• May
  • 18
  • 2009
  • 4:22 PM

'Direct Edge's ELP Program Causing Market Brouhaha'; 'Private Exchanges Looking to Turn Back Clock'

By: Ray Pellecchia
File Under: NYSE, NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca

Securities Industry News reports, "Direct Edge's ELP Program Causing Market Brouhaha; Competitors criticize Enhanced Liquidity Provider program." Excerpts:

With its execution volume increasing, Direct Edge's three-year-old program that flashes orders to a private network of broker-dealers before routing them to other quoting markets, is generating calls for regulatory review of the practice as well as the broader notion of dark liquidity.

Direct Edge filed an official application May 7 to convert its two electronic communications networks, EDGX and EDGA, to full-fledged equities exchanges. This was preceded by months of discussion with Securities and Exchange Commission staff to tailor the proposal, which includes the ECNs' Enhanced Liquidity Provider mechanism for flashing to its broker-dealer network, to meet the stricter regulatory requirements for exchanges. Direct Edge's filing indicates approval is likely, arousing criticism from competitors who believe the pre-order routing system may violate regulations.

The ELP program, launched in spring 2006, briefly flashes orders that can't be filled on Direct Edge's ECNs to 25 broker-dealers, giving them the opportunity to execute the orders before they are routed to other quote-displaying markets.

...

"The volume of dark liquidity has grown very quickly and could result in a two-tiered market, where some participants are getting information that others aren't," said Joe Mecane, executive vice president and chief administrative officer for U.S. markets at NYSE Euronext, adding, "There are a lot of inconsistent practices between the exchanges and (automated trading systems), and we'd expect at some point that the regulators will aim for a more equal playing field."

But it's not just competitors (including NYSE Euronext) questioning this practice:

Flashing orders to a select group, even if the group is not limited by the market center's rules, runs contrary to other regulations, though, said Jamie Selway, managing director at White Cap Trading and former chief economist at Archipelago, one of the pioneering ECNs.

"In terms of Reg ATS, this practically violates the first principle -- that a large marketplace can display an order to one participant, but if it displays it to multiple participants it should be in a public quote," he said.

On a somewhat related note, Reuters reports, "Private exchanges looking to turn back the clock." Excerpts:

A new era in stock exchanges may be on the horizon -- and it looks something like the past, when a small handful of owners ran important capital markets.

...

Executives at the Reuters Exchanges and Trading Summit this week raised the specter of a partial return to a system in which key marketplaces are run by a small group of powerful players.

...


New Jersey-based Direct Edge, which aims to be a formal exchange later this year, is owned by Goldman Sachs (GS.N), Knight Capital Group Inc (NITE.O), hedge fund giant Citadel, and options mart International Securities Exchange.

Kansas City-based BATS, which is already in Europe and is now eyeing options markets, is owned by several big investment banks including Citigroup (C.N), Credit Suisse Group (CSGN.VX), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and Deutsche Bank AG (DBKGn.DE).

"What that exchange then looks like is what I would call a 'semi-mutualized exchange,'" said Duncan Niederauer, CEO of NYSE Euronext, which has more than 30 percent market share.

"It starts to look like the old NYSE member-ownership model, which I think we all concluded was not a great outcome and actually was fraught with conflict."

...

"I think the SEC will ultimately re-look at some of these regulations," he said of dealers funneling orders to their exchange arms.

More to come on this, I'm sure.

Comments

Ray,

What is NYSE and your opinion of how small caps, and thin stocks are currently trading?

Thanks,

jt

by jt on May 20, 2009 10:07 AM

JT -- I don't have a view about small-cap/thinly traded issues in particular, but in general we believe that trading is too fragmented among many venues and that customers are having too much difficulty finding liquidity. This has been exacerbated by investors and traders being driven to the sidelines by the economic and industry downturn, which has generally diminished trading volumes (apart from a group of extremely high-volume issues).

One of the things we've been doing is incenting designated market makers (formerly specialists) and supplemental liquidity providers to quote at the best bid and offer, and we are encouraged to see that happening more and more. And we're continuing to work on ways to attract more liquidity, dampen volatility and reduce the need to route to other markets.

I hope that answers the question, JT. Thanks for writing.

by Ray Pellecchia on May 20, 2009 6:53 PM

Ray: Given the attention this issue is getting in the press and on the conference circuit, I wanted to chime in for the benefit of your readers. My comment above was part of a longer discussion about information display amongst private networks, which, once you cut through a definitional thicket (orders versus quotes versus IOIs), raises basic questions around the application of Reg ATS, Reg NMS, and the Quote Rule in today's environment.

While the issue is brought to the fore by DirectEdge's application to become an exchange -- and perhaps by its recent burst of market share -- DirectEdge certainly isn't the only marketplace that routes non-public IOIs to counterparties. My intention in raising the issue generally wasn't to point a finger at this or that market center, but rather to highlight a public policy area which needs some attention, given its inconsistent application -- not to mention the enormous technological changes around order-related information exchange in the past few years.

It seems to me that a review of these issues is underway at the SEC. Perhaps they'll determine that Reg ATS and NMS need no modification, and that private display of information to multiple participants -- a "two-tiered" market -- isn't kosher. On the other hand, perhaps they'll decide that if clients have sufficient information about the process and opt-in to receive a perceived benefit, then the relevant regulation should be modified. My hope is that the industry lands on the same page, and quickly, because these are important -- if technical -- issues.

Thanks as always for the blog. Keep up the good work. JS

by Jamie Selway on May 20, 2009 10:09 PM

Jamie -- Thanks very much for clarifying that. I agree it's a "definitional thicket" and we need to better understand these practices and determine how to strike the right balance between promoting competition and protecting customers' interests.

by Ray Pellecchia on May 21, 2009 1:23 PM

Comment on this entry

Forward this entry to a friend