Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price List To Specify Pricing Applicable to Executions of Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Orders Against Retail Orders Within the Retail Liquidity Program, Effective March 1, 2014, 15365-15367 [2014-05984]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Notices member have or will accept any payment or other consideration prohibited by FINRA Rule 5250, which generally prohibits a member from receiving payments, directly or indirectly, from an issuer of a security, or any affiliate or promoter thereof, for publishing a quotation, acting as market maker in a security, or submitting an application in connection therewith. Thus, the proposed rule change helps ensure that members act in an independent capacity when publishing a quotation or making a market in an issuer’s securities. Because the certification relates to compliance with a rule the member is already subject to and will be included as part of the existing Form 211, FINRA does not believe there is any substantial additional burden on competition imposed by the proposal. FINRA recognizes that the certifying firm may choose to require sub-certifications within the firm, but FINRA does not view this as required by the rule or involving significant costs relative to the compliance benefits of the certification. Further, any member submitting a new Form 211 will be required to comply with the new certification, which does not impose any disparate treatment among such members that might result in a burden on competition. C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. sroberts on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 19b–4 thereunder.12 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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 to determine whether the proposed rule 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 (http://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an email to rule-comments@ sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– FINRA–2014–011 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–FINRA–2014–011. 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 (http://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 such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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–FINRA–2014–011 and should be submitted on or before April 9, 2014. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.13 Kevin M. O’Neill, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2014–05986 Filed 3–18–14; 8:45 am] SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–71718; File No. SR–NYSE– 2014–10] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price List To Specify Pricing Applicable to Executions of Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Orders Against Retail Orders Within the Retail Liquidity Program, Effective March 1, 2014 March 13, 2014. 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 February 28, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘NYSE’’ 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 prepared by the selfregulatory 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 its Price List to specify pricing applicable to executions of Mid-Point Passive Liquidity (‘‘MPL’’) Orders against Retail Orders within the Retail Liquidity Program. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective March 1, 2014. The text of 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 the 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. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(1). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:28 Mar 18, 2014 1 15 13 17 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 15365 2 17 E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM U.S.C.78s(b)(1). CFR 240.19b–4. 19MRN1 15366 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Notices 2. Statutory Basis A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change sroberts on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to specify pricing applicable to executions of MPL Orders against Retail Orders within the Retail Liquidity Program. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective March 1, 2014. The Exchange recently introduced a new order type called an MPL Order, which is an undisplayed limit order that automatically executes at the mid-point of the protected best bid or offer (‘‘PBBO’’).3 The Exchange also amended NYSE Rule 107C to specify that MPL Orders could interact with incoming, contra-side Retail Orders submitted by a Retail Member Organization (‘‘RMO’’) in the Retail Liquidity Program.4 The Exchange proposes that the pricing for a Retail Order that executes against an MPL Order would be the same as the current pricing for a Retail Order that executes against a Retail Price Improvement Order (‘‘RPI’’) submitted by a Retail Liquidity Provider (‘‘RLP’’) or non-RLP.5 Specifically, the Retail Order would receive a credit of $0.0005 per share. The Exchange also proposes that the contra-side MPL Order would be billed according to the standard pricing that would otherwise apply to the MPL Order (e.g., a credit of $0.0015 per share, not the pricing under the Retail Liquidity Program section of the Price List). The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change. 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71330 (January 16, 2014), 79 FR 3895 (January 23, 2014) (SR–NYSE–2013–71). See also NYSE Rule 13. 4 See NYSE Rule 107C. Retail Order is defined in Rule 107C(a)(3) as an agency order or a riskless principal order that meets the criteria of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by an RMO, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology. RMO is defined in Rule 107C(a)(2) as a member organization (or a division thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange to submit Retail Orders. 5 RPI is defined in Rule 107C(a)(4) and consists of non-displayed interest in NYSE-listed securities that is priced better than the best protected bid (‘‘PBB’’) or best protected offer (‘‘PBO’’), as such terms are defined in Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(57), by at least $0.001 and that is identified as such. RLP is defined in Rule 107C(a)(1) as a member organization that is approved by the Exchange to act as such and that is required to submit RPIs in accordance with Rule 107C. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:28 Mar 18, 2014 Jkt 232001 The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,7 in particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The Exchange believes that a $0.0005 per share credit for a Retail Order that executes against an MPL Order is reasonable because it is the same rate that currently applies to a Retail Order that executes against an RPI. In this regard, both MPL Orders and RPIs offer the potential for price improvement for a Retail Order. This is further reasonable because it would create an added financial incentive for RMOs to bring additional retail order flow to a public market, which could result in additional price improvement for retail investors. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable for an MPL Order that executes against a Retail Order to be billed according to standard pricing that would otherwise apply to the MPL Order (e.g., a credit of $0.0015 per share, not the pricing under the Retail Liquidity Program section of the Price List). Specifically, an MPL Order would be eligible to execute against Retail Orders, but without being so designated by the submitting member or member organization. Accordingly, the standard MPL Order rate (e.g., $0.0015) would otherwise apply to the MPL Order absent its interaction with the Retail Order. The pricing proposed herein is equitable and, like the Retail Liquidity Program itself, is not designed to permit unfair discrimination, but instead to promote a competitive process around retail executions such that retail investors would receive better prices than they currently do through bilateral internalization arrangements. The proposed pricing could result in an RPI receiving a rate (i.e., no charge or a fee of $0.0003 per share) that is inferior to the rate received by an MPL Order (e.g., a credit of $0.0015 per share), even when both execute against a Retail Order. The Exchange believes that this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because RPIs would only execute against Retail Orders, whereas MPL Orders could execute against Retail Orders or other marketable interest on 6 15 7 15 PO 00000 U.S.C. 78f(b). U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the Exchange, including non-retail liquidity.8 In this regard, and as previously recognized by the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’), ‘‘markets generally distinguish between individual retail investors, whose orders are considered desirable by liquidity providers because such retail investors are presumed on average to be less informed about shortterm price movements, and professional traders, whose orders are presumed on average to be more informed.’’ 9 The Exchange has sought to balance this view in setting the pricing of RPIs compared to MPL Orders, recognizing that the ability to limit interaction only to Retail Orders could be a potential benefit applicable only to RPIs. This is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the use of RPIs by RLPs and non-RLPs is voluntary. Members and member organizations that perceive that the potential advantages of interacting with Retail Orders outweigh the potential costs (i.e., providing price improvement and potential inferior pricing as compared to MPL Orders) may choose to utilize RPIs, but those that do not are free to forgo their use. Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange’s statement regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act. B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on Competition In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,10 the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, the 8 This is also similar to the manner in which the NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC (‘‘NASDAQ’’) applies pricing for its ‘‘Retail Price Improvement Program.’’ See NASDAQ Rule 7018(g). 9 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3, 2012), 77 FR 40673, 40679–80 (July 10, 2012) (SR–NYSE–2011–55; SR–NYSEAmex–2011– 84). See also Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (January 21, 2010) (‘‘Concept Release’’) (noting that dark pools and internalizing broker-dealers executed approximately 25.4% of share volume in September 2009). See also Mary L. Schapiro, Strengthening Our Equity Market Structure (Speech at the Economic Club of New York, Sept. 7, 2010) (available on the Commission’s Web site). In her speech, Chairman Schapiro noted that nearly 30 percent of volume in U.S.-listed equities was executed in venues that do not display their liquidity or make it generally available to the public and the percentage was increasing nearly every month. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM 19MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Notices Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase competition among execution venues, encourage additional liquidity, and offer the potential for price improvement to retail investors. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the transparency and competitiveness of operating a program such as the Retail Liquidity Program on an exchange market, and the pricing related thereto, would encourage competition and result in better prices for retail investors. Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. sroberts on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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) 11 of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 12 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 11 15 12 17 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:28 Mar 18, 2014 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) 13 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: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission’s Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an email to rule-comments@ sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– NYSE–2014–10 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–NYSE–2014–10. 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 (http://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 office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from 13 15 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–NYSE– 2014–10 and should be submitted on or before April 9, 2014. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.14 Kevin M. O’Neill, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2014–05984 Filed 3–18–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–71721; File Nos. SR–NYSE– 2014–04; SR–NYSEMKT–2014–10; SR– NYSEArca-2014–08] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE MKT LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Corporate Action in Which Its Indirect Parent, NYSE Euronext Holdings LLC, Will Become a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. March 13, 2014. I. Introduction On January 17, 2014, each of New York Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘Exchange’’), NYSE MKT LLC (‘‘NYSE MKT’’), and NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’ and, with the Exchange and NYSE MKT, the ‘‘NYSE Exchanges’’), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3 proposed rule changes in connection with the contribution by IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (‘‘ICE Group’’), of its 100% membership interest in NYSE Euronext Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (‘‘NYX Holdings’’), which is an indirect owner of a 100% interest in the NYSE Exchanges, to IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (‘‘ICE Inc.’’), another wholly-owned subsidiary of ICE Group, (the ‘‘Transfer’’). The proposed rule changes were published for comment in the Federal Register on January 30, 2014.4 14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 71393 (January 24, 2014), 79 FR 4996 (January 30, 2014) (SR–NYSE–2014–04) (‘‘Notice’’); 71395 (January 24, 2014), 79 FR 5003 (January 30, 2014)(SR– NYSEMKT–2014–10); 71394 (January 24, 2014), 79 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 15367 Continued Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM 19MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15365-15367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05984]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71718; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-10]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; 
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change 
Amending Its Price List To Specify Pricing Applicable to Executions of 
Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Orders Against Retail Orders Within the 
Retail Liquidity Program, Effective March 1, 2014

March 13, 2014.
    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 February 28, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' 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 prepared by the self-regulatory 
organization. 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 amend its Price List to specify pricing 
applicable to executions of Mid-Point Passive Liquidity (``MPL'') 
Orders against Retail Orders within the Retail Liquidity Program. The 
Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective March 1, 2014. 
The text of 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 the 
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.

[[Page 15366]]

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 amend its Price List to specify pricing 
applicable to executions of MPL Orders against Retail Orders within the 
Retail Liquidity Program. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee 
change effective March 1, 2014.
    The Exchange recently introduced a new order type called an MPL 
Order, which is an undisplayed limit order that automatically executes 
at the mid-point of the protected best bid or offer (``PBBO'').\3\ The 
Exchange also amended NYSE Rule 107C to specify that MPL Orders could 
interact with incoming, contra-side Retail Orders submitted by a Retail 
Member Organization (``RMO'') in the Retail Liquidity Program.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71330 (January 16, 
2014), 79 FR 3895 (January 23, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2013-71). See also 
NYSE Rule 13.
    \4\ See NYSE Rule 107C. Retail Order is defined in Rule 
107C(a)(3) as an agency order or a riskless principal order that 
meets the criteria of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. 
(``FINRA'') Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person and 
is submitted to the Exchange by an RMO, provided that no change is 
made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of 
market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or 
any other computerized methodology. RMO is defined in Rule 
107C(a)(2) as a member organization (or a division thereof) that has 
been approved by the Exchange to submit Retail Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that the pricing for a Retail Order that 
executes against an MPL Order would be the same as the current pricing 
for a Retail Order that executes against a Retail Price Improvement 
Order (``RPI'') submitted by a Retail Liquidity Provider (``RLP'') or 
non-RLP.\5\ Specifically, the Retail Order would receive a credit of 
$0.0005 per share. The Exchange also proposes that the contra-side MPL 
Order would be billed according to the standard pricing that would 
otherwise apply to the MPL Order (e.g., a credit of $0.0015 per share, 
not the pricing under the Retail Liquidity Program section of the Price 
List).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ RPI is defined in Rule 107C(a)(4) and consists of non-
displayed interest in NYSE-listed securities that is priced better 
than the best protected bid (``PBB'') or best protected offer 
(``PBO''), as such terms are defined in Regulation NMS Rule 
600(b)(57), by at least $0.001 and that is identified as such. RLP 
is defined in Rule 107C(a)(1) as a member organization that is 
approved by the Exchange to act as such and that is required to 
submit RPIs in accordance with Rule 107C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other 
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member 
organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent 
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the 
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in 
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of 
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and 
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate 
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that a $0.0005 per share credit for a Retail 
Order that executes against an MPL Order is reasonable because it is 
the same rate that currently applies to a Retail Order that executes 
against an RPI. In this regard, both MPL Orders and RPIs offer the 
potential for price improvement for a Retail Order. This is further 
reasonable because it would create an added financial incentive for 
RMOs to bring additional retail order flow to a public market, which 
could result in additional price improvement for retail investors.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable for an MPL Order 
that executes against a Retail Order to be billed according to standard 
pricing that would otherwise apply to the MPL Order (e.g., a credit of 
$0.0015 per share, not the pricing under the Retail Liquidity Program 
section of the Price List). Specifically, an MPL Order would be 
eligible to execute against Retail Orders, but without being so 
designated by the submitting member or member organization. 
Accordingly, the standard MPL Order rate (e.g., $0.0015) would 
otherwise apply to the MPL Order absent its interaction with the Retail 
Order.
    The pricing proposed herein is equitable and, like the Retail 
Liquidity Program itself, is not designed to permit unfair 
discrimination, but instead to promote a competitive process around 
retail executions such that retail investors would receive better 
prices than they currently do through bilateral internalization 
arrangements.
    The proposed pricing could result in an RPI receiving a rate (i.e., 
no charge or a fee of $0.0003 per share) that is inferior to the rate 
received by an MPL Order (e.g., a credit of $0.0015 per share), even 
when both execute against a Retail Order. The Exchange believes that 
this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because RPIs would 
only execute against Retail Orders, whereas MPL Orders could execute 
against Retail Orders or other marketable interest on the Exchange, 
including non-retail liquidity.\8\ In this regard, and as previously 
recognized by the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), 
``markets generally distinguish between individual retail investors, 
whose orders are considered desirable by liquidity providers because 
such retail investors are presumed on average to be less informed about 
short-term price movements, and professional traders, whose orders are 
presumed on average to be more informed.'' \9\ The Exchange has sought 
to balance this view in setting the pricing of RPIs compared to MPL 
Orders, recognizing that the ability to limit interaction only to 
Retail Orders could be a potential benefit applicable only to RPIs. 
This is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the use 
of RPIs by RLPs and non-RLPs is voluntary. Members and member 
organizations that perceive that the potential advantages of 
interacting with Retail Orders outweigh the potential costs (i.e., 
providing price improvement and potential inferior pricing as compared 
to MPL Orders) may choose to utilize RPIs, but those that do not are 
free to forgo their use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This is also similar to the manner in which the NASDAQ Stock 
Market, LLC (``NASDAQ'') applies pricing for its ``Retail Price 
Improvement Program.'' See NASDAQ Rule 7018(g).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3, 
2012), 77 FR 40673, 40679-80 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-84). See also Concept Release on Equity Market 
Structure, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 
2010), 75 FR 3594 (January 21, 2010) (``Concept Release'') (noting 
that dark pools and internalizing broker-dealers executed 
approximately 25.4% of share volume in September 2009). See also 
Mary L. Schapiro, Strengthening Our Equity Market Structure (Speech 
at the Economic Club of New York, Sept. 7, 2010) (available on the 
Commission's Web site). In her speech, Chairman Schapiro noted that 
nearly 30 percent of volume in U.S.-listed equities was executed in 
venues that do not display their liquidity or make it generally 
available to the public and the percentage was increasing nearly 
every month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant 
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement 
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is 
consistent with the Act.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\10\ the Exchange 
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on 
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the 
purposes of the Act. Instead, the

[[Page 15367]]

Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase competition 
among execution venues, encourage additional liquidity, and offer the 
potential for price improvement to retail investors. In this regard, 
the Exchange believes that the transparency and competitiveness of 
operating a program such as the Retail Liquidity Program on an exchange 
market, and the pricing related thereto, would encourage competition 
and result in better prices for retail investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly 
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor 
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be 
excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more 
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust 
its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and 
with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from 
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. 
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in 
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their 
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which 
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is 
extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the 
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the 
ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to 
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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) \11\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 
19b-4 \12\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other 
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 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) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed 
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-NYSE-2014-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities 
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2014-10. 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 (http://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 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-NYSE-2014-10 and should be 
submitted on or before April 9, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05984 Filed 3-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P