[HN Gopher] SEC approves Texas Stock Exchange, first new US inte...
___________________________________________________________________
SEC approves Texas Stock Exchange, first new US integrated exchange
in decades
Author : pseudolus
Score : 477 points
Date : 2025-10-04 16:04 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbsnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbsnews.com)
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Can only imagine how washtrading will become like American pie.
| philipallstar wrote:
| There were already two exchanges. I don't think this changes
| much.
| kristianbrigman wrote:
| NYSE, NASDAQ, but also AMEX...
| this_user wrote:
| There are currently about two dozen national securities
| exchanges plus a whole lot of alternative trading venues,
| broker internalisation, and whole market makers that match
| orders directly. It's a highly fragmented market where one
| additional exchange will have no substantial impact.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| One exchange in a failed, fascist state is a bit different.
| eej71 wrote:
| A good overview of the flow of volume through these various
| venues can be found here. Bottom line - there are more than
| two exchanges.
|
| https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/
| bluGill wrote:
| More than that, London and Tokyo both have well known
| exchanges, and large US companies are often listed on both of
| those as well. If you tried to tell me that no other country
| has an exchange I'd call you a lair without bothering to fact
| check you. (My impression is New York, London, and Tokyo are
| the big ones that matter in the world and everything else is
| a me too - but in their niche/country they may still be a big
| deal)
|
| Most smaller companies are just listing on something like
| NASDAQ, which isn't confined to a city. With modern computers
| the idea of an exchange in a city is not nearly as useful as
| it was 150 years ago.
| Iwan-Zotow wrote:
| HK as well
| viraptor wrote:
| > world-class exchange rooted in alignment
|
| Does this actually mean something specific?
| chronic74939 wrote:
| > Does this actually mean something specific?
|
| Probably:
|
| Trade matching algorithms (prorata, FIFO, TOP) and rules
| (capital requirements, market impact definitions) will align
| with the interests of the most profitable customers.
|
| Citadel Securities, with their HFT-level returns of 50-100% per
| year will not venture into a losing business.
|
| Note, CitSec is different from Citadel (hedge fund), and the
| hedge fund is also crazy with 40% annual return before fees
| (past 20 years) and 19% after fees to the outside passive
| investor.
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| How does this compare to HRT?
| pols45 wrote:
| No. They have planted a seed and Trees don't grow overnight.
| downrightmike wrote:
| Enron 2.0
| tcbawo wrote:
| Is there anything interesting or novel about this exchange, other
| than its headquarters are located in Texas? From what I can tell,
| the primary data centers will be in New Jersey like all the
| others.
| janmo wrote:
| Hopefully they will provide cheap market data like IEX did in
| its beginning.
| H8crilA wrote:
| Yeah, this is more competition on the scene. We should
| welcome competition.
| __d wrote:
| Yes, but it's also another NMS venue that everyone needs to
| connect to, so there's a cost as well.
| ijidak wrote:
| Is there a similar source you're aware of, cheap with a clean
| API? Hated to lose IEX.
| janmo wrote:
| Depends what you are looking for. Is it real time quotes?
|
| IEX data is now free after 15minutes instead of
| 15milliseconds.
|
| One option is the Databento US Equities Mini for 200 USD
| per month. If I understand it correctly it is some sort of
| weighted average between multiple exchanges.
| neomantra wrote:
| I've been happy with Databento as a low-friction way to
| get market data. I liked it so much, I ported their
| structs and APIs to Golang. [1]
|
| Their EQUS Mini dataset is a great way to dip the toe if
| you want live data without licensing restrictions.
| Databento's article talks exactly about how it is
| sourced, but it is not that it is averaged but
| anonymized, specifically because of the complexities of
| upstream exchange licensing. [2]
|
| You don't have to pay $200 per month for that -- that's
| for all-you-can-eat. You can experiment with pay as you
| go.
|
| You can use my dbn-go tools to help you... here's the
| cost to get all the 1-day candlesticks for all the US
| Equity Symbols for 1-year... which you could use to make
| all sorts of charts and redistribute them freely (the
| trickiest part honestly): $ dbn-go-hist
| cost --dataset EQUS.SUMMARY -t 2024-07-01 -e 2025-07-01
| -s ohlcv-1d ALL_SYMBOLS EQUS.SUMMARY ohlcv-1d $
| 4.380178 156772672 bytes 2799512 records $
| dbn-go-hist cost --dataset XNAS.ITCH -t 2024-07-01 -e
| 2025-07-01 -s ohlcv-1d ALL_SYMBOLS XNAS.ITCH
| ohlcv-1d $ 3.784698 135459632 bytes 2418922 records
|
| So $4.38 for all that data or $3.78 for just the NASDAQ
| exchange (not sure of redistribution of that one).
|
| I hang out on their Slack. Today there was a deep
| discussion about optimizing C++ SPSC queues, although it
| is usually isn't too technical like that. They are pretty
| transparent about how they implement things.
|
| [1] https://github.com/NimbleMarkets/dbn-go
|
| [2] https://databento.com/blog/databento-us-equities-
| mini-now-av...
| philipallstar wrote:
| I imagine as businesses move away from NY and SF, they want
| their stock exchange to move with them, and for similar
| reasons.
| jcranmer wrote:
| As far as I'm aware, all of the major exchanges in the US are
| in NY or in Chicago, and even then, Chicago is mostly just
| futures exchanges for commodities and not stock exchanges. So
| unless you're headquartered in NYC (which most companies
| listed on NYSE/NASDAQ are not), you're already not working
| with a stock exchange in the same area as you, and failing to
| collocate the stock exchange isn't really a detriment.
| (Interestingly, even historically, when stock exchanges were
| more plentiful in the country, there just doesn't seem to
| have been much demand for a stock exchange on the west coast
| at all.)
|
| The main reason to move away from the NYSE or NASDAQ is if
| you don't like the rules those stock exchanges have.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| Scams. The answer you are looking for is scams and fraud
| thinkingtoilet wrote:
| Why would businesses want to move away from the 4th largest
| economy in the world to less successful states?
| rafram wrote:
| 40% lower labor costs, 60% political posturing.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| I'm sure all their infrastructure and probably the
| majority of their employees will be in the NYC metro
| area.
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| Theres a lot of reasons people will list (cultural, cost of
| living, quality of life) but the real answer is
|
| 1. Texas is a corrupt state and you can bribe your way in
| to power
|
| 2. No income tax
| kstrauser wrote:
| And yet, it'll be inevitably be seen as the Dollar Store
| stock exchange.
|
| "Well, we IPOed!"
|
| "Congratulations!"
|
| "...in Texas."
|
| "Do you need to use me as a reference?"
| raverbashing wrote:
| Ah so no timing arbitrage in finding a place in Tennessee where
| data arrives from both places milliseconds apart and you can
| explore minor differences in pricing
| no_circuit wrote:
| Yes, from https://www.txse.com/solutions:
| TXSE's goal is to provide greater alignment with issuers and
| investors and address the high cost of going and staying
| public.
|
| The alignment part translates IMO to avoiding political /
| social science policy issues like avoiding affirmative action
| listing requirements like the Nasdaq Board Diversity Rules that
| was just recently repealed:
| https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/01/12/fifth-circuit-
| vac....
|
| So it is as one might imagine, the formation was probably for
| similar reasons why owners are moving their company
| registration out of Delaware.
| abirch wrote:
| Delaware protects the shareholders. It's uncertain what will
| happen in Texas.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-01/texas-.
| .. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-02-03/texa
| s-...
| username332211 wrote:
| I'm sorry but what?
|
| Delaware law exclusively protects the interests of the
| board of directors. It allows for a unique provision - the
| hilariously misnamed "Shareholders Rights Plan" that enable
| a board of directors to issue shares as they please, in
| order to make sure every attempt at takeover isn't against
| the interests of the directors.
|
| The only check on the power of the board in a Delaware
| corporation is the Delaware court of chancellery.
| caminante wrote:
| The irony is that the Levine article the parent provided
| argues that DE did the exact opposite of shareholder
| wishes!
|
| _> it is weird that Tesla's management and board of
| directors and (a large majority of) shareholders all
| agreed that Musk should get paid $55.8 billion for
| creating $600 billion of shareholder value, and he did do
| that, and he got paid that, and a judge overruled that
| decision and ordered him to give back the money. I can
| see why Musk -- and Tesla's board, and its shareholders
| -- would find that objectionable! They're trying to run a
| company here._
| underlipton wrote:
| In a structurally-biased environment, the loss of policies
| that counteract that bias does not allow companies to "avoid"
| politics and social science; it allows them to take the side
| in favor of the structurally-biased status quo. Just so we're
| clear about what that is.
| piltdownman wrote:
| Run by Blackrock & Citadel, instigated in part to circumvent
| DEI protections, in a State that can't keep their power grid
| stable, promising less regulations for the people running it
| and listing their companies on it.
|
| Simply put, this is Republicans pushing for "Y'all Street".
| Target one will be earnings reports, but the eventual push will
| be to not be overseen by the SEC in some important capacity.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| > in part to circumvent DEI protections
|
| Those were struck down 11 months ago, though?
|
| > eventual push will be to not be overseen by the SEC
|
| But no crimes will be committed, because they're trustworthy
| businessmen
| lupusreal wrote:
| > DEI protections
|
| Forgive my ignorance, but what does that mean in this
| context?
| crowcroft wrote:
| I don't think the NYSE had any DEI requirements, but the
| NASDAQ created a rule where boards needed some minority
| representation in order to be listed. That rule was
| challenged and overturned in court though.
|
| > On August 6, 2021, the SEC approved Nasdaq's proposed
| diversity rule for companies listed on its exchange. The
| rule required Nasdaq-listed companies to (1) publicly
| disclose board-level demographic data annually and (2)
| have, or explain why they do not have, a certain number of
| diverse directors on their boards. Companies with more than
| five board members were required to have two members from
| an underrepresented group, including one female and one
| person who self-identifies as Black, Hispanic, Asian,
| Native American, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, Pacific
| Islander, biracial, or LGBTQ+.
|
| https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/fifth-
| cir...
| lupusreal wrote:
| Sounds illegal, no wonder the courts tossed it.
| hiatus wrote:
| > will be to not be overseen by the SEC in some important
| capacity.
|
| How would a securities exchange avoid being regulated by the
| securities and exchange commission?
| hbarka wrote:
| When you have headlines like this: https://www.ft.com/conte
| nt/55d4c6e5-663b-4b09-a374-1a607f82a...
| caminante wrote:
| Relevancy to the question raised above, aside, that's a
| bad article headline as it doesn't match the contents.
|
| SEC Chair says they are going to hunt crooks more
| aggressively, but won't leverage dawn raids as much to
| chase technical violations.
| hobs wrote:
| > SEC set to see hundreds leave through buyout,
| retirement offers
| https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/21/sec-buyouts-
| retirem...
|
| > US SEC buyouts hit legal, investment divisions hardest,
| data shows https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-
| work/secs-legal-in...
|
| > SEC Formally Withdraws Fourteen Rule Proposals
| https://www.proskauer.com/alert/sec-withdraws-fourteen-
| rule-...
|
| The actions generally do not seem to match the words, and
| seem to point to a general trend of deregulation and lack
| of oversight (as the administration has said they would
| do, and especially in the crypto space has essentially
| stopped prosecuting crimes)
| caminante wrote:
| Going up-thread, here's the original claim under
| contention:
|
| _> > will be to not be overseen by the SEC in some
| important capacity._
|
| Your articles don't dispute this.
|
| As for whether oversight will be "weaker" and more de-
| regulated, maybe.
|
| 1. There's a headcount reduction. At worst, there's a
| quote that some really experienced watchdogs are out the
| door. Hard to tell until we get outcomes.
|
| 2. As for withdrawal of proposals, look closer.
|
| _> Although most observers doubted that the current
| Commission would adopt these proposals_
|
| Which makes it sound like the proposals were just
| withdrawn for later submittal and new discussion.
| Footnote #1 goes into how this isn't really
| unprecedented, citing similar withdrawals (or resets)
| under the Biden admin.
| hobs wrote:
| Sure, I am just saying the comment about "hunting crooks
| more aggressively" seems to run counter to their anti-
| regulation stance, and their active lack of hunting
| crooks.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > How would a securities exchange avoid being regulated by
| the securities and exchange commission?
|
| By having a Governor who's friendly with the President?
|
| The President has a good amount of sway over the SEC.
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/legal/2025/03/03/sec-
| dr...
| eej71 wrote:
| Consider a broader range of news sources in your daily diet.
| ecshafer wrote:
| This is tinfoil hat conspiracy thinking.
| toss1 wrote:
| Right. Just like all the autocratic Project 2025 plans,
| defunding healthcare to give tax breaks to billionaires,
| sending US military to police US cities, and all the other
| current actions were " tinfoil hat conspiracy thinking".
|
| There is a party actively committed to implementing
| autocracy as fast as it can. To willfully ignore that and
| attempt to deflect from it as you are doing is wrong.
|
| Moreover, if you don't think an autocracy will hurt _YOU_
| because you are in some protected group, you are wrong --
| it might not hurt you first, but it _will_ hurt everyone,
| including you.
| hunterpayne wrote:
| Moved on from the fascist rhetoric I see.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| People online like to yak about the woke nonsense.
|
| Reality is there are tax and regulatory advantages. The courts
| are setup in a way that is favorable to business. They read a
| very strict interpretation of contracts which is good in some
| scenarios.
|
| Texas politics is a train wreck, but their bureaucracy is
| pretty good for a business - things like permitting and other
| regulatory processes are faster. They also will firehouse you
| with incentives.
| jjk166 wrote:
| > Reality is there are tax and regulatory advantages. The
| courts are setup in a way that is favorable to business. They
| read a very strict interpretation of contracts which is good
| in some scenarios.
|
| > Texas politics is a train wreck, but their bureaucracy is
| pretty good for a business - things like permitting and other
| regulatory processes are faster. They also will firehouse you
| with incentives.
|
| None of that is really relevant to a stock exchange though.
| Being on the Texas stock exchange doesn't mean you are
| subject to Texas laws and regulations just like being on the
| New York Stock Exchange doesn't subject you to New York laws
| and regulations.
| ivape wrote:
| Speculation (no pun intended), but ...
|
| CEO OF Robinhood has been talking about offering crypto as a
| vector for acquiring shares for private companies:
|
| https://www.sec.gov/about/crypto-task-force/written-submissi...
|
| This admin and this new exchange would probably allow all kinds
| of nonsense to be publicly traded compared to other exchanges.
|
| We've got three more years to go and this exchange, or anything
| new that happens in Texas is absolutely going to be tied with
| deregulatory ambitions.
| threetonesun wrote:
| Seems especially suspicious with the 401k executive order,
| like a nice avenue to get unaware people invested in digital
| Beanie Babies.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| You mean that ceo that hawks scam coins as fraudulent ways to
| invest in OpenAI.
| ivape wrote:
| OpenAI will be the largest IPO in quite some time, so I
| totally see why RH is trying to profit off of additional
| derivatives on this thing. Volume will be off the charts.
| 3D30497420 wrote:
| This reads like a press release.
|
| Here's an article that appears to provide a bit more perspective:
| https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/txse-says-sec-appro...
|
| Also, this is a fun nugget from the Reuters article about this
| new exchange providing competition to NYSE and NASDAQ:
|
| > But those rivals are not sitting idly by. On March 31, the NYSE
| opened its own Texas outpost, disclosing that Trump Media &
| Technology would be the first company to list there.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| Adding another source from the Texas Tribune I posted a day or
| two ago but never gained interest
|
| https://www.texastribune.org/2025/10/06/texas-stock-exchange...
| cozzyd wrote:
| Hope they have ample backup power
| bluGill wrote:
| Doesn't matter where you are you need that. There is no place
| in the world where the grid is reliable enough that someone who
| wants to operate with high reliability can get by without ample
| backup power. Grid power is normally a lot cheaper than running
| backup power (that is the capital and maintenance costs are
| sunk costs, just counting fuel) so it isn't worth disconnecting
| from the grid despite having enough backup power that you
| could.
| wongarsu wrote:
| There are grids where you are planning for hours of power
| outage, grids where you plan for days, and grids where you
| plan for weeks. Texas is in that last category. And you have
| to ensure your internet uplink has similarly reliable backup
| power
| qaq wrote:
| some former soviet industrial parks are like that. They had
| redundant direct lines from say local power plant, a direct
| line from fairly far geographically removed Nuclear power
| plant and regular grid. They were classified as critical
| consumer so hospitals would get cut from the grid before they
| would.
| sethhochberg wrote:
| One of my previous employers only lost our east-coast colo
| facility twice in their couple decades of existence:
|
| - once when the DC ran out of diesel and couldn't get any
| more after Hurricane Sandy
|
| - once when the backup generators caught fire and the fire
| department needed to kill grid power to the facility
|
| Everything else is pretty reliable or easier to decouple from
| the local real world
| leetharris wrote:
| Texas loses power one time for a week and the redditors will
| never let it go. Wild how this is still a cringe joke so many
| years later.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| it was an avoidable catastrophe, not just a minor blip
|
| I still remember the northeast blackout from 2003 too and
| that was only a part of a day for me
| avgDev wrote:
| "There have been 263 power outages across Texas since 2019,
| more than any other state, each lasting an average of 160
| minutes and impacting an estimated average of 172,000 Texans,
| according to an analysis by electricity retailer Payless
| Power (https://paylesspower.com/blog/blackout-tracker/)"
|
| Also in 2021 210 people died. This is a huge deal. This
| wasn't just a little outage.
| leetharris wrote:
| What you talked about is not a Texas grid problem, but a
| local problem. The Texas grid itself is very reliable.
|
| > Also in 2021 210 people died. This is a huge deal. This
| wasn't just a little outage.
|
| Yes, a rare storm knocked out power and people died. It is
| a big deal and a lot of things changed after the event.
|
| But I want to put it into perspective. In 2024, ~62,800
| people in Europe died to heat-related events.
| lgregg wrote:
| Yeah, but that isn't really an apples to apples
| comparison. Texas for example had ~400 heat deaths in
| 2024 depending on where you look but in 2023 it was 334
| or 563 depending on your criteria [1].
|
| >But I want to put it into perspective. In 2024, ~62,800
| people in Europe died to heat-related events.
|
| Most of these deaths are not because of electrification
| but the fact that homes are built out of bricks and
| mortar and become ovens with heat waves that get hotter
| each year and ~10% to ~20% [2] of homes in Europe have
| air conditioning meanwhile ~95% [3] of homes have air
| conditioning. Your apples to oranges comparison mostly
| shows how Europe is generically unprepared for climate
| adaption (specifically heat resilience) and has nothing
| to do with electrification stability.
|
| [1] https://www.texasenvironment.org/news-room/heat-
| related-deat... [2] It's all over the place some places
| like UK are around 5% adoption while southern Europe can
| be close to as much as 95% adoption. [3] https://www.eia.
| gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/state/...
| landl0rd wrote:
| It's a perfect apples-to-apples comparison if you level
| accusations of grid incompetence at Texas. Should all
| those EU homes suddenly go out and buy AC, EU power grids
| would have to enact massive load shedding during heat
| waves. Such waves already push demand up, causing local
| blackouts and price spikes: https://www.ft.com/content/23
| b3dc59-b40f-48e2-ad93-e301de7ac...
| ohthanks wrote:
| The vast majority of these 400 heat deaths have nothing
| to do with the power grid. They are people living
| outdoors, roofers, elderly, etc. When the temps hit 105+
| for long periods there are bound to be people who don't
| have access to AC or overexert themselves outdoors.
| ecshafer wrote:
| That website shows California as currently worse. It looks
| like Larger states just have more power outages, which is
| to be expected. Texas also is a weird state that is very
| large it gets Tornadoes, extreme heat, and hurricanes,
| while also having several very large metro areas in it.
| There also isn't anything indicated differences in grid
| monitoring, are all grids (like large rural grids)
| monitored to the same levels?
| throwway120385 wrote:
| California has power outages as a matter of routine in
| some places. When I went there the rural areas were
| constantly experiencing load-shedding power outages and
| some of the rural lodging advertised that they had backup
| generators because this is so routine there.
| schlauerfox wrote:
| also selective exurban areas, for fire prevention, might
| be skewing the numbers. our datacenters in the city don't
| get these outages.
| landl0rd wrote:
| We also have a lot more growth in the past few years than
| most other places, both in relative terms, and in
| absolute (big state + high growth introduces more
| absolute friction than small state). Demand is forecast
| to rise over 20% from 2024 levels vs. an American average
| under 5%: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2025.0
| 7.31/main.svg
|
| We have high power demand in both winter and summer: in
| the latter, air conditioners use a lot; in the former,
| about half of Texans heat with electricity because we
| have less cold and so less usage of cost-effective, grid-
| preserving furnaces.
|
| Texas has been building a ton of wind and solar to
| supplement generation capacity and is taking some
| leadership in the next-gen nuclear stuff for a reliable
| base load, but in the mean time the shortage of CCGTs is
| going to bite in a state where demand goes up this much,
| this fast. SB6 passed this summer also should help with
| reasonable control and oversight.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| 90% of the Texas grid is independent from the rest of the
| country
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Texas has installed a vast number of solar and battery
| backup systems since 2019. And it will be a few years, but
| is going HEAVILY into nuclear (and for the next 3.5, is
| going to get auto-approval to actually build them. ERCOT is
| changing fast, don't rehash stale narratives.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Also wind, more than 40GW installed capacity, leading the
| USA and ahead of many other countries.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Only as long as the Texas politicians don't sabotage
| wind. Texas businesses make lots of money on wind, but
| the legislature and governor absolutely hate it.
| terminalshort wrote:
| So about one every 9 days that affects 0.55% of the
| population. So in a 3 year window a Texan has about a 50%
| chance of losing power for 2.5 hours. Seems pretty good to
| me.
| coherentpony wrote:
| > Texas loses power one time for a week and the redditors
| will never let it go. Wild how this is still a cringe joke so
| many years later.
|
| Texas had the most number of power outages between 2019 and
| 2023 [1].
|
| It wasn't one time. And it's not a joke. Infrastructure
| weatherization is a very real overlooked (and expensive)
| investment that still has not taken place.
|
| [1]: https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116952/docume
| nts/...
| leetharris wrote:
| [flagged]
| coherentpony wrote:
| You originally called someone a redditor making a cringe
| joke for highlighting a serious historical problem. It
| wasn't clear to me that it was a joke at all, but my
| impression is that it seemed clear to you that it was a
| joke.
|
| What if that person has also lived in Texas for 30 years?
| And what if they had a family member that died during
| that power grid failure in 2021? I personally would find
| it quite difficult to communicate to them the nuance of a
| local problem and a state-wide problem when the end
| result is the same: no power.
|
| In the future, you might consider approaching an
| interaction online with more balanced judgement.
|
| Edit: Actually, looking back at the original comment,
| it's not even clear they're talking about the Texas power
| outage in 2021. All they said was "Hope they have ample
| backup power." Seems like a reasonable thing to hope for
| what might be critical infrastructure.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Maybe you got a bit lucky.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis#Bac
| kgr...
|
| > In 2011, Texas was hit by the Groundhog Day blizzard
| between February 1 and 5, resulting in rolling blackouts
| across more than 75% of the state... Following this
| disaster, the North American Electric Reliability
| Corporation made several recommendations for upgrading
| Texas's electrical infrastructure to prevent a similar
| event occurring in the future, but these recommendations
| were ignored due to the cost of winterizing the systems.
|
| > Unlike other power interconnections, Texas does not
| require a reserve margin of power capacity beyond what is
| expected. A 2019 North American Electric Reliability
| Corporation report found that ERCOT had a low anticipated
| reserve margin of generation capacity and was the only
| part of the country without sufficient resources
| available to meet projected peak summer electricity
| demand.
| vel0city wrote:
| If I hadn't been reading headlines I wouldn't have even
| known about the 2011 blackout, and I was definitely here
| for that. Things were pretty much normal for everyone
| around me and friends around the state (Houston, Austin,
| DFW, Lubbock, San Antonio, etc). The Superbowl even went
| ahead in AT&T stadium. It really wasn't as big of a deal
| as a lot of internet commenters seem to act like.
| landl0rd wrote:
| I lived in Texas and we never got rolling blackouts for
| this. We didn't hear about it from family and friends in
| every major Texas city. Maybe this means 75% of the state
| by area rather than population? We just didn't drive
| because much of Texas isn't set up to clear roads and,
| more importantly, few of our drivers know how to deal
| with snow and so most get very unsafe to drive around.
|
| The report your wikipedia article cites for 75% says
| this: "In the case of ERCOT, where rolling blackouts
| affected the largest number of customers (3.2 million),
| there were 3100 MW of responsive reserves available on
| the first day of the event, compared to a minimum
| requirement of 2300 MW." So an eighth or so of Texas' ~25
| million population in 2011.
| jjk166 wrote:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/edhirs/2024/12/09/after-4-years.
| ..
| cozzyd wrote:
| I'm not sure what is meant by Redditors... I haven't used
| Reddit in many years.
|
| Admittedly anectodal, but I don't remember any power outage
| here in Chicago over the last 11 years I lived here, but I
| was in Texas for work for a few weeks this summer at the NASA
| balloon base and there were multiple power outages.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| The Houston metro area is particularly bad. When I lived in
| Austin, the outages were very rare. In Houston, I would
| guess there is at least 1 outage every month that lasts for
| an hour on average.
| vel0city wrote:
| Anecdotal, but I've lived in DFW for over a decade. The
| only time I lost power for more than a minute was due to a
| drunk driver hitting a utility pole just outside my house.
| They had the pole fixed and everything working again within
| an hour.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Having lived in both DFW and Houston, I will definitely
| say Houston's infrastructure is much more fragile, but
| the weather is also much more extreme.
| vel0city wrote:
| Yes, I agree. It was common to lose power for a day or so
| when the big hurricanes rolled through growing up
| Houston.
| skeaker wrote:
| "Redditor" in this context is just an internet-savvy way of
| saying "sheeple."
| next_xibalba wrote:
| Texan here. Going without power for a week during the 2021
| winter black out really, really sucked. It had huge economic
| consequences.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Texas' grid was very reliable when I was growing up there.
| Since deregulation however, it's no longer reliable. It used
| to be mandated that grid facilities were overbuilt to have
| some headroom for emergencies. That's no longer true. Now,
| Texas utilities only maintain the minimum infrastructure
| needed for normal operations and they have no cushion if
| something goes wrong. Any CEO of a Texas utility that spends
| money building overcapacity gets fired by Wall Street.
|
| This was supposed to change after the 2021 crisis, but I
| haven't seen much evidence that it has.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| in many country, electric(or energy) is state company
|
| that way any infrastructure that related to serve the
| citizen well being isn't exploited for profit
|
| why US can't do this????
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| The US did do this for most of the 20th century. Or at
| least something close to this: Many utilities were
| private companies but they were regulated monopolies. The
| state allowed them to be monopolies in exchange for tight
| state control.
|
| In the 1990s this started to change. The idea was that
| the different utilities could compete for customers, and
| thus they wouldn't be monopolies any more and thus market
| forces would take the place of government regulation.
|
| Of course this has failed spectacularly. Deregulation
| brought us the Enron disaster and the 2021 Texas grid
| crisis, among others. But since corporations control the
| US government now, there's no chance regulation will be
| brought back.
| tredre3 wrote:
| I'm surprised that you put the blame squarely on the the
| (bought) government.
|
| Deregulation and "free" markets are something that many
| americans actively want. You can argue that they're
| misinformed and they're advocating against their own
| self-interest. But it's still something they actively
| want, this isn't just the evil corporations taking
| control of the corrupt government.
|
| In fact on this very site I'd wager that more than half
| of Americans users are against regulation in general,
| state ownership of any utility, or any additional control
| on financial markets.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| Yeah, free market is great until some company is reach
| certain size and monopolies certain shares and forces to
| bend the market at will
|
| and US citizen let them do it, how can't you vote the fck
| out of this is crazy
| bdcravens wrote:
| It's not just the "snowpocalypse". In Houston, for example,
| there have been multi-day power outages since then, often
| during hot weather where lack of adequate cooling can become
| a life-threatening concern. Personally I don't find it any
| more "cringe" than the weird boasting people like to do about
| our state.
| paxys wrote:
| I doubt the exchange infrastructure will be physically located
| in Texas.
| HolyLampshade wrote:
| In fact, it won't be. Which is why NYSE was so quick to
| rebrand NYSE Chicago as NYSE Texas when TXSE made the
| announcement they were launching in Equinix NY4 in Secaucus.
| The only real differentiator these guys would have had
| (outside of listings rules) would have been location, but
| they opted for the lower resistance of locating with all the
| other markets.
| chronic74939 wrote:
| > Hope they have ample backup power
|
| Texas has more reliable electricity than California
|
| considering the California electricity provider PG&E shuts off
| the electricity _multiple times a year_ when it gets windy
| outside, to prevent power lines falling (due to lazy
| maintenance) and starting a wildfire
|
| I wonder where the California's additional 13% tax on capital
| gains is being spent? SF parking ticket enforcement?
| tsunamifury wrote:
| What did California have to do with this other than
| everything you are saying being laughable cope and false.
|
| (Regional controlled brownouts and state wide power grid
| failure are not comparable)
| lighthazard wrote:
| Wondering why you'd bring up California in a discussion about
| Texas.
| wmeredith wrote:
| Whataboutism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
| bdcravens wrote:
| "us versus them", "blue vs red", "liberals vs
| conservatives"
|
| Texas is the favorite punching bag of the left, and
| California is the favorite punching bag for the right. When
| one side is attacked, they defensively jump to the default.
| Which is kind of ironic, when you consider there's more
| Democrats in Texas than in many "blue" states, and the
| inverse is also true for California.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| I can find many Republican representatives, Trump, and
| media personalities insulting New York with sweeping
| generalizations and hateful rhetoric.
|
| The only negative comments from Democrat representatives
| and the media on the left I see is are critical of
| specific laws, for example abortion, but they don't
| insult the entire state or generalize.
|
| If you need specific quotes let me know.
| avgDev wrote:
| According to this Texas is the worst.
|
| https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO05/20240312/116952/HHRG.
| ..
| J_Shelby_J wrote:
| Equinix Dallas was hours from running out of fuel during the
| last snowpocalypse.
| hackernewds wrote:
| It would be helpful for readers to know what Equinix is
|
| > Equinix's infrastructure supports the digital services
| businesses rely on, from cloud computing and enterprise
| applications to content delivery and financial trading
| platforms.
| the_duke wrote:
| They are a very popular "high end" server colocation
| provider and have their own network with many peering
| agreements.
|
| A lot of large companies put their servers into Equinix
| data centers.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| Is this saying it was "hours away" and safe or "hours away"
| and nearly missed a disaster? I assume the latter.
| dr-smooth wrote:
| reminds me of "you can't put too much water in a nuclear
| reactor" from SNL...
| htareque wrote:
| For the curious: https://archive.org/details/saturday-
| night-live-s-10-e-06-ed... @ 53:42
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Presumably they've learned from that experience.
| mayhemducks wrote:
| Hahahahahahahahhahaaaaaa hahahaaaaahaaah hahhahaaaa!!!!!
| dylan604 wrote:
| I'm assuming you interpreted _they_ as ERCOT with that
| response
| atmavatar wrote:
| Clearly, they spent a few hours too much on their backup
| capacity.
| Wohlf wrote:
| An exchange having to stop trading and gracefully shut down
| their systems for a few days doesn't really strike me as a
| disaster though.
| IsTom wrote:
| It might be slightly inconvenient to people who want to
| sell their shares.
| terminalshort wrote:
| Not really because there are a lot of stock markets these
| days.
| ta12653421 wrote:
| But depending on the setup, often you just cant "sell the
| one thing at another exchange which you bought earlier at
| a different exchange", sure this depends on the
| country/etc.
| terminalshort wrote:
| There may be some odd financial instrument that can only
| be traded on a single exchange, but that's generally not
| going to be something that is liquid enough for HFT
| trading anyway. The idea that a stock is listed "on the
| NYSE" and can only be traded there is a quaint
| anachronism. e.g. https://help.tradestation.com/10_00/eng
| /tradestationhelp/rou...
| rchaud wrote:
| The NYSE was only closed for 3 business days after 9/11.
| Uptime is important for listed companies.
| htrp wrote:
| Wild! Source?
| latchkey wrote:
| I know of one DC that does government hosting so that they
| get prioritized to keep the lights on.
| SkipperCat wrote:
| The Miami stock exchange (MIAX) has their matching engines
| colocated in Equinix's NY4 data center in Secaucus NJ, much like
| many other exchanges. I would not be surprised if TXSE does the
| same.
|
| Many trading firms already have their trading engines in that
| data center and I would assume TXSE would want quick access to
| that order flow and this might be easier if they are in NY4.
|
| Of course, they may want to have their colo facilities in TX in
| their own data center, that way they can rent out space and make
| some extra revenue, but then they'd have to build that out.
| Bluecobra wrote:
| If anything they will build a backup DC in Texas so they can
| hold that over NJ in case the local government starts talking
| about transaction taxes again. The CME is currently building a
| "backup" private Google Cloud datacenter in Dallas.
| chronic74939 wrote:
| > The CME is currently building a "backup" private Google
| Cloud datacenter in Dallas.
|
| This has been "in progress" for over 5 years now.
| vslira wrote:
| Probably doesn't ever need to be completed, just in the
| works as a reminder every time the aforementioned taxes are
| floated as an idea
| chrismustcode wrote:
| Couldn't they just send some hardware down Texas to co-locate
| there (presuming specialist hardware) and add another
| deployment target for their software? Would it be that hard?
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| The issue is the speed of light.
| terminalshort wrote:
| Not really because anyone running a trading strategy that
| needs to worry about latency is already running their
| servers in the same datacenter as the exchange, so that
| just moves with it. What probably is an issue is that the
| datacenters required for a market don't look like AWS
| datacenters. I don't have any direct experience here, but I
| would be shocked if HFT software is something you could
| just deploy to a standard VM like on AWS.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| They'd probably be running in an Equinix facility instead
| of AWS.
| leecarraher wrote:
| for an interesting reversal of the "problem" of the speed
| of light, IEX is a stock exchange design to combat HFT by
| adding a physical speed bump by way of 38 miles of fiber
| optic cable. The general idea being to level the playing
| field and improve market liquidity using physical
| communication limits of light.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEX
| kasey_junk wrote:
| That marketing gimic adds hundreds of microseconds to
| order latency. It's not designed to level any playing
| fields it's designed to get publicity.
| walthamstow wrote:
| The speed of light limits fibre speed which in turn limits
| high-frequency trading.
|
| Flash Boys by Michael Lewis was a fun read on the subject.
| One memorable quote alleged that HFT traders would "sell
| their grandmothers for a microsecond [of edge]"
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| TXSE has also made overtures about putting live trading in New
| Jersey like everyone else, but they may be putting their back-
| end in Texas.
| robocat wrote:
| > I would assume TXSE would want quick access to that order
| flow
|
| Perhaps Texas could use a different trading model that doesn't
| require ultra high speed trading.
|
| Matt Levine often mulls the idea of a system with a trading
| window that doesn't let the fastest connection to the order
| book win. Perhaps an order book that works at human speeds so
| humans can trade too (I can think of a few ways to do it - but
| would need modelling to try and figure what actually works). He
| points out that most trades are done in the last hour, so
| really trading only needs to occur once a day.
|
| The issue is whether a market trading system can be designed
| with suitable restrictions that _beats_ the current market
| design (for listed companies and for traders).
|
| Designing markets is hard because you have to assume every
| player is selfish and only cooperates where it is to their
| benefit and will defect or cheat if the incentives of the
| market encourage that (Enron in the California energy markets).
|
| Unlikely since SEC would need to approve of a different system
| of market trade incentives.
|
| Edit: Personally I would like to see an exchange that was more
| international. I'm from New Zealand and our good businesses
| often list on the Australian exchange rather than the NZSX. The
| system of ADRs for other countries feels like a massive hack.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > He points out that most trades are done in the last hour,
| so really trading only needs to occur once a day.
|
| Presumably then the last trader has the most information, and
| so the game would be getting the info as late as possible and
| trading as late as possible, but not too late.
| schlauerfox wrote:
| That's one thing that will make blockchain trading
| interesting as it's discreet block by block, such as the
| ex-dividend date who holds a stock when the dividends are
| paid, might make fees for that block very competitive. The
| SEC is really struggling now with good regulation but it's
| coming end of the year to draw the line in the sand.
| stuartjohnson12 wrote:
| I was going to make the old joke about discrete vs
| discreet but I suppose that blockchain trading is both.
| jdonaldson wrote:
| throw in discreate as well :)
| phinnaeus wrote:
| And Australian companies often list in the US.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| IEX tried this to much fanfare. Turns out most participants
| don't particularly care about that as a motivating factor.
| peterbonney wrote:
| I'd say IEX has done remarkably well - it's not likely to
| displace NASDAQ or NYSE but it has solidified its place as
| the #3 US exchange by any reasonable measure. If TXSE
| achieves comparable market share I'd call that a wild
| success.
|
| You're not wrong to say that most participants don't care
| about what IEX offers, but enough do to make a meaningful
| dent in trading volume.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| It's definitely not 3rd place. That's cboe and it's not
| close. It's hanging around with ~2% of the trade volume.
|
| https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/
|
| I don't know if that is "remarkably well" but it
| certainly isn't some market paradigm shift.
|
| If you were to tell me in 10 years the Texas exchange
| would have 2% of the market I'd believe you. But I'd
| still not be terribly impressed.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| IEX is "3rd place" in their mind only because the other
| 12 exchanges are owned by two companies. IEX is 13/13 for
| volume, and the main reason they have any volume is
| because IEX sometimes has the NBBO so you have to trade
| there per reg NMS.
| peterbonney wrote:
| You're right, my view is way out of date. I didn't
| realize CBOE had grown so much in straight equities
| trading. IEX is the best of the rest, but it's NYSE,
| NASDAQ and (to my surprise) CBOE as the clear top 3.
| mtoner23 wrote:
| Cboe miax and memx are all doing better than IEX
| usefulcat wrote:
| > #3 US exchange by any reasonable measure
|
| According to their stats, they are usually around 3% of
| the market:
|
| https://iextrading.com/stats/
| infecto wrote:
| That's what always surprises me when folks bring this up.
| Nobody in the market cares. Institutional investor
| experience some of the lowest trading cost in history.
| These complaints are most often coming from retail traders
| where again I don't follow the argument. Instead of some
| guy on the floor picking up dollars with have machines
| picking up pennies. This is a win for everyone.
| fijiaarone wrote:
| Nobody in the market cares because everyone in the market
| are cheaters. There is a huge untapped potential of
| people outside the current market that do not participate
| because they know the market is rigged against them.
|
| A fair market could be huge, but the trick is keeping it
| fair. It used to be more fair, and we used to have a
| healthier economy because of it.
|
| It's not like most of the unfairness in the current
| market couldn't be dealt with, probably with laws already
| on the books. Most HFT strategies are not only blatantly
| dishonest but also clearly illegal. The government looks
| the other way though, because corruption.
| usefulcat wrote:
| > Most HFT strategies are not only blatantly dishonest
| but also clearly illegal.
|
| What specific strategies are you referring to? Genuinely
| curious.
| twothreeone wrote:
| "Most trades" doesn't necessarily mean "most profitable
| trades" ;)
| AaronM wrote:
| If trades were batch processed say every 5 seconds, and
| randomized in the case of ties would that solve the fastest
| connection issue?
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| IIUC being fast is not as much of a problem as dropping in
| a bid and cancelling it at the last moment
| valkmit wrote:
| Also it just changes the nature of the game. There's no
| incentive to interact with the batch until the absolute
| last microsecond. It will still be dominated by latency-
| sensitive participants, just in a manner where the
| difference between visible liquidity and latent liquidity
| is even more diverged from reality (on average).
| pants2 wrote:
| One interesting approach to this is the gas auction system in
| DeFi where (on Ethereum) traders bid to have their trades
| included first in a block, and that additional payment is
| burned / accretive to ETH holders. Though that turns "fastest
| connection" into "highest bidder" advantage.
|
| Another approach that Aztec and some others are taking is to
| shield all transactions with zkSNARKs such that the intent of
| a transaction isn't known until it's completed. Combined with
| deterministic block times you could force random ordering of
| transactions in batches, effectively mitigating the fastest
| connection OR highest bidder advantage.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| The real question is whether we even need stock exchange
| organizations if we can do it all on chain without them. I
| think the only thing you really need is someone to handle
| the stock ownership credentials in the event that legal
| action require involuntary transfers, that sort of thing.
| That could be a much smaller footprint organization, I
| think.
| pants2 wrote:
| That's the promise of tokenized securities! Securitize +
| BlackRock are trying to make that happen. This should
| remove a lot of middlemen to the trading and settlement
| process.
| mhh__ wrote:
| I suppose you could but the problem is that the liquidity
| would be either shit or more charitably very different to
| other exchanges that already do what they're supposed to do.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Just make all positions irrevocable for at least 10 seconds
| after posting.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Just make all positions irrevocable for at least 10
| seconds after posting_
|
| Sounds great for Wall Street. Spreads would necessarily
| widen as people buffer out. Meanwhile, you've turned every
| lit order into a 10-second option for market participants.
| Which means there is still a latency advantage to lifting
| or hitting a standing order first.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| only if you make those bids visible. the bids are held in
| a buffer and at the end of the buffer, it either
| completes a trade or appears on the order book. iirc some
| market tried to do this with a literal loop with a
| physical latency.
| softwreoutthere wrote:
| why would they do that? the system is designed to reward
| asymmetry.
| usefulcat wrote:
| > Perhaps Texas could use a different trading model that
| doesn't require ultra high speed trading.
|
| What would that look like? Periodic auctions? Certainly it
| could be done, I'm just trying to understand what problem
| might be solved, and whether the solution would be effective.
|
| For example, even with the opening and closing auctions we
| have today, there can be an advantage to getting your order
| accepted _right_ before the deadline. Some participants do
| this, most don 't really (depending on the exact definition
| of "right before"). But the fact that some do tells me that
| some participants would do the same thing with periodic
| auctions, and at least for them latency would still be
| important.
|
| If, as seems likely, latency is fundamentally important to at
| least some styles of trading, how do you incentivize
| participants to _not_ value it?
| jen20 wrote:
| One option is to add a random delay to every trade, thus
| making high speed arbitrage substantially more difficult.
| ukd1 wrote:
| Another is to reset the clock on the auction each change
| drob518 wrote:
| I suspect that randomness of some sort is the only way.
| Without that, whatever the rules of the game, there is a
| way to somehow get a slim advantage. You can make the
| advantage small and the costs to try to gain it large,
| such that it isn't cost effective to try, but as we've
| seen with HFT, it's amazing how much people will spend to
| pick up pennies. Even a tiny gain, exploited frequently
| enough can be quite profitable.
| jedberg wrote:
| You take bids continuously but publish the bids and
| "resolve" the auction every X seconds, where X is between 5
| and 10. Then there is no speed advantage as long as you can
| get your bid in within 5 seconds.
| grafmax wrote:
| There is still a speed advantage. You can look at
| correlated markets for example and trade at the end of
| the time window with 5 seconds more info than anyone
| trading at the start of the time window.
| jedberg wrote:
| Except with the randomness you won't know if the window
| is 5 seconds or 10 or anything in between. So sure you
| could send in your bit at 4.99 seconds but it won't
| matter if you're a few microseconds off.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| Eric Ries first started talking about a Long-Term Stock
| Exchange, he suggested long (potentially multi-year) lock-
| up periods. The LTSE he actually implemented doesn't have
| that. I speculate that this was a compromised because they
| are allowing dual listings which helps them gain market
| share but also would undermine the entire concept of very
| long lock-ups.
|
| I'd love to see a stock market actually do this.
| resters wrote:
| Reg NMS's Order Protection Rule (Rule 611) says you can't
| trade through protected NBBO quotes, outside a few narrow
| exceptions. That's the letter of the law.
|
| The practical effect isn't just a bit of latency. It rewires
| incentives. With 611 in place, the question for latency-
| sensitive firms becomes: what HFT tactics can I run that are
| 611-compatible? Without 611, the question would be: what HFT
| tactics actually add value for my counterparties? That's a
| very different optimization.
|
| For firms on direct feeds (often building their own synthetic
| NBBO), 611 doesn't add much information. The constraint is
| compliance, not discovery.
|
| Because NBBO is size-agnostic and top-of-book, anchoring
| execution to it lets micro-lot quotes steer outcomes. You can
| influence the protected price with tiny displayed size.
| That's great for gamesmanship, bad for displayed depth, size-
| sensitive pricing, and near-touch discovery.
|
| Also: if two informed counterparties want to trade away from
| the protected price to reflect size or information, 611
| mostly blocks that outside limited carve-outs. We lose
| mutually beneficial, size-aware prints to satisfy a benchmark
| that ignores size.
|
| On settlement, the uniform benchmark helps in calm markets.
| But it's naive to think that holds through a real black swan.
| In stress, timestamp ambiguities and fragmented data make
| "what was executable" contestable, and disputes spike
| regardless of quote protection.
|
| In a sound market structure, the clearer (CCP or clearing
| broker) should carry and underwrite that tail risk--margin,
| default funds, capital, and enforceable rulebooks. Instead,
| 611 shifts accountability onto quote-protection mechanics,
| insulating clearers from responsibility and, perversely,
| amplifying systemic risk when the system most needs well-
| capitalized risk absorbers.
| UltraSane wrote:
| There is no reason why shares should be bought on sold in
| time frames far too short for anything to have meaningfully
| changed about the companies or market conditions.
| jdonaldson wrote:
| The issue isn't that there's a lot of change coming from
| inside the markets, it's that there's a lot of change
| coming from outside the market, and it's all
| interconnected.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| In a millionth of a second? This a rationalization for
| something that is only being done because it can be done.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| When I press the buy and sell button, I want the
| transaction to happen as quickly as possible. So does
| everyone else.
|
| My millionth of a second is different than yours, and
| everyone else's.
|
| It is no different than buying or selling anything else.
| And there is no loss from the additional liquidity, you
| can easily set a limit at which you want to buy or sell.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| >When I press the buy and sell button, I want the
| transaction to happen as quickly as possible. So does
| everyone else.
|
| Nope, not me. I don't mind if it takes like 20 seconds or
| so.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _not me. I don 't mind if it takes like 20 seconds or
| so_
|
| Which is fine! You can probably find a broker who will
| give you fee-free trading with that preference. The price
| you execute at won't be as good. But unless you're
| trading millions, that's probably fine.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| > My millionth of a second is different than yours, and
| everyone else's.
|
| No it isn't.
|
| > I want the transaction to happen as quickly as
| possible. So does everyone else.
|
| Your monitor refresh is about 16,000 times slower so you
| aren't going to know.
|
| The only reason you need something faster is because you
| think you have to compete with other people trading on
| microseconds.
|
| If matches happened at 1 second intervals you wouldn't
| have to worry about it at all.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If matches happened at 1 second intervals you wouldn
| 't have to worry about it at all_
|
| This is nonsense. There is still advantage to submitting
| your trade as close to that settlement deadline as
| possible.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| Not so much if the submitted prices are hidden until the
| matches are resolved.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Not so much if the submitted prices are hidden until
| the matches are resolved_
|
| Except every other exchange is still revolving. The only
| way to implement this is to eliminate competition between
| exchanges.
|
| Also, Wall Street would _love_ this. The more of the
| order book you submitted, the more information you have
| about its composition.
| resters wrote:
| I think you are letting your "speculation is bad" bias
| interfere with your understanding of dynamical systems.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| I think you're hallucinating something I didn't say to
| avoid confronting what I did say.
|
| Also what's the difference between a system, a dynamic
| system and a 'dynamical' system?
| resters wrote:
| The behavior of other participants is itself a first-
| class signal.
|
| Rule 611 compresses that signal. By forcing everything to
| orbit a size-agnostic NBBO, it collapses a lot of the
| "behavioral bandwidth" (depth, imbalance, sweep patterns,
| replenishment, cancel/replace cadence) into a single top-
| of-book tick. Less resolution, less information.
|
| High-resolution flow tells you who wants what, at what
| size, and how urgently. When we gate execution through
| protected quotes, we encourage tactics that flick the
| top-of-book with tiny size and discourage truthful size
| revelation. That's signal destruction dressed up as
| protection.
|
| Letting informed counterparties print away from the
| protected price (to reflect size or information)
| increases informational content. You get cleaner read-
| through from actual willingness to trade, instead of a
| compliance-driven dance around a fragile benchmark.
|
| So yes: other people's actions are the best data feed.
| The more of that behavior we can see--in size, time, and
| venue--the better our discovery gets. 611 reduces that
| visibility by design.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| _the better our discovery gets_
|
| The better the computers hooked directly into the
| exchange get you mean.
| resters wrote:
| All participants contribute to price discovery. A
| nanosecond order book helps with price discovery the
| deeper it is, regardless of whether orders clear.
|
| > The better the computers hooked directly into the
| exchange get you mean.
|
| I think you're trolling with this one. But you had an
| advantage typing your comment into a web browser compared
| to all the people who wrote theirs on paper and put it in
| an envelope with a stamp.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| It's pretty funny that there are people in this thread
| pretending like "price discovery" is a real thing that
| happens in markets based on information. We've all seen
| Dogecoin and BBBYQ. The emperor has no clothes.
| drob518 wrote:
| So, you want everyone to trade only daily or weekly or
| quarterly?
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Every few seconds is fine.
|
| Disagree? You think milliseconds is "better" somehow?
|
| Then by that logic microseconds are better still! (A
| straight-faced argument made by thousands of HFT people.)
|
| Then, surely, nanoseconds matter. Again, some traders
| care deeply about shaving single digit "nanos" off their
| response times by using smart NICs that can respond
| before the incoming packet has even finished arriving!
| Bypassing the CPU entirely because _ermahgerd_ that would
| waste precious nanos!
|
| Okay, what about femtoseconds? Attoseconds? Low single
| digit Plank time units?
|
| Clearly the extrapolation is _nonsense_.
|
| The problem is that there's always an advantage to some
| rent-seeker to be faster than everyone else, so there
| will never be consensus between them and the general
| public. Or each other.
|
| It's a classic tragedy of the commons.
|
| This is why laws are required, to prevent that one greedy
| guy putting "just one more cow" onto the pasture than the
| other greedy guys.
| resters wrote:
| This is the "speculation is bad" take with a side of
| naivete about how markets work.
|
| Open an order book. Prices and quantities aren't
| decoration; they're live telemetry for supply, demand,
| and how tight the crowd's consensus is at each level.
| That's information, full stop.
|
| A human (or machine) trader forms a view of fair value
| against that tape. The book helps decide how to trade--
| size, urgency, venue--regardless of motive: arbitrage,
| hedge, speculation, investment, cash-out. Intent doesn't
| change the math.
|
| Prints are messages. Every execution updates everyone
| else's priors. More prints - more information - smoother
| discovery.
|
| Make the book sparse--only a handful of trades per day--
| and watch confidence collapse. With weaker consensus and
| wider error bars, people step back. Liquidity thins,
| friction rises. That's not morality; that's
| microstructure.
|
| Time horizon doesn't invalidate the signal. A strategy
| that unfolds over days and one that resolves in
| milliseconds both add to the dataset. If it trades, it
| teaches. More resolution in others' behavior means better
| prices and deeper books. That's the game.
| anonu wrote:
| This is the free market speaking. If there was one
| exchange there would be no latency arbitrage. But there
| are many... Which creates a competitive landscape and
| reduces fees for investors. The by product is you have
| many HFTs that come in to take advantage of mispricings,
| even if they are on sub millisecond scales. It doesn't
| harm the company or the investor. Its quite the
| opposite... Investors benefit from competition amongst
| exchanges and HFTs.
|
| In addition you have redundancy in the markets system.
| Exchanges are important for national security... Having
| everything centralized would risk people's retirements,
| savings, and more
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Why would you create arbitrage opportunities for no reason?
| That's the only thing that would happen I can see from an
| exchange that can't keep up with the NBBO price, which you
| are obligated by law to quote regardless.
|
| People in the finance industry will arb between digital and
| human markets and net a profit from it. It seems pointless to
| me, but perhaps I'm not fully grasping what that would do.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Bit of an aside, but I really do not understand the concerns
| with trading speed.
|
| I can trade at human speed now: when I want to make a trade,
| I put in the order and it gets executed. Speed elsewhere in
| the market makes it _easier_ , not harder, for me to trade
| when I want to. And I don't care who my counterparty is;
| that's a fundamental feature of a stock exchange. If A is
| always faster than B because A is 2 racks closer to my broker
| in the data center... so what? How does that hurt me? Good
| for A.
|
| A computer-powered trading strategy can react faster than me
| to news--true. But that's fine because I don't have to follow
| a breaking-news investing strategy. There are tons of others,
| many of which have proven to work very well.
| Fade_Dance wrote:
| >How does that hurt me?
|
| Because lit orders get front run. Every sophisticated
| participant/algo is exceptionally efficient at extracting
| money from less sophisticated participants.
|
| As someone who trades decent volume but doesn't have a
| fully institutional grade workflow, I have the fortune of
| dealing with this...
|
| Simple lit orders (posting an order directly to an
| exchange) will be taking advantage of by both market
| makers, by HFTs, and by smarter execution algorithms. The
| algorithms running the bids and asks will widen spreads.
| Sell orders will peg to one cent below your ask, and if
| flows start to reverse, they will pull their liquidity and
| the slower participants get their liquidity swept through
| (adverse selection).
|
| The next step up is to use something like a midpoint
| algorithm or hidden order, but hidden orders will be pinged
| with one share from the robots and you will get sniffed out
| and positioned against. If they detect size in a midpoint
| algorithm, the liquidity in the opposite direction will
| evaporate, and they will "walk" the dumb midpoint algorithm
| down, take the liquidity, and then reset the mid back to
| where it was. The list goes on. It's generally an awful
| environment for "regular" participants.
|
| Moving on from simple improvements available to the more
| advanced retail space like midpoint algorithms and VWAP
| algorithms, you have algo routes that are explicitly
| designed to take advantage of the "lesser" order types. If
| they are in a position to get a fair fill, they will rest
| the order in case they see a situation they can take
| advantage of, and only take mid fill if the outlook
| deteriorates (this is all millisecond time frame stuff, but
| the orders will be worked in an automated fashion
| throughout the day - time frame is configurable).
|
| On the more developed institutional side, liquidity is
| sourced in dark venues designed to ward off HFTs and front-
| running, or sourced in fair flash-auctions which are again
| designed to ward off hfts and information leakage from the
| auction spawner.
|
| So the argument would be that perhaps the modern
| developments like batched flash auctions should just be the
| new baseline, and designed so that all of the participants
| feeding into them get an equivalent quality of fill.
|
| These "phenomena" are fairly significant. Let's say you
| have a 100k position in a smaller cap stock. You may move
| the stock down a few percent if you start walking down your
| order and it becomes clear that you are looking to take
| liquidity. Vs 100k in one of the more advanced order routes
| where you're basically going to get filled near mid. And of
| course it goes without saying that 100k won't even move the
| needle in the institutional routes.
|
| For a while I got so sick of it that if I was looking to
| buy back my short options (the same things happen in the
| option space, but with more slippage), I would stuff a
| basic midpoint algorithm on the underlying, it would be
| sniffed out and liquidity would evaporate, price would
| fall, and I'd slam the ask to buy/cover my short calls on
| the price drop. At least I could get a fair fill when I
| played two different areas of the market complex against
| each other... It's just a pain. To the average participant,
| they will find that liquidity is there when it suits the
| counterparty, yet not there when they need it.
|
| NBBO/best bid offer itself can be illusory. There are many
| situations where if you sweep the bid, you will get a fair
| fill, but I'd you just hit the bid price, you will
| essentially take off the very small front order of an
| iceberg order, they will run their calculations, and the
| liquidity pegs a cent below you if it suits them. That's
| how it works.
|
| This goes for all areas of the financial market, including
| the bond market itself, and it contributes to systemic
| fragility in addition to harvesting retail money.
|
| Granted, almost no retail participant is actually shipping
| orders directly to exchanges like I laid out. They are
| going to payment for order flow routes. These are actually
| fairly efficient, but again, remember that if you are
| posting a bid or ask, exchanges _pay you_ (yes, you
| actually net money, albeit small) to post these orders, and
| anyone feeding into PFOF routes is getting this income
| taken from them. The frontrunning risk in the payment for
| order flow routes is also much more severe, since your
| order is getting blasted out in all directions before it is
| posted. So when those sorts of routes go wrong for retail
| traders (ex making the mistake of posting a large order
| during a major market event), they 're could
| catastrophically get screwed.
|
| It's also worth noting that retail does have access to a
| relatively Fair auction system though. Open and closing
| auctions are probably the best ways to fill orders. Just be
| careful not to ship too much size into them since a large
| enough net imbalance (say in a small cap stock) in a
| closing auction will have the same "walk down the price"
| effect that happens with midpoint orders.
|
| Personally I think that the institutional flash auctions
| are pretty neat. For my understanding this sort of
| liquidity sourcing is growing. I would think that this sort
| of functionality could be regulated and integrated into the
| base level market venues.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _lit orders get front run. Every sophisticated
| participant /algo is exceptionally efficient at
| extracting money from less sophisticated participants_
|
| Anyone executing via lit orders is either forced to do so
| or an idiot. That's why most of the market doesn't
| execute via lit orders. Which is fine. The trade is still
| reported _ex post facto_ , and the inefficiencies this
| creates are always less than the convoluted auction
| formats one must use to make low latency non-
| advantageous.
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| I gotta say.. I'm way out of my depth on that one. As a
| guy who's mostly put some 401K $$ into index funds, and
| has the odd RSU/ESPP stock to sell - will any of these be
| an issue when I sell some of them later? I've only sold
| ESPP stock via "at this price" when I had a large enough
| number, and "at market" when not - but it's been in the
| hundreds of shares at most. May have a few thousand
| shares of my current employer's stock to sell next year -
| will this affect me?
| WanderPanda wrote:
| Theoretically, when the market offers me an order book
| and I take offers on one or the other side that should be
| totally fair? I think until execution/fill the
| information should be totally between me and the exchange
| and no one else, right? I get that if I send a limit
| order that can not be filled, that that affects the
| market because new information is introduced (before the
| trade) but in the previously described case all the
| information going out should be after the trade already
| happened, right?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Perhaps Texas could use a different trading model that
| doesn 't require ultra high speed trading_
|
| Wall Street (as in the sell side) is strongly incentivised to
| stamp out high-speed trading. It undercuts their dealer
| model. They have tried and failed to come up with an auction
| model that eliminates HFT without tradeoffs that real
| investors find unacceptable.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| Didn't HFT compete itself out of outsized profitability
| years ago? So now we get instant super liquidity for
| pennies?
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| For stocks most likely, though I assume a lot of it today
| comes from options traders, where the spread is much
| wider.
| EnderWT wrote:
| From: https://www.txse.com/trading-membership
|
| > TXSE's primary matching engine is located in Equinix NY6 in
| Secaucus, NJ, with latency equalization across NY4, NY5, and
| NY6. Customers outside these buildings will experience
| additional latency. The disaster recovery (DR) matching engine
| is hosted in Equinix DA11 in Dallas, TX.
|
| > Customers may connect to DR either directly to DA11 or
| through TXSE infrastructure at 350 E. Cermak in Chicago. Cermak
| connections will have traffic backhauled to DA11 over redundant
| TXSE circuits. Backhaul from Cermak to the production data
| center is not available.
| sgc wrote:
| I would rather see an exchange that requires buyers to hold
| their shares for at least x days or weeks, and slow everything
| way down so that people are actually forced to make decisions
| based on fundamentals rather than trading based on jitters in
| market movement. Then the datacenter location is almost
| irrelevant.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Who is that a value proposition for? Will they pay for it?
| How?
|
| This is one of those ideas that actually makes zero sense.
| It's why the "long term stock exchange" has failed so
| miserably.
| wbl wrote:
| You don't want that unless you want to wait days to trade.
| jaredwiener wrote:
| They have job postings that include NYC-based network
| operations engineers. https://www.txse.com/meet-the-
| team#careers
| haunter wrote:
| Not to be confused with NYSE Texas which also launched this year
| and an entirely different thing
|
| https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse-texas
| throwoutway wrote:
| TY. That is what I thought this was
| eej71 wrote:
| To add to the confusion, NYSE Texas is just a rebranding of
| NYSE Chicago which used to be independent of NYSE when it was
| its own thing.
| alberth wrote:
| 200+ comments, HN thread:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43045558
| jbverschoor wrote:
| TX as in transaction
| scottydelta wrote:
| Well we wait for TXSE to do IPO and get listed in NYSE/NASDAQ and
| then we buy TXSE since house always wins.
| chronic74939 wrote:
| > since house always wins.
|
| House doesn't always share with outside investors
| scottydelta wrote:
| The owners of the house can't wait for their cash cow to grow
| up and print money so they will take it public and cash out
| with promise for future returns. This is a game as old as
| capitalism.
| eej71 wrote:
| This headline is kind of dumb. Yes, there is yet another new
| venue. But other recent "new" venues include MIAX, IEX, MEMX, and
| soon to be active - 24X. Oh and let's not forget the Long Term
| Stock Exchange (LTSE).
| thedangler wrote:
| Nothing to see here, no conflict of interest.
| jaredhansen wrote:
| Many HN readers with an interest in HFT will find the _Sniper in
| Mahwah_ blog excellent reading. No longer publishing since 2019
| as far as I can tell, but it was great while it lasted:
|
| https://sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com/
| javier123454321 wrote:
| Pardon my ignorance but can anyone can help me figure out what
| does it mean to have a new stock exchange? Dont exchanges sell
| the same stocks? Is it just a way to earn some fees by capturing
| some of the trades in their platform?
|
| I'll obviously google it now but I'd appreciate some insight.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Each exchange can make its own rules for what it will list and
| how it will trade (within the broader SEC regulations).
|
| So yes it's just a way to capture fees from listers who like
| your exchange better as the primary listing exchange and from
| market participants that must be in every exchange (latency
| sensitive HFT).
|
| None of the many exchanges that have started have made a dent
| in the existing duopoly for real share listings that
| Nasdaq/nyse have. But some exchanges have made good business
| off of other products like etfs.
| DontchaKnowit wrote:
| Or options products, e.g. cboe
| kkukshtel wrote:
| This sounds like the sort of "norms" thing that a GOP-leaning
| state would abuse to circumvent SEC regulations by somehow
| declaring a state-owned exchange as some sort of SEZ to allow
| unregulated exchange between domestic and (primarily) foreign
| entities.
| mcmcmc wrote:
| Texas is famously fraud friendly as well
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| So in other words, healthy competition, and may the best man
| win. Contrary to many comments this is more than political
| reaction/posturing.
|
| The state of Texas is the world's 8th largest GDP and a
| diverse one, with no one sector exceeding 9%. Texas is well-
| positioned relative to NYC for attention around AI, as it is
| not geographically constrained and has an energy advantage.
| There is financial credibility built in as 10% of NYSE
| listings are already HQ'd in Texas. And Texas has a pro-
| business regulatory environment.
|
| This isn't a zero-sum game where Texas grows at New York's
| expense. The hope is it creates a larger, more dynamic
| market.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| NYSE Texas didn't see a huge influx of listings when they
| moved there and changed their rules. I don't think "Texas"
| is particularly interesting to the conversation given the
| dominant regulatory regime will be federal and the trading
| will happen in NJ but I could be wrong.
|
| There are lots of stock exchanges, which have started for
| lots of reasons but there isn't really much of an industry
| desire to be out of nyse/nasdaq for vanilla listings. If
| there was it would have already happened.
|
| Seems like a publicity stunt to siphon some regnms traffic
| and maybe some etf listings to me, but no big drama if not.
| tomrod wrote:
| All true. Texas worker environment is not great though.
| Folks typically list income tax as an advantage but
| property and sales taxes more than make up the difference.
| Also, govt admin is fairly hostile to any infrastructure
| expansion, preferring to let the local car dealers buy new
| town charters with no infrastructure.
|
| Environmental regs are not well managed generally.
|
| Anyhow, not the worst state, not the best. Pretty balanced
| economy, like Ohio, Illinois, California, and Georgia.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| > Folks typically list income tax as an advantage but
| property and sales taxes more than make up the
| difference.
|
| No, not really. Texas is still below average state taxes
| and you can see the breakdown of each state here:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax#/media/Fil
| e:S...
| tomrod wrote:
| Yep, exactly what I mentioned, more than makes up for it
| especially once you factor in the higher Case Schiller on
| recent years causing increases to property taxes since
| 2022 (date of your image).
| ohples wrote:
| > preferring to let the local car dealers buy new town
| charters with no infrastructure.
|
| I'm curious what this is referring to.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Probably talking about Starbase (elon musk).
| ohples wrote:
| Ahh don't know why I missed that one.
| tomrod wrote:
| Local state legislature has several car dealership owners
| that also started their own chartered towns. Wasn't
| thinking about starbase but that qualifies.
| larsiusprime wrote:
| Higher property taxes and low income taxes is preferable
| actually, it keeps the housing market from getting
| massively distorted.
| munk-a wrote:
| Ideally you're correct - but it does have the very large
| side effect of making real estate fraud much more
| lucrative. This isn't to say that the potential of people
| breaking a law means we shouldn't have the law at all -
| but higher property taxes necessitate a much large spend
| into property value auditors and require a lot more
| stringency around property improvement permitting to
| ensure that increases in property value are captured and
| recorded accurately.
| calmoo wrote:
| How much fraud we talking? I like to think along Matt
| Levine's ideas that at least _some_ amount of fraud is
| acceptable - there will always be some amount of it and
| under or over-regulation creates a net-negative.
| stocksinsmocks wrote:
| The most insightful part of your comment was that you
| needed a throwaway account to preserve your HN social
| credit score to take a completely moderate and constructive
| position.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| To add on the "make it's own rules" point. This is a real
| thing, there are stupid rules which have been put in place at
| various moments and many companies are sick to death of it.
|
| https://chatgpt.com/share/68e6a1a5-e634-8002-ac97-6e2e36052e.
| ..
| bluGill wrote:
| > Dont exchanges sell the same stocks?
|
| No. Each company chooses what exchange their stock is sold on.
| Sometimes (often for large companies) you are on more then one
| exchange, but never all of them.
|
| Nothings stops an exchange (laws may not allow this but
| remember exchanges are in many countries and only subject to
| the laws of their country) from handling stock that the company
| doesn't want on them, but the value of an exchange is other
| people are looking there when they want to buy and sell and so
| it would be hard to get enough traders if the company doesn't
| want to list with you.
|
| Not all exchanges handle stocks. There are other things traded
| as well.
| dcrazy wrote:
| > the value of an exchange is other people are looking there
| when they want to buy and sell and so it would be hard to get
| enough traders if the company doesn't want to list with you.
|
| Doesn't regulation NMS make this significantly less relevant?
| A stock trading on an exchange where it isn't listed is going
| to trade at the same price as everywhere else, modulo however
| long it takes to arbitrate the price between the exchanges.
|
| Also, I too am struggling to understand posting a trade of an
| unlisted stock to an exchange. This sounds pretty similar to
| a dark pool?
| immibis wrote:
| I thought stocks don't trade on exchanges where they're not
| listed - that's what listing means, right? And most stocks
| are listed on one exchange.
| bluGill wrote:
| Most (this is close, about half) stock trades are not on
| the listed exchange. If I sell stock and my broker has
| someone else wanting to buy that stock they are just
| going to internally match us up at the current price
| instead of going to the listed exchange. There are a lot
| of "dark pool" exchanges that brokers will check with
| first when someone wants to buy/sell stocks and so only
| rarely (again about half the time - not very rare) will
| they go all the way to an exchange.
|
| Nothing stops an exchange from accepting trades for a
| stock that isn't listed there. (there may be local laws
| that say otherwise, but there are lots of different
| countries). However if you are not a listing exchange
| brokers might not think to check your exchange when
| someone wants to trade and so you won't get enough
| volume. If you are the exchange a broker checks first
| though you can be the exchange.
| bluGill wrote:
| Stocks trade when there is a buyer and a seller. An
| exchange you are not officially listed on is unlikely to
| have many sellers and so they may not have any stock when
| you want to buy. Of course they can keep a lot of stock on
| hand (that is become a market maker), but that means they
| arbitrage games (either they or someone else), and if their
| volume of trades is too low (which it will be because few
| traders think to to use them) they are going to lose money
| on that deal.
|
| Back in 1800 an exchange was a place where a lot of buyers
| and sellers agreed to meet up so that you had good odds of
| finding a buyer when you wanted to sell. The exchange
| happened by exchanging papers which then got sent to the
| company to know how the new owners were.
|
| This gets at why there were a lot more exchanges in the
| past than now. Ownership is recorded electronically (you
| can get paper but almost nobody does) do you don't need to
| send papers into head quarters. We also have fast
| communication so can have your agent take care of things in
| New York in seconds no matter where in the world you are -
| in 1800 you had to physically go to an exchange (or send an
| agent).
|
| An unlisted exchange is similar to a dark pool. The company
| whoes stock is traded on one will treat the trade like any
| other dark pool. However if they are trying to operate like
| a listed exchange they will doing other exchange like
| things (posting prices), so you get the worst of both
| worlds.
| immibis wrote:
| Surprisingly, no - moving a stock from one exchange to another
| is a lot harder than selling on one and buying on another (and
| slower, and more costly for small quantities), so stocks are
| surprisingly immobile. Only if you really had to, would you
| move them. And most stocks have one particular home exchange
| and there's no reason to trade them anywhere else than the one
| place that has the highest volume and lowest spreads for that
| stock.
| bigthymer wrote:
| > there's no reason to trade them anywhere else than the one
| place that has the highest volume and lowest spreads for that
| stock.
|
| Norbert's Gambit is a good reason. It is potentially the
| cheapest way to effectively do a currency exchange.
|
| [1] - https://www.finiki.org/wiki/Norbert%27s_gambit
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| There are reasons for the listing company to not want to be
| listed on an exchange though.
| eflim wrote:
| Mostly yes, but a more optimistic (if naive) perspective is
| that the exchange wants to bring something new and valuable to
| the market. There are tons of little rules on exchanges about
| how stocks trade, and these can affect the amount of stocks and
| prices of stocks that different investors are able to get.
| These rules (often called microstructure) are partially
| determined by law, but there's differentiation between
| exchanges, and so one of the things a new exchange can do is
| introduce different rules that might make the market more
| "fair" depending how you define that.
| downrightmike wrote:
| Enron 2.0 Bigger and Unregulated!
| anonu wrote:
| In this case it's a marketing ploy for the state of Texas and
| also a way for Schwab, citadel, blackrock and fortress to press
| their finger on the balance of power which is far tilted
| towards the ICE.
|
| Also note Schwab is headquartered in Texas and they account for
| a significant percentage of trading in the US on a daily basis.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Musk trillionaire confirmed.
| jfalcon wrote:
| Doesn't this increase opportunity for arbitrage as it's not
| likely exchanges are going to be perfectly synchronized to the
| overall market? Also doesn't this also offer opportunities to
| sell pink sheets stocks in what is conceivably a "fresh market"?
| hackernewds wrote:
| Arbitrage and the agents conducting these transactions is good
| for open rational markets. In fact they are essential
| DudeOpotomus wrote:
| When you can buy a Governor, you buy a Governor.
|
| When you can buy a State, you buy a State.
|
| When you can buy a SCOTUS Justice, you buy a SCOTUS Justice or 6.
|
| When you can buy a POTUS, you buy a POTUS.
|
| Elon bought them all and many of you cheer. Says more about you
| than Elon but speaks mountains about the core of our culture and
| our national ethos but mostly about how easy it is to pervert
| people and their false ideology with money.
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| What does this have to do with TXSE?
| dyauspitr wrote:
| TXSE has everything to do with politics.
| DudeOpotomus wrote:
| Isnt it amazing how few people actually pay attention let
| alone ask themselves "why?".
|
| The worst part? HN users are much better educated and tend
| to be much smarter than the average person. If this
| audience is so easily manipulated, it's no wonder the
| larger population is being controlled by such obvious
| tactics.
|
| sigh...
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| If you took my comment as anything other than asking how
| your broad strokes trite criticism of "people in power
| bad" relates to TXSE, you're the one who needs some
| reflection. I wanted to know more about how your
| conspiracy laden poem directly connected to TXSE but I
| guess HN likes to just accept low quality content for
| real discussion now.
| DudeOpotomus wrote:
| If you read my comment and replied with your reply, you
| didnt read my comment...
| moralestapia wrote:
| The "spaceman bad" crowd is so dumb that even when you're
| arguing something bad against spaceman they just dislike
| it because their shallow understanding of it is just
| "spaceman bad so I downvote".
| qaq wrote:
| Elon has way less influence than say Peter Thiel, so this is a
| huge exaggeration to be honest
| DudeOpotomus wrote:
| Which exchange do you think SpaceX will be listed?
|
| And why is it the TXSE?
| laughing_man wrote:
| SpaceX is unlikely to be listed anywhere any time soon.
| laughing_man wrote:
| Show your work. I don't see that Musk has as much influence as
| people like George Soros and Rupert Murdoch.
| victor106 wrote:
| > At $2.4 trillion, Texas' economy is larger than many
| countries', including Russia, Canada and Italy, according to a
| report from the governor's office.
|
| California's economy is $4.1 trillion and has a much higher
| chance of growing larger with most of the AI companies based out
| of CA.
| CivBase wrote:
| Or most of those AI companies could go bust. Nobody really
| knows yet.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| I expect a series of other choices that force the business into
| Texas as a way to choke out California for not bowing to the
| will of a king.
| conductr wrote:
| I hate defending his highness, but this has been in play way
| longer than he's been in office.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| Almost every thing happening right now involves
| organizations that have been making plans to do things for
| a very long time that is being hyper accelerated or the
| competitive landscape drastically distorted to give
| advantage.
|
| I should be happy right now as X and Y and Z are available,
| some of which support some of my ideas, but I'm smart
| enough to know that giving me a few trinkets while screwing
| the system as a whole doesn't work.
| vonneumannstan wrote:
| They already have multiple trillion dollar companies and how
| has that worked out for them? Rampant homelessness and crime in
| their "Premier" cities, skyrocketing cost of living and housing
| prices, etc.
| anon191928 wrote:
| CA have LTSE. but somehow they are slow or stopped? not much
| news about it.
| conductr wrote:
| Not sure I understand your point. If someone wants to open an
| exchange there, what's stopping them?
|
| I'm a Dallas resident and this has been a large coordinated
| effort that has a lot of banks relocating here. Not going to
| debate the good or bad of it, but Texas tends to go after these
| types of things and creates a favorable environment for it from
| a business/tax/political standpoint. I don't know what
| California does, but I know a whole bunch of Californian
| corporations have moved here citing similar reasons. So again,
| what's stopping something similar from happening in California?
| (If it doesn't already exist)
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| What's to stop states from increasing the amount they compete
| with each other to lure businesses by reducing regulations,
| lower taxes, etc
|
| I think this is a loop that hurts regular people.
|
| Less regulation could open people to more risk and less ways
| to combat it.
|
| Lower taxes for businesses means that state funding must be
| made up with either cuts to services or higher taxes on
| people.
|
| I think Republicans will use these incentives and the federal
| government's power to push all the money to red states
| causing economic decline in blue states which they can then
| blame on the leaders of those states.
|
| I know this already happens but now that Trump is open to
| blackmailing states with funding because they aren't run by
| Republicans it will get worse
| jlarocco wrote:
| Those are formulated as hypothetical statements and "what
| if" questions, but it already works that way in the United
| States.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| I meant what if it gets worse? I thought that was
| assumed.
|
| Corruption, tax inequality, and the use of political
| power to benefit business will always be present and
| therefore the amount is what's important.
|
| Every politician lies so that doesn't matter. What
| matters is what the lie about and how often it occurs.
| It's the same with corruption.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _doesn 't this cause a loop that hurts regular people?_
|
| I've seen this described as "a race to the bottom."
| crazygringo wrote:
| What relevance does that have? I genuinely don't understand the
| purpose of your comment.
|
| It's not like the article was suggesting Texas had America's
| _largest_ state economy. It was just showing that it is
| _large_. Which it is.
|
| What does California have to do with anything?
| OutOfHere wrote:
| I am guessing insider trading will be legal here.
| yanslookup wrote:
| for some. And very illegal for others.
| yalogin wrote:
| What is the need for another stock exchange? I hate that I am
| thinking like this but this is just going to be politicized
| heavily and companies like Tesla and coke will just switch to
| that exchange causing further more rift in our society. Where one
| company lists will become a problem for companies and they cannot
| be neutral politically even if they really are
| ciupicri wrote:
| I propose a global stock exchange for the whole planet. Heck,
| why stop here, make it for the whole galaxy in case Elon Musks
| manages to land on Mars.
| bitfilped wrote:
| Does Abbott know you need a stable electric grid to run a
| financial exchange?
| OhMeadhbh wrote:
| Texas, well known for the strength of it's financial regulation.
| zengid wrote:
| Now CA needs one
| aaroninsf wrote:
| _Surprised it's not a segregated exchange._
| grapland wrote:
| I want 24x7, free or non-profit full book data
| streaming/downloading.
|
| otherwise there is one more trouble for me.
| cramcgrab wrote:
| [flagged]
| yifanl wrote:
| Well consider what makes the tech industry different than any
| other. It's purely cultural forces that define if someone's a
| techie or not, so of course it devolves into politicking.
| zahlman wrote:
| > It's purely cultural forces that define if someone's a
| techie or not
|
| No, this is defined by the knowledge and skill involved.
| yifanl wrote:
| We live in an era where its trivial for anybody to learn
| how to code, and every level of new goalposts you add
| before saying someone is a true techie is imposed purely by
| cultural forces.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't make things even worse by posting bad comments
| yourself.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| Edit: your account has unfortunately been posting a lot of
| unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments (e.g.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45412687 and
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45404646). Can you please
| stop doing that? It's not what this site is for, and destroys
| what it is for--we're trying for something different here.
|
| If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the
| intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
| cramcgrab wrote:
| Please moderate your techie site and reduce the amount of
| politics and preaching, or else you will wind up like Reddit,
| digg, and of course, the once famous Leo Laporte, who is now
| exclusively preaching his politics to his 100 faithful
| followers.
| dang wrote:
| This question has a lot of history on HN:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869. If you'll
| take a bit of time to learn about how we approach it,
| you'll find that the site is pretty stable: https://hn.algo
| lia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
|
| It does fluctuate--we can't be immune from macro trends (ht
| tps://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.
| ..). But the principles we apply have been the same for
| many years, and if you step far enough back, the amount of
| politics is pretty consistent.
| throwaway7484k wrote:
| NASDAQ is eponymous for the market cap fluctuations of techno-
| capitol.
|
| TSE is valued at 2.4tn.
| ergocoder wrote:
| I always wonder why an economic powerhouse like California or
| Washington doesn't have its own stock exchange.
|
| Maybe it is the strict regulation that makes it not viable?
| laughing_man wrote:
| The LTSE is headquartered in San Francisco.
| Mr-Frog wrote:
| There used to be a variety of exchanges on the West Coast but
| it seems like they couldn't compete with the automation and HFT
| innovation happening in NYC, all the west coast engineers were
| too busy with the dot-com bubble it seems.
| jms703 wrote:
| Like in Civ6, I'm sure it will require a lot of power.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Oh great another stock exchange with fewer rules. Elon must be so
| happy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-08 23:00 UTC)