Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Establishing Fees for the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed, 75148-75155 [2015-30480]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
75148
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 230 / Tuesday, December 1, 2015 / Notices
designed [sic] improve liquidity in
ETPs. Specifically, the LMM Program
allocates rebates to LMMs that quote at
the national best bid and best offer for
certain percentages of time. As
additional incentive, the LMM Program
also provides different levels of fee caps
on the fees assessed for participation in
the Opening and Closing Crosses on
Nasdaq. The LMM Program has been
successful at improving market quality
in the securities covered by the
program. As such, the Exchange
believes the program will be effective at
providing incentive to market makers on
Nasdaq to become LMMs in a [sic]
Managed Fund Shares thereby
improving market quality in those
securities. The Exchange also believes
that including Managed Fund Shares is
reasonable because they are similar to
other ETFs, which are currently
included in the LMM Program. The
Exchange believes that the proposed
change to Rule 7014(f) is an equitable
allocation and is not unfairly
discriminatory because all market
makers that voluntarily elect to be
designated as LMMs and meet the
minimum performance criteria have the
opportunity to qualify for a rebate and
fee cap under the program in Managed
Fund Shares.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Burden on Competition
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The Exchange does not believe that
the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Specifically, the change is designed to
promote improved market quality
through the application of an ETP
incentive program to a type of ETP that
is currently not part of the program, and
has comparatively low liquidity. Such a
change is designed to improve market
quality in Qualified Securities on
Nasdaq, and does not place a burden on
competition between market
participants as the changes are applied
consistently to all participants. Lastly,
to the extent market quality improves on
Nasdaq in Managed Fund Shares, the
proposed change may promote
competition among exchanges for new
Managed Fund Share listings and
similar incentive programs, to the
benefit of all market participants
transacting in Managed Fund Shares.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From
Members, Participants, or Others
No written comments were either
solicited or received.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Nov 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Because the foregoing proposed rule
change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant
burden on competition; and (iii) become
operative for 30 days from the date on
which it was filed, or such shorter time
as the Commission may designate, if
consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the
proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act 6 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
thereunder.7
At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors,
or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine
whether the proposed rule change
should be approved or disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
NASDAQ–2015–145 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–NASDAQ–2015–145. This
file number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
6 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b–
4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give
the Commission written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
7 17
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
post all comments on the Commission’s
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal
offices of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR–
NASDAQ–2015–145 and should be
submitted on or before December
22,2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.8
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–30384 Filed 11–30–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–76525; File No. SR–
NYSEMKT–2015–95]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE
MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change Establishing Fees for the
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed
November 25, 2015.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on November
16, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the
‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘NYSE MKT’’) filed with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the
proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange.
8 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
1 15
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 230 / Tuesday, December 1, 2015 / Notices
The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested
persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to establish
fees for the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed.
The proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange’s Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission’s
Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
In its filing with the Commission, the
self-regulatory organization included
statements concerning the purpose of,
and basis for, the proposed rule change
and discussed any comments it received
on the proposed rule change. The text
of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below,
of the most significant parts of such
statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to establish
the fees for the NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed in the NYSE MKT Equities
Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule
(‘‘Fee Schedule’’).3 The Exchange
proposes to make the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed available without charge
starting on November 16, 2015. The
Exchange proposes to establish the
following fees for the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed operative on January 1,
2016:
1. Access Fee. For the receipt of
access to the NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed, the Exchange proposes to charge
$2,500 per month.
2. User Fees. The Exchange proposes
to charge a Professional User Fee (Per
User) of $10 per month and a NonProfessional User Fee (Per User) of $2
per month. These user fees would apply
to each display device that has access to
the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed.
3. Non-Display Fees. The Exchange
proposes to establish non-display fees
3 The proposed rule change establishing the
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed was immediately
effective on January 23, 2015. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 74127 (Jan. 23, 2015), 80
FR 4956 (Jan. 29, 2015) (SR–NYSEMKT–2015–06).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Nov 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
for the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed
using the same non-display use fee
structure established for the Exchange’s
other market data products.4 Nondisplay use would mean accessing,
processing, or consuming the NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed delivered via
direct and/or Redistributor 5 data feeds
for a purpose other than in support of
a data recipient’s display or further
internal or external redistribution
(‘‘Non-Display Use’’). Non-Display Use
would include any trading use, such as
high frequency or algorithmic trading,
and would also include any trading in
any asset class, automated order or
quote generation and/or order pegging,
price referencing for algorithmic trading
or smart order routing, operations
control programs, investment analysis,
order verification, surveillance
programs, risk management,
compliance, and portfolio management.
Under the proposal, for Non-Display
Use of NYSE MKT Integrated Feed,
there would be three categories of, and
fees applicable to, data recipients. One,
two or three categories of Non-Display
Use may apply to a data recipient.
• Under the proposal, the Category 1
Fee would be $5,000 per month and
would apply when a data recipient’s
Non-Display Use of the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed is on its own behalf, not
on behalf of its clients.
• Under the proposal, Category 2 Fees
would be $5,000 per month and would
apply to a data recipient’s Non-Display
Use of the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed
on behalf of its clients.
• Under the proposal, Category 3 Fees
would be $5,000 and would apply to a
data recipient’s Non-Display Use of the
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed for the
purpose of internally matching buy and
sell orders within an organization,
including matching customer orders for
data recipient’s own behalf and/or on
behalf of its clients. This category would
apply to Non-Display Use in trading
platforms, such as, but not restricted to,
alternative trading systems (‘‘ATSs’’),
broker crossing networks, broker
crossing systems not filed as ATSs, dark
pools, multilateral trading facilities,
exchanges and systematic
internalization systems. Category 3 Fees
would be capped at $15,000 per month
for each data recipient for the NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed.
4 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69285
(April 3, 2013), 78 FR 21172 (April 9, 2013) (SR–
NYSEMKT–2013–32) and 72020 (Sept. 9, 2014), 79
FR 55040 (Sept. 15, 2014) (SR–NYSE–2014–72)
[sic].
5 ‘‘Redistributor’’ means a vendor or any person
that provides a real-time NYSE MKT data product
to a data recipient or to any system that a data
recipient uses, irrespective of the means of
transmission or access.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75149
Non-Display Use fees for NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed include, for customers
also paying access fees for NYSE MKT
BBO, NYSE MKT Trades, NYSE MKT
OpenBook and NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances, the Non-Display Use for
such products when declared within the
same category of use.
The description of the three nondisplay use categories is set forth in the
Fee Schedule in endnote 1 and that
endnote would be referenced in the
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed fees on the
Fee Schedule. The text in the endnote
would remain unchanged.
Data recipients that receive the NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed for Non-Display
Use would be required to complete and
submit a Non-Display Use Declaration
before they would be authorized to
receive the feed.6 A firm subject to
Category 3 Fees would be required to
identify each platform that uses the
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed on a NonDisplay Use basis, such as ATSs and
broker crossing systems not registered as
ATSs, as part of the Non-Display Use
Declaration.
4. Non-Display Declaration Late Fee.
Data recipients that receive the NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed for Non-Display
Use would be required to complete and
submit a Non-Display Use Declaration
before they would be authorized to
receive the feed. Beginning in 2017,
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed data
recipients would be required to submit,
by January 31st of each year, the NonDisplay Use Declaration that applies to
all real-time NYSE MKT market data
products that include Non-Display Use
fees.7 The Exchange proposes to charge
a Non-Display Declaration Late Fee of
$1,000 per month to any data recipient
that pays an Access Fee for NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed that has failed to
complete and submit a Non-Display Use
Declaration. Specifically, with respect to
the Non-Display Use Declaration due by
January 31st of each year beginning in
2017, the Non-Display Declaration Late
Fee would apply to data recipients that
fail to complete and submit the NonDisplay Use Declaration by the January
31st due date, and would apply
beginning February 1st and for each
month thereafter until the data recipient
6 Data recipients are required to complete and
submit the Non-Display Declaration with respect to
each market data product on the Fee Schedule that
includes Non-Display Fees. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 74885 (May 6, 2015), 80 FR 27205
(May 12, 2015) (SR–NYSEMKT–2015–34) (NYSE
MKT OpenBook) and 74884 (May 6, 2015), 80 FR
27212 (May 12, 2015)(SR–NYSEMKT–2015–
35)(NYSE MKT Order Imbalances) and 74882 (May
6, 2015), 80 FR 27210 (May 12, 2015) (SR–
NYSEMKT–2015–36) (NYSE MKT Trades and
NYSE MKT BBO).
7 Id.
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
75150
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 230 / Tuesday, December 1, 2015 / Notices
has completed and submitted the
annual Non-Display Use Declaration.
The Exchange also proposes to apply
current endnote 2 on the Fee Schedule
to the Non-Display Declaration Late Fee
for NYSE MKT Integrated Feed, but
proposes to modify endnote 2 to the Fee
Schedule so that it is clear that the NonDisplay Declaration Late Fee applies to
the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed
beginning February 1st of 2017 and each
year with respect to the Non-Display
Use Declaration due by January 31st
each year.8
In addition, if a data recipient’s use of
the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed data
changes at any time after the data
recipient submits a Non-Display Use
Declaration, the data recipient must
inform the Exchange of the change by
completing and submitting at the time
of the change an updated declaration
reflecting the change of use.
5. Redistribution Fee. For
redistribution of the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed, the Exchange proposes
to establish a fee of $1,500 per month.
The Exchange notes that the three
existing data feed products—NYSE
MKT OpenBook, NYSE MKT Trades,
and NYSE MKT Order Imbalances—
would continue to be available to
vendors and subscribers separately, in
each case at the same prices at which
they are currently available.9
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,10
in general, and Sections 6(b)(4) and
6(b)(5) of the Act,11 in particular, in that
it provides an equitable allocation of
reasonable fees among users and
recipients of the data and is not
designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers,
issuers, and brokers.
The Exchange believes it is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory to make
8 The second sentence of endnote 2 to the Fee
Schedule refers to a late fee for the Non-Display Use
Declarations due September 1, 2014 that have not
been submitted by July 1, 2015. This sentence is not
applicable to the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed
because NYSE MKT Integrated Feed was not
available as of the September 1, 2014 due date and
because data recipients of the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed will have to complete and submit
a Non-Display Declaration before they can receive
the feed. The Exchange proposes to modify the
second sentence so that it applies only to NYSE
MKT OpenBook, NYSE MKT BBO, NYSE MKT
Trades and NYSE MKT Order Imbalances and not
to the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed. The Exchange
proposes to modify the third sentence so that it is
clear that it applies to all market data products,
including the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed, to which
Non-Display Use fees apply.
9 See Fee Schedule.
10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Nov 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed
available free of charge through
December 31, 2015 because providing it
at no charge would provide an
opportunity for vendors and subscribers
to determine whether the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed suits their needs
without incurring fees. Other exchanges
provide or have provided market data
products free for a certain period of
time.12
The fees for the NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed are reasonable because they
represent not only the value of the data
available from three existing data feeds
but also the value of receiving the data
on an integrated basis. Receiving the
data on an integrated basis provides
greater efficiencies and reduced errors
for vendors and subscribers that
currently choose to integrate the data
themselves after receiving it from the
Exchange. Some vendors and
subscribers may not have the technology
or resources to integrate the separate
data feeds in a timely and/or efficient
manner, and thus the integration feature
of the product may be valuable to them.
Moreover, the fees are equitably
allocated and not unfairly
discriminatory because vendors and
subscribers may choose to continue to
receive some or all of the data through
the existing separate feeds at current
prices, or they can choose to pay for the
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed in order to
received integrated data, or they can
choose a combination of the two
approaches, thereby allowing each
vendor or subscriber to choose the best
business solution for itself.
The Exchange believes the proposed
monthly Access Fee of $2,500 and
monthly Redistribution Fee of $1,500
for NYSE MKT Integrated Feed are
reasonable because they are comparable
to the total of the same types of fees for
NYSE MKT OpenBook, NYSE MKT
Trades, and NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances. The monthly Access Fee for
NYSE MKT OpenBook is $1,000, for
NYSE MKT Trades is $750 and for
NYSE MKT Order Imbalances is $500.13
12 For example, the Exchange, through NYSE
Amex Options LLC, offered ArcaBook for Amex
Options-Complex and NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE
Arca’’), an affiliate of the Exchange, without charge
between May 1, 2014 and October 31, 2014. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72074 (May
1, 2014), 79 FR 26277 (May 7, 2014) (NYSEArca
2014–51) and 72075 (May 1, 2014), 79 FR 26290
(May 7, 2014) (NYSEMKT 2014–40). NASDAQ
provides a 30-day free trial related to
NASDAQNASDAQ [sic] TotalView. See NASDAQ
Rule 7023(e).
13 The Access Fee for Managed Non-Display
Services only for NYSE MKT OpenBook is $500 per
month, for NYSE MKT Trades is $375 per month
and for NYSE MKT Order Imbalances is $250 per
month. Managed Non-Display Services will not be
offered for NYSE MKT Integrated Feed.
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The monthly Redistribution Fee for
NYSE MKT Trades is $750.14
The Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to charge redistribution fees
because vendors receive value from
redistributing the data in their business
products for their customers. The
redistribution fees also are equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because they
will be charged on an equal basis to
those vendors that choose to redistribute
the data. Also, the proposed
redistribution fee for NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed is reasonable because it
is comparable to the redistribution fees
that are currently charged by other
exchanges.15
The proposed monthly Professional
User Fee (Per User) of $10 and NonProfessional User Fee (Per User) of $2
are reasonable because they are
comparable to the total of the per user
fees for NYSE MKT OpenBook and
NYSE MKT Trades. The monthly
Professional User Fee (Per User) for
NYSE MKT OpenBook is $5 and for
NYSE MKT Trades, it is $1. The
monthly Non-Professional User Fee (Per
User) for NYSE MKT OpenBook is $1
and for NYSE MKT Trades, it is $0.05.
The Exchange believes that having
separate Professional and NonProfessional User fees for the NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed is reasonable
because it will make the product more
affordable and result in greater
availability to Professional and NonProfessional Users. Setting a modest
Non-Professional User fee is reasonable
because it provides an additional
method for Non-Professional Users to
access the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed
by providing the same data that is
available to Professional Users. The
Exchange believes that the proposed
fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they will be
charged uniformly to recipient firms
and Users. The fee structure of
differentiated Professional and NonProfessional fees applies to the user fees
applicable to NYSE MKT OpenBook and
NYSE MKT Trades and has long been
used by the Exchange in order to reduce
the price of data to Non-Professional
Users and make it more broadly
available.16 Offering the NYSE MKT
14 There are no Redistribution fees charged for
NYSE MKT OpenBook or Redistribution or User
fees charged for NYSE MKT Order Imbalances.
15 NYSE Arca charges a $3,000 per month
redistribution fee for the NYSE Arca Integrated
Feed. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
66128 (Jan. 10, 2012), 77 FR 2331 (Jan. 17, 2012)
(SR–NYSEArca-2011–96). Distributors of a
NASDAQ listed security depth entitlements pay a
Monthly External Distributor Fee of $2,500. See
NASDAQ Rule 7019(b).
16 See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No.
69285 (April 3, 2013), 78 FR 21172 (April 9, 2013)
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 230 / Tuesday, December 1, 2015 / Notices
Integrated Feed to Non-Professional
Users with the same data available to
Professional Users results in greater
equity among data recipients.
The Exchange believes the proposed
Non-Display Use fees are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they reflect the
value of the data to the data recipients
in their profit-generating activities and
do not impose the burden of counting
non-display devices. After gaining
further experience with the non-display
fee structure, the Exchange believes that
the proposed Non-Display Use fees
reflect the significant value of the nondisplay data to data recipients, which
purchase such data on an entirely
voluntary basis. Non-display data can be
used by data recipients for a wide
variety of profit-generating purposes,
including proprietary and agency
trading and smart order routing, as well
as by data recipients that operate order
matching and execution platforms that
compete directly with the Exchange for
order flow. The data also can be used for
a variety of non-trading purposes that
indirectly support trading, such as risk
management and compliance. While
some of these non-trading uses do not
directly generate revenues, they can
nonetheless substantially reduce the
recipient’s costs by automating such
functions so that they can be carried out
in a more efficient and accurate manner
and reduce errors and labor costs,
thereby benefiting end users. The
Exchange believes that charging for nontrading uses is reasonable because data
recipients can derive substantial value
from such uses, for example, by
automating tasks so that they can be
performed more quickly and accurately
and less expensively than if they were
performed manually.
Data can be processed much faster by
a non-display device than it can be by
a human being processing information
that he or she views on a data terminal.
Non-display devices also can dispense
data to multiple computer applications
as compared with the restriction of data
to one display terminal. While nondisplay data has become increasingly
valuable to data recipients who can use
it to generate substantial profits, it has
become increasing difficult for them and
the Exchange to accurately count nondisplay devices. The number and type
of non-display devices, as well as their
complexity and interconnectedness,
(SR–NYSEMKT–2013–32) (establishing the $1 NonProfessional User Fee (Per User) and $5 Professional
User Fee (Per User) for NYSE MKT OpenBook). See
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20002,
File No. S7–433 (July 22, 1983), 48 FR 34552 (July
29, 1983) (establishing nonprofessional fees for CTA
data); NASDAQ Rules 7023(b), 7047.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Nov 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
have grown in recent years, creating
administrative challenges for vendors,
data recipients, and the Exchange to
accurately count such devices and audit
such counts. Unlike a display device,
such as a Bloomberg terminal, it is not
possible to simply walk through a
trading floor or areas of a data
recipient’s premises to identify nondisplay devices. During an audit, an
auditor must review a firm’s entitlement
report to determine usage. While
display use is generally associated with
an individual end user and/or unique
user ID, a non-display use is more
difficult to account for because the
entitlement report may show a server
name or Internet protocol (‘‘IP’’) address
or it may not. The auditor must review
each IP or server and further inquire
about downstream use and quantity of
servers with access to data; this type of
counting is very labor-intensive and
prone to inaccuracies.
Market data technology and usage has
evolved to the point where it is no
longer practical, nor fair and equitable,
to simply count non-display devices.
The administrative costs and difficulties
of establishing reliable counts and
conducting an effective audit of nondisplay devices have become too
burdensome, impractical, and noneconomic for the Exchange, vendors,
and data recipients. Indeed, some data
recipients dislike the burden of having
to comply with count-based audit
processes, and the Exchange’s nondisplay pricing policies are a direct
response to such complaints as well as
a further competitive distinction
between the Exchange and other
markets. The Exchange believes that the
proposed fee structure for non-display
use is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory in light of these
developments.
The Non-Display Use fees for the
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed are
reasonable because they represent the
extra value of receiving the data for
Non-Display Use on an integrated basis.
The Exchange believes that the
proposed fees directly and appropriately
reflect the significant value of using
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed on a nondisplay basis in a wide range of
computer-automated functions relating
to both trading and non-trading
activities and that the number and range
of these functions continue to grow
through innovation and technology
developments.17
17 See also Exchange Act Release No. 69157,
March 18, 2013, 78 FR 17946, 17949 (March 25,
2013) (SR–CTA/CQ–2013–01) (‘‘[D]ata feeds have
become more valuable, as recipients now use them
to perform a far larger array of non-display
functions. Some firms even base their business
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75151
The Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to require annual
submissions of the Non-Display Use
Declaration so that the Exchange will
have current and accurate information
about the use of the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed and can correctly assess
fees for the uses of the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed. The annual submission
requirement is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will
apply to all users.
The Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to impose a late fee in
connection with the submission of the
Non-Display Use Declaration. In order
to correctly assess fees for the nondisplay use of NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed, the Exchange needs to have
current and accurate information about
the use of NYSE MKT Integrated Feed.
The failure of data recipients to submit
the Non-Display Use Declaration on
time leads to potentially incorrect
billing and administrative burdens,
including tracking and obtaining late
Non-Display Use Declarations and
correcting and following up on
payments owed in connection with late
Non-Display Use Declarations. The
purpose of the late fee is to incent data
recipients to submit the Non-Display
Use Declaration promptly to avoid the
administrative burdens associated with
the late submission of Non-Display Use
Declarations. The Non-Display
Declaration Late Fee is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because it
will apply to all data recipients that
choose to subscribe to the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed.
In addition, the proposed fees are
reasonable when compared to fees for
comparable products, including the
NYSE Arca Integrated Feed,18 offered by
the Exchange’s affiliate, NYSE Arca and
NASDAQ TotalView-Itch,19 offered by
The NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc.
‘‘NASDAQ’’). Specifically, the fees for
NYSE Arca Integrated Feed, which like
models on the incorporation of data feeds into black
boxes and application programming interfaces that
apply trading algorithms to the data, but that do not
require widespread data access by the firm’s
employees. As a result, these firms pay little for
data usage beyond access fees, yet their data access
and usage is critical to their businesses.’’).
18 See NYSE Arca Integrated Feed, https://
www.nyxdata.com/page/1084 (last visited June 8,
2015)(data feed that provides a unified view of
events, in sequence as they appear on the NYSE
Arca matching engine, including depth of book,
trades, order imbalance data, and security status
messages).
19 See NASDAQ TotalView-ITCH, https://
www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=Totalview2
(last visited June 8, 2015)(displays the full order
book depth for NASDAQ market participants and
also disseminates the Net Order Imbalance
Indicator (NOII) for the NASDAQNASDAQ [sic]
Opening and Closing Crosses and NASDAQ IPO/
Halt Cross).
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
75152
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 230 / Tuesday, December 1, 2015 / Notices
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed, includes
depth of book, trades, and order
imbalances data for the NYSE Arca
market, and a security status message,
consist of an Access Fee of $3,000 per
month, a Professional User Fee (Per
User) of $40 per month a NonProfessional User Fee (Per User) of $20
per month, Non-Display Fees of $7,000
per month for each of Categories 1, 2
and 3, and a Redistribution Fee of
$3,000 per month.
The fees are also equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because they
will apply to all data recipients that
choose to subscribe to the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed.
The Exchange also notes that the
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed is entirely
optional. The Exchange is not required
to make the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed
available or to offer any specific pricing
alternatives to any customers, nor is any
firm required to purchase the NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed. Firms that
purchase the NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed would do so for the primary goals
of using it to increase revenues, reduce
expenses, and in some instances
compete directly with the Exchange
(including for order flow); those firms
are able to determine for themselves
whether the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed
or any other similar products are
attractively priced or not.
Firms that do not wish to purchase
the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed at the
new prices have a variety of alternative
market data products from which to
choose,20 or if the NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed does not provide sufficient value
to firms as offered based on the uses
those firms have or planned to make of
it, such firms may simply choose to
conduct their business operations in
ways that do not use the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed. The Exchange notes
that broker-dealers are not required to
purchase proprietary market data to
comply with their best execution
obligations.21 Similarly, there is no
requirement in Regulation NMS or any
other rule that proprietary data be
utilized for order routing decisions, and
some broker-dealers and ATSs have
chosen not to do so.22
supra notes 19–20.
In the Matter of the Application of
Securities Industry And Financial Markets
Association For Review of Actions Taken by SelfRegulatory Organizations, Release Nos. 34–72182;
AP–3–15350; AP–3–15351 (May 16, 2014).
22 For example, Goldman Sachs Execution and
Clearing, L.P. disclosed in 2014 that it was not
using proprietary market data in connection with
Sigma X, its ATS. See response to Question E3,
available at https://www.goldmansachs.com/mediarelations/in-the-news/current/pdf-media/gsecorder-handling-practices-ats-specific.pdf. By way of
comparison, IEX has disclosed that it uses
The decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v.
SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010),
upheld reliance by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’)
upon the existence of competitive
market mechanisms to set reasonable
and equitably allocated fees for
proprietary market data:
In fact, the legislative history indicates that
the Congress intended that the market system
‘evolve through the interplay of competitive
forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions
are removed’ and that the SEC wield its
regulatory power ‘in those situations where
competition may not be sufficient,’ such as
in the creation of a ‘consolidated
transactional reporting system.’
Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94–
229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted in 1975
U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). The court agreed
with the Commission’s conclusion that
‘‘Congress intended that ‘competitive
forces should dictate the services and
practices that constitute the U.S.
national market system for trading
equity securities.’’’ 23
As explained below in the Exchange’s
Statement on Burden on Competition,
the Exchange believes that there is
substantial evidence of competition in
the marketplace for proprietary market
data and that the Commission can rely
upon such evidence in concluding that
the fees established in this filing are the
product of competition and therefore
satisfy the relevant statutory standards.
In addition, the existence of alternatives
to these data products, such as
consolidated data and proprietary data
from other sources, as described below,
further ensures that the Exchange
cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees
that are unreasonably discriminatory,
when vendors and subscribers can
select such alternatives.
As the NetCoalition decision noted,
the Commission is not required to
undertake a cost-of-service or
ratemaking approach. The Exchange
believes that, even if it were possible as
a matter of economic theory, cost-based
pricing for non-core market data would
be so complicated that it could not be
done practically or offer any significant
benefits.24
20 See
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Nov 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
proprietary market data feeds from all registered
stock exchanges. See https://www.iextrading.com/
about/.
23 NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535.
24 The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing
would be impractical because it would create
enormous administrative burdens for all parties and
the Commission, to cost-regulate a large number of
participants and standardize and analyze
extraordinary amounts of information, accounts,
and reports. In addition, and as described below, it
is impossible to regulate market data prices in
isolation from prices charged by markets for other
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that
the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. An
exchange’s ability to price its
proprietary market data feed products is
constrained by actual competition for
the sale of proprietary market data
products, the joint product nature of
exchange platforms, and the existence of
alternatives to the Exchange’s
proprietary data.
The Existence of Actual Competition.
The market for proprietary data
products is currently competitive and
inherently contestable because there is
fierce competition for the inputs
necessary for the creation of proprietary
data and strict pricing discipline for the
proprietary products themselves.
Numerous exchanges compete with one
another for listings and order flow and
sales of market data itself, providing
ample opportunities for entrepreneurs
who wish to compete in any or all of
those areas, including producing and
distributing their own market data.
Proprietary data products are produced
and distributed by each individual
exchange, as well as other entities, in a
vigorously competitive market. Indeed,
the U.S. Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’)
(the primary antitrust regulator) has
expressly acknowledged the aggressive
actual competition among exchanges,
including for the sale of proprietary
market data. In 2011, the DOJ stated that
exchanges ‘‘compete head to head to
offer real-time equity data products.
These data products include the best bid
services that are joint products. Cost-based rate
regulation would also lead to litigation and may
distort incentives, including those to minimize
costs and to innovate, leading to further waste.
Under cost-based pricing, the Commission would
be burdened with determining a fair rate of return,
and the industry could experience frequent rate
increases based on escalating expense levels. Even
in industries historically subject to utility
regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been
discredited. As such, the Exchange believes that
cost-based ratemaking would be inappropriate for
proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress’s direction that the Commission use its
authority to foster the development of the national
market system, and that market forces will continue
to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE’s comments to the
Commission’s 2000 Concept Release on the
Regulation of Market Information Fees and
Revenues, which can be found on the Commission’s
Web site at https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/
s72899/buck1.htm.
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 230 / Tuesday, December 1, 2015 / Notices
and offer of every exchange and
information on each equity trade,
including the last sale.’’ 25
Moreover, competitive markets for
listings, order flow, executions, and
transaction reports provide pricing
discipline for the inputs of proprietary
data products and therefore constrain
markets from overpricing proprietary
market data. Broker-dealers send their
order flow and transaction reports to
multiple venues, rather than providing
them all to a single venue, which in turn
reinforces this competitive constraint.
As a 2010 Commission Concept Release
noted, the ‘‘current market structure can
be described as dispersed and complex’’
with ‘‘trading volume . . . dispersed
among many highly automated trading
centers that compete for order flow in
the same stocks’’ and ‘‘trading centers
offer[ing] a wide range of services that
are designed to attract different types of
market participants with varying trading
needs.’’ 26 More recently, SEC Chair
Mary Jo White has noted that
competition for order flow in exchangelisted equities is ‘‘intense’’ and divided
among many trading venues, including
exchanges, more than 40 alternative
trading systems, and more than 250
broker-dealers.27
If an exchange succeeds in its
competition for quotations, order flow,
and trade executions, then it earns
trading revenues and increases the value
of its proprietary market data products
because they will contain greater quote
and trade information. Conversely, if an
exchange is less successful in attracting
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
25 Press
Release, U.S. Department of Justice,
Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney Holds
Conference Call Regarding NASDAQ OMX Group
Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandoning
Their Bid for NYSE Euronext (May 16, 2011),
available at https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/atr/
speeches/2011/at-speech-110516.html; see also
Complaint in U.S. v. Deutsche Borse AG and NYSE
Euronext, Case No. 11-cv-2280 (DC Dist.) ¶ 24
(‘‘NYSE and Direct Edge compete head-to-head . . .
in the provision of real-time proprietary equity data
products.’’).
26 Concept Release on Equity Market Structure,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14,
2010), 75 FR 3594 (Jan. 21, 2010) (File No. S7–02–
10). This Concept Release included data from the
third quarter of 2009 showing that no market center
traded more than 20% of the volume of listed
stocks, further evidencing the dispersal of and
competition for trading activity. Id. at 3598. Data
available on ArcaVision show that from June 30,
2013 to June 30, 2014, no exchange traded more
than 12% of the volume of listed stocks by either
trade or dollar volume, further evidencing the
continued dispersal of and fierce competition for
trading activity. See https://www.arcavision.com/
Arcavision/arcalogin.jsp.
27 Mary Jo White, Enhancing Our Equity Market
Structure, Sandler O’Neill & Partners, L.P. Global
Exchange and Brokerage Conference (June 5, 2014)
(available on the Commission Web site), citing
Tuttle, Laura, 2014, ‘‘OTC Trading: Description of
Non-ATS OTC Trading in National Market System
Stocks,’’ at 7–8.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Nov 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
quotes, order flow, and trade
executions, then its market data
products may be less desirable to
customers using them in support of
order routing and trading decisions in
light of the diminished content; data
products offered by competing venues
may become correspondingly more
attractive. Thus, competition for
quotations, order flow, and trade
executions puts significant pressure on
an exchange to maintain both execution
and data fees at reasonable levels.
In addition, in the case of products
that are also redistributed through
market data vendors, such as Bloomberg
and Thompson Reuters, the vendors
themselves provide additional price
discipline for proprietary data products
because they control the primary means
of access to certain end users. These
vendors impose price discipline based
upon their business models. For
example, vendors that assess a
surcharge on data they sell are able to
refuse to offer proprietary products that
their end users do not or will not
purchase in sufficient numbers. Vendors
will not elect to make available NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed unless their
customers request it, and customers will
not elect to pay the proposed fees unless
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed can provide
value by sufficiently increasing
revenues or reducing costs in the
customer’s business in a manner that
will offset the fees. All of these factors
operate as constraints on pricing
proprietary data products.
Joint Product Nature of Exchange
Platform
Transaction execution and proprietary
data products are complementary in that
market data is both an input and a
byproduct of the execution service. In
fact, proprietary market data and trade
executions are a paradigmatic example
of joint products with joint costs. The
decision of whether and on which
platform to post an order will depend
on the attributes of the platforms where
the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data availability and
quality, and price and distribution of
data products. Without a platform to
post quotations, receive orders, and
execute trades, exchange data products
would not exist.
The costs of producing market data
include not only the costs of the data
distribution infrastructure, but also the
costs of designing, maintaining, and
operating the exchange’s platform for
posting quotes, accepting orders, and
executing transactions and the cost of
regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor
confidence. The total return that a
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75153
trading platform earns reflects the
revenues it receives from both products
and the joint costs it incurs.
Moreover, an exchange’s brokerdealer customers generally view the
costs of transaction executions and
market data as a unified cost of doing
business with the exchange. A brokerdealer will only choose to direct orders
to an exchange if the revenue from the
transaction exceeds its cost, including
the cost of any market data that the
broker-dealer chooses to buy in support
of its order routing and trading
decisions. If the costs of the transaction
are not offset by its value, then the
broker-dealer may choose instead not to
purchase the product and trade away
from that exchange. There is substantial
evidence of the strong correlation
between order flow and market data
purchases. For example, in April 2015,
more than 80% of the transaction
volume on each of NYSE MKT and
NYSE MKT’s affiliates NYSE Arca and
New York Stock Exchange LLC
(‘‘NYSE’’) was executed by market
participants that purchased one or more
proprietary market data products (the 20
firms were not the same for each
market). A supra-competitive increase
in the fees for either executions or
market data would create a risk of
reducing an exchange’s revenues from
both products.
Other market participants have noted
that proprietary market data and trade
executions are joint products of a joint
platform and have common costs.28 The
Exchange agrees with and adopts those
discussions and the arguments therein.
The Exchange also notes that the
economics literature confirms that there
is no way to allocate common costs
between joint products that would shed
any light on competitive or efficient
pricing.29
28 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72153
(May 12, 2014), 79 FR 28575, 28578 n.15 (May 16,
2014) (SR–NASDAQ–2014–045) (‘‘[A]ll of the
exchange’s costs are incurred for the unified
purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or
routing orders, and generating and selling data
about market activity. The total return that an
exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives
from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.’’). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 62907 (Sept. 14, 2010), 75 FR 57314,
57317 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR–NASDAQ–2010–110),
and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62908
(Sept. 14, 2010), 75 FR 57321, 57324 (Sept. 20,
2010) (SR–NASDAQ–2010–111).
29 See generally Mark Hirschey, Fundamentals of
Managerial Economics, at 600 (2009) (‘‘It is
important to note, however, that although it is
possible to determine the separate marginal costs of
goods produced in variable proportions, it is
impossible to determine their individual average
costs. This is because common costs are expenses
necessary for manufacture of a joint product.
Common costs of production—raw material and
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
Continued
01DEN1
75154
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 230 / Tuesday, December 1, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Analyzing the cost of market data
product production and distribution in
isolation from the cost of all of the
inputs supporting the creation of market
data and market data products will
inevitably underestimate the cost of the
data and data products because it is
impossible to obtain the data inputs to
create market data products without a
fast, technologically robust, and wellregulated execution system, and system
and regulatory costs affect the price of
both obtaining the market data itself and
creating and distributing market data
products. It would be equally
misleading, however, to attribute all of
an exchange’s costs to the market data
portion of an exchange’s joint products.
Rather, all of an exchange’s costs are
incurred for the unified purposes of
attracting order flow, executing and/or
routing orders, and generating and
selling data about market activity. The
total return that an exchange earns
reflects the revenues it receives from the
joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
As noted above, the level of
competition and contestability in the
market is evident in the numerous
alternative venues that compete for
order flow, including 11 equities selfregulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’)
markets, as well as various forms of
ATSs, including dark pools and
electronic communication networks
(‘‘ECNs’’), and internalizing brokerdealers. SRO markets compete to attract
order flow and produce transaction
reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting
Facilities compete to attract transaction
reports from the non-SRO venues.
Competition among trading platforms
can be expected to constrain the
aggregate return that each platform
earns from the sale of its joint products,
but different trading platforms may
choose from a range of possible, and
equally reasonable, pricing strategies as
the means of recovering total costs. For
example, some platforms may choose to
pay rebates to attract orders, charge
relatively low prices for market data
products (or provide market data
products free of charge), and charge
equipment costs, management expenses, and other
overhead—cannot be allocated to each individual
by-product on any economically sound basis. . . .
Any allocation of common costs is wrong and
arbitrary.’’). This is not new economic theory. See,
e.g., F. W. Taussig, ‘‘A Contribution to the Theory
of Railway Rates,’’ Quarterly Journal of Economics
V(4) 438, 465 (July 1891) (‘‘Yet, surely, the division
is purely arbitrary. These items of cost, in fact, are
jointly incurred for both sorts of traffic; and I cannot
share the hope entertained by the statistician of the
Commission, Professor Henry C. Adams, that we
shall ever reach a mode of apportionment that will
lead to trustworthy results.’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Nov 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
relatively high prices for accessing
posted liquidity. Other platforms may
choose a strategy of paying lower
rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders,
setting relatively high prices for market
data products, and setting relatively low
prices for accessing posted liquidity. For
example, BATS Global Markets
(‘‘BATS’’) and Direct Edge, which
previously operated as ATSs and
obtained exchange status in 2008 and
2010, respectively, provided certain
market data at no charge on their Web
sites in order to attract more order flow,
and used revenue rebates from resulting
additional executions to maintain low
execution charges for their users.30 In
this environment, there is no economic
basis for regulating maximum prices for
one of the joint products in an industry
in which suppliers face competitive
constraints with regard to the joint
offering.
Existence of Alternatives
The large number of SROs, ATSs, and
internalizing broker-dealers that
currently produce proprietary data or
are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for
proprietary data products. Each SRO,
ATS, and broker-dealer is currently
permitted to produce and sell
proprietary data products, and many
currently do or have announced plans to
do so, including but not limited to the
Exchange, NYSE, NYSE Arca, NASDAQ
OMX, BATS, and Direct Edge.
The fact that proprietary data from
ATSs, internalizing broker-dealers, and
vendors can bypass SROs is significant
in two respects. First, non-SROs can
compete directly with SROs for the
production and sale of proprietary data
products. By way of example, BATS and
NYSE Arca both published proprietary
data on the Internet before registering as
exchanges. Second, because a single
order or transaction report can appear in
an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO
proprietary product, or both, the amount
of data available via proprietary
products is greater in size than the
actual number of orders and transaction
reports that exist in the marketplace.
With respect to NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed, competitors offer close substitute
products.31 Because market data users
can find suitable substitutes for most
proprietary market data products, a
market that overprices its market data
30 This is simply a securities market-specific
example of the well-established principle that in
certain circumstances more sales at lower margins
can be more profitable than fewer sales at higher
margins; this example is additional evidence that
market data is an inherent part of a market’s joint
platform.
31 See supra notes 19–20.
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
products stands a high risk that users
may substitute another source of market
data information for its own.
Those competitive pressures imposed
by available alternatives are evident in
the Exchange’s proposed pricing.
In addition to the competition and
price discipline described above, the
market for proprietary data products is
also highly contestable because market
entry is rapid and inexpensive. The
history of electronic trading is replete
with examples of entrants that swiftly
grew into some of the largest electronic
trading platforms and proprietary data
producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg
Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain,
TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct
Edge. As noted above, BATS launched
as an ATS in 2006 and became an
exchange in 2008, while Direct Edge
began operations in 2007 and obtained
exchange status in 2010.
In setting the proposed fees for the
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed, the
Exchange considered the
competitiveness of the market for
proprietary data and all of the
implications of that competition. The
Exchange believes that it has considered
all relevant factors and has not
considered irrelevant factors in order to
establish fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory fees and an
equitable allocation of fees among all
users. The existence of numerous
alternatives to the Exchange’s products,
including proprietary data from other
sources, and continued availability of
the Exchange’s separate data feeds at a
lower price, ensures that the Exchange
cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees
that are unreasonably discriminatory,
when vendors and subscribers can elect
these alternatives or choose not to
purchase a specific proprietary data
product if the attendant fees are not
justified by the returns that any
particular vendor or data recipient
would achieve through the purchase.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From
Members, Participants, or Others
No written comments were solicited
or received with respect to the proposed
rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The foregoing rule change is effective
upon filing pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) 32 of the Act and
subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 33
32 15
33 17
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).
01DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 230 / Tuesday, December 1, 2015 / Notices
thereunder, because it establishes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the
Exchange.
At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. If the
Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 34 of the Act to
determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or
disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
NYSEMKT–2015–95 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–NYSEMKT–2015–95. This
file number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of
34 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Nov 30, 2015
Jkt 238001
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal
offices of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR–
NYSEMKT–2015–95, and should be
submitted on or before December 22,
2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.35
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–30480 Filed 11–30–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–76519; File No. SR–FINRA–
2015–051]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change To Extend the Tier Size
Pilot of FINRA Rule 6433 (Minimum
Quotation Size Requirements for OTC
Equity Securities)
November 24, 2015.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on November
23, 2015, Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been
prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as
constituting a ‘‘non-controversial’’ rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b–4 under the Act,3 which renders
the proposal effective upon receipt of
this filing by the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA
Rule 6433 (Minimum Quotation Size
35 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
3 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).
1 15
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75155
Requirements for OTC Equity
Securities) to extend the Tier Size Pilot,
which currently is scheduled to expire
on December 11, 2015, until June 10,
2016.
The text of the proposed rule change
is available on FINRA’s Web site at
https://www.finra.org, at the principal
office of FINRA, on the Commission’s
Web site at https://www.sec.gov, and at
the Commission’s Public Reference
Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
In its filing with the Commission,
FINRA included statements concerning
the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any
comments it received on the proposed
rule change. The text of these statements
may be examined at the places specified
in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
1. Purpose
FINRA proposes to amend FINRA
Rule 6433 (Minimum Quotation Size
Requirements for OTC Equity
Securities) (the ‘‘Rule’’) to extend, until
June 10, 2016, the amendments set forth
in File No. SR–FINRA–2011–058 (‘‘Tier
Size Pilot’’ or ‘‘Pilot’’), which currently
are scheduled to expire on December 11,
2015.4
The Tier Size Pilot was filed with the
SEC on October 6, 2011,5 to amend the
minimum quotation sizes (or ‘‘tier
sizes’’) for OTC Equity Securities.6 The
goals of the Pilot were to simplify the
tier structure, facilitate the display of
customer limit orders, and expand the
scope of the Rule to apply to additional
quoting participants. During the course
of the pilot, FINRA collected and
provided to the SEC specified data with
4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75639
(August 7, 2015), 80 FR 48615 (August 13, 2015)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
File No. SR–FINRA–2015–028); see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67208 (June 15, 2012), 77
FR 37458 (June 21, 2012) (Order Approving File No.
SR–FINRA–2011–058, as amended).
5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65568
(October 14, 2011), 76 FR 65307 (October 20, 2011)
(Notice of Filing of File No. SR–FINRA–2011–058).
6 ‘‘OTC Equity Security’’ means any equity
security that is not an ‘‘NMS stock’’ as that term is
defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of SEC Regulation NMS;
provided, however, that the term OTC Equity
Security shall not include any Restricted Equity
Security. See FINRA Rule 6420.
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 230 (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75148-75155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30480]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-76525; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-95]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Establishing Fees for
the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed
November 25, 2015.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 16, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE MKT'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
[[Page 75149]]
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to establish fees for the NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to establish the fees for the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed in the NYSE MKT Equities Proprietary Market Data Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'').\3\ The Exchange proposes to make the NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed available without charge starting on November 16,
2015. The Exchange proposes to establish the following fees for the
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed operative on January 1, 2016:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The proposed rule change establishing the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed was immediately effective on January 23, 2015. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74127 (Jan. 23, 2015), 80 FR
4956 (Jan. 29, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Access Fee. For the receipt of access to the NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed, the Exchange proposes to charge $2,500 per month.
2. User Fees. The Exchange proposes to charge a Professional User
Fee (Per User) of $10 per month and a Non-Professional User Fee (Per
User) of $2 per month. These user fees would apply to each display
device that has access to the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed.
3. Non-Display Fees. The Exchange proposes to establish non-display
fees for the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed using the same non-display use
fee structure established for the Exchange's other market data
products.\4\ Non-display use would mean accessing, processing, or
consuming the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed delivered via direct and/or
Redistributor \5\ data feeds for a purpose other than in support of a
data recipient's display or further internal or external redistribution
(``Non-Display Use''). Non-Display Use would include any trading use,
such as high frequency or algorithmic trading, and would also include
any trading in any asset class, automated order or quote generation
and/or order pegging, price referencing for algorithmic trading or
smart order routing, operations control programs, investment analysis,
order verification, surveillance programs, risk management, compliance,
and portfolio management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69285 (April 3,
2013), 78 FR 21172 (April 9, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-32) and 72020
(Sept. 9, 2014), 79 FR 55040 (Sept. 15, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-72)
[sic].
\5\ ``Redistributor'' means a vendor or any person that provides
a real-time NYSE MKT data product to a data recipient or to any
system that a data recipient uses, irrespective of the means of
transmission or access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposal, for Non-Display Use of NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed, there would be three categories of, and fees applicable to, data
recipients. One, two or three categories of Non-Display Use may apply
to a data recipient.
Under the proposal, the Category 1 Fee would be $5,000 per
month and would apply when a data recipient's Non-Display Use of the
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed is on its own behalf, not on behalf of its
clients.
Under the proposal, Category 2 Fees would be $5,000 per
month and would apply to a data recipient's Non-Display Use of the NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed on behalf of its clients.
Under the proposal, Category 3 Fees would be $5,000 and
would apply to a data recipient's Non-Display Use of the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed for the purpose of internally matching buy and sell
orders within an organization, including matching customer orders for
data recipient's own behalf and/or on behalf of its clients. This
category would apply to Non-Display Use in trading platforms, such as,
but not restricted to, alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), broker
crossing networks, broker crossing systems not filed as ATSs, dark
pools, multilateral trading facilities, exchanges and systematic
internalization systems. Category 3 Fees would be capped at $15,000 per
month for each data recipient for the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed.
Non-Display Use fees for NYSE MKT Integrated Feed include, for
customers also paying access fees for NYSE MKT BBO, NYSE MKT Trades,
NYSE MKT OpenBook and NYSE MKT Order Imbalances, the Non-Display Use
for such products when declared within the same category of use.
The description of the three non-display use categories is set
forth in the Fee Schedule in endnote 1 and that endnote would be
referenced in the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed fees on the Fee Schedule.
The text in the endnote would remain unchanged.
Data recipients that receive the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed for Non-
Display Use would be required to complete and submit a Non-Display Use
Declaration before they would be authorized to receive the feed.\6\ A
firm subject to Category 3 Fees would be required to identify each
platform that uses the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed on a Non-Display Use
basis, such as ATSs and broker crossing systems not registered as ATSs,
as part of the Non-Display Use Declaration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Data recipients are required to complete and submit the Non-
Display Declaration with respect to each market data product on the
Fee Schedule that includes Non-Display Fees. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 74885 (May 6, 2015), 80 FR 27205 (May 12, 2015)
(SR-NYSEMKT-2015-34) (NYSE MKT OpenBook) and 74884 (May 6, 2015), 80
FR 27212 (May 12, 2015)(SR-NYSEMKT-2015-35)(NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances) and 74882 (May 6, 2015), 80 FR 27210 (May 12, 2015) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2015-36) (NYSE MKT Trades and NYSE MKT BBO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Non-Display Declaration Late Fee. Data recipients that receive
the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed for Non-Display Use would be required to
complete and submit a Non-Display Use Declaration before they would be
authorized to receive the feed. Beginning in 2017, NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed data recipients would be required to submit, by January 31st of
each year, the Non-Display Use Declaration that applies to all real-
time NYSE MKT market data products that include Non-Display Use
fees.\7\ The Exchange proposes to charge a Non-Display Declaration Late
Fee of $1,000 per month to any data recipient that pays an Access Fee
for NYSE MKT Integrated Feed that has failed to complete and submit a
Non-Display Use Declaration. Specifically, with respect to the Non-
Display Use Declaration due by January 31st of each year beginning in
2017, the Non-Display Declaration Late Fee would apply to data
recipients that fail to complete and submit the Non-Display Use
Declaration by the January 31st due date, and would apply beginning
February 1st and for each month thereafter until the data recipient
[[Page 75150]]
has completed and submitted the annual Non-Display Use Declaration. The
Exchange also proposes to apply current endnote 2 on the Fee Schedule
to the Non-Display Declaration Late Fee for NYSE MKT Integrated Feed,
but proposes to modify endnote 2 to the Fee Schedule so that it is
clear that the Non-Display Declaration Late Fee applies to the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed beginning February 1st of 2017 and each year with
respect to the Non-Display Use Declaration due by January 31st each
year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id.
\8\ The second sentence of endnote 2 to the Fee Schedule refers
to a late fee for the Non-Display Use Declarations due September 1,
2014 that have not been submitted by July 1, 2015. This sentence is
not applicable to the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed because NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed was not available as of the September 1, 2014 due
date and because data recipients of the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed
will have to complete and submit a Non-Display Declaration before
they can receive the feed. The Exchange proposes to modify the
second sentence so that it applies only to NYSE MKT OpenBook, NYSE
MKT BBO, NYSE MKT Trades and NYSE MKT Order Imbalances and not to
the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed. The Exchange proposes to modify the
third sentence so that it is clear that it applies to all market
data products, including the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed, to which Non-
Display Use fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, if a data recipient's use of the NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed data changes at any time after the data recipient submits a Non-
Display Use Declaration, the data recipient must inform the Exchange of
the change by completing and submitting at the time of the change an
updated declaration reflecting the change of use.
5. Redistribution Fee. For redistribution of the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed, the Exchange proposes to establish a fee of $1,500 per
month.
The Exchange notes that the three existing data feed products--NYSE
MKT OpenBook, NYSE MKT Trades, and NYSE MKT Order Imbalances--would
continue to be available to vendors and subscribers separately, in each
case at the same prices at which they are currently available.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and
recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, and brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to make the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed available free of
charge through December 31, 2015 because providing it at no charge
would provide an opportunity for vendors and subscribers to determine
whether the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed suits their needs without
incurring fees. Other exchanges provide or have provided market data
products free for a certain period of time.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For example, the Exchange, through NYSE Amex Options LLC,
offered ArcaBook for Amex Options-Complex and NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), an affiliate of the Exchange, without charge
between May 1, 2014 and October 31, 2014. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 72074 (May 1, 2014), 79 FR 26277 (May 7, 2014)
(NYSEArca 2014-51) and 72075 (May 1, 2014), 79 FR 26290 (May 7,
2014) (NYSEMKT 2014-40). NASDAQ provides a 30-day free trial related
to NASDAQNASDAQ [sic] TotalView. See NASDAQ Rule 7023(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fees for the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed are reasonable because
they represent not only the value of the data available from three
existing data feeds but also the value of receiving the data on an
integrated basis. Receiving the data on an integrated basis provides
greater efficiencies and reduced errors for vendors and subscribers
that currently choose to integrate the data themselves after receiving
it from the Exchange. Some vendors and subscribers may not have the
technology or resources to integrate the separate data feeds in a
timely and/or efficient manner, and thus the integration feature of the
product may be valuable to them.
Moreover, the fees are equitably allocated and not unfairly
discriminatory because vendors and subscribers may choose to continue
to receive some or all of the data through the existing separate feeds
at current prices, or they can choose to pay for the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed in order to received integrated data, or they can
choose a combination of the two approaches, thereby allowing each
vendor or subscriber to choose the best business solution for itself.
The Exchange believes the proposed monthly Access Fee of $2,500 and
monthly Redistribution Fee of $1,500 for NYSE MKT Integrated Feed are
reasonable because they are comparable to the total of the same types
of fees for NYSE MKT OpenBook, NYSE MKT Trades, and NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances. The monthly Access Fee for NYSE MKT OpenBook is $1,000, for
NYSE MKT Trades is $750 and for NYSE MKT Order Imbalances is $500.\13\
The monthly Redistribution Fee for NYSE MKT Trades is $750.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Access Fee for Managed Non-Display Services only for
NYSE MKT OpenBook is $500 per month, for NYSE MKT Trades is $375 per
month and for NYSE MKT Order Imbalances is $250 per month. Managed
Non-Display Services will not be offered for NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed.
\14\ There are no Redistribution fees charged for NYSE MKT
OpenBook or Redistribution or User fees charged for NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to charge
redistribution fees because vendors receive value from redistributing
the data in their business products for their customers. The
redistribution fees also are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they will be charged on an equal basis to those vendors that
choose to redistribute the data. Also, the proposed redistribution fee
for NYSE MKT Integrated Feed is reasonable because it is comparable to
the redistribution fees that are currently charged by other
exchanges.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ NYSE Arca charges a $3,000 per month redistribution fee for
the NYSE Arca Integrated Feed. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 66128 (Jan. 10, 2012), 77 FR 2331 (Jan. 17, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-
2011-96). Distributors of a NASDAQ listed security depth
entitlements pay a Monthly External Distributor Fee of $2,500. See
NASDAQ Rule 7019(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed monthly Professional User Fee (Per User) of $10 and
Non-Professional User Fee (Per User) of $2 are reasonable because they
are comparable to the total of the per user fees for NYSE MKT OpenBook
and NYSE MKT Trades. The monthly Professional User Fee (Per User) for
NYSE MKT OpenBook is $5 and for NYSE MKT Trades, it is $1. The monthly
Non-Professional User Fee (Per User) for NYSE MKT OpenBook is $1 and
for NYSE MKT Trades, it is $0.05.
The Exchange believes that having separate Professional and Non-
Professional User fees for the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed is reasonable
because it will make the product more affordable and result in greater
availability to Professional and Non-Professional Users. Setting a
modest Non-Professional User fee is reasonable because it provides an
additional method for Non-Professional Users to access the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed by providing the same data that is available to
Professional Users. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will be charged
uniformly to recipient firms and Users. The fee structure of
differentiated Professional and Non-Professional fees applies to the
user fees applicable to NYSE MKT OpenBook and NYSE MKT Trades and has
long been used by the Exchange in order to reduce the price of data to
Non-Professional Users and make it more broadly available.\16\ Offering
the NYSE MKT
[[Page 75151]]
Integrated Feed to Non-Professional Users with the same data available
to Professional Users results in greater equity among data recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69285 (April
3, 2013), 78 FR 21172 (April 9, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-32)
(establishing the $1 Non-Professional User Fee (Per User) and $5
Professional User Fee (Per User) for NYSE MKT OpenBook). See e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20002, File No. S7-433 (July 22,
1983), 48 FR 34552 (July 29, 1983) (establishing nonprofessional
fees for CTA data); NASDAQ Rules 7023(b), 7047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes the proposed Non-Display Use fees are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they
reflect the value of the data to the data recipients in their profit-
generating activities and do not impose the burden of counting non-
display devices. After gaining further experience with the non-display
fee structure, the Exchange believes that the proposed Non-Display Use
fees reflect the significant value of the non-display data to data
recipients, which purchase such data on an entirely voluntary basis.
Non-display data can be used by data recipients for a wide variety of
profit-generating purposes, including proprietary and agency trading
and smart order routing, as well as by data recipients that operate
order matching and execution platforms that compete directly with the
Exchange for order flow. The data also can be used for a variety of
non-trading purposes that indirectly support trading, such as risk
management and compliance. While some of these non-trading uses do not
directly generate revenues, they can nonetheless substantially reduce
the recipient's costs by automating such functions so that they can be
carried out in a more efficient and accurate manner and reduce errors
and labor costs, thereby benefiting end users. The Exchange believes
that charging for non-trading uses is reasonable because data
recipients can derive substantial value from such uses, for example, by
automating tasks so that they can be performed more quickly and
accurately and less expensively than if they were performed manually.
Data can be processed much faster by a non-display device than it
can be by a human being processing information that he or she views on
a data terminal. Non-display devices also can dispense data to multiple
computer applications as compared with the restriction of data to one
display terminal. While non-display data has become increasingly
valuable to data recipients who can use it to generate substantial
profits, it has become increasing difficult for them and the Exchange
to accurately count non-display devices. The number and type of non-
display devices, as well as their complexity and interconnectedness,
have grown in recent years, creating administrative challenges for
vendors, data recipients, and the Exchange to accurately count such
devices and audit such counts. Unlike a display device, such as a
Bloomberg terminal, it is not possible to simply walk through a trading
floor or areas of a data recipient's premises to identify non-display
devices. During an audit, an auditor must review a firm's entitlement
report to determine usage. While display use is generally associated
with an individual end user and/or unique user ID, a non-display use is
more difficult to account for because the entitlement report may show a
server name or Internet protocol (``IP'') address or it may not. The
auditor must review each IP or server and further inquire about
downstream use and quantity of servers with access to data; this type
of counting is very labor-intensive and prone to inaccuracies.
Market data technology and usage has evolved to the point where it
is no longer practical, nor fair and equitable, to simply count non-
display devices. The administrative costs and difficulties of
establishing reliable counts and conducting an effective audit of non-
display devices have become too burdensome, impractical, and non-
economic for the Exchange, vendors, and data recipients. Indeed, some
data recipients dislike the burden of having to comply with count-based
audit processes, and the Exchange's non-display pricing policies are a
direct response to such complaints as well as a further competitive
distinction between the Exchange and other markets. The Exchange
believes that the proposed fee structure for non-display use is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory in light of
these developments.
The Non-Display Use fees for the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed are
reasonable because they represent the extra value of receiving the data
for Non-Display Use on an integrated basis. The Exchange believes that
the proposed fees directly and appropriately reflect the significant
value of using NYSE MKT Integrated Feed on a non-display basis in a
wide range of computer-automated functions relating to both trading and
non-trading activities and that the number and range of these functions
continue to grow through innovation and technology developments.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See also Exchange Act Release No. 69157, March 18, 2013, 78
FR 17946, 17949 (March 25, 2013) (SR-CTA/CQ-2013-01) (``[D]ata feeds
have become more valuable, as recipients now use them to perform a
far larger array of non-display functions. Some firms even base
their business models on the incorporation of data feeds into black
boxes and application programming interfaces that apply trading
algorithms to the data, but that do not require widespread data
access by the firm's employees. As a result, these firms pay little
for data usage beyond access fees, yet their data access and usage
is critical to their businesses.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to require annual
submissions of the Non-Display Use Declaration so that the Exchange
will have current and accurate information about the use of the NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed and can correctly assess fees for the uses of the
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed. The annual submission requirement is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all
users.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to impose a late fee in
connection with the submission of the Non-Display Use Declaration. In
order to correctly assess fees for the non-display use of NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed, the Exchange needs to have current and accurate
information about the use of NYSE MKT Integrated Feed. The failure of
data recipients to submit the Non-Display Use Declaration on time leads
to potentially incorrect billing and administrative burdens, including
tracking and obtaining late Non-Display Use Declarations and correcting
and following up on payments owed in connection with late Non-Display
Use Declarations. The purpose of the late fee is to incent data
recipients to submit the Non-Display Use Declaration promptly to avoid
the administrative burdens associated with the late submission of Non-
Display Use Declarations. The Non-Display Declaration Late Fee is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all
data recipients that choose to subscribe to the NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed.
In addition, the proposed fees are reasonable when compared to fees
for comparable products, including the NYSE Arca Integrated Feed,\18\
offered by the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE Arca and NASDAQ TotalView-
Itch,\19\ offered by The NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. ``NASDAQ'').
Specifically, the fees for NYSE Arca Integrated Feed, which like
[[Page 75152]]
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed, includes depth of book, trades, and order
imbalances data for the NYSE Arca market, and a security status
message, consist of an Access Fee of $3,000 per month, a Professional
User Fee (Per User) of $40 per month a Non-Professional User Fee (Per
User) of $20 per month, Non-Display Fees of $7,000 per month for each
of Categories 1, 2 and 3, and a Redistribution Fee of $3,000 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See NYSE Arca Integrated Feed, https://www.nyxdata.com/page/1084 (last visited June 8, 2015)(data feed that provides a unified
view of events, in sequence as they appear on the NYSE Arca matching
engine, including depth of book, trades, order imbalance data, and
security status messages).
\19\ See NASDAQ TotalView-ITCH, https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=Totalview2 (last visited June 8, 2015)(displays the
full order book depth for NASDAQ market participants and also
disseminates the Net Order Imbalance Indicator (NOII) for the
NASDAQNASDAQ [sic] Opening and Closing Crosses and NASDAQ IPO/Halt
Cross).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fees are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
they will apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed.
The Exchange also notes that the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed is
entirely optional. The Exchange is not required to make the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives
to any customers, nor is any firm required to purchase the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed. Firms that purchase the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed would
do so for the primary goals of using it to increase revenues, reduce
expenses, and in some instances compete directly with the Exchange
(including for order flow); those firms are able to determine for
themselves whether the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed or any other similar
products are attractively priced or not.
Firms that do not wish to purchase the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed at
the new prices have a variety of alternative market data products from
which to choose,\20\ or if the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed does not
provide sufficient value to firms as offered based on the uses those
firms have or planned to make of it, such firms may simply choose to
conduct their business operations in ways that do not use the NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed. The Exchange notes that broker-dealers are not
required to purchase proprietary market data to comply with their best
execution obligations.\21\ Similarly, there is no requirement in
Regulation NMS or any other rule that proprietary data be utilized for
order routing decisions, and some broker-dealers and ATSs have chosen
not to do so.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See supra notes 19-20.
\21\ See In the Matter of the Application of Securities Industry
And Financial Markets Association For Review of Actions Taken by
Self-Regulatory Organizations, Release Nos. 34-72182; AP-3-15350;
AP-3-15351 (May 16, 2014).
\22\ For example, Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing, L.P.
disclosed in 2014 that it was not using proprietary market data in
connection with Sigma X, its ATS. See response to Question E3,
available at https://www.goldmansachs.com/media-relations/in-the-news/current/pdf-media/gsec-order-handling-practices-ats-specific.pdf. By way of comparison, IEX has disclosed that it uses
proprietary market data feeds from all registered stock exchanges.
See https://www.iextrading.com/about/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010), upheld reliance by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') upon the existence of competitive market mechanisms to
set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for proprietary market
data:
In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress
intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted
in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). The court agreed with the Commission's
conclusion that ``Congress intended that `competitive forces should
dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national
market system for trading equity securities.''' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on
Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence
of competition in the marketplace for proprietary market data and that
the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees
established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore
satisfy the relevant statutory standards. In addition, the existence of
alternatives to these data products, such as consolidated data and
proprietary data from other sources, as described below, further
ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that
are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can
select such alternatives.
As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required
to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach. The Exchange
believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory,
cost-based pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated
that it could not be done practically or offer any significant
benefits.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties and the Commission, to cost-regulate a large number
of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary amounts of
information, accounts, and reports. In addition, and as described
below, it is impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation
from prices charged by markets for other services that are joint
products. Cost-based rate regulation would also lead to litigation
and may distort incentives, including those to minimize costs and to
innovate, leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the
Commission would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return,
and the industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's Web site at https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. An exchange's ability to
price its proprietary market data feed products is constrained by
actual competition for the sale of proprietary market data products,
the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of
alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data.
The Existence of Actual Competition.
The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive
and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the
inputs necessary for the creation of proprietary data and strict
pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous
exchanges compete with one another for listings and order flow and
sales of market data itself, providing ample opportunities for
entrepreneurs who wish to compete in any or all of those areas,
including producing and distributing their own market data. Proprietary
data products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange,
as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Indeed,
the U.S. Department of Justice (``DOJ'') (the primary antitrust
regulator) has expressly acknowledged the aggressive actual competition
among exchanges, including for the sale of proprietary market data. In
2011, the DOJ stated that exchanges ``compete head to head to offer
real-time equity data products. These data products include the best
bid
[[Page 75153]]
and offer of every exchange and information on each equity trade,
including the last sale.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant
Attorney General Christine Varney Holds Conference Call Regarding
NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandoning
Their Bid for NYSE Euronext (May 16, 2011), available at https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/atr/speeches/2011/at-speech-110516.html; see
also Complaint in U.S. v. Deutsche Borse AG and NYSE Euronext, Case
No. 11-cv-2280 (DC Dist.) ] 24 (``NYSE and Direct Edge compete head-
to-head . . . in the provision of real-time proprietary equity data
products.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, competitive markets for listings, order flow, executions,
and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from
overpricing proprietary market data. Broker-dealers send their order
flow and transaction reports to multiple venues, rather than providing
them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive
constraint. As a 2010 Commission Concept Release noted, the ``current
market structure can be described as dispersed and complex'' with
``trading volume . . . dispersed among many highly automated trading
centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks'' and ``trading
centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to
attract different types of market participants with varying trading
needs.'' \26\ More recently, SEC Chair Mary Jo White has noted that
competition for order flow in exchange-listed equities is ``intense''
and divided among many trading venues, including exchanges, more than
40 alternative trading systems, and more than 250 broker-dealers.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (Jan. 21,
2010) (File No. S7-02-10). This Concept Release included data from
the third quarter of 2009 showing that no market center traded more
than 20% of the volume of listed stocks, further evidencing the
dispersal of and competition for trading activity. Id. at 3598. Data
available on ArcaVision show that from June 30, 2013 to June 30,
2014, no exchange traded more than 12% of the volume of listed
stocks by either trade or dollar volume, further evidencing the
continued dispersal of and fierce competition for trading activity.
See https://www.arcavision.com/Arcavision/arcalogin.jsp.
\27\ Mary Jo White, Enhancing Our Equity Market Structure,
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global Exchange and Brokerage
Conference (June 5, 2014) (available on the Commission Web site),
citing Tuttle, Laura, 2014, ``OTC Trading: Description of Non-ATS
OTC Trading in National Market System Stocks,'' at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an exchange succeeds in its competition for quotations, order
flow, and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and
increases the value of its proprietary market data products because
they will contain greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if
an exchange is less successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and
trade executions, then its market data products may be less desirable
to customers using them in support of order routing and trading
decisions in light of the diminished content; data products offered by
competing venues may become correspondingly more attractive. Thus,
competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions puts
significant pressure on an exchange to maintain both execution and data
fees at reasonable levels.
In addition, in the case of products that are also redistributed
through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters,
the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline
based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a
surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary
products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Vendors will not elect to make available NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed unless their customers request it, and customers will not elect to
pay the proposed fees unless NYSE MKT Integrated Feed can provide value
by sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's
business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors
operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Joint Product Nature of Exchange Platform
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, proprietary market data and trade
executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint
costs. The decision of whether and on which platform to post an order
will depend on the attributes of the platforms where the order can be
posted, including the execution fees, data availability and quality,
and price and distribution of data products. Without a platform to post
quotations, receive orders, and execute trades, exchange data products
would not exist.
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's platform for posting quotes,
accepting orders, and executing transactions and the cost of regulating
the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor
confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the
revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs.
Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers generally view the
costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of
doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to
direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction
exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the
broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and
trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by
its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase
the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial
evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data
purchases. For example, in April 2015, more than 80% of the transaction
volume on each of NYSE MKT and NYSE MKT's affiliates NYSE Arca and New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') was executed by market participants
that purchased one or more proprietary market data products (the 20
firms were not the same for each market). A supra-competitive increase
in the fees for either executions or market data would create a risk of
reducing an exchange's revenues from both products.
Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data
and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have
common costs.\28\ The Exchange agrees with and adopts those discussions
and the arguments therein. The Exchange also notes that the economics
literature confirms that there is no way to allocate common costs
between joint products that would shed any light on competitive or
efficient pricing.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72153 (May 12,
2014), 79 FR 28575, 28578 n.15 (May 16, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-045)
(``[A]ll of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified
purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders,
and generating and selling data about market activity. The total
return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from
the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.'').
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62907 (Sept. 14, 2010),
75 FR 57314, 57317 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-110), and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62908 (Sept. 14, 2010), 75 FR
57321, 57324 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-111).
\29\ See generally Mark Hirschey, Fundamentals of Managerial
Economics, at 600 (2009) (``It is important to note, however, that
although it is possible to determine the separate marginal costs of
goods produced in variable proportions, it is impossible to
determine their individual average costs. This is because common
costs are expenses necessary for manufacture of a joint product.
Common costs of production--raw material and equipment costs,
management expenses, and other overhead--cannot be allocated to each
individual by-product on any economically sound basis. . . . Any
allocation of common costs is wrong and arbitrary.''). This is not
new economic theory. See, e.g., F. W. Taussig, ``A Contribution to
the Theory of Railway Rates,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics V(4)
438, 465 (July 1891) (``Yet, surely, the division is purely
arbitrary. These items of cost, in fact, are jointly incurred for
both sorts of traffic; and I cannot share the hope entertained by
the statistician of the Commission, Professor Henry C. Adams, that
we shall ever reach a mode of apportionment that will lead to
trustworthy results.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75154]]
Analyzing the cost of market data product production and
distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting
the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably
underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is
impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products
without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution
system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both
obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market
data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute
all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's
joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the
unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing
orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The
total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives
from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
As noted above, the level of competition and contestability in the
market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for
order flow, including 11 equities self-regulatory organization
(``SRO'') markets, as well as various forms of ATSs, including dark
pools and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''), and
internalizing broker-dealers. SRO markets compete to attract order flow
and produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-
regulated Trade Reporting Facilities compete to attract transaction
reports from the non-SRO venues.
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its
joint products, but different trading platforms may choose from a range
of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of
recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay
rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data
products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge
relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms
may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to
attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data
products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted
liquidity. For example, BATS Global Markets (``BATS'') and Direct Edge,
which previously operated as ATSs and obtained exchange status in 2008
and 2010, respectively, provided certain market data at no charge on
their Web sites in order to attract more order flow, and used revenue
rebates from resulting additional executions to maintain low execution
charges for their users.\30\ In this environment, there is no economic
basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an
industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to
the joint offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ This is simply a securities market-specific example of the
well-established principle that in certain circumstances more sales
at lower margins can be more profitable than fewer sales at higher
margins; this example is additional evidence that market data is an
inherent part of a market's joint platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existence of Alternatives
The large number of SROs, ATSs, and internalizing broker-dealers
that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of
producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data
products. Each SRO, ATS, and broker-dealer is currently permitted to
produce and sell proprietary data products, and many currently do or
have announced plans to do so, including but not limited to the
Exchange, NYSE, NYSE Arca, NASDAQ OMX, BATS, and Direct Edge.
The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, internalizing broker-
dealers, and vendors can bypass SROs is significant in two respects.
First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and
sale of proprietary data products. By way of example, BATS and NYSE
Arca both published proprietary data on the Internet before registering
as exchanges. Second, because a single order or transaction report can
appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or
both, the amount of data available via proprietary products is greater
in size than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that
exist in the marketplace. With respect to NYSE MKT Integrated Feed,
competitors offer close substitute products.\31\ Because market data
users can find suitable substitutes for most proprietary market data
products, a market that overprices its market data products stands a
high risk that users may substitute another source of market data
information for its own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See supra notes 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are
evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing.
In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history
of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly
grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and
proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island,
RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. As noted
above, BATS launched as an ATS in 2006 and became an exchange in 2008,
while Direct Edge began operations in 2007 and obtained exchange status
in 2010.
In setting the proposed fees for the NYSE MKT Integrated Feed, the
Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary
data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange
believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not
considered irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable,
and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of
fees among all users. The existence of numerous alternatives to the
Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources, and
continued availability of the Exchange's separate data feeds at a lower
price, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees
that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can
elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific
proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the
returns that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve
through the purchase.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \32\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \33\
[[Page 75155]]
thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed
by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \34\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's Internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-95 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-95. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-
95, and should be submitted on or before December 22, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-30480 Filed 11-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
