[HN Gopher] The New York Stock Exchange plans to launch NYSE Texas
___________________________________________________________________
The New York Stock Exchange plans to launch NYSE Texas
Author : ChrisArchitect
Score : 257 points
Date : 2025-02-14 06:40 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ir.theice.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ir.theice.com)
| sharth wrote:
| What's the actual difference between NYSE Texas and the
| traditional NYSE?
| w-ll wrote:
| Judges
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Wrong. Most NYSE-listed companies are not incorporated in New
| York.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| But the exchange itself is subject to a different
| regulatory framework. It isn't just federal regulations
| that affect them.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the exchange itself is subject to a different
| regulatory framework_
|
| 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.
| programjames wrote:
| About 8ms, or a couple trades.
| dmurray wrote:
| The data centres will almost certainly stay in New Jersey
| with the rest of the US equity trading infrastructure.
| qeternity wrote:
| Well, the most important US equity market is in Aurora...
| reaperman wrote:
| What is this a reference to?
| dmurray wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Mercantile_Exchange
| reaperman wrote:
| It looks like CME's HQ is near Millennium Park in the
| center of Chicago, not part of Aurora (CO, IL, OH, IN,
| MO, NE, NY, or OR).
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Cme runs their matching engine out of a datacenter in
| aurora il
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| CyrusOne off of I-88.
|
| 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)
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| This is the NYSE Chicago exchange moving to Texas.
| swyx wrote:
| itself a pretty crazy confusing sentence
| saghm wrote:
| It's giving "Thursday Night Football on Saturday" vibes.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Thursday morning football
| janderson215 wrote:
| Los Angeles Angels at Anaheim
| saghm wrote:
| 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"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| 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.
|
| [1] https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-
| trading...
| DontchaKnowit wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| DontchaKnowit wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _some exchanges are SROs_
|
| 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.
| WrongAssumption wrote:
| I'm very confused on why you think that link supports your
| assertion.
| rchaud wrote:
| NYSE is TED, NYSE TX is TEDx.
| mehulashah wrote:
| I'm so confused!
| colonCapitalDee wrote:
| Well now I know what monday's Money Stuff is going to be about
| rzz3 wrote:
| 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?
| andylynch wrote:
| As someone who has run similar platforms, I am joking but also
| not, when I say probably weaker listing rules and poorer
| liquidity.
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| 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.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| 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.
| codegladiator wrote:
| Similar in India, there is BSE and NSE
| crossroadsguy wrote:
| 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).
| tolien wrote:
| BSE makes me think of Mad Cow Disease [1], quite the bull
| market.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephal
| opat...
| doodlebugging wrote:
| 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.
| nebrie wrote:
| Nasdaq Stockholm also has substantially lower listing fees
| than Nasdaq USA.
| HolyLampshade wrote:
| 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.
| Galanwe wrote:
| > So, are the exchanges connected?
|
| 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.
| mFixman wrote:
| Would this mean that the trading hours for stock of companies
| listed in both NYSE branches would be extended by one hour
| due to time differences?
| Galanwe wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Yes. The relevant regulation is Reg NMS [1].
|
| [1] https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/34-51808.pdf
| zoky wrote:
| Yes, by a series of semaphore towers spanning the country
| dedicated to the exchange of stock prices. It's the fastest and
| most secure way.
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=cPeVsniB7b0
| HolyLampshade wrote:
| > So, are the exchanges connected?
|
| 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).
| seydor wrote:
| Is there also a New York, Texas?
|
| Actually yes there is. Next up, NYSE launches in Paris, Texas.
| xarope wrote:
| TIL there's an Eiffel Tower[0] in Paris, Texas!
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower_(Paris,_Texas)
| xandrius wrote:
| It actually has a cowboy hat, incredible!
| jmcgough wrote:
| And can do gender reveals!
| rob74 wrote:
| ...but the one in Paris, Tennessee (https://en.wikipedia.or
| g/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)...
| jdwithit wrote:
| 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]
|
| 0: https://www.mainepublic.org/maine/2015-09-24/why-are-so-
| many...
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| 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.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| 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.
| pugets wrote:
| Missouri has a lot of those names, too.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Missouri_places_named_.
| ..
| rob74 wrote:
| Ah yes, Paris, Texas - made famous by a movie
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas_(film)), which
| inspired the name for a (Scottish!) band
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_(band)), which then of
| course eventually had to publish a concert DVD named "Texas
| Paris" (the concert wasn't in Paris, Texas however, but in
| Paris, France - https://www.amazon.fr/Texas-Paris-Concert-
| integral-Bercy/dp/...).
| arrowsmith wrote:
| There's also a Texas, New York:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas,_New_York
| itishappy wrote:
| > It is officially part of the town of Mexico.
|
| Mexico, New York, of course.
| jp57 wrote:
| Euronext Texas, based in Paris.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| at least it will no longer be regulated by the CEO's wife
|
| they horse traded her to the SBA this time
| gre wrote:
| What does this mean for the planned Texas Stock Exchange?
|
| https://www.txse.com/
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Stock_Exchange
| aa_is_op wrote:
| It means it got outplayed
| alberth wrote:
| HN thread on this topic (250+ comments)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40584563
| xyst wrote:
| Probably not much? Scammy companies that cannot meet the
| standards of NYSE or NASDAQ will list on TSE instead?
|
| May as well be buying OTC
| wslh wrote:
| 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.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| There are lots of alternate venues already for listings.
|
| Most of the cost in going public comes from federal
| securities law, not exchange rules.
| wslh wrote:
| 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.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| 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.
| ks6g10 wrote:
| TXSE*
|
| TSE would be the Tokyo Stock Exchange
| TMWNN wrote:
| > _Toronto_ Stock Exchange
|
| FTFY
| HolyLampshade wrote:
| It's really damn amusing and confusing when Toronto
| mostly refers to themselves as TSX, and the Tokyo Stock
| Exchange goes by TSE or TKS...
| HolyLampshade wrote:
| 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.
| Galanwe wrote:
| > 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.
| parasense wrote:
| 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.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| These "folks" run their "Chicago" exchange out of NJ and
| this announcement has nothing to do with moving the
| matching engine.
| Galanwe wrote:
| > 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.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| > We're talking about maybe 4/5 firms worldwide making
| single to low double digits billions in P&L
|
| 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.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| We had that system, it was dominated by expensive pit
| traders and the spreads (the main cost driver for most
| people) were gigantic.
|
| This argument is precisely Luddite and a strange position
| for anyone on this particular forum.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| 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.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| Before the internet? Things are a bit different now. HFT
| monopolized the market maker/arbitrage money with
| millisecond executions that nobody can compete with.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| 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.
| Galanwe wrote:
| > That is a fair amount of money
|
| 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.
| bluGill wrote:
| 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.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| I worked for a NYSE Specialist floor broker back in the
| day.
|
| 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.
| vel0city wrote:
| > 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.
| Galanwe wrote:
| > 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.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| 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.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| 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.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > the SEC should grow the courage
|
| 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.
| jethro_tell wrote:
| Yeah, the time to grow the courage to do the right thing
| was the last 4 years but seems on one could be bothered
| so now we are here
| elzbardico wrote:
| Too bad they used the last 4 years mostly to do the
| absurdly stupid wrong thing.
| atomicnumber3 wrote:
| 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.)
| areyousure wrote:
| > You can't _just_ go get 2 shares of SPY off the lits,
| so where dyou think those are coming from?
|
| Why can't you just get 2 shares on an exchange?
| ddulaney wrote:
| 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.
| areyousure wrote:
| My research suggests that the majority of on-exchange
| trades are odd lots.
|
| 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...
| atomicnumber3 wrote:
| 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.
| areyousure wrote:
| Sadly, firms abuse odd lot rules to give people terrible
| prices: https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/
| 2y01-1s13/d...
|
| 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!
| Galanwe wrote:
| 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.
| eej71 wrote:
| 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.
| bhaney wrote:
| Can I get an ELI5 of "listings play" and "crack the
| listings code"?
| decimalenough wrote:
| Make an exchange attractive to new listings.
|
| 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.
| bluGill wrote:
| 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)
| eej71 wrote:
| The vast majority of trading is done digitally these
| days.
|
| For an overview of how much flows through each venue,
| CBOE has this nice summary page.
|
| https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/
| bluGill wrote:
| Exactly my point.
| eej71 wrote:
| 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.
| HolyLampshade wrote:
| 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.
| HolyLampshade wrote:
| 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.
| GenerWork wrote:
| >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?
| bobthepanda wrote:
| If you are doing HFT every ms counts, to the point where
| firms spend billions on new submarine cables between New
| York and London to shave off time
| azinman2 wrote:
| 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?
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Because you need to be close to the other venues where
| the symbol trades.
| positr0n wrote:
| What's happening is arbitrage between New York and
| London, not decision making in London for New York listed
| stocks.
| HolyLampshade wrote:
| 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.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| Funny that this gets a lot of uploads here.
|
| 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.
| addicted wrote:
| It's not even another exchange.
|
| It's NYSE Chicago rebranding.
| mr_mitm wrote:
| 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.)
| Galanwe wrote:
| It's historical.
|
| 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).
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| 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.
| immibis wrote:
| If this was NYSE Montana, nobody would care. Texas is
| important news because all the big companies are currently
| moving to Texas to avoid regulations.
| kensai wrote:
| Why do they close NYSE Chicago though?
| jonstewart wrote:
| Chicagoans are not dumb enough to list on a local exchange
| these days, over the NYSE. Texans, though?
| travoc wrote:
| It's cute that you think stock exchanges are only used by
| people who live in that city.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| 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.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Because Chicago is becoming more and more irrelevant as a place
| to do business. Great city but decades of bad management adds
| up unfortunately.
| jeremiemyhren wrote:
| 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.
| Cornbilly wrote:
| 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.
| xyst wrote:
| 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?
| kasey_junk wrote:
| There is no such thing as a "Chicago Branch" in this case.
| This is purely a corporate legal move.
|
| I'd be surprised if they moved the matching engine out of
| mahwah.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| 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.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > "Texas is a market leader in fostering a pro-business
| atmosphere,"
|
| > and business-friendly regulatory agenda.
|
| So whats the deal here? Something about taxes? Or looser
| regulation/oversight?
| officialchicken wrote:
| All the above, Enron as a Market.
| renegade-otter wrote:
| 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.
|
| Oh, your taxes will go up - someone will have to foot the bill.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| 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.
| yndoendo wrote:
| 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.
| treyd wrote:
| > 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.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| That isn't capitalism-the-concept. That's a perverse
| incentive leading to an undesired outcome in the real
| world.
|
| Whether or not that outcome is an inevitable consequence
| of the ideology is an entirely different discussion.
| ourmandave wrote:
| As long as they can keep the lights on.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| I see what you did there.
|
| Touche.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _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]_
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis#Inten
| s...
| parasense wrote:
| I smell money!
| technofiend wrote:
| Legislation was tightened after the S & L crisis and at
| least according to Investopedia was the itself was due in
| part to lax oversight:
|
| 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.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| That lax regulation allowed:
|
| >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.
| grandempire wrote:
| Is NYSE the perfect level of regulation and anything less is
| disaster?
| cdblades wrote:
| I don't think that's a fair reading of the comment you're
| replying to.
|
| Seems like a purposefully-constructed straw-man to me,
| really.
| grandempire wrote:
| 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.
| cdblades wrote:
| I...do agree that it sounds ridiculous, and my point was
| that that was not what the original commenter was saying.
|
| Your interpretation of their comment is far-fetched, and
| not a useful entry into a conversation about their point.
| grandempire wrote:
| 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.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| 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.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| 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.
| diggan wrote:
| > They've started to use that power.
|
| Can you give some examples of how they used some power
| recently, that they didn't use before?
| rchaud wrote:
| Prosecuting and convicting the current head of state comes
| to mind.
| cheema33 wrote:
| > Prosecuting and convicting the current head of state
| comes to mind.
|
| Are you suggesting that the current head of state did not
| commit the crimes he was found guilty of by a jury?
| influx wrote:
| He was found guilty and our justice system is flawless.
| rchaud wrote:
| See my other comment in this thread.
| rsynnott wrote:
| 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.
| rchaud wrote:
| 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].
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm274m25e4ro
| rsynnott wrote:
| 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.
| everfrustrated wrote:
| I believe the ~NYSE~ Nasdaq added requirements that any
| company listed on their exchange has to follow certain
| political (as in not economic) rules.
|
| Edit: Nasdaq not NYSE
| dsr_ wrote:
| NYSE Texas will be a leader in discovering the optimal amount
| of fraud. Expect overshoots.
| bee_rider wrote:
| 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.
| jp57 wrote:
| Getting away from the Manhattan district attorney's office,
| probably.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| 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.
| chews wrote:
| Taxes are the only reason, this allows energy companies with
| investors who are also instate, to get the best price for
| execution.
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| I saw an interesting table the other day. Uploaded here:
|
| > https://ibb.co/9kRrKs90
|
| > 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.
|
| > Austin, TX -- Indie music, tech insurgency, rebellious
| entrepreneurialism
|
| The NYSE is apparently trying to tap latent cultural energy.
| personomas wrote:
| It seems they chose Dallas.
| slim wrote:
| I interpreted it as revising national vision all the way back
| to before civil war
| dublinben wrote:
| Where did you find this? I can't seem to find an original
| source anywhere.
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| It was on Christopher Sandbatch's Twitter account about a
| week ago. No idea where he got it.
|
| https://x.com/CSandbatch/status/1888036416120144109
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| why?
|
| Is this like TED making TEDx
| Thorrez wrote:
| NYSE Chicago is moving to Texas and being renamed.
|
| So it's like TEDx moving and being renamed (e.g. to TED2).
| jonstewart wrote:
| 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.
| phlipski wrote:
| Think about the target audience for those two products and
| you'll quickly understand why a SaaS "Texas Edition" would be
| DOA...
| riskable wrote:
| Join our cloud provider today! Now featuring Texas Billing!
| doodlebugging wrote:
| 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.
| jonstewart wrote:
| Having grown up in Wisconsin... block heaters are a useful
| part to have! Especially in decades past, before fuel
| injection was solved.
|
| I've never seen another state-specific car model package,
| though will take on faith there may be others.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| 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.
| dangus wrote:
| First paragraph: we're not all idiots.
|
| Second paragraph: we're kind of idiots.
|
| Texas education ranking: 43rd
| doodlebugging wrote:
| 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.
| randcraw wrote:
| 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.
| maz1b wrote:
| Why leave Chicago?
| Cornbilly wrote:
| 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.
| randcraw wrote:
| 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.
| nabla9 wrote:
| I can foresee a big hat Texas Crypto boom that will zero
| retirement plans from middle class MAGA and libertarian tech bro
| crowd in 8 years.
| pimlottc wrote:
| 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?
| minimax wrote:
| 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.
| dangus wrote:
| In other words, NYSE wants technical operations in a state
| with piss poor labor protections.
| cosmic_quanta wrote:
| Chicago remains the hub for commodities
| anonu wrote:
| 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.
| timisthief wrote:
| The CEO of ICE (the holding company of NYSE) is married to
| Kelly Loeffler, who was the republican senator from Georgia
| from 2020-2021.
| Etheryte wrote:
| That's an interesting tidbit, but how is this related to the
| discussion? Maybe I'm missing something?
| Me000 wrote:
| The political aspect of these is what made them successful,
| not hard work. So they are evil.
| vagab0nd wrote:
| So how much more money will be spent on fiber optics and
| microwave towers?
| steveBK123 wrote:
| 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.
| HolyLampshade wrote:
| 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.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| The market data business is quite an oligopoly
| outside1234 wrote:
| What is the real reason for this? Is it so you can list something
| fraudulent or avoid security regulations?
| k-i-r-t-h-i wrote:
| Sigh... more exchanges. More fees. Worse execution for retail,
| better for trading firms.
|
| https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/
| echelon wrote:
| A monopoly is better for retail consumers?
|
| 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?
| daveguy wrote:
| > A monopoly is better for retail consumers?
|
| 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.
| verteu wrote:
| 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).
| nuc1e0n wrote:
| Shouldn't it be called TXSE rather than NYSE Texas?
| gre wrote:
| Maybe it should, but that already exists (and is launching in
| 2026). See the thread about it in this discussion [1].
|
| https://www.txse.com/
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43046115
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-14 23:01 UTC)