Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change to Establish a Passive Price Improvement Order for Specialists and Registered Traders, 13146-13147 [E7-5005]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13146
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Notices
Commission designates the proposal to
be operative upon filing with the
Commission.9
At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate
such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is
necessary of appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors,
or otherwise in the furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
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:
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–Amex–2007–30 and should
be submitted on or before April 10,
2007.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated
authority.10
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–4978 Filed 3–19–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File
No. SR–Amex–2007–30 on the subject
line.
[Release No. 34–55464; File No. SR–Amex–
2007–08]
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
Station Place, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–Amex–2007–30. This file
number should be included on the
subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and copying in
the Commission’s Public Reference
Room. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at
the principal office of Amex. All
comments received will be posted
March 13, 2007.
9 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day
operative delay of this proposal, the Commission
has considered the propose rule’s impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See
15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:08 Mar 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule
Change to Establish a Passive Price
Improvement Order for Specialists and
Registered Traders
I. Introduction
On January 19, 2007, the American
Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’ or
‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder.2
The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 2, 2007.3 The
Commission received one comment
letter.4 On March 12, 2007, Amex
submitted a response to the comment
letter.5 This order approves the
proposed rule change.
II. Description of the Proposal
Amex proposes to amend the rules for
its AEMI trading platform 6 to add a
Passive Price Improvement (‘‘PPI’’)
order type. PPI orders are undisplayed
10 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
3 See Securities Exchange Release Act 55179
(January 26, 2007), 72 FR 05091 (February 2, 2007).
4 See Letter from Christopher Cornette, Member,
Amex, to Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary,
Commission, received February 14, 2007.
5 See Letter from Claire P. McGrath, Senior Vice
President & General Counsel, Amex, to Nancy M.
Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated March 12,
2007 (‘‘Amex Response Letter’’).
6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54552
(September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59546 (October 10,
2006).
1 15
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
orders that, to execute, would have to be
inside the automated best bid and offer
of the Exchange (also referred to as the
‘‘Amex Published Quote’’ or ‘‘APQ’’) by
at least a tick. They would be the only
method for Specialists and Registered
Traders to offer price improvement
electronically. A Specialist or Registered
Trader would have to have at least one
active quote on a particular side of a
security on the AEMI book to enter and
maintain a PPI order in the same
security on the same side. A Specialist
or Registered Trader that meets this
quoting requirement could enter only
one PPI order on each side for a
security. A PPI order could not form
part of the APQ and would be visible
only to the entering Specialist or
Registered Trader (or his firm).
AEMI would make a PPI order eligible
for execution if at least one of the
following conditions were met:
1. The Specialist’s or Registered
Trader’s displayed quote is at the APQ
on the side of the PPI order that would
be executed. In this case, the PPI order
would be executed up to (a) the size of
the Specialist’s or Registered Trader’s
displayed quote on that side or (b) the
size of the incoming order, whichever is
smaller.
2. The Specialist’s or Registered
Trader’s displayed quote is one tick
away from the APQ on the side of the
PPI order that would be executed. In
this case, the PPI order would be
executed up to (a) half of the size of the
Specialist’s or Registered Trader’s
displayed quote on that side or (b) the
size of the incoming order, whichever is
smaller.
The AEMI system would ignore (i.e.,
make ineligible for execution against an
otherwise marketable aggressing order,
without canceling) the remaining size of
a PPI order beyond the thresholds
described above.7 The AEMI system
would also ignore a PPI order in the
following circumstances:
• The PPI order locks or crosses the
automated NBBO or APQ as a result of
a change in the automated NBBO or
APQ;
• The PPI order equals the APQ on
the same side of the market;
7 For example, assume that a Specialist’s bid for
1,000 shares is part of the Amex best bid and there
are no better-priced protected quotations at other
trading centers. The Specialist has a PPI order to
buy 3,000 shares priced one tick better than the
Amex best bid. Assume that an incoming market
order to sell 3,000 shares is received by AEMI. The
system would execute 1,000 shares against the
Specialist’s PPI order, and the remainder would
execute one tick down at the Amex best bid (based
on the Exchange’s rules of priority and parity). The
remaining size of the PPI order (2,000 shares) is
ignored because the PPI order may execute only up
to the size of the Specialist’s displayed bid at the
APQ.
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
• There is a negotiated trade; or
• AEMI’s auto-execution
functionality is disabled.
In addition, the AEMI system would
cancel a PPI order in three
circumstances: (1) if the Specialist’s or
Registered Trader’s best quote is
withdrawn; (2) at the end of the day; or
(3) there is a trading halt in the security.
If there were multiple PPI orders at
the same price, the Specialist’s PPI
order would have priority, and any
remaining size of an aggressing order
would be executed against Registered
Trader PPI orders in time priority.
Intermarket sweep orders would be
generated as necessary to clear any
better-priced protected quotations at
other trading centers before executing
any PPI orders on the AEMI system.
To reflect the proposed rule change as
described above, changes are proposed
to the following AEMI rules: Rule 123–
AEMI (Manner of Bidding and Offering),
Rule 131–AEMI (Types of Orders), Rule
157–AEMI (Orders with More than One
Broker), and Rule 170–AEMI
(Registration and Functions of
Specialists).
III. Summary of Comments and Amex
Response
The Commission received one
comment letter opposing the proposed
rule change. The commenter argued that
limiting the use of PPI Orders to
Specialists and Registered Traders gives
them ‘‘an unfair advantage’’ and thus is
not consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act.
The commenter noted that the
Specialist would have access to
aggressing orders that could be priceimproved but Floor Brokers would not.
The commenter suggested that there
would be many instances where Floor
Brokers would be willing to provide
price improvement but would not
publicly display such interest in order
to minimize any potential market
impact. The commenter also suggested
that PPI Orders could be misused to
trade ahead of a Floor Broker’s
marketable orders instead of providing
price improvement.
In its response to comments, Amex
asserted that Floor Brokers are able to
operate effectively and compete with
Specialists and Registered Traders. For
example, Amex pointed out that Floor
Brokers have the exclusive use of
certain order types on AEMI (e.g.,
percentage orders and reserve orders).
Amex also emphasized that the use of
PPI Orders would be monitored and
policed electronically. Amex stated that
its regulatory program would be able to
detect possible unfair trading practices.
Finally, Amex represented that it ‘‘is in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:08 Mar 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
the process of developing the means by
which other market participants,
including floor brokers, would have the
ability to systematically provide such
price improvement.’’ 8
IV. Discussion and Commission’s
Findings
After careful consideration, the
Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder applicable to
a national securities exchange.9 In
particular, the Commission finds that
the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,10 which requires, among other
things, that the Exchange’s rules be
designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system, and in
general to protect investors and the
public interest.
The Commission previously has
found similar exchange rules to be
consistent with the Act.11 The
Commission does not believe that the
comment raises any issue that would
preclude approval of the current
proposal. As the Commission noted in
the NYSE Hybrid Approval Order,
Specialists today are permitted to offer
price improvement to incoming orders
in the auction market.12 In this
proposal, Amex seeks to provide its
Specialists and Registered Traders with
the ability to continue to offer price
improvement in an electronic
environment, but only if certain
conditions are met. A Specialist’s or
Registered Trader’s PPI order is eligible
for execution only if its quote on the
same side of the market is at or one tick
away from the APQ. If the Specialist’s
or Registered Trader’s quotation is at the
APQ, a PPI order is eligible to execute
up to the same size as its quotation; if
it is one tick away from the APQ, the
PPI order is eligible to execute up to one
half the size of its quotation. A PPI order
will be ignored if the Specialist’s or
Registered Trader’s quotation is more
than one tick away from the APQ. Thus,
a Specialist’s ability to benefit from the
PPI order is directly correlated with the
8 Amex
Response Letter at 1.
approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission notes that it has considered the
proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
11 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
53539 (March 22, 2006), 71 FR 16353, 16381–82
(March 31, 2006) (‘‘NYSE Hybrid Approval Order’’)
and 54511 (September 25, 2006), 71 FR 58460
(October 3, 2006).
12 See 71 FR at 16382.
9 In
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13147
extent to which it quotes competitive
markets in size. The Commission notes,
moreover, that Amex has represented
that it ‘‘is in the process of developing
the means by which other market
participants, including floor brokers,
would have the ability to systematically
provide such price improvement.’’ 13
The Commission further notes that a
PPI order could execute only against a
marketable incoming limit order. An
incoming order that is not marketable
against a PPI order (or a protected
quotation) and that improves the APQ
would be quoted as part of the new
APQ.
V. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,14 that the
proposed rule change (SR–Amex–2007–
08), be, and it hereby is, approved.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated
authority.15
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–5005 Filed 3–19–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–55450; File No. SR–BSE–
2007–11]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston
Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Existing Fee Schedules
March 13, 2007.
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 March 2,
2007, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.
(‘‘BSE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) 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
substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The BSE has designated this proposal as
one changing a due, fee, or other charge
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3
and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which
renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to
13 Amex
Response Letter at 1.
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).
14 15
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13146-13147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5005]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-55464; File No. SR-Amex-2007-08]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change to Establish a Passive
Price Improvement Order for Specialists and Registered Traders
March 13, 2007.
I. Introduction
On January 19, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on February 2, 2007.\3\ The Commission received
one comment letter.\4\ On March 12, 2007, Amex submitted a response to
the comment letter.\5\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Securities Exchange Release Act 55179 (January 26,
2007), 72 FR 05091 (February 2, 2007).
\4\ See Letter from Christopher Cornette, Member, Amex, to
Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary, Commission, received February
14, 2007.
\5\ See Letter from Claire P. McGrath, Senior Vice President &
General Counsel, Amex, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission,
dated March 12, 2007 (``Amex Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposal
Amex proposes to amend the rules for its AEMI trading platform \6\
to add a Passive Price Improvement (``PPI'') order type. PPI orders are
undisplayed orders that, to execute, would have to be inside the
automated best bid and offer of the Exchange (also referred to as the
``Amex Published Quote'' or ``APQ'') by at least a tick. They would be
the only method for Specialists and Registered Traders to offer price
improvement electronically. A Specialist or Registered Trader would
have to have at least one active quote on a particular side of a
security on the AEMI book to enter and maintain a PPI order in the same
security on the same side. A Specialist or Registered Trader that meets
this quoting requirement could enter only one PPI order on each side
for a security. A PPI order could not form part of the APQ and would be
visible only to the entering Specialist or Registered Trader (or his
firm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54552 (September 29,
2006), 71 FR 59546 (October 10, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEMI would make a PPI order eligible for execution if at least one
of the following conditions were met:
1. The Specialist's or Registered Trader's displayed quote is at
the APQ on the side of the PPI order that would be executed. In this
case, the PPI order would be executed up to (a) the size of the
Specialist's or Registered Trader's displayed quote on that side or (b)
the size of the incoming order, whichever is smaller.
2. The Specialist's or Registered Trader's displayed quote is one
tick away from the APQ on the side of the PPI order that would be
executed. In this case, the PPI order would be executed up to (a) half
of the size of the Specialist's or Registered Trader's displayed quote
on that side or (b) the size of the incoming order, whichever is
smaller.
The AEMI system would ignore (i.e., make ineligible for execution
against an otherwise marketable aggressing order, without canceling)
the remaining size of a PPI order beyond the thresholds described
above.\7\ The AEMI system would also ignore a PPI order in the
following circumstances:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, assume that a Specialist's bid for 1,000 shares
is part of the Amex best bid and there are no better-priced
protected quotations at other trading centers. The Specialist has a
PPI order to buy 3,000 shares priced one tick better than the Amex
best bid. Assume that an incoming market order to sell 3,000 shares
is received by AEMI. The system would execute 1,000 shares against
the Specialist's PPI order, and the remainder would execute one tick
down at the Amex best bid (based on the Exchange's rules of priority
and parity). The remaining size of the PPI order (2,000 shares) is
ignored because the PPI order may execute only up to the size of the
Specialist's displayed bid at the APQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PPI order locks or crosses the automated NBBO or APQ
as a result of a change in the automated NBBO or APQ;
The PPI order equals the APQ on the same side of the
market;
[[Page 13147]]
There is a negotiated trade; or
AEMI's auto-execution functionality is disabled.
In addition, the AEMI system would cancel a PPI order in three
circumstances: (1) if the Specialist's or Registered Trader's best
quote is withdrawn; (2) at the end of the day; or (3) there is a
trading halt in the security.
If there were multiple PPI orders at the same price, the
Specialist's PPI order would have priority, and any remaining size of
an aggressing order would be executed against Registered Trader PPI
orders in time priority. Intermarket sweep orders would be generated as
necessary to clear any better-priced protected quotations at other
trading centers before executing any PPI orders on the AEMI system.
To reflect the proposed rule change as described above, changes are
proposed to the following AEMI rules: Rule 123-AEMI (Manner of Bidding
and Offering), Rule 131-AEMI (Types of Orders), Rule 157-AEMI (Orders
with More than One Broker), and Rule 170-AEMI (Registration and
Functions of Specialists).
III. Summary of Comments and Amex Response
The Commission received one comment letter opposing the proposed
rule change. The commenter argued that limiting the use of PPI Orders
to Specialists and Registered Traders gives them ``an unfair
advantage'' and thus is not consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act.
The commenter noted that the Specialist would have access to
aggressing orders that could be price-improved but Floor Brokers would
not. The commenter suggested that there would be many instances where
Floor Brokers would be willing to provide price improvement but would
not publicly display such interest in order to minimize any potential
market impact. The commenter also suggested that PPI Orders could be
misused to trade ahead of a Floor Broker's marketable orders instead of
providing price improvement.
In its response to comments, Amex asserted that Floor Brokers are
able to operate effectively and compete with Specialists and Registered
Traders. For example, Amex pointed out that Floor Brokers have the
exclusive use of certain order types on AEMI (e.g., percentage orders
and reserve orders). Amex also emphasized that the use of PPI Orders
would be monitored and policed electronically. Amex stated that its
regulatory program would be able to detect possible unfair trading
practices. Finally, Amex represented that it ``is in the process of
developing the means by which other market participants, including
floor brokers, would have the ability to systematically provide such
price improvement.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Amex Response Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings
After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\9\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\
which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and in general to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission previously has found similar exchange rules to be
consistent with the Act.\11\ The Commission does not believe that the
comment raises any issue that would preclude approval of the current
proposal. As the Commission noted in the NYSE Hybrid Approval Order,
Specialists today are permitted to offer price improvement to incoming
orders in the auction market.\12\ In this proposal, Amex seeks to
provide its Specialists and Registered Traders with the ability to
continue to offer price improvement in an electronic environment, but
only if certain conditions are met. A Specialist's or Registered
Trader's PPI order is eligible for execution only if its quote on the
same side of the market is at or one tick away from the APQ. If the
Specialist's or Registered Trader's quotation is at the APQ, a PPI
order is eligible to execute up to the same size as its quotation; if
it is one tick away from the APQ, the PPI order is eligible to execute
up to one half the size of its quotation. A PPI order will be ignored
if the Specialist's or Registered Trader's quotation is more than one
tick away from the APQ. Thus, a Specialist's ability to benefit from
the PPI order is directly correlated with the extent to which it quotes
competitive markets in size. The Commission notes, moreover, that Amex
has represented that it ``is in the process of developing the means by
which other market participants, including floor brokers, would have
the ability to systematically provide such price improvement.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53539 (March 22,
2006), 71 FR 16353, 16381-82 (March 31, 2006) (``NYSE Hybrid
Approval Order'') and 54511 (September 25, 2006), 71 FR 58460
(October 3, 2006).
\12\ See 71 FR at 16382.
\13\ Amex Response Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission further notes that a PPI order could execute only
against a marketable incoming limit order. An incoming order that is
not marketable against a PPI order (or a protected quotation) and that
improves the APQ would be quoted as part of the new APQ.
V. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\14\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2007-08), be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5005 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
