Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 515A, 29762-29766 [2015-12416]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29762
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Notices
matters raised by the Postal Service’s
Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth
R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an
officer of the Commission to represent
the interests of the general public in this
proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than
May 26, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Ruth Ann Abrams,
Acting Secretary.
DATES:
Effective date: May 22, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
The
United States Postal Service® hereby
gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C.
3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 15, 2015,
it filed with the Postal Regulatory
Commission a Request of the United
States Postal Service to Add Parcel
Return Service Contract 8 to
Competitive Product List. Documents
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket
Nos. MC2015–51, CP2015–73.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–12383 Filed 5–21–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
[FR Doc. 2015–12406 Filed 5–21–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
POSTAL SERVICE
Product Change—Parcel Return
Service Negotiated Service Agreement
Postal ServiceTM.
Notice.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
AGENCY:
ACTION:
[File No. 500–1]
The Postal Service gives
notice of filing 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.
DATES: Effective date: May 22, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
United States Postal Service® hereby
gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C.
3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 15, 2015,
it filed with the Postal Regulatory
Commission a Request of the United
States Postal Service to Add Parcel
Return Service Contract 7 to
Competitive Product List. Documents
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket
Nos. MC2015–50, CP2015–72.
SUMMARY:
Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–12407 Filed 5–21–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
POSTAL SERVICE
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Product Change—Parcel Return
Service Negotiated Service Agreement
Postal ServiceTM.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Postal Service gives
notice of filing 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.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 May 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
In the Matter of Composite Solutions,
Inc., Ruby Creek Resources, Inc., and
Voyager Entertainment International
Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading
May 20, 2015.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Composite
Solutions, Inc. (CIK No. 1061822), a
dissolved Florida corporation with its
principal place of business listed as La
Jolla, California, with stock quoted on
OTC Link (previously, ‘‘Pink Sheets’’)
operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc.
(‘‘OTC Link’’) under the ticker symbol
CPUT, because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended
June 30, 2005. On March 27, 2007,
Composite Solutions, Inc. received a
delinquency letter sent by the Division
of Corporation Finance requesting
compliance with their periodic filing
obligations.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Ruby Creek
Resources, Inc. (CIK No. 1379810), a
Nevada corporation with its principal
place of business listed as Los Angeles,
California, with stock quoted on OTC
Link under the ticker symbol RBYC,
because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended May 31,
2012. On November 26, 2013, Ruby
Creek Resources received a delinquency
letter sent by the Division of
Corporation Finance requesting
compliance with their periodic filing
obligations.
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Voyager
Entertainment International Inc. (CIK
No. 1028394), a Nevada corporation
with its principal place of business
listed as Las Vegas, Nevada, with stock
quoted on OTC Link under the ticker
symbol VEII, because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended
September 30, 2011. On October 15,
2013, Voyager Entertainment
International received a delinquency
letter sent by the Division of
Corporation Finance requesting
compliance with their periodic filing
obligations.
The Commission is of the opinion that
the public interest and the protection of
investors require a suspension of trading
in the securities of the above-listed
companies.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to
Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, that trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies
is suspended for the period from 9:30
a.m. EDT on May 20, 2015, through
11:59 p.m. EDT on June 3, 2015.
By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–12587 Filed 5–20–15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–74989; File No. SR–MIAX–
2015–36]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami
International Securities Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend Exchange Rule
515A
May 18, 2015.
Pursuant to the provisions of 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 May 13, 2015, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (‘‘MIAX’’ or
‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) a proposed rule change
as described in Items I and II below,
which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
1 15
2 17
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Notices
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
Exchange Rule 515A.
The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange’s Web site
at https://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/
wotitle/rule_filing, at MIAX’s principal
office, 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
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend
Exchange Rule 515A, MIAX Price
Improvement Mechanism (‘‘PRIME’’)
and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism, to
provide that in instances where an
Initiating Member 3 electronically
submits an order that it represents as
agent (an ‘‘Agency Order’’) into a PRIME
Auction (‘‘Auction’’), which the
Initiating Member is willing to
automatically match (‘‘auto-match’’) as
principal, the price and size of
responses in the Auction to a Request
for Response (‘‘RFR response’’) 4 up to
an optional designated limit price and,
at the price point where the balance of
3 The term ‘‘Member’’ means an individual or
organization approved to exercise the trading rights
associated with a Trading Permit. Members are
deemed ‘‘members’’ under the Act. See Exchange
Rule 100.
4 See Exchange Rule 515A(a)(2)(i). When the
Exchange receives a properly designated Agency
Order for auction processing, a Request for
Responses (‘‘RFR’’) detailing the option, side, size,
and initiating price will be sent to all subscribers
of the Exchange’s data feeds. The RFR will last for
500 milliseconds. Members may submit responses
to the RFR (specifying prices and sizes). RFR
responses shall be an Auction or Cancel (‘‘AOC’’)
order or an AOC eQuote. Such responses cannot
cross the disseminated MIAX Best Bid or Offer
(‘‘MBBO’’) on the opposite side of the market from
the response.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 May 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
the Agency Order can be fully executed
(the ‘‘final auto-match price point’’) 5
there is only one competing Member’s
response opposite the Agency Order, the
Initiating Member may be allocated up
to fifty percent (50%) of the remainder
of the Agency Order. The Exchange also
proposes to add language in Rule 515A
to more fully describe the manner in
which any remaining contracts will be
allocated at the conclusion of an
Auction, and to make other nonsubstantive changes to Rule 515A to
update terminology in the Rule. This is
a competitive filing that is substantially
and materially based on the price
improvement auction rules of BOX
Options Exchange, LLC (‘‘BOX),6 and
the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’).7
Pursuant to Exchange Rules
515A(a)(2)(iii)(H) and (I), upon
conclusion of an Auction, an Initiating
Member will retain certain priority and
trade allocation privileges for an Agency
Order that the Initiating Member seeks
to cross at a single price (a ‘‘single-price
submission’’) and for an Agency Order
that the Initiating Member is willing to
auto-match. Under current Rule
515A(a)(2)(iii)(H), if the best price
equals the Initiating Member’s singleprice submission, the Initiating
Member’s single-price submission shall
be allocated the greater of one contract
or a certain percentage of the order,
which percentage will be determined by
the Exchange and may not be larger than
40%. However, if only one Member’s
response matches the Initiating
Member’s single price submission then
the Initiating Member may be allocated
up to 50% of the order.
Similarly, current Exchange Rule
515A(a)(2)(iii)(I) provides that if the
Initiating Member selected the automatch option of the Auction, the
Initiating Member shall be allocated its
full size of RFR responses 8 at each price
point until the final auto-match price
point is reached. At the final auto-match
price point, the Initiating Member shall
be allocated the greater of one contract
or a certain percentage of the remainder
5 For clarity and ease of reference, the Exchange
is proposing to define such price point as the ‘‘final
auto-match price point’’ in the rule text.
6 See BOX Rule 7150(h).
7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74864
(May 4, 2015), 80 FR 26601 (May 8, 2015) (SR–
CBOE–2015–043).
8 When the Exchange receives a properly
designated Agency Order for auction processing, a
Request for Responses (‘‘RFR’’) detailing the option,
side, size, and initiating price will be sent to all
subscribers of the Exchange’s data feeds. The RFR
will last for 500 milliseconds. Members may submit
responses to the RFR (specifying prices and sizes).
See Exchange Rule 515A(a)(2)(i).
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29763
of the Agency Order,9 which percentage
will be determined by the Exchange and
may not be larger than 40%. Notably,
unlike the single-price submission rules
in Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(H), current Rule
515A(a)(2)(iii)(I) provides that an
Initiating Member would only be
entitled to receive an allocation of up to
40% for orders that are matched at the
final auto-match price point regardless
of the number of Member responses that
match the Initiating Member’s automatch submission at the final automatch price point, even when matched
by only one competing Member’s
response. The Exchange believes this
result to be inconsistent within the
Rules and believes that Initiating
Members that price orders more
aggressively using the auto-match
option should receive allocations at
least equal to those that select a singleprice submission option for an Auction.
The Exchange proposes to amend
Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(I) to provide that if
only one competing Member’s response
is present at the final auto-match price
point then the Initiating Member may be
allocated up to 50% of the remainder of
the Agency Order at the final automatch price point. As discussed above,
current Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(I) provides
that an Initiating Member will receive
an allocation of up to 40% for orders
that are matched at the final auto-match
price point even when matched by only
one competing Member’s response. The
Exchange believes this result to be
inconsistent within the Exchange’s
Rules and believes that Initiating
Members that price orders more
aggressively using the auto-match
option should receive allocations at
least equal to those that select a singleprice submission option. The Exchange
also believes the proposed rule change
will more closely align the language in
Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(I) with the language
in Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(H), and will thus
provide additional internal consistency
within the Exchange’s Rules by
harmonizing order allocations of singleprice submissions and auto-match
submissions in instances where there is
only one competing Member’s response
at the final Auction price level.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change
will bring the Exchange’s PRIME rules
in line with the Rules of other
competitor exchanges with which the
Exchange competes for order flow.
The Exchange notes that the proposed
rule change would not affect the priority
9 For further clarity and ease of reference, the
Exchange is proposing to amend the rule to refer to
the ‘‘Agency Order’’ in the rule text.
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
29764
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
of Priority Customers 10 under Rule
515A(2)(iii)(B). Priority Customers on
the book would continue to have
priority even in cases where a Priority
Customer order is resting on the book at
the final Auction price. For example,
suppose that the National Best Bid
(‘‘NBB’’) for a particular option is $1.00
and the national best offer for the option
is $1.20, and that NBB is a Priority
Customer order to buy 10 contracts on
MIAX. The minimum trading increment
in the option is $0.01. An Initiating
Member submits an auto-match Agency
Order to sell 100 contracts in the series.
The Auction begins, and one responding
Member submits a response to buy 50
contracts at $1.00. The Auction then
concludes. In this case, the Priority
Customer on the book would have
priority and would be allocated 10
contracts, with the remaining 90
contracts being allocated 40% to the
Initiating Member and 60% to the
responding Member.11 Thus, in this
example, the Initiating Member is
entitled to receive 40%, or 36 of the
remaining 90 contracts, and the
responding Member is entitled to
receive up to 60%, or 54 of the
remaining 90 contracts, but is limited to
its full size of 50 contracts. Then the
Initiating Member would be allocated
the remaining 4 contracts (for a total of
40 to the Initiating Member), because
the Initiating Member has guaranteed
the entire size of the Agency Order and
there are no other matching participants
respecting the remaining 4 contracts.
Similarly, a Priority Customer order
resting on the book at a final Auction
price level that is worse than the best
Member response will also retain
priority in the book. For example,
assume again that the NBB for a
particular option is $1.00 and the NBO
for the option is $1.20 and that the NBB
is a Priority Customer order to buy 10
contracts at MIAX. The minimum
increment in the option series is $0.01.
An Initiating Member submits an automatch Agency Order to sell 100
contracts in the series. The Auction
begins and during the Auction, one
responding Market Maker (‘‘MM1’’)
submits an Auction response to buy 20
contracts at $1.02, a second Market10 The term ‘‘Priority Customer’’ means a person
or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in
securities, and (ii) does not place more than 390
orders in listed options per day on average during
a calendar month for its own beneficial accounts(s).
See Exchange Rule 100.
11 Although the Priority Customer order has been
filled in its entirety, the System currently allocates
the remaining 90 contracts as though there are still
two participants (the already-filled Priority
Customer, together with the responding Member)
matching the Initiating Member at the final Auction
price.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 May 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
Maker (‘‘MM2’’) submits an Action
response to buy 20 contracts at $1.01,
and a third Market-Maker (‘‘MM3’’)
submits an Auction response to buy 20
contracts at $1.00. The Auction then
concludes. In this example, MM1 and
the Initiating Member would each be
allocated 20 contracts at $1.02 and MM2
and the Initiating Member would each
be allocated 20 contracts at $1.01 since
the Initiating Member is willing to
match the price and size at each
improved price level. The remaining 20
contracts would be allocated 10 to the
Priority Customer order resting on the
book at $1.00 because the Priority
Customer would retain priority at that
price level; the remaining 10 contracts
would be allocated 50/50 to MM3 and
the Initiating Member, 5 contracts
each.12
The Exchange believes that increasing
the Initiating Member’s allocation
priority for auto-match submissions that
only have one competing Member’s
response at the final auto-match price
point fairly distributes the Agency
Order when there are only two
counterparties to the Auction involved,
and that doing so is reasonable because
of the value that Initiating members
provide to the market. Initiating
Members selecting the auto-match
option for Agency Orders guarantee an
execution at the NBBO or at a better
price, and are subject to a greater market
risk than single-price submissions while
the order is exposed to other PRIME
participants. As such, the Exchange
believes that the value added from
Initiating Members guaranteeing
execution of Agency Orders at a price
equal to or better than the NBBO in
combination with the additional market
risk of initiating auto-match
submissions warrants an allocation
priority of at least the same percentage
12 The Exchange notes that if an unrelated market
or marketable limit order on the opposite side of the
market as the Agency Order was received during
the Auction and ended the Auction, such unrelated
order shall trade against the Agency Order at the
midpoint of the best RFR response (or in the
absence of a RFR response, the initiating price) and
the NBBO on the other side of the market from the
RFR responses (rounded towards the disseminated
quote when necessary). See Exchange Rule
515A(2)(iii)(F). For example, assume that the NBBO
is $1.00–$1.20. An Initiating Trading Permit Holder
submits a matched Agency Order to sell 100 options
contracts at in the series at $1.10. The Auction
begins and during the Auction, one competing
Market-Maker submits an Auction response to buy
100 contracts at $1.15. Assume that after the first
response is received, an unrelated public customer
order to buy 100 contracts at $1.20 is received. This
would conclude the auction early after which the
public customer order would trade 100 contracts
with the Agency Order at $1.18 (i.e. the $1.175
midpoint between the best RFR response ($1.15)
and the NBBO on the other side of the market from
the RFR responses ($1.20), rounded up to the next
minimum increment).
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
as Initiating Members who submit
single-price orders into PRIME. The
Exchange also believes that the
proposed rule change, like other price
improvement allocation programs
currently offered by competitor
exchanges, will benefit investors by
attracting more order flow as well as
increasing the frequency with which
Members initiate Auctions, which may
result in greater opportunities for
customer order price improvement.
Moreover, as discussed above, the
proposed rule change is consistent with
the rules and proposals of other
exchanges.13
The Exchange also proposes to add
text to Rules 515A(a)(2)(iii)(H) and (I) to
describe the manner in which remaining
contracts would be allocated at the
conclusion of an Auction under the
scenarios therein. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend subparagraphs (H) and (I) to provide that
(subject to Priority Customer priority),
after the Initiating Member has received
an allocation of up to 40% or 50% of the
Agency Order (or of the remainder of
the Agency Order in the case of an automatch submission) depending upon the
number of Member’s responses
matching the Initiating Member’s
submission, contracts shall be allocated
among remaining quotes, orders, and
auction responses (i.e. interests other
than the Initiating Member) at the final
auction price in accordance with the
matching algorithm in effect for the
affected class. If all Member responses
are filled (i.e. no other interests remain),
any remaining contracts will be
allocated to the Initiating Member at the
single-price submission price for singleprice submissions or, for auto-match
submissions, at the designated limit
price described in Rule 515A(a)(2)(i)(A).
The Exchange believes that this
additional language would add clarity
in the Rules with respect to how
remaining odd-lots will be allocated at
the conclusion of an Auction.
For example, suppose that the NBBO
for a particular option is $1.00–$1.20.
The minimum increment for the series
is $0.01 and the matching algorithm in
effect for the option class is pro rata. An
Initiating Member submits a matched
Agency Order to sell 5 contracts at
$1.10. The Auction begins and, during
the Auction, one competing MarketMaker (‘‘MM1’’) submits a response to
buy 5 contracts at $1.10, followed by
another Market-Maker (‘‘MM2’’)
submitting a response to buy 5 contracts
at $1.10. The Auction concludes. In this
case, under proposed Rule
515A(a)(2)(iii)(H), the Initiating Member
13 See
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
supra notes 6 and 7.
22MYN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Notices
would receive an allocation up to 40%,
or, in this case, 2 contracts at $1.10.
MM1 and MM2 would then receive 1
contract each at $1.10 according to the
pro rata allocation algorithm in place for
the class with MM1, as the first
responder, receiving the final 1 contract
at the final auction price of $1.10.14
Similarly, suppose that the NBBO for
a particular option is $1.00–$1.20. The
minimum increment for the series is
$0.01 and the matching algorithm in
effect for the option class is pro rata. An
Initiating Member submits a matched
Agency Order to sell 5 contracts at
$1.10. The Auction begins and, during
the Auction, one competing MarketMaker (‘‘MM1’’) submits a response to
buy 1 contract at $1.10, followed by
another Market-Maker (‘‘MM2’’)
submitting a response to buy 1 contract
at $1.10. The Auction concludes. In this
case, under proposed Rule
515A(a)(2)(iii)(H), the Initiating Member
would receive an allocation up to 40%
or, in this case, 2 contracts at $1.10.
MM1 and MM2 would then receive 1
contract each at $1.10 according to the
pro rata allocation algorithm in place for
the class. With no other competing
interest for the Auction, however,
proposed Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(H) will
simply make clear that if all Member
responses are filled (i.e. no other
interest remains), any remaining
contracts will be allocated to the
Initiating Member at the single-price
submission price. In this case, the final
1 contract would be allocated to the
Initiating Member at $1.10.
Remaining odd-lots for auto-match
submissions would be similarly
allocated under proposed Rule
515A(a)(2)(iii)(I), except that if all
Member responses are filled (i.e. no
other interest remains), any remaining
contracts will be allocated to the
Initiating Member at the designated
limit price described in sub-paragraph
(a)(2)(i)(A). For example, suppose that
the NBBO for a particular option is
$1.00–$1.20 and the offer is represented
by a limit order on the book. The
minimum increment for the series is
$0.01 and the matching algorithm in
effect for the option class is pro rata. An
Initiating Member submits an automatched Agency Order to buy 5
contracts at $1.19, which is one price
increment better than the booked order’s
limit price of $1.20.15 Assume that the
Auction begins and, during the Auction,
one competing Market-Maker (‘‘MM1’’)
submits a response to sell 1 contract at
$1.18, followed by another MarketMaker (‘‘MM2’’) submitting a response
14 See
15 See
Exchange Rule 514(c)(2)
Exchange Rule 515A(a)(2)(i)(A).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 May 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
to sell 1 contract at $1.17. The Auction
concludes. In this case, MM2 and the
Initiating Member would each receive 1
contract at $1.17 and MM1 and the
Initiating Member would each receive 1
contract at $1.18. Because all Member
responses would then be filled (i.e. no
other interests remain), any remaining
contracts will be allocated to the
Initiating Member at the designated
limit price described in sub-paragraph
(a)(2)(i)(A), in this case, 1 contract at
$1.19.
The Exchange notes that these
proposed amendments are based on,
and consistent with, the rules and
proposals of other competitor
exchanges.16 The Exchange believes that
the value added when Initiating
Members guarantee the execution of
Agency Orders at a price equal to or
better than the NBBO warrants (to the
extent that the Initiating Member is on
the final Auction price), an Auction
allocation priority of at least the same
percentage of the order as any
competing Auction responses. The
Exchange also believes that the
proposed rule change, like other price
improvement allocation programs
currently offered by competitor
exchanges, will benefit investors by
attracting more order flow and by
increasing the frequency with which
Members initiate Auctions, which may
result in greater opportunities for price
improvement.
Technical Amendments
The Exchange is also proposing two
clarifying technical amendments.
Specifically, The Exchange proposes to
replace the word ‘‘order’’ with the more
precise term ‘‘Agency Order’’ in the
phrases that are currently in Rules
515A(a)(2)(iii)(H) and (I) for the
avoidance of doubt.17 Additionally, as
stated above,18 the Exchange is
proposing to define, in proposed Rule
515A(a)(2)(iii)(I), the price point where
the balance of the Agency Order can be
fully executed as the ‘‘final auto-match
price point’’ in the rule text. This
proposed amendment is intended for
clarity and ease of reference.
2. Statutory Basis
MIAX believes that its proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b) of
the Act 19 in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 20
in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative
16 See
supra notes 6 and 7.
supra note 9.
18 See supra note 5.
19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
17 See
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29765
acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market
and a national market system and, in
general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Exchange further
believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 21
requirement that the rules of an
exchange not be designed to permit
unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
In particular, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change protects
investors and is in the public interest
because it fairly distributes the
allocation of the PRIME Agency Order
between the Initiating Member and the
Member who responded when they are
the only two counterparties to the
Auction and/or the number of contracts
remaining at the final Auction price
cannot be evenly distributed at the end
of an Auction. The proposed rule
change is intended to enable the
Exchange to compete with other
exchanges that currently offer price
improvement programs with the same
trade allocation percentages, and should
benefit investors by attracting more
order flow and by increasing the
number of orders submitted into the
PRIME auction mechanism, which the
Exchange believes will result in greater
opportunity for price improvement.
Moreover, the proposed rule change is
consistent with the rules and proposals
of other exchanges.
Additionally, the Exchange believes
that the proposed technical clarifying
and definitional amendments to Rule
515A will benefit market participants by
enhancing transparency and clarity to
the Rules.
With regard to the impact of this
proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange notes that it has analyzed its
capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority
(‘‘OPRA’’) have the necessary systems
capacity to handle any potential
additional traffic associated with the
proposed rule change. The Exchange
believes that its members will not have
a capacity issue as a result of this
proposal.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that
the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition that is not
21 Id.
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
29766
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Notices
necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed changes are meant to
more fairly allocate an Agency Order
submitted for price improvement using
auto-match when there are only two
competing participants on the contraside of the Agency Order. The Exchange
does not believe that this change will
discourage any market participants from
entering into the auto-match option of
MIAX PRIME. Because auto-match is a
more aggressive strategy than a singleprice submission, increasing the
Initiating Member’s auto-match
allocation to up to 50% of the remainder
of the Agency Order when there is only
one competing response at the final
auto-match price point results in a fair
and reasonable allocation methodology.
This should encourage more Initiating
Members to select the auto-match
option when submitting Agency Orders
for price improvement via MIAX
PRIME, thus enhancing competition for
participation in Agency Order
allocations.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that
the proposed rule change is a
competitive response to similar
provisions in the price improvement
auction rules of BOX 22 and CBOE 23 and
thus should promote competition
among the options exchanges and
establish uniform price improvement
auction rules on the various exchanges.
For all the reasons stated, 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, and believes the
proposed change will in fact enhance
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.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Because the foregoing proposed rule
change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant
burden on competition; and (iii) become
operative for 30 days after the date of
the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section
22 See
23 See
supra note 6.
supra note 7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:19 May 21, 2015
Jkt 235001
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 24 and Rule 19b–
4(f)(6) 25 thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed under
Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 26 normally does not
become operative for 30 days after the
date of filing. However, pursuant to
Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) 27 the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such
action is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The
Exchange requests that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange states that waiver of the
operative delay will allow the Exchange
to compete with trade allocation
entitlements in price improvement
auctions that are currently in place on
other exchanges.28 For this reason, the
Commission believes that waiver of the
30-day operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposed
rule change to be operative upon
filing.29
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 (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
MIAX–2015–36 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–MIAX–2015–36. This file
number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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–MIAX–
2015–36 and should be submitted on or
before June 12, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.30
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–12416 Filed 5–21–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
24 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
25 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b–
4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give
the Commission written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
26 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).
27 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii).
28 See supra notes 6 and 7.
29 For purposes only of waiving the operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed
rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
30 17
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
22MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29762-29766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12416]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-74989; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-36]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 515A
May 18, 2015.
Pursuant to the provisions of 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 May 13, 2015, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
[[Page 29763]]
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 Exchange Rule 515A.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at https://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, 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 Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 515A, MIAX Price
Improvement Mechanism (``PRIME'') and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism, to
provide that in instances where an Initiating Member \3\ electronically
submits an order that it represents as agent (an ``Agency Order'') into
a PRIME Auction (``Auction''), which the Initiating Member is willing
to automatically match (``auto-match'') as principal, the price and
size of responses in the Auction to a Request for Response (``RFR
response'') \4\ up to an optional designated limit price and, at the
price point where the balance of the Agency Order can be fully executed
(the ``final auto-match price point'') \5\ there is only one competing
Member's response opposite the Agency Order, the Initiating Member may
be allocated up to fifty percent (50%) of the remainder of the Agency
Order. The Exchange also proposes to add language in Rule 515A to more
fully describe the manner in which any remaining contracts will be
allocated at the conclusion of an Auction, and to make other non-
substantive changes to Rule 515A to update terminology in the Rule.
This is a competitive filing that is substantially and materially based
on the price improvement auction rules of BOX Options Exchange, LLC
(``BOX),\6\ and the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Act. See Exchange
Rule 100.
\4\ See Exchange Rule 515A(a)(2)(i). When the Exchange receives
a properly designated Agency Order for auction processing, a Request
for Responses (``RFR'') detailing the option, side, size, and
initiating price will be sent to all subscribers of the Exchange's
data feeds. The RFR will last for 500 milliseconds. Members may
submit responses to the RFR (specifying prices and sizes). RFR
responses shall be an Auction or Cancel (``AOC'') order or an AOC
eQuote. Such responses cannot cross the disseminated MIAX Best Bid
or Offer (``MBBO'') on the opposite side of the market from the
response.
\5\ For clarity and ease of reference, the Exchange is proposing
to define such price point as the ``final auto-match price point''
in the rule text.
\6\ See BOX Rule 7150(h).
\7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74864 (May 4, 2015),
80 FR 26601 (May 8, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2015-043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Exchange Rules 515A(a)(2)(iii)(H) and (I), upon
conclusion of an Auction, an Initiating Member will retain certain
priority and trade allocation privileges for an Agency Order that the
Initiating Member seeks to cross at a single price (a ``single-price
submission'') and for an Agency Order that the Initiating Member is
willing to auto-match. Under current Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(H), if the
best price equals the Initiating Member's single-price submission, the
Initiating Member's single-price submission shall be allocated the
greater of one contract or a certain percentage of the order, which
percentage will be determined by the Exchange and may not be larger
than 40%. However, if only one Member's response matches the Initiating
Member's single price submission then the Initiating Member may be
allocated up to 50% of the order.
Similarly, current Exchange Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(I) provides that
if the Initiating Member selected the auto-match option of the Auction,
the Initiating Member shall be allocated its full size of RFR responses
\8\ at each price point until the final auto-match price point is
reached. At the final auto-match price point, the Initiating Member
shall be allocated the greater of one contract or a certain percentage
of the remainder of the Agency Order,\9\ which percentage will be
determined by the Exchange and may not be larger than 40%. Notably,
unlike the single-price submission rules in Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(H),
current Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(I) provides that an Initiating Member
would only be entitled to receive an allocation of up to 40% for orders
that are matched at the final auto-match price point regardless of the
number of Member responses that match the Initiating Member's auto-
match submission at the final auto-match price point, even when matched
by only one competing Member's response. The Exchange believes this
result to be inconsistent within the Rules and believes that Initiating
Members that price orders more aggressively using the auto-match option
should receive allocations at least equal to those that select a
single-price submission option for an Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ When the Exchange receives a properly designated Agency
Order for auction processing, a Request for Responses (``RFR'')
detailing the option, side, size, and initiating price will be sent
to all subscribers of the Exchange's data feeds. The RFR will last
for 500 milliseconds. Members may submit responses to the RFR
(specifying prices and sizes). See Exchange Rule 515A(a)(2)(i).
\9\ For further clarity and ease of reference, the Exchange is
proposing to amend the rule to refer to the ``Agency Order'' in the
rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(I) to provide
that if only one competing Member's response is present at the final
auto-match price point then the Initiating Member may be allocated up
to 50% of the remainder of the Agency Order at the final auto-match
price point. As discussed above, current Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(I)
provides that an Initiating Member will receive an allocation of up to
40% for orders that are matched at the final auto-match price point
even when matched by only one competing Member's response. The Exchange
believes this result to be inconsistent within the Exchange's Rules and
believes that Initiating Members that price orders more aggressively
using the auto-match option should receive allocations at least equal
to those that select a single-price submission option. The Exchange
also believes the proposed rule change will more closely align the
language in Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(I) with the language in Rule
515A(a)(2)(iii)(H), and will thus provide additional internal
consistency within the Exchange's Rules by harmonizing order
allocations of single-price submissions and auto-match submissions in
instances where there is only one competing Member's response at the
final Auction price level. Furthermore, the proposed rule change will
bring the Exchange's PRIME rules in line with the Rules of other
competitor exchanges with which the Exchange competes for order flow.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would not affect
the priority
[[Page 29764]]
of Priority Customers \10\ under Rule 515A(2)(iii)(B). Priority
Customers on the book would continue to have priority even in cases
where a Priority Customer order is resting on the book at the final
Auction price. For example, suppose that the National Best Bid
(``NBB'') for a particular option is $1.00 and the national best offer
for the option is $1.20, and that NBB is a Priority Customer order to
buy 10 contracts on MIAX. The minimum trading increment in the option
is $0.01. An Initiating Member submits an auto-match Agency Order to
sell 100 contracts in the series. The Auction begins, and one
responding Member submits a response to buy 50 contracts at $1.00. The
Auction then concludes. In this case, the Priority Customer on the book
would have priority and would be allocated 10 contracts, with the
remaining 90 contracts being allocated 40% to the Initiating Member and
60% to the responding Member.\11\ Thus, in this example, the Initiating
Member is entitled to receive 40%, or 36 of the remaining 90 contracts,
and the responding Member is entitled to receive up to 60%, or 54 of
the remaining 90 contracts, but is limited to its full size of 50
contracts. Then the Initiating Member would be allocated the remaining
4 contracts (for a total of 40 to the Initiating Member), because the
Initiating Member has guaranteed the entire size of the Agency Order
and there are no other matching participants respecting the remaining 4
contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity
that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not
place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial accounts(s). See
Exchange Rule 100.
\11\ Although the Priority Customer order has been filled in its
entirety, the System currently allocates the remaining 90 contracts
as though there are still two participants (the already-filled
Priority Customer, together with the responding Member) matching the
Initiating Member at the final Auction price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, a Priority Customer order resting on the book at a final
Auction price level that is worse than the best Member response will
also retain priority in the book. For example, assume again that the
NBB for a particular option is $1.00 and the NBO for the option is
$1.20 and that the NBB is a Priority Customer order to buy 10 contracts
at MIAX. The minimum increment in the option series is $0.01. An
Initiating Member submits an auto-match Agency Order to sell 100
contracts in the series. The Auction begins and during the Auction, one
responding Market Maker (``MM1'') submits an Auction response to buy 20
contracts at $1.02, a second Market-Maker (``MM2'') submits an Action
response to buy 20 contracts at $1.01, and a third Market-Maker
(``MM3'') submits an Auction response to buy 20 contracts at $1.00. The
Auction then concludes. In this example, MM1 and the Initiating Member
would each be allocated 20 contracts at $1.02 and MM2 and the
Initiating Member would each be allocated 20 contracts at $1.01 since
the Initiating Member is willing to match the price and size at each
improved price level. The remaining 20 contracts would be allocated 10
to the Priority Customer order resting on the book at $1.00 because the
Priority Customer would retain priority at that price level; the
remaining 10 contracts would be allocated 50/50 to MM3 and the
Initiating Member, 5 contracts each.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Exchange notes that if an unrelated market or
marketable limit order on the opposite side of the market as the
Agency Order was received during the Auction and ended the Auction,
such unrelated order shall trade against the Agency Order at the
midpoint of the best RFR response (or in the absence of a RFR
response, the initiating price) and the NBBO on the other side of
the market from the RFR responses (rounded towards the disseminated
quote when necessary). See Exchange Rule 515A(2)(iii)(F). For
example, assume that the NBBO is $1.00-$1.20. An Initiating Trading
Permit Holder submits a matched Agency Order to sell 100 options
contracts at in the series at $1.10. The Auction begins and during
the Auction, one competing Market-Maker submits an Auction response
to buy 100 contracts at $1.15. Assume that after the first response
is received, an unrelated public customer order to buy 100 contracts
at $1.20 is received. This would conclude the auction early after
which the public customer order would trade 100 contracts with the
Agency Order at $1.18 (i.e. the $1.175 midpoint between the best RFR
response ($1.15) and the NBBO on the other side of the market from
the RFR responses ($1.20), rounded up to the next minimum
increment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that increasing the Initiating Member's
allocation priority for auto-match submissions that only have one
competing Member's response at the final auto-match price point fairly
distributes the Agency Order when there are only two counterparties to
the Auction involved, and that doing so is reasonable because of the
value that Initiating members provide to the market. Initiating Members
selecting the auto-match option for Agency Orders guarantee an
execution at the NBBO or at a better price, and are subject to a
greater market risk than single-price submissions while the order is
exposed to other PRIME participants. As such, the Exchange believes
that the value added from Initiating Members guaranteeing execution of
Agency Orders at a price equal to or better than the NBBO in
combination with the additional market risk of initiating auto-match
submissions warrants an allocation priority of at least the same
percentage as Initiating Members who submit single-price orders into
PRIME. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change, like
other price improvement allocation programs currently offered by
competitor exchanges, will benefit investors by attracting more order
flow as well as increasing the frequency with which Members initiate
Auctions, which may result in greater opportunities for customer order
price improvement. Moreover, as discussed above, the proposed rule
change is consistent with the rules and proposals of other
exchanges.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See supra notes 6 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange also proposes to add text to Rules 515A(a)(2)(iii)(H)
and (I) to describe the manner in which remaining contracts would be
allocated at the conclusion of an Auction under the scenarios therein.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend sub-paragraphs (H) and (I)
to provide that (subject to Priority Customer priority), after the
Initiating Member has received an allocation of up to 40% or 50% of the
Agency Order (or of the remainder of the Agency Order in the case of an
auto-match submission) depending upon the number of Member's responses
matching the Initiating Member's submission, contracts shall be
allocated among remaining quotes, orders, and auction responses (i.e.
interests other than the Initiating Member) at the final auction price
in accordance with the matching algorithm in effect for the affected
class. If all Member responses are filled (i.e. no other interests
remain), any remaining contracts will be allocated to the Initiating
Member at the single-price submission price for single-price
submissions or, for auto-match submissions, at the designated limit
price described in Rule 515A(a)(2)(i)(A). The Exchange believes that
this additional language would add clarity in the Rules with respect to
how remaining odd-lots will be allocated at the conclusion of an
Auction.
For example, suppose that the NBBO for a particular option is
$1.00-$1.20. The minimum increment for the series is $0.01 and the
matching algorithm in effect for the option class is pro rata. An
Initiating Member submits a matched Agency Order to sell 5 contracts at
$1.10. The Auction begins and, during the Auction, one competing
Market-Maker (``MM1'') submits a response to buy 5 contracts at $1.10,
followed by another Market-Maker (``MM2'') submitting a response to buy
5 contracts at $1.10. The Auction concludes. In this case, under
proposed Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(H), the Initiating Member
[[Page 29765]]
would receive an allocation up to 40%, or, in this case, 2 contracts at
$1.10. MM1 and MM2 would then receive 1 contract each at $1.10
according to the pro rata allocation algorithm in place for the class
with MM1, as the first responder, receiving the final 1 contract at the
final auction price of $1.10.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Exchange Rule 514(c)(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, suppose that the NBBO for a particular option is $1.00-
$1.20. The minimum increment for the series is $0.01 and the matching
algorithm in effect for the option class is pro rata. An Initiating
Member submits a matched Agency Order to sell 5 contracts at $1.10. The
Auction begins and, during the Auction, one competing Market-Maker
(``MM1'') submits a response to buy 1 contract at $1.10, followed by
another Market-Maker (``MM2'') submitting a response to buy 1 contract
at $1.10. The Auction concludes. In this case, under proposed Rule
515A(a)(2)(iii)(H), the Initiating Member would receive an allocation
up to 40% or, in this case, 2 contracts at $1.10. MM1 and MM2 would
then receive 1 contract each at $1.10 according to the pro rata
allocation algorithm in place for the class. With no other competing
interest for the Auction, however, proposed Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(H)
will simply make clear that if all Member responses are filled (i.e. no
other interest remains), any remaining contracts will be allocated to
the Initiating Member at the single-price submission price. In this
case, the final 1 contract would be allocated to the Initiating Member
at $1.10.
Remaining odd-lots for auto-match submissions would be similarly
allocated under proposed Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(I), except that if all
Member responses are filled (i.e. no other interest remains), any
remaining contracts will be allocated to the Initiating Member at the
designated limit price described in sub-paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A). For
example, suppose that the NBBO for a particular option is $1.00-$1.20
and the offer is represented by a limit order on the book. The minimum
increment for the series is $0.01 and the matching algorithm in effect
for the option class is pro rata. An Initiating Member submits an auto-
matched Agency Order to buy 5 contracts at $1.19, which is one price
increment better than the booked order's limit price of $1.20.\15\
Assume that the Auction begins and, during the Auction, one competing
Market-Maker (``MM1'') submits a response to sell 1 contract at $1.18,
followed by another Market-Maker (``MM2'') submitting a response to
sell 1 contract at $1.17. The Auction concludes. In this case, MM2 and
the Initiating Member would each receive 1 contract at $1.17 and MM1
and the Initiating Member would each receive 1 contract at $1.18.
Because all Member responses would then be filled (i.e. no other
interests remain), any remaining contracts will be allocated to the
Initiating Member at the designated limit price described in sub-
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), in this case, 1 contract at $1.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Exchange Rule 515A(a)(2)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange notes that these proposed amendments are based on, and
consistent with, the rules and proposals of other competitor
exchanges.\16\ The Exchange believes that the value added when
Initiating Members guarantee the execution of Agency Orders at a price
equal to or better than the NBBO warrants (to the extent that the
Initiating Member is on the final Auction price), an Auction allocation
priority of at least the same percentage of the order as any competing
Auction responses. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change, like other price improvement allocation programs currently
offered by competitor exchanges, will benefit investors by attracting
more order flow and by increasing the frequency with which Members
initiate Auctions, which may result in greater opportunities for price
improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See supra notes 6 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Amendments
The Exchange is also proposing two clarifying technical amendments.
Specifically, The Exchange proposes to replace the word ``order'' with
the more precise term ``Agency Order'' in the phrases that are
currently in Rules 515A(a)(2)(iii)(H) and (I) for the avoidance of
doubt.\17\ Additionally, as stated above,\18\ the Exchange is proposing
to define, in proposed Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii)(I), the price point where
the balance of the Agency Order can be fully executed as the ``final
auto-match price point'' in the rule text. This proposed amendment is
intended for clarity and ease of reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See supra note 9.
\18\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Statutory Basis
MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \19\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \20\ in particular, in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange further
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \21\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
protects investors and is in the public interest because it fairly
distributes the allocation of the PRIME Agency Order between the
Initiating Member and the Member who responded when they are the only
two counterparties to the Auction and/or the number of contracts
remaining at the final Auction price cannot be evenly distributed at
the end of an Auction. The proposed rule change is intended to enable
the Exchange to compete with other exchanges that currently offer price
improvement programs with the same trade allocation percentages, and
should benefit investors by attracting more order flow and by
increasing the number of orders submitted into the PRIME auction
mechanism, which the Exchange believes will result in greater
opportunity for price improvement. Moreover, the proposed rule change
is consistent with the rules and proposals of other exchanges.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed technical
clarifying and definitional amendments to Rule 515A will benefit market
participants by enhancing transparency and clarity to the Rules.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange notes that it has analyzed its capacity and represents that it
and the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary
systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated
with the proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its members
will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not
[[Page 29766]]
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed changes are meant to more fairly allocate an Agency
Order submitted for price improvement using auto-match when there are
only two competing participants on the contra-side of the Agency Order.
The Exchange does not believe that this change will discourage any
market participants from entering into the auto-match option of MIAX
PRIME. Because auto-match is a more aggressive strategy than a single-
price submission, increasing the Initiating Member's auto-match
allocation to up to 50% of the remainder of the Agency Order when there
is only one competing response at the final auto-match price point
results in a fair and reasonable allocation methodology. This should
encourage more Initiating Members to select the auto-match option when
submitting Agency Orders for price improvement via MIAX PRIME, thus
enhancing competition for participation in Agency Order allocations.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is a
competitive response to similar provisions in the price improvement
auction rules of BOX \22\ and CBOE \23\ and thus should promote
competition among the options exchanges and establish uniform price
improvement auction rules on the various exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See supra note 6.
\23\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all the reasons stated, 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, and
believes the proposed change will in fact enhance 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.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \24\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\25\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \26\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \27\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange
states that waiver of the operative delay will allow the Exchange to
compete with trade allocation entitlements in price improvement
auctions that are currently in place on other exchanges.\28\ For this
reason, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change
to be operative upon filing.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
\27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
\28\ See supra notes 6 and 7.
\29\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2015-36 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-MIAX-2015-36. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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-MIAX-2015-36 and should be
submitted on or before June 12, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12416 Filed 5-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
