Search results

To explain an October 16, 2018 US Securities and Exchange Commission order that unanimously upheld a SIFMA challenge to fee increases for “depth-of-book” market data filed by Nasdaq and NYSE Arca and the SEC’s simultaneous remanding of over 400 market data fee and other filings back to the exchanges for consideration under the standards set out in the order.

Explains the criteria for fee increases under the Exchange Act, the SEC’s historic routine approval of exchanges’ proposed fee increases, the SEC’s challenge to two recent market data filings, and the SEC’s remanding of 400 additional market data fee filings challenged by SIFMA to the exchanges and the National Market System (NMS) for reconsideration. Analyzes and discusses the SEC’s order.

The SECs’ SIFMA order appears to raise the bar significantly for what exchanges must show to justify fee increases.More broadly, all five SEC Commissioners (of both parties) appear to be rethinking the role of for-profit exchanges in the regulatory structure.These orders have the potential to rewrite the regulation of market data, other exchange fees, and potentially the relationship between the exchanges and other market participants, for the entire securities industry.

Practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

This paper aims to analyze and discuss the implications of the August 2010 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacating and remanding to the SEC its December 2008 order approving a proposed fee filed by NYSE Arca, LLC for its depth‐of‐book product ArcaBook. It also seeks to consider the effect on the court's decision of the Dodd‐Frank Act amendments to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.

The paper analyzes the evolution of the SEC's policy regarding SRO market data fees including the 1999 Concept Release on Market Information, the Advisory Committee on Market Information, the effects of decimalization and the 2005 adoption of Regulation NMS. It focuses on market data fee policy in connection with the Commission's decade‐long project to increase the role of competition in the US securities markets, culminating in the 2006 NYSE Arca fee filing, the SEC's 2008 order approving those fees and the NetCoalition decision.

The court's decision that a cost analysis is not irrelevant to the SEC's review of proposed SRO fee filings brings clarity and finality to a long‐standing dispute within the Commission and the securities industry and identifies a procedure for reaching an economically sound determination of “fair and reasonable” fees for SRO market data.

A cost‐based analysis of SRO market data fee filings is likely to result in a significant decline in market data revenues for those exchanges that charge fees for their data. For the Commission, cost‐based analysis is likely to require a significant reallocation of its regulatory staff and resources.

The paper presents a useful analysis for securities regulatory lawyers and financial analysts and investors following the stock exchange and financial information industries.

The SEC has proposed several rules and rule amendments that, if adopted, would impact market structure of the equities markets for years to come. This article summarizes those proposed changes and describes some of the early reaction to them by both industry and regulators. Regulation NMS, as the rule proposals are collectively called, is intended to accomplish three primary objectives: (1) to promote equal regulation of market centers, (2) to update antiquated rules, and (3) to promote greater order interaction and displayed depth. Regulation NMS, which is intended to “advance the dialogue” on market structure issues, consists of rule proposals in four substantive areas. First, the SEC has proposed a uniform trade‐through rule for all national market system (“NMS”) market centers that would affirm the principle of price priority while addressing the differences between automated and manual markets. Second, the SEC has proposed a uniform market access rule with a de minimis fee standard intended to assure non‐discriminatory access to the best prices displayed by NMS market centers without mandating hard linkages such as the Intermarket Trading System (“ITS”).

The Trade‐through rule (TTR) was established in 1975; it was designed to ensure that investors got the best price available for a stock trade. Under the Trade‐through rule, a customer’s order must be routed to the exchange or order market system where the best current price exists at any given moment. For example, if the best price quote for an order is listed by a specialist market maker at the NYSE, a customer order must be routed to the NYSE floor; it may not “trade through” to another exchange. The TTR is really an anti‐trade‐through rule; i.e. it prevents the trading through of orders. In fact, to reflect this reality, the SEC has given the TTR a new name: The Order Protection Rule. In concept, the TTR is a good idea to ensure that investors get the best price possible when trading stocks. At the time the TTR was adopted, it was designed to address a fragmented marketplace for stock trading. However, the financial markets have changed radically since the rule was first adopted. The dramatic increase in the use of personal computers in the early 1980s as well as the advent of electronic communication networks (ECNs) in the 1990s changed the trading landscape.

To examine whether the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in its recent rule changes has provided the appropriate separation between its supervisory authority and the management of the Exchange.

Describes the regulatory and governance structure proposed by the NYSE in connection with its public offering; discusses policy objections the security industry has made to the proposal, reviews responses by the NYSE and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to those objections; and discusses what steps might be on the horizon to better rationalize the regulatory and business side of the new for‐profit NYSE.

The NYSE's proposal should provide for regulatory consolidation with the NASD. The proposal heightens the conflict between a for‐profit exchange and its regulatory function. The proposal governance structure ignores the fact that NYSE LLC is the Exchange and has plenary authority over NYSE regulation. The proposal does not provide fair representation for members. The proposal does not provide appropriate treatment of market data.

Provides a comprehensive view of recent changes to the NYSE's regulatory and governance structure and issues raised by the securities industry in response to those changes.

The objective of this paper is to identify, analyze and discuss successful strategies and approaches taken by a small retailer with internet storefront in an emerging market economy.

A case study is used to illustrate, how a small book retailer became the largest online bookstore in Turkey through successful e‐commerce utilization.

The case provides information about various successful strategies that have been designed to improve the performance of internet retailers in a developing country.

The data collection method appears to be unorthodox. Although the story of internet booksellers is not new, the case is located in an emerging and “non conventional” market.

The paper promotes a context of e‐commerce in developing nations and makes the case for internet channels as a viable competitive strategy for small to medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs).

This paper gives the inside look at e‐commerce in emerging market. The internet is an important venue for growth and expansion among retail entrepreneurs in developing nations. It adds to the important literature on the use of e‐commerce by SMEs.

Addresses a number of issues concerning racial discrimination in UK public libraries. It examines Black librarianship in the UK in 2001; records the development of the Quality Leaders Project which focuses on policy development, management and leadership issues in the context of Black workers and community needs; and discusses the potential contribution of this approach.