- Sep
- 26
- 2008
- 2:43 PM
The Difference Between NYSE and Nasdaq: Who Is Master, Man or Machine?
- By: Ray Pellecchia
- File Under: NYSE, NYSE Arca
Here's a story that has not been reported to date: Last Friday's unprecedented trading activity revealed more about the difference among markets than any day since, perhaps, 19 Oct. 1987.
Let me explain.
Recall the events of last Friday. It was crunch time for U.S. markets, right from the get-go. It was the quarterly expiration of stock-index options and futures. Stock prices exploded upward at the opening, driven by the announcement that Washington was working on a huge financial bailout. And the SEC had just announced a new ban on short selling in approximately 800 issues, which initially resulted in confusion among traders, many of whom pulled their bids and offers until they could sort out whether they could short, whether they were exempt, which stocks were shortable and which weren't.
All of that helped produce record trading volume on the NYSE in the first half hour, the first hour, and for the full day. In our opening auction alone, NYSE executed 744 million shares, or 98.8 percent of the consolidated opening volume.
The electronic markets, too, were doing a lot of business, but there was a difference. Nasdaq had to cancel more than 1,000 trades in NYSE-listed issues in the first 10 minutes of trading. For the full day, Nasdaq would go on to cancel 11,000 trades in stocks listed on itself, NYSE and the Amex.
The number of NYSE cancels for the day: none. Zero, zip, zilch. Nada.
Here's why. On the NYSE, there are people with machines (algorithmic trading tools), not just machines. So when there are all buyers and virtually no sellers, or vice versa, there are people who risk capital on the contra side, people who bring in customers on the contra side, and a process that injects some time and transparency so that the market can find equilibrium and discover a real price.
In contrast, on solely electronic markets, when there are all buyers and virtually no sellers, there are only computers, doing what they are designed to do: matching bids and offers quickly. When the market is all on one side, you're going to get a market-clearing price, and it's very likely you're going to be extremely happy or extremely unhappy.
Last Friday, there were thousands of such trades taking place in electronic markets, and those markets got together to agree to cancel opening trades that took place 20 percent or more away from the previous day's close. It wasn't just Nasdaq but all electronic markets, including our own NYSE Arca, as well as Bats.
That said, if you're an issuer, where do you want to be listed: with the exchange group that gives investors the choice between trading on markets that are fully automated (NYSE Arca) or high-tech/high-touch (NYSE); or the exchange group that gives your investors no choice? It sure came in handy last Friday to have the two models. And Friday was only a dramatic example of what happens all the time, albeit on a smaller scale.
The cancels were only part of it. Look at the trades that weren't cancelled. Some 327 of Nasdaq's 1,090 opens were outside the full-day NYSE trading range. Of these, 26 were in the top 100 NYSE-listed stocks by share volume. Nasdaq’s average open was more than 14% away from the NYSE crossing price.
For example:
• Nasdaq opened AMR at $12.45, less than 30 seconds before the NYSE open. The consolidated high between the Nasdaq opening cross and the NYSE open was $12.39. NYSE opened AMR at $12.15, and in the next 3 minutes, it traded only as high as $12.28.
• GE opened at $29.12 on Nasdaq, less than 24 seconds before NYSE opened it at $28.80. Nasdaq traded more than 205K shares in its opening cross. NYSE auctioned 16.1 million shares. In the three minutes after NYSE opened GE, the high was $28.85.
• Deutsche Bank opened at $87.00 on the NYSE for 42,100 shares versus $90.00 on Nasdaq for 525 shares. The full-day NYSE high was $88.13.
• Morgan Stanley opened on 4.1 million shares on the NYSE at $32.04. Nasdaq crossed 39,929 at $33.06. The full-day NYSE high was $32.20.
• Build-A-Bear Workshop opened on 133,300 shares at NYSE. On Nasdaq, BBW crossed 100 shares at $7.26. The NYSE low for the day was $7.90.
• Nasdaq crossed 1,000 shares of AGM at $14.78. The NYSE’s open of 90,400 shares was at $17.55, and the low of the day on NYSE was $16.67.
So if you want it fast, or you want it right (and still pretty fast), NYSE Euronext offers you the choice of both. The other guys, not so much.
Looking across the market, you can also compare how the stocks traded in aggregate, immediately after the opening. We examined the NYSE opening auction price and volume-weighted average price (VWAP) during the ensuing 10 minutes versus Nasdaq's open in NYSE issues and the VWAP for the 10 minutes after it crossed NYSE stocks. In the two minutes after the NYSE opens, the median VWAP differential to the NYSE open price was 15 basis points (bps), vs. 180 bps on Nasdaq.
In other words, the price variation following NYSE's opening was 1/12th that of Nasdaq's opening in NYSE stocks.
A hat tip to my colleague Steve Poser for the analysis in this post.
I don't intend this to diss electronic markets. Again, they did exactly what they were designed to do, and that's exactly what some people want markets to do. But I do intend to underscore something that is often misunderstood and misstated: The real struggle in markets is not man versus machine; it is machine versus man-with-machine. Last Friday demonstrated the value of the latter, here at NYSE.
There is a clear difference between NYSE Euronext and Nasdaq OMX, as illustrated last Friday, and that difference is choice for issuers and their investors and traders, and that difference is people. Even in this day of automation, choice and people really can and do make a positive difference.
Sorry for the long-winded post. Have a good weekend.


Comments
Well done... this is the kind of note that people who extol the virtues of the fully electronic marketplace need to read every now and then. When things go bad there is no one to step in and do the triage.
by Mitch Simon on September 26, 2008 3:57 PM
For a friend that is starting a business in Day Trading and stocks. The money is an issue and we want to make better money. Thank you for your service.
by A. J. Flores on September 26, 2008 6:02 PM
CME, NDAQ and ICE. How about NMX and BOT when they were still public stand alone companies! ALL mentioned have or had MUCH higher NET PROFIT MARGINS companred to NYSE Euronext. As for profits, which basically thats all anyone cares about, NYSE Euronext is last with their market structure and theory! It is an electronic world and no matter how hard NYSE tries to stay "different" than all the rest, eventually you have to join the majority or be "voted" off the island. NDAQ market model and business has OUTPERFORMED the NYSE by far....as told by their lesser stock price drop and stronger price appreciation when the market goes up!
by Mark T. on September 27, 2008 2:25 AM
Mitch -- Thanks for writing. Appreciate the comment.
Mark -- Water down NYSE's differentiated model? No thanks. Let others all offer essentially the same thing and compete only on price, not value added.
Also, as far as NYSE Euronext as a whole is concerned, NYSE is just one coponent, albeit important and highly visible one. All U.S. equities trading combined accounts for something like 10 or 12 percent of the company's total revenues.
Thanks for writing, Mark.
by Ray Pellecchia on September 27, 2008 9:07 AM
I appreciate the speed of the electronic markets but i really believe that a true Hybrid market place with a more expanded role for specialists works best. Let the specialists step in and add much needed liquidity and add to price discovery, specially in the less liquid names that trade on the NYSE. Like what has been said before here the momentum has switched way too far towards fully automated trading and the negative results are obvious now. Lets get a true blend of Man & Machine and let the trading get going again. ( With NO RESTRICTIONS ON LEGAL SHORT SELLING ) Free Capital Markets that are the envy of the business world is what should be the ultimate goal of the NYSE. Thanks.
by tony dey on September 27, 2008 1:54 PM
Hey Ray,
In all respect to your response(which is greatly appreciated), here is a response in return:
It regards to market models, it is NYSE Euronext versus All the Rest and All the Rest versus NYSE Euronext. Is one to believe that the market model of 1 company, NYSE Euronext, will defeat(lets be realistic, it is a competition) and PROSPER more strongly than the rest of all the global exchanges?! Or will NYSE Euronext eventually have to be ALL electronic and join them(if you can't beat'em, join'em). In today's ELECTRONIC and FAST moving world, crazy stock swings and spreads are widely accepted and expected, which strengthens all electronic exchanges! Can the David of Exchanges take down the All Electronic Global Goliah Exchanges?!... Or will David concede in defeat a couple of years to late and realize its the year 2011.... and not March 8th, 1817!
by Mark T. on September 27, 2008 10:45 PM
Believe it or not, I've got a strong feeling that NYSE is going to regain market share in the very near future.
by icann on September 28, 2008 11:55 PM
Do you even know what a market economy is? And no it isn't a specialist called Vinny interfering with the logical flow of supply and demand. If there are no buyers then price must go down until there are buyers, it makes perfect sense. Anyone with any logical thinking capability must agree that specialists are completely useless, the sooner NYSE realizes this the better.
by Hugh G. Seller on October 26, 2008 4:05 PM
Hugh -- Cheap shot on the Vinny. And actually, market economics goes like this: If specialists buy and sell against the trend, stocks tick up and down in smaller increments, and at each level you can find additional contra interest. If stocks are left to gap up and down, you bypass buyers and sellers at the prices in the middle of that gap. The result is a more volatile stock and diminished participation.
Thanks for writing.
-- I.M. Nothingifnotpersistent
by Ray Pellecchia on October 26, 2008 5:14 PM
Comment on this entry
Forward this entry to a friend