DOCSLIB.ORG

Consolidated Tape System Participant Communications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Consolidated Tape System Participant Communications SECURITIES INDUSTRY AUTOMATION CORPORATION CTS CONSOLIDATED TAPE SYSTEM PARTICIPANT COMMUNICATIONS INTERFACE SPECIFICATION June 2, 2017 Version 3.1 CONSOLIDATED TAPE SYSTEM (CTS) PARTICIPANT COMMUNICATIONS INTERFACE SPECIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF CHANGES ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Document Scope ................................................................................................................................. 10 1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 10 2.0 DUAL SITE REDUNDANCY ...................................................................................................................... 11 3.0 TRANSFER CONTROL PROTOCOL/INTERNET PROTOCOL (TCP/IP) COMMUNICATIONS . 12 3.1 TCP/IP Interface Requirements ....................................................................................................... 12 3.2 TCP/IP Dynamic Input Throttling ................................................................................................... 12 4.0 GENERAL PARTICIPANT INPUT MESSAGE PROCESSING ............................................................ 13 4.1 Interface Method ................................................................................................................................ 13 4.2 Restart Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 13 4.3 General Design Considerations ......................................................................................................... 14 4.4 Basic Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 14 5.0 TRANSMISSION CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................. 15 5.1 Transmission Block ......................................................................................................................................... 15 5.2 Data Format .................................................................................................................................................... 15 5.3 TCP/IP Header ................................................................................................................................... 15 5.4 Block Length Header ......................................................................................................................... 16 5.5 Block Header ...................................................................................................................................... 16 5.6 Expanded Message Header ............................................................................................................... 17 5.6.1 Message Header Field Descriptions ..................................................................................................... 18 5.6.1.1 Message Category ......................................................................................................................... 18 5.6.1.2 Message Type .............................................................................................................................. 19 5.6.1.3 Originating Participant ID ............................................................................................................ 20 5.6.1.4 Destination Participant ID ............................................................................................................ 21 5.6.1.5 Message Sequence Number ......................................................................................................... 22 5.6.1.6 Message Status ............................................................................................................................. 24 5.6.1.7 Message Header Identifier ........................................................................................................... 24 5.6.1.8 Reserved ...................................................................................................................................... 24 5.6.1.9 Regional Reference Number (RRN) ............................................................................................ 25 5.6.2.0 Timestamp 1 ................................................................................................................................ 26 5.6.2.1 Timestamp 2 ................................................................................................................................... 26 June 2, 2017 1 CONSOLIDATED TAPE SYSTEM (CTS) PARTICIPANT COMMUNICATIONS INTERFACE SPECIFICATION 6.0 MESSAGE FORMATS ................................................................................................................................ 28 6.1 Category A – Administrative/Announcement/Market Status/Rejection/Warning Messages ...... 29 6.1.1 Category A Type F – Symbol Maintenance ......................................................................................... 30 6.1.2 Category A Type M – Administrative Unformatted (free form text) ................................................... 31 6.1.3 Category A Type R – Rejection/Warning ............................................................................................ 32 6.1.4 Category A Type T – Market Activity Information ............................................................................. 34 6.2 Category C – Control Messages ................................................................................................................ 35 6.2.1 Category C Type 1 – Start of Participant Reporting ............................................................................ 36 6.2.2 Category C Type 2 – End of Participant Reporting (EOPR)................................................................ 36 6.2.3 Category C Type 4 – Line Integrity – Participant to CTS .................................................................... 37 6.2.4 Category C Type I – Sequence Inquiry ................................................................................................ 39 6.2.5 Category C Type N – Sequence Information ....................................................................................... 40 6.2.6 Category C Type 4 – Line Integrity – CTS to Participant .................................................................... 41 6.2.7 Category C Type 5 – Test .................................................................................................................... 42 6.3 Category M– Market Status Messages ............................................................................................. 43 6.3.1 Category M Type B – Start of Most Active Issues .............................................................................. 44 6.3.2 Category M Type D – End of Most Active Issues ................................................................................... 44 6.3.3 Category M Type E – Start of Closing Trade Prices ................................................................................ 44 6.3.4 Category M Type G – End of Closing Trade Prices ................................................................................ 44 6.3.5 Category M Type H – Start of BID/OFFER Closing Trade Prices .......................................................... 45 6.3.6 Category M Type J – End of BID/OFFER Closing Trade Prices ............................................................. 45 6.3.7 Category M Type C –Most Active Issues ................................................................................................ 46 6.3.8 Category M Type F – NYSE MKT Stock Market or NYSE Closing Trade Prices ................................. 47 6.3.9 Category M Type I –BID/OFFER Closing Prices .................................................................................. 48 6.3.10 Category M Type O – Approximate Trades and Total Dollar Value .................................................... 49 6.3.11 Category M Type P –Crossing Session ................................................................................................. 50 6.4 Category P– Prior Day Messages............................................................................................................ 51 6.4.1 Category P Type C –Prior Day Trade Correction ................................................................................ 52 6.4.2 Category P Type E –Prior Day Trade Last Sale ................................................................................... 53 6.4.3 Category P Type X –Prior Day Trade Cancel/Error ............................................................................ 54 6.5 Category T– Trade Messages .................................................................................................................... 55 6.5.1 Category T Type C – Trade Correction ............................................................................................... 56 6.5.2 Category T Type E – Trade Last Sale Report Expanded ..................................................................... 57 6.5.3 Category T Type G – Trading Status ..................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Execution Venues List
    Execution Venues List This list should be read in conjunction with the Best Execution policy for Credit Suisse AG (excluding branches and subsidiaries), Credit Suisse (Switzerland) Ltd, Credit Suisse (Luxembourg) S.A, Credit Suisse (Luxembourg) S.A. Zweigniederlassung Österreichand, Neue Aargauer Bank AG published at www.credit-suisse.com/MiFID and https://www.credit-suisse.com/lu/en/private-banking/best-execution.html The Execution Venues1) shown enable the in scope legal entities to obtain on a consistent basis the best possible result for the execution of client orders. Accordingly, where the in scope legal entities may place significant reliance on these Execution Venues. Equity Cash & Exchange Traded Funds Country/Liquidity Pool Execution Venue1) Name MIC Code2) Regulated Markets & 3rd party exchanges Europe Austria Wiener Börse – Official Market WBAH Austria Wiener Börse – Securities Exchange XVIE Austria Wiener Börse XWBO Austria Wiener Börse Dritter Markt WBDM Belgium Euronext Brussels XBRU Belgium Euronext Growth Brussels ALXB Czech Republic Prague Stock Exchange XPRA Cyprus Cyprus Stock Exchange XCYS Denmark NASDAQ Copenhagen XCSE Estonia NASDAQ Tallinn XTAL Finland NASDAQ Helsinki XHEL France EURONEXT Paris XPAR France EURONEXT Growth Paris ALXP Germany Börse Berlin XBER Germany Börse Berlin – Equiduct Trading XEQT Germany Deutsche Börse XFRA Germany Börse Frankfurt Warrants XSCO Germany Börse Hamburg XHAM Germany Börse Düsseldorf XDUS Germany Börse München XMUN Germany Börse Stuttgart XSTU Germany Hannover Stock Exchange XHAN
    [Show full text]
  • Slowing Down High-Speed Trading: Why the SEC Should Allow a New Exchange a Chance to Compete*
    Slowing Down High-Speed Trading: Why the SEC Should Allow a New Exchange a Chance to Compete* Julie St. John† I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................ 207 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 210 A. Issues with High-Speed Trading ...................................... 210 B. How the IEX Delay Technology Combats High- Frequency Trading ............................................................ 211 III. THE CONTROVERSY .......................................................................... 214 A. Regulation National Market System ................................ 214 B. Fairness in the Market ...................................................... 217 IV. WHAT THE SEC SHOULD DO ........................................................... 218 V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 220 APPENDIX .................................................................................................. 221 I. OVERVIEW Investors’ Exchange (IEX) is to public stock exchanges what Uber and Lyft are to traditional taxi companies, and what Airbnb is to hotel chains.1 The exchange uses technology called a magic shoebox—thirty- eight miles of fiber-optic cable coiled inside of a box.2 This magic * The SEC made its decision and approved IEX as a public exchange on June 17, 2016. Press Release, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, SEC Approves IEX Proposal to Launch Nat’l Exch., Issues Interpretation
    [Show full text]
  • USCA Case #20-1424 Document #1894176 Filed: 04/12/2021 Page 1 of 42
    USCA Case #20-1424 Document #1894176 Filed: 04/12/2021 Page 1 of 42 [ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED] No. 20-1424 __________________________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT __________________________________________________________________ Citadel Securities LLC, Petitioner, v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Respondent, Investors Exchange, LLC, Intervenor __________________________________________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission __________________________________________________________________ BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE, BY CONSENT, OF BETTER MARKETS, INC. IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT AND INTERVENOR Dennis M. Kelleher Stephen W. Hall Jason R. Grimes Better Markets, Inc. 1825 K Street, NW, Suite 1080 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 618-6464 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae USCA Case #20-1424 Document #1894176 Filed: 04/12/2021 Page 2 of 42 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and D.C. Circuit Rule 26.1, Better Markets, Inc. (“Better Markets”) states that it is a non- profit organization that advocates for the public interest in the financial markets; that it has no parent company; and that there is no publicly-held company that has any ownership interest in Better Markets. i USCA Case #20-1424 Document #1894176 Filed: 04/12/2021 Page 3 of 42 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES I. PARTIES AND AMICI All parties to this case are listed in the Brief for Petitioner. Better Markets is not aware of any amici supporting Respondent other than those listed in the Brief for Respondent. Better Markets understands that Healthy Markets Association and XTX Markets LLC intend to file amicus briefs in support of Respondent Securities and Exchange Commission and Intervenor Investors Exchange, LLC.
    [Show full text]
  • Informational Inequality: How High Frequency Traders Use Premier Access to Information to Prey on Institutional Investors
    INFORMATIONAL INEQUALITY: HOW HIGH FREQUENCY TRADERS USE PREMIER ACCESS TO INFORMATION TO PREY ON INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS † JACOB ADRIAN ABSTRACT In recent months, Wall Street has been whipped into a frenzy following the March 31st release of Michael Lewis’ book “Flash Boys.” In the book, Lewis characterizes the stock market as being rigged, which has institutional investors and outside observers alike demanding some sort of SEC action. The vast majority of this criticism is aimed at high-frequency traders, who use complex computer algorithms to execute trades several times faster than the blink of an eye. One of the many complaints against high-frequency traders is over parasitic trading practices, such as front-running. Front-running, in the era of high-frequency trading, is best defined as using the knowledge of a large impending trade to take a favorable position in the market before that trade is executed. Put simply, these traders are able to jump in front of a trade before it can be completed. This Note explains how high-frequency traders are able to front- run trades using superior access to information, and examines several proposed SEC responses. INTRODUCTION If asked to envision what trading looks like on the New York Stock Exchange, most people who do not follow the U.S. securities market would likely picture a bunch of brokers standing around on the trading floor, yelling and waving pieces of paper in the air. Ten years ago they would have been absolutely right, but the stock market has undergone radical changes in the last decade. It has shifted from one dominated by manual trading at a physical location to a vast network of interconnected and automated trading systems.1 Technological advances that simplified how orders are generated, routed, and executed have fostered the changes in market † J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Held NMS Stocks and Options Order Routing Public Report Generated on Mon Mar 01 2021 11:16:41 GMT-0500 (EST)
    Interactive Brokers - Held NMS Stocks and Options Order Routing Public Report Generated on Mon Mar 01 2021 11:16:41 GMT-0500 (EST) 1st Quarter, 2020 January 2020 S&P 500 Stocks Summary Non-Directed Orders Market Orders as % of Marketable Limit Non-Marketable Limit Other Orders as % of as % of All Orders Non-Directed Orders Orders as % of Non- Orders as % of Non- Non-Directed Orders Directed Orders Directed Orders 98.68 0.11 30.70 64.77 4.42 Venues Venue - Non- Market Marketable Non- Other Net Payment Net Payment Paid/ Net Payment Paid/ Net Payment Paid/ Net Payment Paid/ Net Payment Paid/ Net Payment Net Payment Paid/ Non-directed Directed Orders Limit Orders Marketable Orders Paid/Received for Received for Market Received for Received for Received for Non- Received for Non- Paid/Received for Received for Other Order Flow Orders (%) (%) (%) Limit Orders (%) Market Orders(cents per Marketable Limit Marketable Limit Marketable Limit Marketable Limit Other Orders(cents per (%) Orders(USD) hundred shares) Orders(USD) Orders(cents per Orders(USD) Orders(cents per Orders(USD) hundred shares) hundred shares) hundred shares) Nasdaq 31.33 3.95 7.88 42.73 27.88 -6 -1.5802 -77,156 -27.0986 193,651 26.7462 -17,818 -11.9749 Stock Market (XNAS) Goldman 26.08 0.00 0.81 39.88 0.00 0 -200 -1.3158 68,433 15.8614 0 Sachs and Co. LLC (GSCO) IBKR ATS 8.35 0.00 25.75 0.69 0.03 0 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 (IATS) NYSE Arca 5.67 0.00 3.11 7.28 0.00 0 -33,026 -29.2391 3,515 25.6346 0 (ARCX) New York 4.81 0.00 2.76 1.45 68.30 0 -28,219 -25.3056 -403 -0.9731 -23,207 -10.7908 Stock Exchange (XNYS) IEX (IEXD) 3.67 0.00 10.18 0.84 0.03 0 -2,726 -4.2215 -312 -3.3769 -0 -2.2500 Citadel 3.10 0.19 9.95 0.07 0.01 5 20.0000 121 0.0941 149 29.8602 0 0.0000 Securities (CDED) CBOE EDGX 2.51 0.00 3.68 2.03 1.55 0 -40,020 -25.8468 4,306 13.5193 -35 -12.4817 Exchange (EDGX) Virtu 2.51 35.46 4.43 1.67 0.65 2,927 42.9813 13,331 8.3473 26,241 39.2069 0 0.0000 Financial Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Dark Pool Reference Price Latency Arbitrage∗
    Dark Pool Reference Price Latency Arbitrage∗ Matteo Aquilina,y Sean Foley,z Peter O'Neillx and Thomas Ruf{ May 10, 2017 Abstract Using proprietary order book data with participant-level message traffic and matching engine time stamps, we investigate the nature of stale reference pricing in dark pools. We document a sizeable proportion of stale trading which imposes large adverse selection on the passive side in dark pools. We are the first to document that HFTs almost never provide liquidity and instead frequently take liquidity in the dark, in particular in order to take advantage of stale quotes in the dark. Finally, we examine several market design inter- ventions to mitigate stale trades, showing that only mechanisms to protect passive dark liquidity, such as random uncrossings, are effective. Keywords: high-frequency trading, dark pools, latency arbitrage, reference prices ∗We would like to thank Michael Aitken, Peter Andrews, Hao Ming Chen, Brian Eyles, Simon Hargreaves, Edwin Schooling Latter, Ted Macdonald, Albert Menkveld, Richard Payne, Talis Put- nins, Jia Shao, Patrick Spens, Felix Suntheim, Martin Taylor, Carla Ysusi and Bart Z. Yueshen. We would also like to thank our colleagues at the FCA. We are also grateful to participants of the FCA/LSE conference on financial regulation for their comments. Any errors and omissions are our own. This article is an extension of the FCA Occasional Paper 21 'Asymmetries in Dark Pool Reference Prices.' yFinancial Conduct Authority (UK). zUniversity of Sydney. xFinancial Conduct Authority (UK) and University of New South Wales. e-mail:[email protected] Peter O'Neill thanks the Capital Markets Cooperative Research Cen- ter for funding a period as a visiting researcher at the FCA during this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Brad Katsuyama
    Testimony of Investors Exchange Chief Executive Officer Bradley Katsuyama Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment June 27, 2017 Introduction Chairman Huizenga, Ranking Member Maloney and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Brad Katsuyama and I am the CEO of IEX Group, Inc. and Investors Exchange LLC, more commonly known as “IEX”. I appreciate the opportunity to offer this testimony and also appreciate your willingness to provide a forum to consider ways to strengthen the U.S. equity markets. The U.S. equity markets constitute a critical national asset. They provide a vital source of capital for companies, large and small, and they provide the chance for millions of ordinary Americans to help fund and participate in the benefits of economic growth. From my perspective, the question we should always consider is whether the markets are primarily focused on serving the interests of investors and public companies, and the value of any agenda items should be determined based on whether they advance or detract from this primary focus. If the equity markets are not adequately serving these constituents and advancing the principles of fairness, transparency, and trust, then action must be taken to re-focus the markets on these tenets. Technology has been the largest driver of change in the equity markets over the past two decades, as I will detail later. As trading has become highly electronic, technology has delivered a variety of efficiencies and
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of NMS Stock Alternative Trading Systems
    Response to SEC Questions Regarding ‘Regulation of NMS Stock Alternative Trading Systems’ File Number S7-23-15 The SEC, along with most of the industry and academia agree that Alternative Trading Systems (“ATSs”) must become more transparent and provide clear disclosure for the benefit of investors.1 The same data produced by exchanges should also be provided by ATSs, including transactional short sale data. Increased transparency into the structure and operations of ATSs would allow regulators to be more efficient, advisors to make more informed decisions on behalf of clients and investors to measure the benefits and disadvantages of each trading venue. We support the SEC’s proposal to significantly increase ATS disclosure requirements in light of the current market structure that has drastically changed since Regulation ATS was adopted in 1998. There are many potential conflicts of interest for dark pools that constitute the majority of ATS trading arising from their relationships with their affiliates (broker-dealers, clearing firms, other trading venues, etc.). In order to protect investors and the integrity of the U.S. markets, these conflicts of interest should be clearly disclosed. However, it is important not to become buried by the technicalities of disclosure, but holistically consider the risks that could be ultimately posed to the financial system structure. The below issues raise questions regarding the value and relevance of ATSs to investors and the markets and whether they should still continue operations. ATSs are a significant portion of volume in the marketplace. At times, up to 20% of trade volume is executed through ATSs in important U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • High Frequency Trading 101: Regulatory Impact in American and European Markets
    HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING 101: REGULATORY IMPACT IN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN MARKETS by Yasmine Elisabeth Allen A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Mississippi in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College. Oxford, MS May 2016 Approved by ___________________________________ Advisor: Doctor Bonnie Van Ness ___________________________________ Reader: Doctor Robert Van Ness ___________________________________ Reader: Doctor Alice Cooper © 2016 Yasmine Elisabeth Allen ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to acknowledge my thesis advisor Dr. Bonnie Van Ness through her countless of hours and guidance helping me I managed to finish writing this thesis. I would also like to thank Brock Howell for his constant encouragement that I could finish this thesis even when I wanted to quit. As well as reading over it over and over again to make sure that he understood what I was trying to convey. iii Abstract YASMINE ELISABETH ALLEN: HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING 101: REGULATORY IMPACT IN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN FINANCIAL MARKETS (under the direction of Bonnie Van Ness) High frequency trading has impacted the American and European financial markets through its advanced algorithms, rapid speed, and preferential treatment from purchasing information and co-location from exchanges. High frequency trading alone is not harmful, but without proper regulations it can hurt the financial markets. In this thesis, I researched implemented regulations, the consequences of those regulations, and pending new regulations. To gather information, I studied relevant research on the topic, including numerous academic articles and books to get a broader view of the issues. Through my research, I have found that previous regulations implemented by American and European regulatory agencies have benefitted high frequency trading firms, and that exchanges, through selling information via co-location, have created an environment that benefits high frequency traders.
    [Show full text]
  • NASDAQ TECHNOLOGY AB, Plaintiffs, V. IEX GROUP, INC
    Case 3:18-cv-03014-BRM-DEA Document 56 Filed 02/26/19 Page 1 of 144 PageID: 926 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY NASDAQ, INC.; NASDAQ TECHNOLOGY AB, Civil Action No.: 3:18-cv-03014- BRM-DEA Plaintiffs, v. Filed Electronically IEX GROUP, INC.; INVESTORS Demand for Jury Trial EXCHANGE LLC, Defendants. DEFENDANTS IEX GROUP, INC. AND INVESTORS EXCHANGE LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Liza M. Walsh Michael A. Jacobs (pro hac vice) Katherine Romano Richard S.J. Hung (pro hac vice) William T. Walsh, Jr. Morrison & Foerster LLP Walsh Pizzi O’Reilly Falanga LLP 425 Market Street One Riverfront Plaza San Francisco, CA 94105 1037 Raymond Blvd., Suite 600 Phone: (415) 268-7000 Newark, NJ 07102 Email: [email protected] Phone: (973) 757-1100 [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] Kyle W.K. Mooney (pro hac vice) [email protected] Morrison & Foerster LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 468-8000 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants IEX Group, Inc. and Investors Exchange LLC Case 3:18-cv-03014-BRM-DEA Document 56 Filed 02/26/19 Page 2 of 144 PageID: 927 Defendants IEX Group, Inc. (“IEX Group”) and Investors Exchange LLC (“Investors Exchange”; collectively with IEX Group, “IEX”), by and through their attorneys, hereby respond to the Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Amended Complaint”) filed by Plaintiffs Nasdaq, Inc. and Nasdaq Technology AB (“Nasdaq Technology”; collectively with Nasdaq, Inc., “Plaintiffs” or “Nasdaq”). IEX denies all averments in the Amended Complaint except as specifically admitted below.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Market for U.S. Equity Market Data
    Understanding the Market for U.S. Equity Market Data Charles M. Jones1 August 31, 2018 1 Robert W. Lear Professor of Finance and Economics, Columbia Business School. I am solely responsible for the contents of this paper. I thank Larry Glosten, Frank Hatheway, Terry Hendershott, Stewart Mayhew, Jonathan Sokobin, and Chester Spatt for helpful discussions on these topics. I currently serve on FINRA’s Economic Advisory Committee and on Nasdaq’s Quality of Markets Committee, and I served as Visiting Economist at the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) in 2002–2003. The NYSE provided financial support for this research. I. Executive Summary A stock exchange facilitates share trading, in large part by developing computer systems, rules, and processes that allow buyers and sellers to submit orders, trade with each other, and determine a market price for shares listed on those exchanges. In the current market environment, this results in a vast amount of data, which market participants of all types rely on to make investment and trading decisions. Exchanges provide some of this market data to market participants at prices that vary depending on the type of data as well as how the data is used. This paper provides an analysis of the market for equity market data in the United States. Unlike other data sources, U.S. equity market data is highly regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and recently the SEC has been lobbied by entities arguing that exchanges charge too much. These entities have written comment letters and filed a number of proceedings with the SEC in an effort to reduce the prices of equity market data.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Testimony of Bradley Katsuyama President and CEO, IEX Group, Inc. Before the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs June 17, 2014 Introduction Good afternoon Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain, Senators, Staff, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing and share our thoughts on issues affecting the US equity markets. My name is Brad Katsuyama and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of IEX Group. IEX would like to commend the Subcommittee for taking the time and interest to examine such a critical aspect of the U.S. equity markets given its importance to the overall economy. Forums such as this are a critical element in addressing the difficulty that many people, both inside and outside of our industry, have had in obtaining relevant information on how our markets operate. IEX hopes that we can assist in changing that dynamic and we appreciate the invitation to participate today. IEX currently operates a non-displayed Alternative Trading System (“ATS”), or dark pool, for U.S. equities, and intends to pursue registration as a national securities exchange with the SEC later this year. IEX is dedicated to institutionalizing fairness in the market by offering a balanced, simplified and transparent market model, and also through the use of cutting edge technology. IEX believes strongly in a marketplace’s responsibility to ensure its rules and product offerings are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, as required by Section 6 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as amended (“the Act”).
    [Show full text]