All impacted stocks reopened by 4.40pm with all systems operational. The investigation specifically concerned Limit-Up-Limit Down Bands (LULD), designed to “mitigate extraordinary market volatility and extreme price movements in individual securities.”

Speaking to the specifics, the exchange confirmed that the technical issue was related to the industry-wide price bands published by the CTA SIP which triggered halts in a number of stocks listed on the NYSE Group exchanges yesterday morning.

The LULD halts happened between 9.30am and 10.27am.

Read more: Tech glitches should not be the cause of stock exchange outages in this day and age

The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) confirmed late on Monday that, along with other UTP equities exchanges, it was currently reviewing potentially erroneous trades related to 40 stocks, advising customers to “review their activity for potentially erroneous trades”.

The 40 stocks currently being reviewed include big names such as: Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway (BRK A), Canada’s Bank of Montreal (BMO), International restaurant chain, Chipotle (CMG), and the notorious GameStop Corporation (GME).

In an update the NYSE confirmed: “We are currently evaluating which LULD halts were erroneous (i.e., caused by erroneous bands published by the CTA SIP) versus correct halts resulting from correct price bands.

“Halts determined to have been caused by erroneous bands will be considered for potential busts,” said the NYSE.”

So far, the NYSE in conjunction with other UTP exchanges ruled to bust all erroneous trades in Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK A) from 9:50am – 9.51am at or below $603,718.30.

Speaking to The TRADE about the impact of the technical glitch, Sylvain Thieullent, chief executive at Horizon Trading Solutions, asserted that these issues should already be a thing of the past.

“Market participants are left asking again, why do they keep happening? Just last year the NYSE had to cancel trades after its opening auction triggered significant price swings, ultimately put down to human error.

“[…] If one thing fails or one piece of information is missed, it can affect thousands of other pieces of equipment. As the glitch yesterday and others have shown, it’s not as simple as flipping a switch to get things operational again. The focus now must be on upgrading existing technology and processes, and incorporating necessary functionalities so that exchanges are as prepared as possible the next time another NYSE-type incident occurs.”

The post NYSE Equities technical issue triggers market uncertainty appeared first on The TRADE.

Despite the indisputable decline in physical trading practices, it is enduring within an increasingly technological capital markets world which has already put innumerable out-dated practices out of fashion. Market opinion – and moves – suggest that mourning the

Like the return of old Nokia’s and ‘dumbphones’ in the era of the smartphone, a hungering for print in the age of digital, and the comeback of the polaroid camera and vinyl, perhaps there’s just reason why these concepts were once deemed great.

Following the announcement from MIAX last October about plans to launch a new US options electronic exchange and physical trading floor, The TRADE wanted to delve into why open outcry has persisted and the potential for a quiet resurgence of the dying practice. 

Charles Dolan, former executive floor governor at the NYSE, and current COO of Green Impact Exchange (GIX), tells The TRADE that in his experience the human element of trading is a critical component in times of stress, remaining valuable despite technological advancement.

“In the past there were 5,000 people who worked on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and now there’s probably 300. We couldn’t continue to do what we were doing manually in an electronic world. That being said, human judgement is critical in terms of taking control of situations that get out of hand. That’s the overarching thought process as to why [physical trading floors] are important.” 

The value placed on the face-to-face auction system, though indisputably less than in times gone by, is proven by its prevailing presence, with MIAX just the latest to invest in the practice. 

Once approved, MIAX’s new options venue, named MIAX Sapphire, will open a physical trading floor in Miami in H2 2024, with plans to commence electronic trading operations next quarter, pending regulatory approval from the SEC.

At the time, Shelly Brown, executive vice president, strategic planning and business development, Miami International Holdings, explained that the new exchange, combined with a live trading floor, is set to be particularly effective in the trading of those larger, more complex orders.

Echoing this notion, Anthony Montesano, head of derivatives market structure at Cboe, tells The TRADE that in his experience it is the larger, more complex orders that are routed to the floor, as more sophisticated, orders often want – and benefit from – a little bit more high touch versus the very simple order flow.

He explains: “If somebody’s entering a huge notional-sized order into the marketplace, they might not want to put that on-screen. If the order is routed through a floor broker, they can source liquidity, manage the order and get true price discovery.

“When you look on-screen, the size and price you see in the screens isn’t necessarily the full market, it’s what the market makers are comfortable quoting electronically. There’s often much, much more liquidity behind those on-screen prices. When brokers are facing off with a whole crowd full of highly capitalised traders, they can work the order a bit better, control the execution and have more effective price discovery.”

Read more: Farewell open outcry

Speaking to The TRADE, Daniel Labovitz, former head of regulatory policy at the NYSE and current chief executive of GIX agrees, suggesting that though the market has been focused on commoditising trading faster and cheaper, there is a potential for this to affect the quality of execution, in particular when trading is atomised and one is trying to move a large position.

He further asserts that there is something to be said for a bespoke approach to trading: “It’s the reason that people like to make their own lattes instead of getting it out of a machine, because it tastes better if you can get exactly what you want.”

Strength in diversity, amid volatility

There is the undeniable importance of human presence in times of increased volatility – well documented across the industry. As Graham Sorrell, managing director and head of EMEA and APAC equity, currency and derivatives trading at State Street Global Advisors, previously put it, we are a long way from the stage where the only role of the human is to feed the dog that keeps the human from touching the machine.

With the increasing prevalence of macro-economic divergences, human intervention across the lifecycle of trading remains an important element as even highly developed systems continue to demonstrate gaps when detecting disruptions.

“Human involvement in the kind of market-making that takes place there is important because of those instances when things get out of control. You need the ability for people to react and to hit the brakes and slow things down for a second,” says Dolan, adding: “Now, they’re monitoring everything that’s going on with electronics. So that if something happens, it can be sorted off floor. However, I think that there’s still a reason that the NYC has found value in having those folks down on the floor doing what they do.” 

Taking the flash crash of 2010 as an example, Labovitz highlights how the circumstances around how the events unfolded demonstrated a key difference between NASDAQ and NYSE listed stocks – where electronically traded NASDAQ stocks tended to drop faster and farther than the NYSE listed stocks, with the difference being human intervention.

“A computer goes with a stimulus-response – you poke it, and it does something – with the flash crash, it was the humans on the floor thinking, ‘there has to be a glitch somewhere,’ and responding, while the computers were just repeatedly stub quoting. So it kept trading down, down, down, whereas the human brain with all the context says, ‘This doesn’t seem right’ or ‘I think there’s more to this story’. There’s an intelligence and an advantage to being on the floor […] There is a value to the aggregation of people in a place to trade, it creates better markets.”

Sharing his own first-hand experience of crashes whilst working for the NYSE, Dolan recalls: “I’ll never forget it because I was across the road in our office, talking to our CEO and the market was down 300 points and by the time I walked across the street and got onto the floor, the market was down 800 points. That was about five minutes. So, what was interesting was that you weren’t quite sure what was happening, what was going on, what was causing this and over the next 15 minutes, the market dropped down to 1,200 points. 

“We reacted – we stood there as market makers and bought when nobody else wanted to buy, and kind of put ourselves in harm’s way to facilitate the market and help the stocks gravitate to a point where the public wanted to trade again.”

Read more: Lessons learned from Flash Boys

The overarching benefit therefore of this reactive component and demonstrably valuable aspect of open outcry – human oversight – is the tangible means of diversification. Speaking to The TRADE, Sylvain Thieullent, chief executive at Horizon Software, explains: “In terms of open outcry as a strategy, it would be counter-intuitive to see it come back full-steam to what it looked like back in the 80s for example, but for best execution it’s useful to have multiple tools and choices available and maybe then use the right one for a specific trade.

“For example, for what we call market sentiment, there is nothing better than open outcry to detect what the sentiment of the market is, so it does make sense that in some specific market conditions specifically the value is clear.”

This perspective on the value-add of live trading floors is in stark contrast with CME Group’s decision to completely shutter the open outcry practice across its exchanges back in 2021. 

The group confirmed on 5 May 2021 it would not re-open the open outcry trading pits following their closure in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, while contrastingly, Cboe opened a new trading floor in June 2022, having also closed due to COVID-19 related reasons in March 2020.

The exchange at the time highlighted client demand for additional floor-based traders as the driving factor behind the decision.

“COVID-19 required us to configure the trading floor to allow for six feet of separation between traders. Our previous floor couldn’t accommodate everyone on that basis.  So, on June 6 2022, when we opened our brand-new shiny state-of-the-art trading floor, it was really well received. It has a very attractive and efficient design which appeals to traders,” Montesano tells The TRADE. 

He added that based on what the company is seeing currently in terms of real data, the future looks bright in the space. Cboe’s proprietary product suite set several volume records in 2023, including SPX ADV of approximately 2,900,000 and VIX ADV of 743,000, with around 23% and 45% of those volumes taking place on the floor, respectively, The TRADE understands.

It was back in December 2022 that Cboe further expanded its floor having previously asserted that physical trading would remain open “as long as investors wanted them”. 

Montesano reaffirmed this to The TRADE: “Cboe will continue to operate a trading floor as long as our customers find utility in that, and in the hybrid market model we have. So far, that is the case. We do run a very robust trading floor, along with the fully electronic market, because our customers are telling us they still find tremendous utility in having the floor […] Our busiest open outcry pit is our S&P 500 options pit, the SPX pit and we now have more Market-Makers in that pit than we did prior to COVID-19.”

Market colour

Linked to the ability to account for anomalies through a physical, human presence, is the so-called ‘colour’ added by outcry trading and the ability to witness and perceive market sentiment first hand.

Dolan asserts that the tone and feeling of the floor was a key aspect: “I could tell when there were certain news items throughout my career down on the floor because there was a sense, a buzz in the air indicating it. For example, if the inflation number was a little bit lower and the market’s ripping upward because everybody thinks the Fed’s going to pause on interest rates, it’s a dynamic feeling.

“You could sense either the downside and the fear of what was going on in bad situations, or the euphoria on the upside when the floor got louder and busier. That was the fun part of the floor because you could sense that something was happening.”

Empirically, this equates to brokers providing this colour to their clients, informing customers in real-time what they are perceiving, and importantly, proactively looking out for these indicators.

As Montesano explains: “Another factor in going via the floor is that brokers can provide market colour and inform their customers in real-time what else they see going on in the pit. For example, they can make their customers aware of other large orders being executed in related or opposing series. That perceived colour is a value add. 

“We know of several brand-new firms, including some from overseas, and some that can quote electronically but also wanted a floor presence because they saw the vibrancy of it. In addition, some of the existing firms that have had a pit presence have expanded their presence. We’ve even had more brokerage groups come into the business as well.”

Read more: First ever female traders share experiences of the London trading floor

Elsewhere, speaking to the prevalence of open outcry in the US compared to Europe, there is a marked difference in approaches. While there remains today several open outcry exchanges on one side of the Atlantic, The London Metal Exchange (LME) is the last remaining in Europe. 

Thieullent suggests that it was a question of different recipes for different cultures: “[…] These days there is definitely a question around liquidity in Europe, where re-emergence of open outcry being a viable solution for more liquidity is more of a question. It’s a tool which has been lost in some ways in European culture, and there is a real challenge with regard to the number of liquidity pools and the overall liquidity of the market available which makes the potential slice for open outcry very small or very irregular.” 

However, on the other side of this is potential for evolution and enough space in the market to consider alternatives: “Obviously people agree that without e-trading, the market could have never survived the COVID-19 pandemic, if it was all physical trading. All that is absolutely true. But in the same breath, everyone was completely convinced that remote working was the future – completely – but then two years later we’re back and the office is once again valued. The winds have changed direction which is interesting,” says Thieullent.

Though electronic trading accounts – understandably and irrevocably – for the bulk of the market’s activity, this aspect of trading life, which does still prevail, is therefore perhaps not merely a nostalgic hark back as many are quick to declare. Rather, open outcry can justly be considered an extra, valuable, facet of an ever-moving and complex industry.

As Labovitz suggests: “Trading floors represent a different way of doing things, not worse, not an inferior way. A different way of doing it – there’s value in that.”

The post Open outcry: A renaissance? appeared first on The TRADE.

The results are set to be published for public comment, and according to the SEC, the revised plan must: include a date by which it will become fully effective, alongside a prescribed timeline and periodic progress reports; require that all those involved be subject to the plan’s conflicts-of-interest and confidentiality policies; include specialised provisions regarding the sharing of protected information; and outline rules regarding the use of subcommittees.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ordered exchanges to submit new plans for governance of market data back in May 2020, in a bid to overhaul control over the equity consolidated tape and address conflicts of interest concerns.

The regulator at the time directed equity exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to propose a National Market System plan, to produce the public consolidated tape and disseminate the data.

Speaking at the time, Jay Clayton, chair of the SEC, stated: “Today’s action reflects careful analysis and deliberation on modernising and improving access to equity market data and, as a result, our equity market structure more generally.

“Today’s Commission action is based on extensive input from a broad range of investors and market participants and reflects the commitment of the women and men of the SEC to fairness in our markets and the interests of investors.” 

They have now moved forward, and last Friday ordered the filing of a new NMS plan “to replace the three existing national market system plans which govern the public dissemination of real-time, consolidated equity market data for national market system stocks”. 

Read more: What is Reg NMS and could it be beneficial for Europe?

Under the current regime, exchange groups which include Nasdaq, NYSE and Cboe, hold total control and voting rights related to the production and dissemination of data– which has over time led market participants to believe that venues hold an unfair monopoly on the critical market data.

The conflict of interest specifically stems from the entities’ interest in maximising the viability of the data products they sell, and their regulatory responsibilities in overseeing the NMS plans.

Speaking in the most recent announcement from 1 September, the SEC explained: “Developments in technology and changes in the equity markets have heightened the inherent conflicts of interest […] This has raised concerns about whether the existing NMS plans for equity market data continue to fulfil their regulatory purpose to ensure the availability of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities. 

“Today’s order addresses conflicts of interest inherent in the current governance structure of the existing equity data plans and is designed to improve the efficiency of NMS plan operations and the responsiveness of the plan to the concerns of market participants that are not self-regulatory organisations.”

The post SEC issues ruling for a new National Market System appeared first on The TRADE.

Sylvain Thieullent

Did anyone else get a funny sense of déjà vu when the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) suddenly cancelled trades after “technical glitches” with its opening auction triggered wild price swings in the likes of McDonald’s and ExxonMobil? From Knight Capital in 2012 to Euronext in 2021, over the past decade, all kinds of “glitches” have occurred and in every single case, investors have only been able to respond based on what the exchanges have been willing to communicate.

Last month’s NYSE incident was no different – but what can investors do with such limited insight? Far from being the first time, the incident has been put down to a “human mistake”. Reports claim that the system connecting to the Chicago-based backup data centre, which should be manually turned on and off when the market opens and closes, was not. As a consequence, the backup system was left running, and at 9:30am the next morning, the system skipped the day’s opening auctions that set prices and caused a brief meltdown.

Read More – NYSE claims technical glitch for early trading issues

It is clear that glitches are a recurring nightmare for exchanges – propagating challenges from the regulators, members and, ultimately, overall trust in the market. When a NYSE type incident occurs, there is the inevitable knee-jerk reaction from global regulators to better monitor future situations to the extent that it affects trade reporting obligations and issues of wider market integrity. Then there is the “reviewing existing processes” period to understand in greater detail what went wrong, before then enforcing measures to reduce the risk of similar events happening in the future. The issue is that there are rules already in place alongside a willingness on behalf of the exchange community to abide by them, so it is hard to see what the subsequent “review” processes will achieve. The truth is that no matter how many reviews take place, they are not preventing technical glitches from occurring. The question is, why do they keep happening? After all these glitches should, in theory, be taking place far less frequently due to the significant industry wide technological advancements that have taken place.

The answer may be that humans cannot keep up with the rate at which technology is advancing. The infrastructure underpinning the global capital markets is so complex that it is becoming unmanageable to the human brain. Our best hope may be that computers eventually will become smart enough to maintain themselves. What that means is that when one thing fails, or one piece of information fails, it can affect hundreds, thousands or millions of other pieces of equipment. As we have seen in the case of the NYSE, it is not as easy as flipping a switch to get things up and operational again.

The focus must be on upgrading existing technology to be better prepared for the next time something like this happens. Technology does exist to assist in these circumstances and should be deployed alongside market practices driven by rules defined by the regulator. While we must accept that technology will break from time to time, it can be upgraded and made to work in order to reduce the number of exchange outages happening. Backups, automated alerts, and other functionalities are prevalent across other sectors to keep system administrators apprised. So why is this not the case for exchanges with an equity market capitalisation upwards of 20 trillion dollars?

The post Tech glitches should not be the cause of stock exchange outages in this day and age appeared first on The TRADE.

The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) saw a volatile opening to the market on Tuesday as what appeared to be a floor

The issue was first acknowledged by the NYSE (which is owned by ICE) at 10.21 ET, at which time the exchange confirmed that it was “investigating reported issues with the opening auction”.  

By 10.57 ET the problem was acknowledged, with the exchange stating that: “In a subset of symbols, opening auctions did not occur” and that impacted member firms would be able to file for “Clearly Erroneous” or Rule 18 claims for any busted trades. 

In a follow-up statement, the NYSE confirmed that a “system issue” meant that it did not conduct opening auctions in a subset of its listed securities, resulting in continuous trading from 9.30 ET without an opening auction print.  

The halted trades, and those that were impacted by the price swings, were to be declared as either null and void or aberrant (depending on the time they took place) and eliminated from the calculation of the day’s price, with the consolidated tape adjusted accordingly after the close.  

Although the issue was attributed by the exchange to a technical glitch, there was some discussion amongst market participants as to whether there could have been other factors at play, such as a program trade gone wrong. However, these rumours are unconfirmed; and the exchange has been unequivocal in its explanation.  

“Such events are extremely rare, and we are thoroughly examining the day’s activity to assure the highest level of resilience in our systems,” said NYSE’s chief operating officer, Michael Blaugrund, in a statement. 

Impacted stocks included Verizon, McDonald’s, Wells Fargo and Walmart.  

The post NYSE claims technical glitch for early trading issues appeared first on The TRADE.

Nasdaq, Cboe, and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) filed court petitions against the US regulator on 9 February following its decision to force exchanges to expand access to valuable data they provide via lucrative market data feeds.

“If we want to maintain the strength and resiliency of our capital markets, we need to embrace change and partner with our regulators on constructive solutions, instead of throwing up legal roadblocks aimed at bolstering competitive moats and preserving a two-tier system of market data,” said Jonathan Kellner, MEMX chief executive officer.

The SEC confirmed its plans to expand the information available to investors in December, stating that real-time consolidated data feeds for the US equities market, also known as SIPs, must be expanded to include depth of book data.

The data was previously only available through proprietary direct data feeds sold for high fees by exchanges, which has led to significant debate from market participants in recent years that exchanges have monopolised the market.

“The rule is arbitrary, capricious and otherwise not in accordance with law and does not promote efficiency, competition and capital formation,” said NYSE in its lawsuit.

The SEC said its market data reforms aim to bring more competition to the space and decrease escalating data costs for investors, after market participants argued the expensive data is crucial in meeting regulatory requirements.

“Today’s rules are part of our larger initiative and ongoing efforts to modernise our equity market regulatory structure to address significant changes in our trading markets and better fit the needs of investors—both retail and institutional—and other market participants, including issuers,” said Jay Clayton, SEC chairman in a December statement.

“These rules are designed to increase competition and transparency, which will improve data quality and data access for all market participants.”

Incumbent exchanges have butted heads with the SEC several times over its plot to reform market data. In June, the exchanges won an appeal against a controversial ruling from 2018, when the SEC backtracked on a proposed increase in data fees, ruling that Nasdaq and NYSE had failed to justify the price hike.

NYSE and Nasdaq argued the SEC overstepped the mark by reversing its initial decision on the fee increase as attempts to overregulate the markets, to benefit large financial institutions.

The post MEMX hits out at US exchanges over legal row on market data with SEC  appeared first on The TRADE.

Paul Kenyon will leave his position at NYSE this week after almost five years with the exchange operator.

He will begin his new position within the business development team at Jump Trading next month reporting to global head of business development, Tonya Adduci, according to a source familiar with the matter.

A spokesperson at Jump Trading declined to comment on his appointment.

Kenyon has spent the majority of his career working in sales at US exchanges. He joined NYSE in February 2016 as a director and head of sales and relationship management.

Prior to NYSE, Kenyon spent more than six years with Nasdaq where he held several roles in product management. Upon his departure, he was a managing director within Nasdaq’s global trading and market services division.

Jump Trading is a proprietary trading firm with operations in New York, Chicago, London, and Shanghai. 

According to a recent report from efinancialcareers, Jump Trading is preparing to launch a new operation in Paris after advertising jobs based in the French capital. The report added that Sebastien Cortez, formerly global head of algo execution and quantitative market making at Societe Generale, joined Jump Trading this month in Paris.

The post NYSE sales head departs for role at HFT Jump Trading appeared first on The TRADE.

In a statement, Citadel Securities confirmed it had reached a preliminary agreement with IMC on the deal, which upon closure will expand its position as one of the largest floor brokers on the NYSE floor in terms of market cap and number of securities.

Terms of the deal were not disclosed. It is expected to close by the end of this year.

The sale represents a small portion of IMC’s overall US operations. It has been a designated market maker (DMM) on the NYSE floor after acquiring the DMM business from Goldman Sachs in 2014. The firm has since almost doubled its US operations to nearly 400 people supporting its trading.  

“The DMM business provided IMC with many benefits since we acquired it six years ago,” said Sunny Khiani, MD for IMC’s US operations. “The decision to sell our DMM business at this time is in line with IMC’s growth strategy, which focuses on our core strengths – market making, advanced technology and deep liquidity.”

Citadel Securities oversees daily trading in more than 1,500 NYSE-listed stocks and often support IPOs and direct listings. It said it has been chosen for over 60% of all NYSE listings since 2016 and more than 80% of all listings so far this year.

“We are thrilled to further extend our presence at the New York Stock Exchange,” said Joe Mecane, head of execution services for Citadel Securities. “We look forward to building new relationships and bringing the benefits of our leading liquidity offering and exceptional client service to the additional issuers who will be joining us as a result of this transaction.”

In August, Citadel Securities and its hedge fund Citadel confirmed plans to open a new office in Singapore as part of a move to further expand into the Asia Pacific region. Both firms will continue to expand in Hong Kong, while Citadel Securities increases its existing presence in Singapore and Sydney.

The post Citadel Securities expands trading floor unit at NYSE with IMC takeover appeared first on The TRADE.

NYSE said that as it begins the second phase of reopening its trading floor as coronavirus lockdwon , each DMM can return with limited personnel to conduct manual trading, including opening and closing auctions, in the market maker’s assigned securities.

“Until the trading floor fully reopens, NYSE expects a subset of NYSE-listed securities will continue to be supported by the DMM remotely,” NYSE said in a statement. “NYSE will publish a daily list on its website of those securities that will be ineligible for manual auctions conducted from the floor.”

NYSE added that DMMs will be banned from accepting verbal bids and offers during this phase of the reopening. The trading floor community can, however, resume use of public transport to access the venue, while the floor continues to operate at a reduced headcount and with safety precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

NYSE said last month it would partially reopen its American options and equities trading floors on 26 May, after exchange operators globally were forced to shut down open outcry and trading floor operations in March at the height of the crisis. On 23 March, NYSE shifted to fully electronic operations as part of its business continuity plans amid the pandemic, alongside other exchanges CME Group and Cboe.

The post NYSE to reopen trading floor to some market makers appeared first on The TRADE.

The US Court of Appeals in Washington denied the SEC’s petition to stop a review of its ruling that Nasdaq and NYSE had failed to justify an increase in market data fees, supporting a judicial review of the action instead.

In 2018, industry trade group the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) challenged the SEC’s initial decision in 2016 to approve market data fee hikes imposed by NYSE and Nasdaq in 2010. The fee increases related to depth-of-book data, including valuable information on best bids and offers available on the exchanges.

NYSE and Nasdaq argued the SEC overstepped the mark by reversing its initial decision on the fee increase as attempts to overregulate the markets, to benefit large financial institutions. They also questioned SEC trading and markets director Brett Redfearn’s influence over the 2018 ruling. Redfearn formally worked for SIFMA member JP Morgan, and has long-been outspoken on the issue on market data fees.

“The Equity Markets Association is pleased that the DC Circuit court has ruled the Securities and Exchange Commission overreached its powers when it followed a financial lobby in taking up this case. This ruling is a victory for the rule of law and free and fair competition,” the US Equity Markets Association said in response to the decision on the recent appeal.

Market data fees and access have been the issue of debate for more than a decade. Last month, the SEC moved forward with plans to overhaul governance of public equity market data after ordering incumbent exchange groups to submit new governance plans. Exchanges currently have total control and voting rights over how data for the consolidated tape is produced and disseminated. The SEC also said in February that depth-of-book data should be included in the real-time consolidated data feed. 

The post US exchanges win appeal on SEC market data fee ruling appeared first on The TRADE.