historical mergers (Amex, Arca), and some to offer alternate / cheaper listings (NYSE listing is very expensive vs say Nasdaq)
> What benefits would companies see from listing on NYSE Texas vs the other NYSE?
Unclear at the moment but I expect a lower bar for listing requirements and a cheaper price. Nyse is by far the most expensive listing there is, but it's also very exhaustive on listing requirements (audits, etc). I guess there is also a political/economical deal with Texas at play, to incentivise companies to move there, list there, and grab some of NY market share.
Roughly speaking, you will find the prestigious / big market cap / rich companies listed on NYSE main market, ETFs on NYSE Arca, small caps on NYSE American (ex Amex), and very small caps on NYSE National.
The listing requirements and prices, as well as fee structure also differ for each market. National has a fee structure to incentive adding liquidity for instance.
If the asynchronicity bothers you, imagine that you can also trade e.g. HSBC secondary listing on NYSE NY market hours + the ADR of HSBC HK on NYSE NY hours + HSBC primary listing on LSE on London hours + HSBC HKSE on HK hours for a lot of fun.
Yes, and no. Not in the sense that it's one uniform trading system, but there are various interlinkages (market data via the SIP for example; mostly dictated by RegNMS) and most of the exchanges operate a brokerage running an order routing business.
> Would there be any difference for me buying and selling stocks on “normal NYSE” vs “NYSE Texas”?
Assuming you have the ability to dictate to your broker where they perform the trade there would be absolutely no difference between trading on NYSE vs NYSE TX (minus maybe some currently undecided fee differences). Functionally they are identical (they even run on the same technology stack).
> What benefits would companies see from listing on NYSE Texas vs the other NYSE?
The cultural issue TXSE (and by extension this NYSE TX move) are trying to capture is the 'anti-DEI' / 'the exchange tells us what the composition of our board must be to meet listings standards' type things. There's a subset of the corporate world who see value in capitalizing on these issues. There's also the potential for different financial requirements or incorporation requirements, but those haven't been disclosed yet (and wouldn't be too divergent from the existing differences between listing on the various Nasdaq or NYSE exchanges).
Cars and trucks aren't limited to Texas editions. Some automakers also offer other state-specific packages. Like the Texas editions they are mostly plastic badges, cheap-ass trim "upgrades", block heaters for northern states, or lift kits and offroad tires for more rural states. Basically the same package you can get anywhere in the country for less because it doesn't mention a specific state.
I’ve never seen another state-specific car model package, though will take on faith there may be others.
Second paragraph: we’re kind of idiots.
Texas education ranking: 43rd
Just want to point out that the first paragraph does offer the likelihood that there are exceptions to the conclusion one could reach by reading the second paragraph.
The third point you make is very sad though it has not always been true. We are certainly in the dumb part of the cycle. With the right leadership and structural changes in state programs we will retake the high ground. I think this is a deep hole that they have dug but luckily there are only 7 more places to fall before our embarrassing situation takes us even lower than the lowest US territory scores.
Maybe we're already there. I'm just hoping for future generations of Texans that there will not be a dead cat bounce at the bottom.
This whole topic and your comment made me think of the phenomenon of rural identity. Basically, a lot of Americans identify as rural even though they are not. It sounds innocent enough but it leads to a lot of anti patterns related to individualistic city planning, where people think that things like public transit aren’t compatible with their rural and individualistic values.
Your whole remark about rural identity makes sense since for at least 40 years new subdivisions and new construction in suburbia has focused on giving residents the idea that they are living in a rural setting even though they easily chunk a rock and hit their neighbor's car. They do this by naming subdivisions as "Blah-blah Ranch Acres", or "Blah-blah Valley" or similar to evoke a feeling of isolation that you wouldn't experience when you step out of your vehicle in the driveway of your "ranchette" and go into your "ranch style" home on your 2 acre lot that had a great scenic view of the community lake until someone bought the lot across the road between you and the lake so that now all you see their two-story monstrosity when you look out the front window.
And like you describe, it does erode support for things like public transit since those in the subdivisions will likely never ride a bus anywhere because the developer was not only not required to include the infrastructure for bus service but they weren't on the hook for any of the infrastructure improvements that the residents needed. As a result, the residents find themselves wasting time sitting in long lines waiting to clear multiple stop signs to get on a service road with a poorly timed traffic signal that will allow them to finally merge into a stream of vehicles on the main highway. You can always leave earlier to beat the crowd as long as you're almost the only one with that idea.
I have spent lots of time laughing at the absurdity.
If you want to understand the Texan world view better, read Texas Monthly, a very well-written monthly magazine on Texas affairs that IMO tries hard not to pull punches while keeping them above the belt.
Actually yes there is. Next up, NYSE launches in Paris, Texas.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower_(Paris,_Texas)
0: https://www.mainepublic.org/maine/2015-09-24/why-are-so-many...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Missouri_places_named_...
Mexico, New York, of course.
There's plenty of these small exchanges like MEMX and MIAX, nothing new under the sun here.
Of the many things I despise in the industry, market data and connectivity costs are near the top. It’s a fully captured market, and customers don’t have a choice when the producer decides to raise prices.
BMLL seems to be trying to disrupt this space, wishing them well.
This is especially true for datasets that don't have a single authoritative source, like corporate calendar actions, where you have to consume data from 3-4 vendors and reconcile for a 'shared consensus' on simple shit like..."When is a company going to release quarterly earnings?"
I'm ever grateful that I do not work in asset classes that are not centrally traded and centrally cleared. I recognize there's more money to be made in the uncertainty, but holy crap it drives me insane.
They also have been increasing the rate of episode releases so there was a lot to scroll thru! I find it I will add it!
Exchanges are subject to many regulations. Which are you referring to?
This is literally NYSE Chicago changing venues. I think James Beard just fucked off to the Windy City. Austin has better gala weather, granted.
https://www.cyrusone.com/data-centers/north-america/aurora-i...
(gives 350 E Cermak a run for its money, and can't beat the 'burbs over downtown chi)
[1] https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-trading...
People tend to be very reductionist about finance when they really they just dont fully understand.
As someone who has participated in the founding of a stock exchange, and who electronically traded equities and equity derivatives across every exchange in America, I really do.
> they have differences in the regulatory programs
What pertinent regulations do you think separates a BATS trade of a share of stock in a Texas corporation listed on the NYSE from an internal cross in a California bank of another Texas corporation listed on the NYSE Texas that has to do with the listing exchange?
> they also have differences in the fee schemes, e.g. how they make money on the order flow going through the exchange
This is market microstructure. Nothing in the announcement indicates a different microstructure from the other NYSEs.
Also I don't understand why you would think that differences in "market micro structure" equates to "jack shit" differences. Its fairly significant, especially for high volume trading.
Some exchanges are also in China. Not relevant to this one.
Texas f/k/a Chicago isn’t a separate SRO.
> different exchanges list different securities
Irrelevant for equities due to NMS.
> don't understand why you would think that differences in "market micro structure" equates to "jack shit" differences
There are no proposed microstructure differences.
> for high volume trading
Re-read the thread. I was literally a professional high-volume trader.
People tend to be very reductionist about finance when they really they just dont [sic] fully understand.
Also note that there are 16+ exchanges in the US with protected quotes. And 30+ dark pools (ATSs). There are many venues to trade.
I get that quants can get their alpha and whatever higher order terms, but if a consumer is buying to hold or using some other non-day trading strategy, why is this bad?
I'm confused why The New York Stock Exchange opening another NYSE office location has anything to do with monopoly status. The New York Stock Exchange is obviously still going to own both. If it was a monopoly before opening a second location it still will be, same as if it wasn't a monopoly.
> and business-friendly regulatory agenda.
So whats the deal here? Something about taxes? Or looser regulation/oversight?
Oh, your taxes will go up - someone will have to foot the bill.
Capitalism interprets regulation as damage and routes around it, as someone might have said.
How long will it manifest, 4, 8, 10, 20 years? The deregulated mortgage started in the 1980s and it took almost 25 years to break everything.
Most likely it will hit foreign the hardest and set off a global recession for those countries that bought in.
Will there be any that are smarter and either buy in early and sell early or go to another country for a stable investment? Those would be the ones to most easily weather the storm.
Guessing USA retirement investments will take a big hit. So more homeless.
Also foresee politics pushing companies to invest in the Texas stock market for tax subsidies and to gain government contracts and benefits. Could be bigger than 2008.
This is what real capitalism does. It has a built-in incentive to support a state that enables firms to socialize the losses and privatize the profits.
Whether or not that outcome is an inevitable consequence of the ideology is an entirely different discussion.
Touché.
So another S&L?
> At the end of 1988, 2,969 thrifts remained active. This was over three hundred less than in 1985 and over a thousand less than in 1980. These failures were highly geographically concentrated: a third of the failures from 1985 forward occurred in just three states: California, Texas, and Florida;[74] Texas accounted for 40 percent of thrift failures in the worst year of the crisis, 1988.[53]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis#Intens...
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sl-crisis.asp
*What Could Regulators Have Done Better to Solve the Savings and Loan Crisis?*
"Regulators failed to stop savings and loans from using federally insured deposits to make risky loans. Reagan also cut the budget of the regulatory staff at the FHLBB, removing its ability to investigate high-risk loans. Certain states also passed laws that allowed savings and loans to invest in speculative real estate."
Remains to be see if the current administration's views on oversight and regulation allow a repeat.
>An Office of the Comptroller of the Currency study in 1988 indicated fraud in 11 percent of failures between 1979–87; a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation study in 25 percent of failures in 1989; a Resolution Trust Corporation study in 1992 found fraud in 33 percent of its cases; and a 1994 General Accounting Office study reported 26 percent of banks that failed in 1990–91 had issues with fraud.
10%-25% fraud in the industry. Yay, can't wait until I have to judge whether my bank is outright fraudulent again.
Seems like a purposefully-constructed straw-man to me, really.
> This will be the golden age of white collar crime, cons, and machinations.
Your interpretation of their comment is far-fetched, and not a useful entry into a conversation about their point.
I think it is a good point to enter the conversation because it should shift to which regulations are being removed and their consequence. Rather than the notion of less regulation being inherently catastrophic.
Another answer would be yes, NYSE is already full of scams, why would we go further?
The position I am pointing it is a little weird without more information is yes NYSE is good but I can’t support the Texas version.
Perhaps you didn't intend it but your original reply reads as though your "question" is actually an assertion about his position and that you disagree with it. AKA a strawman.
If they don't like NYSE then there isn't much conversation to be had here. Texas is just another exchange, which they already take issue with.
If they like NYSE, but not this, I'm interested to learn why. That's why I asked.
Can you give some examples of how they used some power recently, that they didn't use before?
Are you suggesting that the current head of state did not commit the crimes he was found guilty of by a jury?
Edit: Nasdaq not NYSE
Texas just has less legal tools and employees ready. It's been evident for years that companies want to avoid scrutiny and make investigations harder. Moving to Texas is essentially "security through obscurity" where they're just hiding from legal apparatus. Similarly, there is a direct correlation between the number of IRS employees and the unpaid taxes found in audits of big companies.
Much of the regulatory power they're wielding is "benign" to the average American - more strict details on reporting and disclosures, ethics, etc. They require more years and documentation of income, strict accounting standards, etc. The big thing is that it brings most companies into NY state jurisdiction for unrelated-to-exchanges things that impact finances. Over time, they've just grown and fine-tuned the "industry" of maintaining these laws. Just like actual wall street has grown.
The NY vs Texas jurisdictions are relevant because different state governments (Texas) compete on being "business friendly" and take a very lax approach to actually enforcing and investigating laws, as a matter of policy. A big and familiar - but political - example is trump's court cases on (allegedly) defrauding banks by lying about his properties worth - cases like that happen all the time (to less politically involved people too) in NY but not in Texas.
As some specific examples, The laws on exchanges in NY are more strict, so most crypto exchanges can't operate there. There are also state taxes on stock transactions.
Many people have written a lot about DEI and ESG requirements in financial disclosures, which is controversial, but they're not actually state laws of NY. They came from the SEC.
The only strong political example of "newly wielding power" would be the growth in attacks against oil and gas companies in NY by claiming that they lied in their financial disclosures related to risks of their product (ie. climate change).
It will come down to a situation where connections matter when enforcement is considered.
The exchange struggled with the transition to electronic trading 20+ years ago and never recovered. My firm stopped tracking volume from CHX over a decade ago because it’s essentially irrelevant.
The current owners, ICE, have been sitting on it since they purchased it and this is an easy way to open an exchange to rival the Texas Stock Exchange without applying for a brand new license.
There’s plenty of confusion on my part as to the exact purpose of a NYSE branch.
I thought it was to pre-empt the effort by some shady TX folks from setting up their own exchange (TSE). But, I don’t think that’s the case.
It doesn’t seem to matter if you “list” at NYSE Chicago or NYSE. It will still be available for sell/buy in NYSE. Thus these companies still under regulatory oversight and mandatory reporting of NYSE.
The NYSE Chicago branch, to me, is just a convenient place to buy/sell securities listed on NYSE. In the pre-digital age, this makes sense. No need to go to NYC or establish relationships in NY, but can deal locally at the NYSE branch and get the same rates. But in this modern age, the exact purpose eludes me.
I did find this on the Wiki page:
> In 2016, CHX rolled out its on-demand auction product, CHX SNAP[20] (Sub-second Non-displayed Auction Process), which received regulatory approval[21] from the Securities and Exchange Commission in October 2015 and a thorough review from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. CHX SNAP is designed to facilitate bulk trading of securities on a lit market and to minimize speed and information advantages enjoyed by only a few market participants.
Perhaps plan is to rollback some protections and give more advantage to the much more wealthier market participants?
I’d be surprised if they moved the matching engine out of mahwah.
It’s mostly a marketing move to take advantage of the pro-Texas stuff that has been swirling lately.
they horse traded her to the SBA this time
And I don’t think this exchange has been centrally staffed in nearly a decade, possibly longer.
Is this like TED making TEDx
So it's like TEDx moving and being renamed (e.g. to TED2).
This is pretty meaningless actually. It's 'just another' exchange in the US - there are already plenty, you can trade any stock you want on any exchange you want. There may be other (laxist) rules for primary listing on that exchange, but other than that, it doesn't add any value - there will probably be close to 0 volume traded on it. And the servers will probably run in the same data center that current NYSE.
If the servers are actually located in Texas, and there is some volume traded, then it could get interesting as in the US, there are rules about 'best execution' that restricts how and where brokers can trade.
It’s NYSE Chicago rebranding.
The US always had the same currency, so shares are almost by design fungible between markets. Also the rise of Nasdaq made for a quick transition to broker-dealer (market maker driven) markets, which combined with fungible shares and NBBO lead to a centralisation of exchanges early on.
On the contrary, Europe had historically one market of primary listing per country/currency, and it took a long time to see the emergence of MTFs centralizing books in a single place. Don't be fooled though, the vast majority of European liquidity is now on CBOE (the leading MTF) and LSE (the leading primary market).
What happens when you click in your app on 'buy' or 'sell' button is a different story. Mostly, it will never trade on an exchange actually. Especially in the US. Look up 'payment for order flow' if you're interested in it. Short version is - retail trades don't have any 'alpha' - you can just collect the spread executing it. And companies are willing to pay for that.
> Bourgeoisie's Tier One Cities vs. Avant‐Garde's Anti–Tier One Cities
> New York City, NY — Global finance, elite publishing,high-end corporate.
vs.
The NYSE is apparently trying to tap latent cultural energy.