TXSE is a listings play more than anything. This means NYSE is going to beat them to the punch, at least in concept. Means TXSE is going to have to work much harder for listings business.
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.
> There is an extremely high probability NYSE TX remains in Mahwah
> 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.
You did raise a good point about latency sensitive brokers, and I feel like that is becoming a self-selecting cartel based around the NY/NJ area. So when you have these folks talking about moving to places like Houston or Dallas, in an implied or entailed way they are talking about breaking that latency cartel. Honestly, just by stupid personal opinion, the SEC should grow the courage to ban low-latency based trading. This topic has been beat to death over the years, so I'm not adding anything to the discussion, just chiming in to say the obvious things... have a nice day.
Just for the record, the latency arb / microwave networks speed game is basically dead as of 2018-2021. Looks at Virtu, formerly classic examples of the trade and now almost entirely "switched sides" and doing order execution services for the same big banks whose lunch they were formerly eating.
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.)
Exchange trading happens in round lots that are usually 100 shares.
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.
Odd lots don't contribute to the NBBO, and placing an order for an odd lot doesn't have to execute within the NBBO. (People can trade "past" you, I am pretty sure ISO's don't need to clear you, etc). (Note these are rules for market participants, not retail customers). So for a firm trying to argue they provide excellent price improvement and execution efficiency for their customers, they can't "just" send the orders to the lits.
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!
I mostly mean scenarios where your limit order might not be marketable, end up resting on the book, and then get traded "through". I'm speaking from the perspective of an actual direct market participant, where you're not using a market order but are trying to enter a position while adding liquidity/collecting a rebate. (Most exchanges reward participants who have some % of their trades as liquidity-added, with rebate tiers).
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.
There are per ticker rules to allow odd lots on most US markets. AFAIK unless you're trading penny stocks, every stock out there is entitled for odd lots, and most trades are indeed odd lots, that has been the case for 10 years at least.
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.
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.
> Honestly, just by stupid personal opinion, the SEC should grow the courage to ban low-latency based trading.
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.
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.
For a while at least HFC was able to pay a lot of money to some really smart people to do some really weird high performance computing projects. Sure to the industry the amount of money they has wasn't even a peanut, but to a normal person on the street it was still a lot of money, and even to the financial industry it was still worth (for a while) paying high salaries to the very best for that fraction of a peanut.
> 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.
Spreads on bid/ask used to literally be at least 25cents, they didn't even use decimals. Would you rather pay 1 guy in a funny jacket with a palm pilot in NY 25 penny or a bunch of computer nerds sniping each other 1 penny?
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.
> I don't exactly get how HFT also makes it low cost
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.
And as a refresher for why HFT exists - it's a side effect of RegNMS. RegNMS exists because the guys in funny jackets in NY with palm pilots were ripping people off.
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.
No sure why this got downvoted, and I'm not sure what else people think "humans competing for that money" would look like?
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.
Before the internet? Things are a bit different now. HFT monopolized the market maker/arbitrage money with millisecond executions that nobody can compete with.
You said "If low latency trading was banned real humans could compete for that money."
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.
I've wondered if introducing a small but omnipresent random delay in all trading requests might suffice. Something like 0-100 milliseconds. Just enough to moderate some of the advantage that physically co-located automated traders have, while not outright banning it.
Can you not use this information of it being closed for high frequency trading?
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?
If we model the stock market as a random walk/Weiner process and I got the math right, I think you're almost certainly going to make money (if you stop when you reach a given profit threshold), but you will have arbitrarily large drawdowns. This is similar in terms of the risk/return profile to the martingale betting system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)
Oh yeah, I think in my head I confuse the size of the bet with the size of the ranges where it could be claimed to frequently cross the line between sell or buy (which I proposed would be what is most frequently crossed over), but in normal stock markets the market never hits the bottom. Compare this – real markets – to discrete signal between in [0.00,5.00] with smallest change being 0.25, and the market frequently going to zero or near zero, where know it often goes from [0.00, 1.75] to [2.25, 5.00]. In such case you wouldn't lose as heavily. So then markets can be roughly & informally modeled as what's the relationship between how much it somehow "often" changes vs. what's the risk cost, e.g. since normally stocks don't drop to zero constantly what's the bottom part in the traditional market graph that stays the same (it doesn't seem trivial to me what's the best way to consider what's often and what's the bottom part as the bottom part may change over time even if it most of time in real world remains constant, but I think the idea doesn't need one to know the exact alforhitm as yet to speak of values that if often crosses.
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.
For clarity, I don't consider anything mentioned even practically feasible or relevant.
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].
>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 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?
That would imply the decision making is happening outside of the locale. Why wouldn’t a firm just have their algorithms run loose on a machine as close to the source as possible?
Various financial products have value impact on other products around the world. In order to price orders appropriately in a given region you need the most up-to-date price information available, especially if you are looking to avoid being on the receiving end of arbitrage trades. The same is obviously true for the arbitrageurs.
It very well might be a listings play, but I have yet to see any new venue really crack the "listings code". IEX has tried. I guess CBOE BATS has had some success? LTSE wants too as well, but not sure they had success either.
My understanding is they were shooting for ETF listings, which are arguably the easiest listings business to establish in if you have the right sales team (due to the lighter regulatory regime compared to listing common stock).
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.
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.
I'm not sure what the point of traditional exchanges are anymore. In 1890 it made sense to have a common place for the agents of everyone who want to trade to be in one room so that when you wanted to buy stock your agent could match you up with someone else who wants to sell. However computers can do that digitally these days and so all an exchange does is give rules (keeping the worst scam companies out)
The issue boils down more to consolidation of interest, and 'historical' thinking by people who can't be assed to understand how the market actually works.
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.
Confusingly AMEX and ARCA also have a listings business, but that's also owned by NYSE or at least owned by ICE which owns NYSE.
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.
At least with AMEX you have the historical case for Tape B listings, and with ARCA the strong local ETF business.
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.
I don't think it will only attract scammy companies. In fact, wouldn't it be great if smaller businesses could go public as long as their numbers fit? The NYSE and NASDAQ not only have a high bar, but that bar is even higher now than when companies like Apple and Microsoft went public. For example, the Enron scandal raised the standards for public listings, but you could also argue that it unfairly punished legitimate businesses for the sins of others.
It could also help dynamize investments by providing shorter exit pathways, making it easier for investors to recycle capital into new startups.
I don't see how your answer fits in the flow of this thread. The thread specifically mentions scammy listings so those listings should obbey securities law to be on an exchange.
The bar that was raised after Enron was federal securities law. Not nyse/nasdaq rules (which vary for the many venues they own)
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.
So, are the exchanges connected? Would there be any difference for me buying and selling stocks on “normal NYSE” vs “NYSE Texas”? What benefits would companies see from listing on NYSE Texas vs the other NYSE?
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.
Well technically there are different trading hours, calendars and sessions for each market / segment of NYSE. In practice though I don't think you will find many companies listed on multiple subsegments of NYSE in 2025.
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.
This fascinates me because I worked at an investment bank specializing in Texas municipal finance post 2008 crash. There are a lot of sophisticated investors that run to Texas as a bulwark against the larger market in times of instability. Honestly I find your comment more likely than not - as the in-house joke was “equities are where the crooks are” in contrast to our focus on bond debt transactions.
Different rules probably. In Sweden we got Nasdaq Stockholm and First North. Both owned by Nasdaq and operates out of the same building. First North has more lax rules and generally meant for smaller companies.
Not in any way to diminish the Swedish markets, but that's partially because Nasdaq and NYSE know they can sell 'status' in listing on their US markets.
Though I would think that India would be the least likely to have any of this type of BSE due to their reverence for the cow. It works out for them as a cultural inoculation against an insidious affliction.
Is one has lax rules over the other? I doubt it. Besides there are SME Exchanges run by both of these for smaller companies (small and medium enterprises).
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).
Look, commie, every red blooded American has a right to commit financial frauds.
Meme coins, Ponzi schemes and fraudulent inflated companies are what built America. Adam Smith’s invisible hand and the second amendment are all we need, not some pasty deep state operative.
This but unironically...I am not aware of a significant innovation that didn't lead to a financial bubble. One of the modern misconceptions is that you can have capitalism without anyone losing money, without bubbles, and with government officials sagely selecting which innovation is legitimate.
It is true that there are countries where this has been attempted, Sweden is one, but the result was that one person got extremely rich, one family in Sweden owned 50-60% of the nation's GDP. And, eventually, it collapses.
You can also see the cross-sectional today: countries which have tried to regulate away financial risk have seen innovation collapse. The UK is the best example which handed the BoE huge powers of financial regulation, and also gave them responsible of a totally new type of financial regulation: prudential. Regulators regulated, and now 3 banks have 80% market share and the price of things they lend against (houses) has skyrocketed and actual productive financial activity has disappeared (same thing happened with CMA, within-industry merger activity has stopped because of the legal costs/regulator intervention...funny thing is that the CMA budget continues to expand significantly, they are now intervening in areas like marketing...despite the UK already having a regulator that does this). Even the BoE has now recognised the massive risks to financial stability that their policies are having but...what can they do, the imperative to grow the budget continues, regulators always find more things to regulate.
I couldn't agree more. This is why I'm investing heavily in companies producing body bags; sure, people are going to die, but the upside for me could be in the five figures by the time it comes for me!
Deregulation is happening, whether you like it or not, so the question is now whether you'd like to be rich in a deregulated state or poor in a deregulated state.
If only we could have a state with zero laws, where all corporate headquarters could go, with no taxes, and list their stock, and not be accountable to anyone.
The glory of the 'states' loophole. You just need one state to let everyone get a pass.
Doesn't work for the little guy "Officer, you can't give me a speeding ticket, I'm from out of state".
When I’ve visited Texas, I’ve always been struck by how many products (cars especially) were “Texas Edition” models. I am surprised SaaS companies don’t offer Texas Edition plans, where the app has more lonestar flags sprinkled throughout the UI for an extra $10/month.
I lived in Houston a couple of years. Texas is mostly a state of mind -- the promotion of "Lone Starry-eyed-ness" as a world view that's uniquely suited to curing whatever ails the human condition, but coupled to a willfulness to disregard whether it actually does.
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.
There's a lot of us down here in the one-star state that would never fall for that SaaS bullshit. We're not all idiots though there apparently are a lot who can't truthfully make that claim.
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 read on a thread from our favorite LLM training dataset that Alaska ha(s/d) a special edition with block heater, lift kit, tires, and badging. There was also an Arkansas edition supposedly. I think it probably had all the knobs and buttons in primary colors with flash cards for their illiterati's. (I have kin in Arkansas so maybe just joking, but probably not really). I'm pretty sure I have seen a Wyoming edition RAM or something taking advantage of their incorrect state nickname as the "Cowboy State". Having spent a good bit of time in Wyoming I can assure you there are probably more sheep than in any other state though, being from Texas, I did have to listen to the steers and queers quip way back then until I reminded the teller that he was a sheepherder and not a real cowboy.
I have no reasonable defense against the logical truth.
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.
Of course I was mostly having a laugh, but yeah, Texas is in something of a unique cult of bad cultural and urban development ideals.
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.
I saw the humor in your comment and took it as an opportunity to take another dig at the condition of the state.
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.
...but the one in Paris, Tennessee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower_(Paris,_Tennessee...) looks much more true to the original - although apparently none of the two replicas fulfills the purpose of a tower (enabling you to climb to the top of it)...
Get on Maine's level. They have Mexico, Poland (home of Poland Springs!), China, Peru, Norway, Sweden, Denmark... that's not even delving into another dozen or two towns named for foreign cities rather than nations. The history of why the heck this happened is interesting [0]
Exactly the same situation in Central Texas. Many German, Swedish, Czech enclaves resulting in towns with names like New Sweden. Indiana has a bit of this as well.
I watched the 2024 eclipse from a curiously named Brazil, Indiana. Besides the name, a couple oddities were that nobody was there to watch the eclipse (we had an entire campground well in the totality to ourselves for $50) and someone from Chicago moved there to sell excellent deep dish pizza.
Theres a good Oddlots episode on the business of running a small exchange.
There's some money to be made in data & connectivity fees essentially.
Largely around regulatory compliance due to RegNMS (the thing that created BBO).
There's plenty of these small exchanges like MEMX and MIAX, nothing new under the sun here.
Bingo. The transactions business has largely been commoditized (esp because of the vast array of ATSes that are available to be traded on), so the only way to force business and guarantee month-over-month revenue is in market data and connectivity (it also explains why NYSE, Nasdaq, and Cboe have leaned very heavily on data/connectivity business lines for generating new revenue over the last ten years; or in Nasdaq's case especially focusing on 'peripheral' businesses). Listings as well generates some revenue, but is a much harder business to get into.
It is, sadly. Through the entire chain of custody.
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.
It's not just the prices, its the quality.
You pay unbelievable sums to TR/Refinitiv/whatever they are called now and they ship you a HD/point you at an S3 bucket which contains a mix of valid/incomplete/corrupt/blank files which you then spend months checking. Oops, here's a new bucket for that. Oh oops, sorry again, we just found those files. Ooops, our parser had an error try again!
BMLL seems to be trying to disrupt this space, wishing them well.
I am actually on the direct consumer side, but I feel for you. Occasionally we'll take intermediate data though from third parties, and good god the quality is atrocious.
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.
I went back and wanted to include the link but couldn't quite find it. I suspect it was a subtopic within an episode and so I can't find it in the title unfortunately.
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!
The same difference as between the NYSE and each of the Miami International Stock Exchange; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; and the Nasdaq BX, Inc. (f/k/a the Boston Stock Exchange) [1]: jack shit.
I dont think you know what you are talking about because there are differences between the exchange. For one, theyre run by different business entities, they have differences in the regulatory programs, and they also have differences in the fee schemes, e.g. how they make money on the order flow going through the exchange.
People tend to be very reductionist about finance when they really they just dont fully understand.
> dont [sic] think you know what you are talking about
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.
Well the regulations are the same but some exchanges are SROs so they all have different regulatory/surveillance programs.
Also different exchanges list different securities.
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.
That's another one of my favorites! Not only is it nonsense, but I've also seen it pointed out that if you translate "Los Angeles" to English, it becomes "The The Angels Angels of Anaheim"
More PR than anything. The way these things work is a press release is made off the back of regulatory filings. Market interest and chatter is gauged. Then the slow cogs of the SEC start grinding. Remember the "ARCA 24 hour trading" press release from a few months back? Yeah, we still dont have that...
Also note that there are 16+ exchanges in the US with protected quotes. And 30+ dark pools (ATSs). There are many venues to trade.
Why would a new exchange result in worse retail fills? They're obligated to get the NNBO price across all exchanges, and much of the retail flow doesn't even hit exchanges at all (internalized by Citadel/Virtu).
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.
What does this mean for Chicago? Certainly seems like a loss for them. Does this reflect any broader trends about Chicago’s position as a financial hub?
It doesn't mean anything for Chicago. "NYSE Chicago" is an electronic exchange hosted in New Jersey. It has Chicago in the name because NYSE bought the old Chicago Stock Exchange in 2018 (which was partially hosted in Chicago and partially in NJ... it was weird). To my knowledge post-2018 NYSE Chicago never had any trading operations in Chicago. NYSE does have sales people in Chicago because of the large prop trading community in the city and it would be hard to see how this NYSE Texas situation changes that.
> I would wager it's the latter. This will be the golden age of white collar crime, cons, and machinations. This is how this always ends.
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]
*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.
The timing is certainly convincing. The SEC pivoting to focus on "innovation" (which I take to be crypto) and "capital formation", CFPB being shut-down, etc. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the wheels fall off, Enron style.
Capitalism interprets regulation as damage and routes around it, as someone might have said.
USA has shown they will support corrupt companies with tax dollars. This will be another 2008 crash where the government welfare for companies will continue. Real capitalism would let those entities fail so others can pick them apart and attempt to do better.
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.
> Real capitalism would let those entities fail so others can pick them apart and attempt to do better.
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.
If you agree that sounds ridiculous then we will need some concrete reasons why this will be true, merely because there is an exchange with less regulation:
> This will be the golden age of white collar crime, cons, and machinations.
Can you explain about what you think the comment means?
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.
The comment you originally responded to never implied that NYSE was good (at least by my reading). Just that crime would noticably increase if regulations were decreased in this instance. In other words, a worsening of the status quo.
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.
We have eyes and can see and brains that can read. Anyone with eyes and a brain can see the internal coup happening by the executive btw ch against the other branches with elon at the head of it all.
It is an interesting question with an interesting, long and complicated answer that can't really be done justice in a HN post. It'd probably be worth looking up some psychology papers if you're really interested in the topic.
But for a basic theory sketch: Humans are social creatures designed to form herds around a leader/small number of leaders (see, for example, cults as an example of this dynamic). The typical human is expecting to do what they are told by a leader and constantly playing status games to figure out who that leader is right now and whether they, the human figuring, qualify as one.
This means that the average punter is totally unequipped to evaluate not just capitalism but any ideology! The only skills they have are maybe how to play status games and maybe a few economically valuable technical abilities. This results in bizarre situations where you have roving hordes of people who swear by ideologies but have no idea about them (find me a Marxist who has read Marx - they exist but there aren't as many of them as the name suggests). There aren't enough people who can break out of that dynamic to set up forums that exclude it though.
The natural social response to all this is you have people floating around who challenge every ideology and the masses generally expect them to be heard because that is one of the rules for status games. But at the end of the day it is normal for the challengers to then be ignored because capitalism offers huge rewards to the people at the top of the food chain so it is a pretty stable system. Not perfect, but what is.
Because it’s grounded in actual US history? Read up on The Gilded Age for context on what happened the last time the US hit peak robber baron. Our country specializes in creating grifters and this isn’t our first rodeo.
It’s certainly looser regulations. NY State and NY city have realized they have power over Wall Street and most publicly listed companies because they are the laws that govern most American stock exchanges. They’ve started to use that power.
Well, before diving into new use of power, it should be noted that much of the national regulatory and investigatory infrastructure is managed by NY state as a matter of them being host. So even considering non-controversial actions like actually investigating claims of rote illegal behavior, NYS has a lot more investigators and courts that are prepared to process those cases. It's just like Florida has more laws regarding theme parks, and Colorado has more laws involving skiing, and California has more laws involving movie making.
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).
That was prosecution of a criminal who lived in New York for a crime committed in New York; I fail to see how it has any connection to the state regulating _companies_ who aren't based in New York but are listed in New York.
I'm not saying the prosecution was unmerited, just that SDNY has signaled that it will prosecute, as opposed to finding a reason to look the other way, as may be expectation of the connected elites. The DOJ for example is telling its lawyers to drop the corruption case against NY police chief Adams as well, for crimes committed in NY state that happen to be under federal jurisdiction [0].
Unclear what business of the DoJ's that is. But, again, this seems totally unrelated to regulation or prosecution of non-NY companies which are merely listed in New York.
If it works the same way the oil and gas industry regulation works through the Railroad Commission then we will end up with financial industry people with substantial skin in the game designing the regulations. They will then enforce those regulations selectively with preference being to minimize the impact of enforcement operations on the bottom line of those who violate the regulations. This will happen so that the noncompliant operators can remain viable as businesses instead of levying severe penalties for noncompliance that would cause others operating in the space to take notice and voluntarily comply.
It will come down to a situation where connections matter when enforcement is considered.
Texas wants to invite in NYC’s most brutal-cunning capitalists for a bit, I guess to see what it feels like to learn 40 years of hard lessons all at once.
I guess NYSE feels operating 2 exchanges in the same region (Midwest) is unnecessary expense.
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?
Chx/nyse chicago has never really caught on as a venue as it didn’t have much to distinguish it from the pack of second tier exchanges. Especially given cboe local dominance.
It’s mostly a marketing move to take advantage of the pro-Texas stuff that has been swirling lately.
That is patently false and nothing but rhetoric. Chicago has been consistently number 1 or top 5 for corporate (inbound) relocations over the past decade. Doesn’t fit the narrative so you might doubt me, google it. NYSE bought the CHX in 2018 which was nearly defunct in terms of volume even then for access to its SEC license. They are posturing to ensure if Texas based exchanges take hold they are a part of the story vs letting the incumbent Texas Stock Exchange win that market uncontested. Time will tell if either exchange gets traction toward relevance or if this fizzles out entirely as the Chicago based exchange was doing.
That’s not why this exchange is getting moved but nice hot take.
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.
The problem with NYSE Chicago, formerly the Chicago Stock Exchange, was not that it was in Chicago, but that it was not liquid. CBOE operates four equity exchanges, formerly operated by BATS, which was based in Lenexa, Kansas of all places. From what I've read, the value of NYSE Chicago is simply in the exchange license. NYSE bought it when it was the Chicago Stock Exchange in 2018, when it was already an illiquid skeleton of an exchange.
NYSE Chicago (formerly the Chicago Stock Exchange) hasn’t been relevant for a long time and it’s easier to move the existing exchange license than file for a brand new one.
And I don’t think this exchange has been centrally staffed in nearly a decade, possibly longer.
Right. Everything I've read says the operation will be entirely automated/virtual. This decision is clearly intended to get away from Illinois's operating regulations and move toward Texas' looser reins.
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.
I'm also confused by the confusion. My German broker shows me something like ten exchanges (all in Germany) in the app where I can trade securities. I always thought it was weird that the US, being by far the biggest player in the market, only had one exchange. (Even though I just learned in this thread that there are actually multiple already.)
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).
There are numerous exchanges in the US. The trading is mostly done on NYSE / NASDAQ although some others do trade a meaningful volume.
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.
#/media/File:ParisTNEiffel.jpg){kind=link}
https://www.txse.com/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Stock_Exchange