We've got a 17th stock exchange! Sort of. This new exchange is called BSTX and it's operated by tZERO and BOX (options exchange operator). The SEC's approval resulted in some interesting headlines.
The problem is none of them are accurate.
BSTX's original intent (as far as I can tell from press releases) was to build a security token exchange powered by tZero's blockchain tech. However, it appears that the SEC was not receptive to some of BSTX's ideas.
I've read through the various filings, some of the comment letters, and the approval (sec.gov/rules/sro/box/…), so here are some thoughts.
The only use of blockchain tech here is for the historical market data product. The exchange notes that this is not novel, and is similar to something that MEMX offers. I don't think they mean blockchain, just market data products generally, but I could be wrong?
The blockchain being used for historical market data seems... gimmicky. First, I'm a big fan of blockchain and crypto. But, I always ask myself - why not a database? And here, I don't see a reason. The Market Data Blockchain doesn't offer anything a database couldn't, AFAICT.
As with every other exchange, any security traded on BSTX will clear and settle through the DTCC and NSCC. The securities can also be traded on any other exchange, none of which employ the use of blockchain tech. There are no digital tokens here.
The one thing I find interesting about BSTX is the configurable settlement option. However, the entire industry will be moving to T+1 soon & it's likely that nearly every trade on BSTX will settle T+2 until then. If you do find a T+0 counterpart, you gotta execute before 11:30am.
Probably worth including this for the value that the exchange sees in the use of blockchain tech. I don't see value in #1 relative to a traditional database. I'm a skeptic on #2, much of the industry is familiar with blockchain at this point.
Finally, broadly speaking, the exchange is modeled after traditional exchanges. Exchange listing standards are all similar to NYSE American (or NYSE Arca for ETPs), including for initial and continuing listing, and corporate governance, nothing different here.
The exchange will also offer co-location and high-speed proprietary data feeds, and so continue to facilitate the HFT latency race. That's a bit disappointing, especially given past rhetoric of tZero. Not surprising though, data and connectivity are key revenue sources for exchs.
So overall, there doesn't seem to be much here. BSTX won't be trading other NMS securities for now, so that's a bit less complexity added to markets. I assume the main argument being made here is that this is a stepping stone to those headlines of blockchain-based trading.
I'm a skeptic on that argument too. If the SEC wasn't receptive to those arguments on the initial application, it's unlikely they'll come around anytime soon. I think non-DTCC/NSCC-based clearing and settlement is FAR away (if ever), and I don't think this gets anyone any closer.
We'll see how things play out, and what kind of securities BSTX lists as they get going. The listings game is the hardest one to crack in the US, so many have tried and failed. Of course, that's why it's ripe for innovation, so let's hope something interesting happens here.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There are several things going on here. First, the NBBO is a flawed benchmark, one that is being damaged & widened by the very practice of PFOF/internalization.
It’s like marking up a TV by 25% & then giving your customers 1% off and telling them they’re saving a ton of money.
Second, there are often better prices out in the market that the internalizers know about, and I show a trade that looks very much like front-running, albeit at millisecond timescales.
2022 will be a monumental year in market structure, w/big proposals coming from SEC on off-exchange trading and PFOF. Part of what we will do @UrvinTerminal is make sure that retail has a well-informed voice in this debate. Support our efforts here: wefunder.com/urvinfinance/
@UrvinTerminal I believe in leveling the playing field - getting retail investors access to the same high quality data and tools that the professionals have.
I believe in truly democratizing information, data and access - not turning retail into a product to be sold to high-speed speculators.
I believe that you can align incentives so that everyone wins, while taking on the biggest and most powerful incumbents on Wall St.
I believe we can change the system when we work together, point out corruption, and build a movement so big, it can't be ignored!
Ok, it’s time for some game theory. For real! Let’s talk about the conflicts-of-interest at the heart of nearly all equity routing today – rebates & payments. These inducements (that’s an important word) influence how brokers route orders, for retail and institutions.
First of all, for retail, I think everyone understands that PFOF involves market makers paying brokers to send retail orders to them. Most of the time these are marketable orders. Limit orders are often sent to exchanges.
For example, here is Fidelity’s order routing showing marketable orders going mostly to Citadel and Virtu, and non-marketable orders going to NYSE and Nasdaq. Non-marketable limit orders receive a rebate when they are sent to an exchange
Remember in February when Thomas Peterffy said:
"We have come dangerously close to the collapse of the entire system."
I just had a very stimulating discussion on the nature of systemic risk, market structure and leverage / shorting.
How is it even possible that GME could've brought something like this about?
Can you imagine if GME was responsible for the entire market grinding to a halt?
What's even crazier? Nothing has changed, 10 months later. We are 10 months after an event that could have brought the entire US market down, and nothing has changed. Nothing has been done. There is systemic risk in market structure that is not being addressed.
This is the story all the current internalizer apologists want you to believe - "retail has never had it better." They neglect to mention the costs this has imposed on pension plans and mutual funds, or that the measurement is flawed because of artificially wider spreads.
Segmenting retail order flow harms markets, and widens spreads. Then those who champion this segmentation measure so-called "price improvement" against a wider spread, and claim "retail has never had it better." It's disingenuous, & of course those making the argument know that.
But Virtu, Citadel and the retail brokers are simply making too much money so they're desperate to maintain the system. They will fight the SEC tooth and nail on this, in order to preserve their annual bonuses.
While this soundbite sounds good, it's not accurate. Using standard measures of market concentration, you can EASILY see that off-exchange trading is highly concentrated, and for large retail brokers it fits the DOJ definition for anti-trust enforcement.
The Herfindahl Index (HHI) is a standard measure of corporate concentration. Total OTC trading in July 2021 showed an index of nearly 2,000, but that doesn't tell the real story. Looking just at HOOD's 606, their HHI ranges from 2,500 (S&P 500) to over 3,000 for options.
This is the literal definition of corporate concentration, and it results in worse outcomes for everyone involved (except for the wholesalers and HOOD executives).