Tag Archives: TABB forum

MEMX-larry tabb perspective

MEMX-Do the US Equities Markets Really Need 14 Venues?!

For those who missed the MarketsMuse memo from Jan 14, there appears to be yet another exchange coming to the US Equities markets, as if the industry needs one more platform to facilitate trading in publicly-listed stocks. The latest platform, which is still on the whiteboard, is a consortium-based initiative named “Member Exchange”, whose creators have dubbed “MEMX.” As widely reported, the proposed exchange is being spearheaded by two of the top NYSE Designated Market-Making firms, Citadel Securities and Virtu-both of which are best known for their domain fluency in the world of high-frequency trading and both came to be NYSE DMMs by gobbling up legacy NYSE “specialist firms” after the now 227-year old institution was transformed in 2005 from a member-controlled “non-profit” into a for-profit enterprise, which is now controlled by the $42billion market cap company, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (NYSE:ICE).

MEMX challenges NYSE NASDAQ
MEMX wants to compete with NYSE and NASDAQ

Joining Citadel and Virtu in this initiative-which vies to compete directly with NYSE, Nasdaq and the assortment of other venues that facilitate trading in listed stocks is a collective of retail brokerage firms (Charles Schwab, E-Trade, TD Ameritrade, Fidelity Brokerage, and Bank of America Merrill Lynch) along with investment banks Morgan Stanley and UBS).  The $70 million question (the amount of capital they’ve put together to seed this initiative) as to why this consortium has been formed and what their game plan is has been a topic of spirited discussion across the sell-side. The moving parts necessarily connect to market data fees, payment for order flow (“PFOF”) and incentive rebates paid to those who provide liquidity to the markets. And most important, who profits the most from the complex fee schemes.

Perhaps the most granular coverage and commentary have been courtesy of industry think tank TABB Group, the research and strategic advisory firm focused exclusively on capital markets. Firm principal Larry Tabb has provided objective insight courtesy of this week’s dissertation, excerpted here:

larry tabb
Larry Tabb, TABB Group

The question is: Why on earth do we need a 14th US equity exchange?

To understand why the brokers feel they need a new exchange, you need to understand a bit of history. Historically, there were two major equity exchanges: the 200-plus-year-old NYSE and the Nasdaq. These were member-owned exchanges that operated like utilities. After some regulatory challenges with the NYSE and Nasdaq, the SEC opened up the exchanges to competition, and a number of new equity matching platforms were developed. These new quasi-exchanges launched in the late 1990s/early 2000s and, while they looked and acted like exchanges, they were called ECNs and operated under a lower regulatory threshold. These platforms automated predominantly the Nasdaq market. In 2005 the SEC passed Regulation National Market System, or Reg NMS, which forced the NYSE to face competition as well.

By the mid-2000’s the traditional exchanges were also allowed to go public as they moved away from member-owned utilities. During the late 90’s and early 2000s, the traditional exchanges bought up the ECNs, and just as it appeared that the market would be reconsolidated under NYSE and Nasdaq, Dave Cummings, the CEO of Tradebot, along with another high-frequency firm, Getco (which became Knight and subsequently was acquired by Virtu), entered into the ECN space with the development of BATS. By 2006 BATS obtained funding by industry participants and it became a quasi-industry consortium.

When BATS entered the market, it provided competitive pressure to keep both Nasdaq and the NYSE in check. However, as BATS grew, an opportunity emerged for BATS to become a full-fledged exchange (2008), go public (2016), and, in 2017, get acquired by Cboe.

As BATS went public and subsequently was acquired by Cboe, its governance changed. Once BATS became public and was acquired by Cboe, instead of being managed as a lower-cost industry-owed entity, it needed to be run like a for-profit entity, similar to the NYSE and Nasdaq. During the 10-year span since BATS became an exchange, other exchanges were acquired by the NYSE and Nasdaq, until we reach today, when the 13 US equity exchanges are all – except for one, IEX – owned by NYSE (which was acquired by ICE in 2012), Nasdaq and Cboe.

If you’ve got a hot insider tip, a bright idea, or if you’d like to get visibility for your brand through MarketsMuse via subliminal content marketing, advertorial, blatant shout-out, spotlight article, news release etc., please reach out to our Senior Editor via cmo@marketsmuse.com

As the major exchange groups consolidated many of the competitive exchanges, industry brokers/institutional investors began to feel that the exchanges were becoming less responsive to the dealers (and their clients) that sent them order flow. This created frictions between the dealers and the exchanges and culminated with the October 2017 SEC Market Data roundtable, where it appeared the dealers and larger investors were targeting the three major exchanges as being non-responsive, while the exchanges responded that the industry was being needlessly greedy and attacking their business model.

Et voilà, the announcement in early 2019 of the Member Exchange.

MEMX-larry tabb perspective

So What’s MEMX Thinking?

TABB believes MEMX’s initial strategy will include the following:

SIP Rebate

While BATS started out as an ECN (a lit ATS), the opportunity to become an ECN has become problematic, as ECNs are not entitled to SIP market data revenue, which could easily provide MEMX with $10 to $20 million a year, as IEX with less than 3% market share generates approximately $10 million in SIP revenues. In addition, given the competitive threat, the order routing facilities that used to be operated by some of the smaller exchanges are no longer in operation, meaning an ECN needs to rely on an exchange for universal access, and given the competitive threat, it is unlikely that an exchange owned by the large three providers would develop that infrastructure. So, for MEMX to share in SIP revenues and control its own routing, it needs to become a regulated exchange.

Cookie-Cutter Model

The fastest way to obtain exchange status is to deploy a “cookie cutter” exchange, modeled exactly like an existing exchange. Unlike IEX’s speedbump, which caused a two-year licensing delay, MEMX will most likely employ a standard maker-taker model, with virtually nothing odd or controversial. While the other exchanges may complain about the added complexity of a fourteenth exchange, MEMX’s exchange application will be completely dull and boring, raising no flags with regulators. That will speed up approval and remove any possible SEC delays.

High Rebate

Once approved, MEMX, operating off the BATS playbook, will most likely employ the ‘Crazy Eddie’ “our prices are insane” pricing strategy: MEMX will provide a larger rebate than its cost to take liquidity. This will achieve two goals: first, it will provide an incentive for market makers to provide liquidity; and second, that incentive will be passed back into more aggressive pricing. While most of the high-rebate exchanges have super tiers of 32 mils (cents/share), MEMX will need to provide a higher rebate than 32 mils or provide more clients with access to the 32-mil top tier. Interestingly, these high rebates and the conflicts that it creates, is exactly what the buy-side is railing about, forcing the SEC to implement the new Access Fee Pilot, which I will discuss later.

To read the entire piece, click here

Continue reading

Market Structure: The Great “Flash Boys” Debate and Putting the Genie Back in The Bottle

tumblr_m66pvmdFe61rog4ypo1_500  MarketsMuse Editor Note:  Though we typically focus on using a high-touch approach to aggregating the more topical  and poignant ETF, Options and Macro-Strategy news items, the  nearly never-ceasing diatribes re market structure and the impact of “high-frequency trading” which has either been incited or simply elevated by Michael Lewis’s book “Flash Boys” inspires us to distill the multitude of most recent opinion articles and punditry promoted by the ever-increasing universe of “content experts.”

In that spirit, we point our readers to 2 different pieces worth picking over:

1. For the ETF-focused audience, this week’s published comments from ETF.com’s Dave Nadig, “Great Flash Boys Idea IEX Doesn’t Matter” is a solid read for RIAs and the universe of investment managers who use exchange-traded funds. As always, Dave frames his observations and insight in a thoughtful, non-conflicted and erudite manner. Here’s the link to the ETF.com posting.

2. For institutional equity fund managers, institutional equity brokers and whomever else might be intrigued by the latest “survey of capital market professionals” conducted by ConvergEX, one of the major institutional order execution platforms. Their study finds that 70% of those canvassed believe the market structure is “unfair” to them. The study was published this week and since re-published by an assortment of industry media websites, including TABB Forums, and starts with the following: Continue reading

Finally: Debate re High-Frequency Trading Includes A Tangible Solution

tabb forum logo Excerpt courtesy of TABB Forums April 21 submission by Chris Sparrow, CEO of “Market Data Authority” a consultancy that provides guidance within the areas of equities market structure, transaction cost analysis and “best execution.”

MarketsMuse Editor note:  below snippet is a good preview to the most recent “short-form white paper” written by Mr. Sparrow in connection with the ongoing brouhaha re high-frequency trading aka HFT. The submission itself inspired a broad assortment of comments from industry experts..and, having been considered a “market structure expert” in a prior life, MarketsMuse editor says “overlook the ‘techno talk’, its worth hitting ‘read more.’

“Eliminating Unfairness: Creating a Protocol For Synchronized Period Trading”

The goal of this piece is to describe at a high level a protocol that could be introduced to allow for a multi-venue system operating synchronized batch auctions. The motivation for this protocol is to eliminate any advantage from the asymmetric distribution of order book information – i.e., trade and quote updates. No attempt is undertaken to control other types of information that may be relevant to trading.

The protocol should allow for competition of trading venues and not discriminate against any type of market participant. Further, the protocol is suggested only as an option that could be used by venues that want to participate.

A strong motivation for creating the protocol is the perceived “unfairness” that is present in the existing market structure, where some participants may be able to get faster access to trade and quote information than others. The result has been a perceived erosion of confidence in the equity markets. Other externalities that exist in the current system include the need to store vast amounts of data generated from continuous trading and a technological arms race.

Continue reading

Distilling Definition of Best Execution: Expert Says: “High Five’s for High-Touch”

tabb forum logoCourtesy of Matthew Samelson, Woodbine Associates

The trading environment certainly is more complex than ever before. But the experienced trader – not greater reliance on technology – may be the answer to mastering the markets. Big data, advanced algorithms, and even the threat of high-frequency trading may be distractions that don’t really matter.

Talk of automation, algorithms and data in equity trading has reached an all-time high. The sell-side – brokers and technologists – have a tremendous vested interest in complex offerings. Is it overkill? Trading desks at many institutions and hedge funds, as well as service providers, may be squandering valuable resources focusing on issues that don’t really matter.

At base we underestimate the real value of the experienced trader, over-rely on automation, and focus too much on distracting issues that just don’t matter. Maybe we need to go back to basics.

Best Execution and Trading Fundamentals 

The premise of Best Execution has never changed. The fundamental concepts – minimizing slippage or realizing a benchmark while controlling market impact – remain the same, in every market. In the post Regulation NMS era, sourcing liquidity in a fragmented market has introduced new complications. However, this has not compromised the basic tenants.  For the entire article from Tabb, please click here.

Bitcoin: Debunking the Myths

tabb forum logoCourtesy of TABB Contributor Nicholas Colas, ConvergEx Group

In the rush to understand what bitcoin is – and isn’t – the public discussion on the topic has gotten a bit muddy. Here are 11 bitcoin myths and the reality under the hype and confusion.

MarketsMuse Editor Note: In deference to copyright and proprietary content protocols, below are 7 of the 11 myths characterized by Nick Colas.. Link below brings you to the full article at TABB Forum. If you are not a paying subscriber, no worries; unconfirmed rumors indicate that TABB is said to be pondering the acceptance of Bitcoins

Haters gonna hate, but the “Bitcoin bubble” meme has become the financial equivalent of a viral online cat video – wildly popular but pretty vacuous. Today we separate fact from fiction and review 11 bitcoin myths.

Myth #1: Bitcoin is huge

Myth #2: Bitcoin is a major problem in dealing with drugs and terrorism

Myth #3: Bitcoin is a currency. Reality: Bitcoin really is a cross between a mutually held company or large partnership and a money transfer business.

Myth #4: Bitcoin has never been more volatile than now, with all the attention it is getting.

Myth #6: Bitcoin is a store of value.

Myth #7: Bitcoin is untraceable.

Myth #8: Loss of anonymity will make bitcoin worthless.

To read the full article from TABB, click here.

Options Trading is Not Dead, Institutions Ramping Up

Courtesy of TABB Forum

Options trading volumes may be down across the industry but the buy side continues to remain captivated by the potential of using options. TABB Group expects options volume to decline by as much as 10 percent in 2012, yet a combination of greater buy-side adoption and increased focus on managing risk will set the foundation for future growth, especially when investors refocus their attention on equity markets.

Global equity markets are under stress and for good reason. Many observers consider the markets to be broken, with structural inequities that favor professional investors over the uniformed.

Add to that slowing global growth, continued political uncertainty and new regulations that threaten to indelibly shift market structure and you have most of the reasons that can explain today’s depressed U.S. equity trading volumes, which, this year through July, are off more than 14 percent compared with the same period in 2011.

The impact can also be seen in U.S. options markets. However, the drop has been less severe, with trading off just 7 percent this year, through July. A number of factors are contributing to this phenomenon, including greater adoption of options strategies by the buy side as well as replication strategies that use short-term options as a proxy for the underlying security. But perhaps the biggest factor contributing to the disparity can be observed in the new ways that buy-side firms are using options in their strategies.

Growing Sophistication and the Rising Complexity of Strategies
The buy side is becoming more sophisticated in its options trading strategies with traders at both asset managers and hedge funds using more-complex strategies in their trading activities. Multi-legged options trades make up a growing proportion of trading volume, as the buy side looks for cheaper and more efficient ways to manage exposure. And as buy-side trading activities become more complex, investment managers are investing in more powerful technology systems to support the growing complexity of both their front- and back-office derivative activities.

Buy-side firms are upgrading to newer versions of order management systems that can support options and provide real-time pricing, analytics and FIX connectivity to broker trading desks. Traders requiring more sophisticated functionality are deploying best of breed execution management systems alongside existing trading platforms in order to support complex orders and algorithmic trading capabilities. Continue reading

NASDAQ New Rule: ETF Issuers Can Pay Market-Makers Quoting “Thinly-Traded” products

 

As duly noted by industry expert TABB Forum, ETFs with little-known or illiquid underlying securities are a hard sell without liquidity.  “Whether you loved or hated them, major exchange specialists (including this blogger) played a vital role to help nurture small listings, and the problem of how to incent liquidity provision is an ongoing industry debate. Without an extra incentive, market makers don’t consider it worth the risk..”

NASDAQ apparently understands this challenge. As reported by TABB, and in a rule filing submitted to the SEC, the exchange that will soon be home to Facebook proposes to put ETF issuers in the driver’s seat by facilitating issuer payments to market-makers in consideration for those traders quoting and trading those pesky, “hard-to-trade” aka “illiquid” ETF products that seem to trade by appointment only.

According to the TABB piece, “..The rule filing is waiting to be ‘noticed’ by the SEC, which will start turning the wheels of the rule filing and formal commentary process. If ultimately approved, the writing is on the wall for equities.There is little on the regulatory table at the moment to improve market quality, but prior success of a similar program abroad and political concern over how to improve the lot of smaller securities at least gives this proposal a decent chance of making it to the pilot…”

Not everyone fully agrees. At least one former ETF market-maker who was invited by NASDAQ to help formulate their new proposal believes it could open Pandora’s box (even if some think the Genie is already out of the bottle..) Continue reading