Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Relating to Obvious Errors Respecting Complex Trades, 74755-74757 [2010-30225]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
an official communication directly from
the agency that contributed the original
information, the FBI’s Identification
Division makes any changes necessary
in accordance with the information
supplied by that agency. The licensee
must allow an individual at least 10
days to initiate an action challenging the
results of an FBI criminal history
records check after the record is made
available for his or her review. The
licensee may make a final SGI access
determination based upon the criminal
history record only upon receipt of the
FBI’s ultimate confirmation or
correction of the record. Upon a final
adverse determination on access to SGI,
the licensee shall provide the individual
its documented basis for denial. The
licensee shall not grant an individual
access to SGI during the review process.
Protection of Information
Each licensee who obtains a criminal
history record on an individual under
this Order shall establish and maintain
a system of files and procedures for
protecting the record and the personal
information from unauthorized
disclosure.
The licensee may not disclose the
record or personal information that it
collects and maintains to persons other
than the subject individual or his or her
representative or to those who have a
need to access the information in
performing assigned duties in the
process of determining access to SGI. No
individual authorized to have access to
the information may redisseminate the
information to any other individual who
does not have a need to know.
The licensee may transfer personal
information obtained on an individual
from a criminal history records check to
another licensee if the licensee holding
the criminal history records check
receives the individual’s written request
to redisseminate the information
contained in his or her file and if the
current licensee verifies information
such as the individual’s name, date of
birth, Social Security number, sex, and
other applicable physical characteristics
for identification purposes.
The licensee shall make criminal
history records, obtained under this
section, available for examination by an
authorized representative of the NRC to
determine compliance with the
regulations and laws.
The licensee shall retain all
fingerprint and criminal history records
that it receives from the FBI or a copy
of these records if the individual’s file
has been transferred for 3 years after
termination of employment or upon
determination of access to SGI (whether
access was approved or denied). After
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:11 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
the required 3-year period, the licensee
shall destroy these documents by a
method that will prevent the
reconstruction of the information in
whole or in part.
[FR Doc. 2010–30221 Filed 11–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
POSTAL SERVICE
Product Change—Parcel Return
Service Negotiated Service Agreement
Postal
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
ServiceTM.
Postal Service notice of filing
of a request with the Postal Regulatory
Commission to add a domestic shipping
services contract to the list of Negotiated
Service Agreements in the Mail
Classification Schedule’s Competitive
Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642
and 3632(b)(3).
DATES: December 1, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
United States Postal Service hereby
gives notice that on November 17, 2010,
it filed with the Postal Regulatory
Commission a Request of the United
States Postal Service to Add Parcel
Return Service Contract 2 to
Competitive Product List and Notice of
Filing (Under Seal) of Contract and
Supporting Data. Documents are
available at https://www.prc.gov, Docket
Nos. MC2011–6 and CP2011–33.
SUMMARY:
Neva R. Watson,
Attorney, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 2010–30185 Filed 11–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–63367; File No. SR–Phlx–
2010–163]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Relating to
Obvious Errors Respecting Complex
Trades
November 23, 2010.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 2 thereunder,
notice is hereby given that on November
17, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC
(‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the
1 15
2 17
PO 00000
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. 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, pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b–4
thereunder,4 proposes to amend Rule
1092, Obvious Errors and Catastrophic
Errors, to address obvious and
catastrophic errors involving complex
orders.
The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange’s website at
https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/
micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, 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, the
Exchange 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. The
Exchange 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
The purpose of the proposed rule
change is to mitigate the risk to parties
using complex orders, where part or all
of a complex order traded at an
erroneous price; specifically, the
proposal addresses the situation where
one component (or leg) of a complex
order is deemed an obvious (or
catastrophic) error but the other
component(s) is (are) not.
Background
Complex orders are orders with more
than one component, and take many
3 15
4 17
Sfmt 4703
74755
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
01DEN1
74756
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Notices
forms, such as spreads and straddles.5
Complex orders have been trading
electronically on the Exchange’s trading
system since 2008.6 At this time, the
Exchange is proposing to amend its Rule
1092 to address complex orders that
have at least one leg that trades at an
erroneous price. Rule 1092 is the
Exchange’s rule that governs obvious
errors and catastrophic errors in
options. Most options exchanges have
similar but not identical rules; this
proposal would adopt a new process of
determining how to deal with obvious/
catastrophic errors when a complex
order trades with another complex
order.
Rule 1092 provides a framework for
reviewing the price of a transaction to
determine whether that price was an
‘‘obvious error’’ 7 pursuant to objective
standards. When a participant believes
he/she received one or more executions
at an erroneous price, a participant may
notify the Options Exchange Officials
(‘‘OEOs’’) and request the review of a
trade as a possible obvious error.8 An
obvious error will be deemed to have
occurred when the execution price of a
transaction is higher or lower than the
theoretical price for a series by a certain
amount depending on the type of
option. OEOs use one of three criteria
when determining the theoretical price
of an options execution, which is
enumerated in Rule 1092(b). The
theoretical price is then compared to an
obvious/catastrophic error chart within
Rule 1092(a). If the transaction price
meets this threshold, the transaction
may be adjusted or nullified.
Proposal
The proposal at hand would permit
all legs of a complex order execution to
be nullified when one leg can be
nullified under this Rule, only if the
execution was a complex order versus a
complex order (such that all of the same
parties are involved in the trade).9 This
occurs when a complex order executes
against another complex order, with
each piece executing through the
System against each other. For example,
assume a customer trades a call spread
at a net price of $.50 by buying the
January 50 calls at $3.00 and selling the
January 55 calls at $2.50. If the January
50 calls should have been trading at
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
5 See
Rule 1080.08.
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58361
(August 14, 2008), 73 FR 49529 (August 21, 2008)
(SR–Phlx–2008–50). Complex orders have long
been executed on the trading floor verbally using
contingent orders and the rules that apply to such
executions.
7 This proposal also covers catastrophic errors.
8 See Rule 1092(e).
9 See proposed Rule 1092(c)(v)(A).
6 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:11 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
$7.00 and thus meet the obvious error
threshold in Rule 1092, then the entire
complex trade will be nullified only if
the January 50 and 55 calls traded as a
complex order against another complex
order, rather than as two separate trades.
Currently, once the trade involving the
January 50 calls is nullified, both parties
are stuck with a transaction in the
January 55 calls, which was not
intended by either. This proposal to
nullify all the components of a complex
order that traded with another complex
order provides an important benefit to
both parties, neither of whom intended
to end up with just one option.
This proposal does not address
complex orders that do not trade against
other complex orders. Sometimes
complex orders are executed by the
System by ‘‘legging’’ or executing the
component parts against other
individual, unrelated orders/quotes
rather than a single complex order with
the same component parts.10 The benefit
of the legging feature of the Exchange’s
complex order system is that it increases
the likelihood that a complex order will
be executed. Nevertheless, it is possible,
at times, that after such a trade, only one
leg of a complex order may meet the
obvious error threshold; thus, this could
result in a residual position of a single
leg, rather than a complete complex
order execution. This will not change
under this proposal.
In sum, Rule 1092 is proposed to be
amended as enumerated above in order
to mitigate risk for parties of a complex
order where a complex order traded
with another complex order at an
erroneous price. By creating uniformity
for all trades that are ‘‘complex to
complex,’’ parties will have less trading
risk because all of the components will
be nullified under the proposal.
In addition, the Exchange also
proposes to make three minor
corrections: (i) A reference in Rule
1092(b)(ii) to Rule 1014(c)(1)(A)(i)(a) is
inverted and should instead say Rule
1014(c)(i)(A)(1)(a); (ii) the words
‘‘obvious error’’ in Rule 1092(e)(i)(B) are
being capitalized to match the rest of the
rule; and (iii) a reference to ‘‘AUTOM’’
in Rule 1092(e)(ii) is outdated and will
be deleted, leaving reference to the
‘‘Help Desk.’’
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 12
in particular, in that it is 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, by
improving the obvious error process for
complex orders that trade with other
complex orders. Recognition that a trade
is part of a complex order should help
add more certainty to the obvious/
catastrophic error process and reduce
the risk to parties trading on the
Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
• 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
Number SR–Phlx–2010–163 on the
subject line.
The Exchange believes that its
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)
of the Act 11 in general, and furthers the
10 In the example above, the January 50 calls
would be purchased from seller A and the January
55 calls sold to buyer B, both of whom are just
bidding/offering one option, not a complex order.
11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
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.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Within 45 days of the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register or within such longer period (i)
as the Commission may designate up to
90 days of such date if it finds such
longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii) as to which the Exchange consents,
the Commission shall: (a) By order
approve or disapprove such proposed
rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 Exchange
Act. Comments may be submitted by
any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
12 15
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
01DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Notices
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street, NE., Washington DC
20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–Phlx-2010–163. 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 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also
will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office 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–Phlx2010–163 and should be submitted on
or before December 22, 2010.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.13
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–30225 Filed 11–30–10; 8:45 am]
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–63372; File No. SR–Phlx–
2010–162]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ
OMX PHLX LLC Relating to Price
Improvement (PIXL) Fees
November 24, 2010.
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
18, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC
(‘‘Phlx’’ or the ‘‘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
prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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 amend and
supersede its pricing applicable to
members utilizing the Exchange’s price
improvement mechanism known as
Price Improvement XL or (PIXL).
While changes to the Fee Schedule
pursuant to this proposal are effective
upon filing, the Exchange has
designated these changes to be operative
for transactions settling on or after
November 22, 2010.
The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange’s Web site
at https://nasdaqtrader.com/
micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, 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.
1 15
13 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:11 Nov 30, 2010
2 17
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
74757
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
1. Purpose
The purpose of the proposed rule
change is to amend and supersede the
current fees assessed for orders known
as PIXL Orders 3 and Initiating Orders.4
The Exchange intends to place a cap on
the maximum fee that would be
assessed to market participants for
utilizing the price improvement
mechanism. The Exchange also
proposes to amend the fee assessed for
Initiating Orders.
Currently, the Exchange assesses PIXL
fees on Customers, Directed
Participants,5 Specialists,6 Streaming
Quote Traders (‘‘SQT’’),7 Remote
Streaming Quote Traders (‘‘RSQT’’),8
Firms and Broker-Dealers. All options
traded on the Exchange are eligible for
PIXL.
The Exchange assesses a fee of $0.05
per contract when an Initiating Order
executes against a PIXL Order in the
symbols listed in Section I, the Fees and
Rebates for Adding and Removing
Liquidity in Select Symbols 9 (known as
‘‘Select Symbols’’), and the symbols
defined in Section II 10 (‘‘Section II
3 A member may electronically submit for
execution an order it represents as agent on behalf
of a public customer, broker-dealer, or any other
entity (‘‘PIXL Order’’) against principal interest or
against any other order (except as provided in subparagraph (n)(i)(E) below) it represents as agent
(‘‘Initiating Order’’) provided it submits the PIXL
order for electronic execution into the PIXL Auction
(‘‘Auction’’) pursuant to Rule 1080. See Exchange
Rule 1080(n).
4 See footnote 3.
5 See Exchange Rule 1080(l), ‘‘* * * The term
‘Directed Specialist, RSQT, or SQT’ means a
specialist, RSQT, or SQT that receives a Directed
Order.’’ A Directed Participant has a higher quoting
requirement as compared with a specialist, SQT or
RSQT who is not acting as a Directed Participant.
See Exchange Rule 1014.
6 A Specialist is an Exchange member who is
registered as an options specialist pursuant to Rule
1020(a).
7 A Streaming Quote Trader is defined in
Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT who has
received permission from the Exchange to generate
and submit option quotations electronically in
options to which such SQT is assigned.
8 A Remote Streaming Quote Trader is defined
Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that is
a member or member organization with no physical
trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically in options to which such
RSQT has been assigned.
9 The Fees and Rebates for Adding and Removing
Liquidity in Select Symbols are listed in Section I
of the Fee Schedule.
10 An equity option includes exchange-traded
fund share (‘‘ETF’’), Holding Company Depositary
Receipt (‘‘HOLDR’’), Russell 2000(R) Index (the ‘‘Full
Value Russell Index’’ or ‘‘RUT’’), options on the onetenth value Russell 2000 Index (the ‘‘Reduced
Continued
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74755-74757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30225]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-63367; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-163]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Relating to Obvious Errors Respecting
Complex Trades
November 23, 2010.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on November 17, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. 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, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\4\ proposes to amend Rule 1092, Obvious Errors and
Catastrophic Errors, to address obvious and catastrophic errors
involving complex orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, 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, the Exchange 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. The Exchange 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
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to mitigate the risk to
parties using complex orders, where part or all of a complex order
traded at an erroneous price; specifically, the proposal addresses the
situation where one component (or leg) of a complex order is deemed an
obvious (or catastrophic) error but the other component(s) is (are)
not.
Background
Complex orders are orders with more than one component, and take
many
[[Page 74756]]
forms, such as spreads and straddles.\5\ Complex orders have been
trading electronically on the Exchange's trading system since 2008.\6\
At this time, the Exchange is proposing to amend its Rule 1092 to
address complex orders that have at least one leg that trades at an
erroneous price. Rule 1092 is the Exchange's rule that governs obvious
errors and catastrophic errors in options. Most options exchanges have
similar but not identical rules; this proposal would adopt a new
process of determining how to deal with obvious/catastrophic errors
when a complex order trades with another complex order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Rule 1080.08.
\6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58361 (August 14,
2008), 73 FR 49529 (August 21, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-50). Complex
orders have long been executed on the trading floor verbally using
contingent orders and the rules that apply to such executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1092 provides a framework for reviewing the price of a
transaction to determine whether that price was an ``obvious error''
\7\ pursuant to objective standards. When a participant believes he/she
received one or more executions at an erroneous price, a participant
may notify the Options Exchange Officials (``OEOs'') and request the
review of a trade as a possible obvious error.\8\ An obvious error will
be deemed to have occurred when the execution price of a transaction is
higher or lower than the theoretical price for a series by a certain
amount depending on the type of option. OEOs use one of three criteria
when determining the theoretical price of an options execution, which
is enumerated in Rule 1092(b). The theoretical price is then compared
to an obvious/catastrophic error chart within Rule 1092(a). If the
transaction price meets this threshold, the transaction may be adjusted
or nullified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This proposal also covers catastrophic errors.
\8\ See Rule 1092(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal
The proposal at hand would permit all legs of a complex order
execution to be nullified when one leg can be nullified under this
Rule, only if the execution was a complex order versus a complex order
(such that all of the same parties are involved in the trade).\9\ This
occurs when a complex order executes against another complex order,
with each piece executing through the System against each other. For
example, assume a customer trades a call spread at a net price of $.50
by buying the January 50 calls at $3.00 and selling the January 55
calls at $2.50. If the January 50 calls should have been trading at
$7.00 and thus meet the obvious error threshold in Rule 1092, then the
entire complex trade will be nullified only if the January 50 and 55
calls traded as a complex order against another complex order, rather
than as two separate trades. Currently, once the trade involving the
January 50 calls is nullified, both parties are stuck with a
transaction in the January 55 calls, which was not intended by either.
This proposal to nullify all the components of a complex order that
traded with another complex order provides an important benefit to both
parties, neither of whom intended to end up with just one option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See proposed Rule 1092(c)(v)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal does not address complex orders that do not trade
against other complex orders. Sometimes complex orders are executed by
the System by ``legging'' or executing the component parts against
other individual, unrelated orders/quotes rather than a single complex
order with the same component parts.\10\ The benefit of the legging
feature of the Exchange's complex order system is that it increases the
likelihood that a complex order will be executed. Nevertheless, it is
possible, at times, that after such a trade, only one leg of a complex
order may meet the obvious error threshold; thus, this could result in
a residual position of a single leg, rather than a complete complex
order execution. This will not change under this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In the example above, the January 50 calls would be
purchased from seller A and the January 55 calls sold to buyer B,
both of whom are just bidding/offering one option, not a complex
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, Rule 1092 is proposed to be amended as enumerated above in
order to mitigate risk for parties of a complex order where a complex
order traded with another complex order at an erroneous price. By
creating uniformity for all trades that are ``complex to complex,''
parties will have less trading risk because all of the components will
be nullified under the proposal.
In addition, the Exchange also proposes to make three minor
corrections: (i) A reference in Rule 1092(b)(ii) to Rule
1014(c)(1)(A)(i)(a) is inverted and should instead say Rule
1014(c)(i)(A)(1)(a); (ii) the words ``obvious error'' in Rule
1092(e)(i)(B) are being capitalized to match the rest of the rule; and
(iii) a reference to ``AUTOM'' in Rule 1092(e)(ii) is outdated and will
be deleted, leaving reference to the ``Help Desk.''
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it is 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, by improving the obvious error process for complex orders
that trade with other complex orders. Recognition that a trade is part
of a complex order should help add more certainty to the obvious/
catastrophic error process and reduce the risk to parties trading on
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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 Exchange 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 e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-163 on the subject line.
[[Page 74757]]
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-163. 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 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office 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-Phlx-2010-163 and should be
submitted on or before December 22, 2010.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30225 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
