Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders, 38306-38309 [2019-16721]
Download as PDF
38306
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2019 / Notices
Later in the process, generally after
there has been a conditional offer of
employment, individuals seeking
admission to the civil service are asked
to complete a Declaration for Federal
Employment (OF 306) and undergo an
investigation to establish ‘‘suitability’’
or fitness for employment. See 5 CFR
330.1300.
Past criminal conduct does not
prohibit a person from being hired into
the vast majority of federal jobs, and
each decision is determined on a case
by case basis.
Analysis
Agency: Office of Personnel
Management, Suitability Executive
Agent Programs.
Title: Declaration for Federal
Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306.
OMB Number: 3206–0182.
Affected Public: Individuals.
Number of Respondents: 315,478.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 15
minutes.
Total Burden Hours: 78,870.
Office of Personnel Management.
Steve Hickman,
Federal Register Liaison.
Orders, to amend subsection (d)(7) and
to make a minor non-substantive change
to correct a typographical error in
subsection (f)(1) of Interpretation and
Policy .05.
The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange’s website at
https://www.miaxoptions.com/rulefilings/emerald at MIAX Emerald’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
[FR Doc. 2019–16696 Filed 8–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–53–P
1. Purpose
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–86536; File No. SR–
EMERALD–2019–27]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX
Emerald, LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change To Amend Exchange
Rule 518, Complex Orders
July 31, 2019.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
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 July 18, 2019, MIAX Emerald, LLC
(‘‘MIAX Emerald’’ 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 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 is filing a proposal to
amend Exchange Rule 518, Complex
1 15
2 17
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 05, 2019
The Exchange proposes to amend
Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders, to
amend subsection (d)(7), Allocation at
the Conclusion of a Complex Auction,
to adopt a new parenthetical to existing
rule text to state that orders and quotes
executed in a Complex Auction 3 will be
allocated first in price priority based on
their original limit price (or protected
price, as described in Interpretation and
Policy .05., if price protection is
engaged).
Currently, subsection (d)(7) of the
Rule provides that orders and quotes
executed in a Complex Auction will be
allocated first in price priority based on
their original limit price, and thereafter
as follows, and the Rule lists six
different scenarios which influence
allocation. The Exchange is proposing to
adopt the parenthetical, ‘‘or protected
price if price protection, as described in
Interpretation and Policy .05., is
engaged’’ after the term ‘‘original limit
price’’ to improve the fairness and
consistency of allocations among
participants at the end of a Complex
Auction.
Under the proposal, allocations will
continue to be calculated based on
original limit price, with the exception
that if price protection is engaged,
3 See
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Exchange Rule 518(d).
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
allocation will then be based on the
order’s protected price as opposed to the
order’s original limit price. The
following examples using the MPC
Protection better illustrate this
scenario.4
Example #1A
End of Complex Auction Allocation
Using Current Allocation Methodology
icEBBO 5/dcEBBO 6 1.75 × 2.00
cNBBO 7 1.85 × 1.95
MPC 0.05
MPC Protection:
cNBB 8¥MPC (1.85¥0.05 = 1.80)
cNBO 9 + MPC (1.95 + 0.05 = 2.00)
Complex Order 1 (CO1) Buy 10 @2.00
(Auction on Arrival) 10
CO1 marked AOA initiates an auction
upon receipt.
4 The Exchange notes that the System provides a
number of price protections as described in Policy
.05. of Interpretations and Policies to this Rule.
Price protections include a Vertical Spread
Variance price protection (.05.(a)); a Calendar
Spread Variance price protection (.05.(b)); an
Implied Away Best Bid or Offer (‘‘ixABBO’’) price
protection. The ixABBO price protection feature is
a price protection mechanism under which, when
in operation as requested by the submitting
Member, a buy order will not be executed at a price
that is higher than each other single exchange’s best
displayed offer for the complex strategy, and under
which a sell order will not be executed at a price
that is lower than each other single exchange’s best
displayed bid for the complex strategy (.05.(d)); and
a Complex MIAX Emerald Price Collar (‘‘MPC’’)
price protection (.05.(f)).
5 Implied Complex MIAX Emerald Best Bid or
offer (‘‘icEBBO’’). The icEBBO is a calculation that
uses the best price from the Simple Order Book for
each component of a complex strategy including
displayed and non-displayed trading interest. For
stock-option orders, the icEBBO for a complex
strategy will be calculated using the best price
(whether displayed or non-displayed) on the
Simple Order Book in the individual option
component(s), and the NBBO in the stock
component. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(12).
6 Displayed Complex MIAX Emerald Best Bid or
Offer (‘‘dcEBBO’’). The dcEBBO is calculated using
the best displayed price for each component of a
complex strategy from the Simple Order Book. For
stock-option orders, the dcEBBO for a complex
strategy will be calculated using the Exchange’s best
displayed bid or offer in the individual option
component(s) and the NBBO in the stock
component. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(8).
7 The Complex National Best Bid or Offer
(‘‘cNBBO’’) is calculated using the NBBO for each
component of a complex strategy to establish the
best net bid and offer for a complex strategy. See
Exchange Rule 100.
8 NBB means the National Best Bid.
9 NBO means the National Best Offer.
10 A ‘‘Complex Auction-on-Arrival’’ or ‘‘cAOA’’
order is a complex order designated to be placed
into a Complex Auction upon receipt or upon
evaluation. Complex orders that are not designated
as cAOA will, by default, not initiate a Complex
Auction upon arrival, but except as described
herein will be eligible to participate in a Complex
Auction that is in progress when such complex
order arrives or if placed on the Strategy Book may
participate in or may initiate a Complex Auction,
following evaluation conducted by the System (as
described in subparagraph (d) below).[sic] See
Exchange Rule 518(b)(2)(i).
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2019 / Notices
Market Maker (‘‘MM’’) 11 Complex
Order 2 (CO2) Sell 10 @1.80 (MPC
= 1.80)
MM Complex AOC eQuote 12 3 (CO3)
Sell 10 @1.00 (MPC = 1.80)
Unrelated order CO2 and related
response CO3 arrive during the auction
and join the auction in progress. The
Auction concludes with no further
interest being received.
Upon conclusion of the Auction CO2
and CO3 are subject to MPC Protection
and cannot trade more than 0.05 lower
than the Away Best Bid (1.85); meaning
that these orders cannot trade lower
than 1.80. With allocation based upon
the original limit price CO3 trades 10
with CO1 at 1.80 ahead of CO2 since
CO3’s original limit price (1.00) was
more aggressive than the original limit
price of CO2 (1.80). CO2 does not trade
and leaves a balance of 10 to sell at 1.80.
cToM 13 1.75 × 1.80 (10)
Example 1B below illustrates the
same scenario but with allocation as
proposed by the new rule language.
Example #1B
End of Complex Auction Allocation
Using Proposed Allocation Methodology
(Price Protection Engaged)
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
icEBBO/dcEBBO 1.75 × 2.00
cNBBO 1.85 × 1.95
MPC 0.05
MPC Protection:
cNBB¥MPC (1.85¥0.05 = 1.80)
cNBO + MPC (1.95 + 0.05 = 2.00)
Complex Order 1 (CO1) Buy 10 @2.00
(Auction on Arrival)
CO1 marked AOA initiates an auction
upon receipt.
MM Complex Order 2 (CO2) Sell 10 @
1.80 (MPC = 1.80)
MM Complex AOC eQuote 3 (CO3) Sell
10 @1.00 (MPC = 1.80)
Unrelated order CO2 and related
response CO3 arrive during the auction
and join the auction in progress. The
Auction concludes with no further
interest being received.
Upon conclusion of the Auction CO2
and CO3 are subject to MPC Protection
and cannot trade more than 0.05 lower
11 The term ‘‘Market Makers’’ refers to ‘‘Lead
Market Makers’’, ‘‘Primary Lead Market Makers’’
and ‘‘Registered Market Makers’’ collectively. See
Exchange Rule 100.
12 A ‘‘Complex Auction-or-Cancel eQuote’’ or
‘‘cAOC eQuote,’’ which is an eQuote submitted by
a Market Maker that is used to provide liquidity
during a specific Complex Auction with a time in
force that corresponds with the duration of the
Complex Auction. A cAOC eQuote with a size
greater than the aggregate auctioned size (as defined
in Rule 518(d)(4)) will be capped for allocation
purposes at the aggregate auctioned size. See
Exchange Rule 518.02(c)(1).
13 cToM is the Exchange’s Complex Top of Market
data feed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
than the Away Best Bid (1.85); meaning
that these orders cannot trade lower
than 1.80. With allocation priority based
on the protected price CO3 trades a prorata share of 5 with CO1 at 1.80 based
on its protected price. CO2 also trades
a pro-rata share of 5 with CO1 at 1.80
based on its protected price. CO1 is
filled, CO2 and CO3 each leave a
balance of 5, booked at their protected
price of 1.80.
cToM 1.75 × 1.80 (10)
The Exchange believes that using the
protected price is more meaningful than
using an order’s original limit price in
the context of determining trade
allocation priority as orders cannot be
executed at prices that would violate
their protected price. Additionally,
changing the allocation priority in this
fashion would align allocations for
orders with the same protected price,
when price protection is engaged, with
allocations for orders with the same
original limit price, when price
protection is not engaged, which can be
seen in the examples below.
Example #2A
End of Complex Auction Allocation
Using Current Allocation Methodology
icEBBO/dcEBBO 1.75 × 2.00
cNBBO 1.85 × 1.95
MPC 0.05
MPC Protection:
cNBB¥MPC (1.85¥0.05 = 1.80)
cNBO + MPC (1.95 + 0.05 = 2.00)
Complex Order 1 (CO1) Buy 10 @2.00
(Auction on Arrival)
CO1 marked AOA initiates an auction
upon receipt.
Market Maker (‘‘MM’’) Complex Order 2
(CO2) Sell 10 @1.90 (MPC = 1.80)
MM Complex AOC eQuote 3 (CO3) Sell
10 @1.90 (MPC = 1.80)
Unrelated order CO2 and related
response CO3 arrive during the auction
and joins the auction in progress. The
Auction concludes with no further
interest being received.
Upon conclusion of the Auction CO2
and CO3 when subject to MPC
Protection cannot trade more than 0.05
lower than the Away Best Bid (1.85);
meaning that these orders cannot trade
lower than 1.80. However since the
limit price of CO2 and CO3 is not
through the MPC Protected Price, price
protection is not engaged and the trade
is based on the best limit price among
CO2 and CO3. With allocation based
upon the original limit price; CO3 trades
a pro-rata share of 5 with CO1 at 1.90
based on its original price. CO2 also
trades a pro-rata share of 5 with CO1 at
1.90 based on its original price. CO1 is
filled, CO2 and CO3 each leave a
balance of 5, booked at their limit price.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38307
Example 2B below illustrates the
same scenario but with allocation as
proposed by the new rule language.
Example #2B
End of Complex Auction Allocation
Using Proposed Allocation Methodology
(Price Protection Not Engaged)
icMBBO/dcMBBO 1.75 × 2.00
cNBBO 1.85 × 1.95
MPC 0.05
MPC Protection = cNBB¥MPC
(1.85¥0.05 = 1.80)
Complex Order 1 (CO1) Buy 10 @2.00
(Auction on Arrival)
CO1 marked AOA initiates an auction
upon receipt.
Market Maker (‘‘MM’’) Complex Order 2
(CO2) Sell 10 @1.90 (MPC = 1.80)
MM Complex AOC eQuote 3 (CO3) Sell
10 @1.90 (MPC = 1.80)
Unrelated order CO2 and related
response CO3 arrive during the auction
and joins the auction in progress. The
Auction concludes with no further
interest being received.
Upon conclusion of the Auction CO2
and CO3 when subject to MPC
Protection cannot trade more than 0.05
lower than the Away Best Bid (1.85);
meaning that these orders cannot trade
lower than 1.80. However since the
limit price of CO2 and CO3 is not
through the MPC Protected Price, price
protection is not engaged and the trade
is based on the best limit price among
CO2 and CO3. With allocation based
upon the original limit price; CO3 trades
a pro-rata share of 5 with CO1 at 1.90
based on its original price. CO2 also
trades a pro-rata share of 5 with CO1 at
1.90 based on its original price. CO1 is
filled, CO2 and CO3 each leave a
balance of 5, booked at their limit price.
There is no difference in the
allocation results under the proposed
allocation algorithm or the current
allocation algorithm for orders with
identical original limit prices when
price protection is not engaged.
Additionally, as demonstrated in
Example 3A and 3B below, there is no
difference in the allocation results
under the proposed allocation algorithm
or the current allocation algorithm for
orders with differing original limit
prices when price protection is not
engaged.
Example #3A
End of Complex Auction Allocation
Using Current Allocation Methodology
icEBBO/dcEBBO 1.75 × 2.00
cNBBO 1.85 × 1.95
MPC 0.05
MPC Protection:
cNBB¥MPC (1.85¥0.05 = 1.80)
cNBO + MPC (1.95 + 0.05 = 2.00)
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
38308
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2019 / Notices
Complex Order 1 (CO1) Buy 10 @2.00
(Auction on Arrival)
CO1 marked AOA initiates an auction
upon receipt.
Market Maker (‘‘MM’’) Complex Order 2
(CO2) Sell 10 @1.95 (MPC = 1.80)
MM Complex AOC eQuote 3 (CO3) Sell
10 @1.85 (MPC = 1.80)
Unrelated order CO2 and related
response CO3 arrive during the auction
and join the auction in progress. The
Auction concludes with no further
interest being received.
Upon conclusion of the Auction CO2
and CO3 when subject to MPC
Protection cannot trade more than 0.05
lower than the Away Best Bid (1.85);
meaning that these orders cannot trade
lower than 1.80. However since the
limit price of CO2 and CO3 is not
through the MPC Protected Price, price
protection is not engaged. With
allocation based upon the original limit
price; CO3 trades 10 with CO1 at 1.90
ahead of CO2 since its original limit
price (1.85) was more aggressive than
the original limit price of CO2 (1.95).
CO2 does not trade and leaves a balance
of 10 to sell at 1.95.
Example #3B
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
End of Complex Auction Allocation
Using Proposed Allocation Methodology
(Price Protection Not Engaged)
icMBBO/dcMBBO 1.75 × 2.00
cNBBO 1.85 × 1.95
MPC 0.05
MPC Protection = cNBB¥MPC
(1.85¥0.05 = 1.80)
Complex Order 1 (CO1) Buy 10 @2.00
(Auction on Arrival)
CO1 marked AOA initiates an auction
upon receipt.
Market Maker (‘‘MM’’) Complex Order 2
(CO2) Sell 10 @1.95 (MPC = 1.80)
MM Complex AOC eQuote 3 (CO3) Sell
10 @1.85 (MPC = 1.80)
Unrelated order CO2 and related
response CO3 arrive during the auction
and joins the auction in progress. The
Auction concludes with no further
interest being received.
Upon conclusion of the Auction CO2
and CO3 when subject to MPC
Protection cannot trade more than 0.05
lower than the Away Best Bid; meaning
that these orders cannot trade lower
than 1.80. However since the limit price
of CO2 and CO3 is not through the MPC
Protected Price, price protection is not
engaged. Allocation remains based upon
original limit price as price protection is
not engaged. CO3 trades 10 with CO1 at
1.90 ahead of CO2 since its original
limit price (1.85) was more aggressive
than the original limit price of CO2
(1.95). CO2 does not trade and leaves a
balance of 10 to sell at 1.95.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
As illustrated by the examples above,
there is no difference in allocations
under the proposal when orders have
the same, or different, original limit
prices when price protection is not
engaged (Examples 2 and 3
respectively). Under the current rule
there is a difference in allocation when
orders have the same protected price but
different original limit prices, as
illustrated in Example 1. Under the
Exchange’s proposal, using the order’s
protected price, when price protection
is engaged, to determine allocation, will
provide the same allocation result as
when orders have the same original
limit price, but when price protection is
not engaged (as demonstrated in
Example 2). The Exchange believes that
allocating interest at the conclusion of a
Complex Auction based upon an order’s
protected price, when price protection
is engaged, as opposed to its original
limit price, provides a consistent
allocation methodology when orders
have the same price (either original
limit price when price protection is not
engaged, or protected price when price
protection is engaged).
Additionally, the Exchange proposes
to amend section (f) of Interpretation
and Policy .05 to add an opening
quotation to the term eQuotes in
subsection (1), which states, [a]ll
complex orders on the Exchange,
together with cAOC eQuotes and cIOC
eQuotes 14 (as defined in Interpretations
and Policies: 02.(c)(1) and (2) of this
Rule) (collectively, ‘‘eQuotes’’), are
subject to the MPC Price Protection
feature. This is non-substantive change
to make a typographical correction to
the rule text.
2. Statutory Basis
MIAX Emerald believes that its
proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act 15 in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act 16 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
14 A ‘‘Complex Immediate-or-Cancel eQuote’’ or
‘‘cIOC eQuote,’’ which is a complex eQuote with a
time-in-force of IOC that may be matched with
another complex quote or complex order for an
execution to occur in whole or in part upon receipt
into the System. cIOC eQuotes will not: (i) Be
executed against individual orders and quotes
resting on the Simple Order Book; (ii) be eligible to
initiate a Complex Auction or join a Complex
Auction in progress; (iii) rest on the Strategy Book;
or (iv) be displayed. Any portion of a cIOC eQuote
that is not executed will be immediately cancelled.
See Exchange Rule 518.02(c)(2).
15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 believes that
determining priority for allocating
interest at the conclusion of a Complex
Auction based on an order’s protected
price, when price protection is engaged,
removes impediments to and perfects
the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system
and, in general, protects investors and
the public interest by providing a
consistent allocation methodology.
Basing trade allocation priority on an
order’s protected price provides for a
more equitable allocation of interest at
the conclusion of a Complex Auction
versus using an order’s original limit
price to determine allocation priority.
An order’s original limit price is not
relevant for determining allocation as
the order cannot trade through its
protected price. Therefore, the Exchange
believes that when price protection is
engaged, using the protected price as the
basis for allocation priority at the
conclusion of a Complex Auction is
more appropriate.
As demonstrated in Example 1A,
under the current rule an order with a
limit price that is through its protected
price supersedes an order with a limit
price equal to its protected price. In
Example 1A, the trade price is equal to
the protected price, however the order
with a more aggressive original limit
price receives the first allocation. In
Example 1A, the order’s $1.00 original
limit price to sell is illusory in the sense
that the order can never be executed
below its protected price of $1.80 due to
price protection being engaged. With
two orders that can be executed at $1.80
the Exchange believes that basing
allocation on the protected price
promotes just and equitable principles
of trade, as both orders receive an
allocation. This aligns to the allocation
that results when two orders can be
executed at their original limit price
without price protection being engaged,
and provides consistency in the
allocation process used on the
Exchange, and prevents unfair
allocations from occurring, which
promotes just and equitable principles
of trade.
The Exchange believes its proposal to
make a non-substantive change to
correct a typographical error protects
investors and the public interest by
providing accuracy in the Exchange’s
rules. Clarity and precision in the
Exchange’s rules helps avoid the
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2019 / Notices
potential for confusion which benefits
investors and the public.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that
the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange’s proposal will not
impose any burden on inter-market
competition as the proposal will only
affect trade allocations performed at the
conclusion of a Complex Auction on the
Exchange, when price protection is
engaged.
The Exchange does not believe the
proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intra-market competition as
the rules of the Exchange are applicable
to all Members 17 equally, and will
equally impact those Members who
participate in Complex Auctions.
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.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD 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 from the date on
which it was filed, or such shorter time
as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 18 and Rule 19b–
4(f)(6) thereunder.19
A proposed rule change filed
pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the
Act 20 normally does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of its
filing. However, Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) 21
permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the
17 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 Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
19 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b–
4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to
give the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of 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.
20 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).
21 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive
the 30-day operative delay so that the
proposed rule change may become
operative upon filing. As discussed
above, the Exchange believes that using
an order’s protected price when price
protection is engaged, rather than an
order’s original limit price, is
appropriate for determining allocation
priority at the conclusion of a Complex
Auction because an order cannot be
executed at a price that would violate its
protected price. Thus, an order’s
original limit price is not relevant for
determining allocation priority when
price protection is engaged, and the
Exchange believes that using an order’s
protected price to determine auction
allocations when price protection is
engaged will prevent unfair Complex
Auction allocations. The Commission
believes that determining Complex
Auction allocations based on an order’s
protected price when price protection is
engaged, rather than on the order’s
original limit price, is appropriate
because an order will never execute at
a price that violates its protected price.
The Commission believes that using an
order’s protected price when price
protection is engaged will help to assure
that orders are allocated fairly at the
conclusion of a Complex Auction.
Therefore, the Commission believes that
waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby
waives the operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change
operative upon filing.22
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
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.
22 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day
operative delay, the Commission also has
considered the proposed rule’s impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See
15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
38309
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–
EMERALD–2019–27 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–EMERALD–2019–27. 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 website (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 website 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.
Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from
comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish
to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File
Number SR–EMERALD–2019–27, and
should be submitted on or before
August 27, 2019.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.23
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–16721 Filed 8–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
23 17
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
06AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38306-38309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16721]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-86536; File No. SR-EMERALD-2019-27]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders
July 31, 2019.
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 July 18, 2019, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX
Emerald'' 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 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 is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 518,
Complex Orders, to amend subsection (d)(7) and to make a minor non-
substantive change to correct a typographical error in subsection
(f)(1) of Interpretation and Policy .05.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/emerald at MIAX
Emerald'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 518, Complex Orders,
to amend subsection (d)(7), Allocation at the Conclusion of a Complex
Auction, to adopt a new parenthetical to existing rule text to state
that orders and quotes executed in a Complex Auction \3\ will be
allocated first in price priority based on their original limit price
(or protected price, as described in Interpretation and Policy .05., if
price protection is engaged).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Exchange Rule 518(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, subsection (d)(7) of the Rule provides that orders and
quotes executed in a Complex Auction will be allocated first in price
priority based on their original limit price, and thereafter as
follows, and the Rule lists six different scenarios which influence
allocation. The Exchange is proposing to adopt the parenthetical, ``or
protected price if price protection, as described in Interpretation and
Policy .05., is engaged'' after the term ``original limit price'' to
improve the fairness and consistency of allocations among participants
at the end of a Complex Auction.
Under the proposal, allocations will continue to be calculated
based on original limit price, with the exception that if price
protection is engaged, allocation will then be based on the order's
protected price as opposed to the order's original limit price. The
following examples using the MPC Protection better illustrate this
scenario.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Exchange notes that the System provides a number of
price protections as described in Policy .05. of Interpretations and
Policies to this Rule. Price protections include a Vertical Spread
Variance price protection (.05.(a)); a Calendar Spread Variance
price protection (.05.(b)); an Implied Away Best Bid or Offer
(``ixABBO'') price protection. The ixABBO price protection feature
is a price protection mechanism under which, when in operation as
requested by the submitting Member, a buy order will not be executed
at a price that is higher than each other single exchange's best
displayed offer for the complex strategy, and under which a sell
order will not be executed at a price that is lower than each other
single exchange's best displayed bid for the complex strategy
(.05.(d)); and a Complex MIAX Emerald Price Collar (``MPC'') price
protection (.05.(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example #1A
End of Complex Auction Allocation Using Current Allocation Methodology
icEBBO \5\/dcEBBO \6\ 1.75 x 2.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Implied Complex MIAX Emerald Best Bid or offer (``icEBBO'').
The icEBBO is a calculation that uses the best price from the Simple
Order Book for each component of a complex strategy including
displayed and non-displayed trading interest. For stock-option
orders, the icEBBO for a complex strategy will be calculated using
the best price (whether displayed or non-displayed) on the Simple
Order Book in the individual option component(s), and the NBBO in
the stock component. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(12).
\6\ Displayed Complex MIAX Emerald Best Bid or Offer
(``dcEBBO''). The dcEBBO is calculated using the best displayed
price for each component of a complex strategy from the Simple Order
Book. For stock-option orders, the dcEBBO for a complex strategy
will be calculated using the Exchange's best displayed bid or offer
in the individual option component(s) and the NBBO in the stock
component. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cNBBO \7\ 1.85 x 1.95
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Complex National Best Bid or Offer (``cNBBO'') is
calculated using the NBBO for each component of a complex strategy
to establish the best net bid and offer for a complex strategy. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPC 0.05
MPC Protection:
cNBB \8\-MPC (1.85-0.05 = 1.80)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NBB means the National Best Bid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cNBO \9\ + MPC (1.95 + 0.05 = 2.00)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NBO means the National Best Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complex Order 1 (CO1) Buy 10 @2.00 (Auction on Arrival) \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A ``Complex Auction-on-Arrival'' or ``cAOA'' order is a
complex order designated to be placed into a Complex Auction upon
receipt or upon evaluation. Complex orders that are not designated
as cAOA will, by default, not initiate a Complex Auction upon
arrival, but except as described herein will be eligible to
participate in a Complex Auction that is in progress when such
complex order arrives or if placed on the Strategy Book may
participate in or may initiate a Complex Auction, following
evaluation conducted by the System (as described in subparagraph (d)
below).[sic] See Exchange Rule 518(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO1 marked AOA initiates an auction upon receipt.
[[Page 38307]]
Market Maker (``MM'') \11\ Complex Order 2 (CO2) Sell 10 @1.80 (MPC =
1.80)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market
Makers'', ``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market
Makers'' collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Complex AOC eQuote \12\ 3 (CO3) Sell 10 @1.00 (MPC = 1.80)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A ``Complex Auction-or-Cancel eQuote'' or ``cAOC eQuote,''
which is an eQuote submitted by a Market Maker that is used to
provide liquidity during a specific Complex Auction with a time in
force that corresponds with the duration of the Complex Auction. A
cAOC eQuote with a size greater than the aggregate auctioned size
(as defined in Rule 518(d)(4)) will be capped for allocation
purposes at the aggregate auctioned size. See Exchange Rule
518.02(c)(1).
Unrelated order CO2 and related response CO3 arrive during the
auction and join the auction in progress. The Auction concludes with no
further interest being received.
Upon conclusion of the Auction CO2 and CO3 are subject to MPC
Protection and cannot trade more than 0.05 lower than the Away Best Bid
(1.85); meaning that these orders cannot trade lower than 1.80. With
allocation based upon the original limit price CO3 trades 10 with CO1
at 1.80 ahead of CO2 since CO3's original limit price (1.00) was more
aggressive than the original limit price of CO2 (1.80). CO2 does not
trade and leaves a balance of 10 to sell at 1.80.
cToM \13\ 1.75 x 1.80 (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ cToM is the Exchange's Complex Top of Market data feed.
Example 1B below illustrates the same scenario but with allocation
as proposed by the new rule language.
Example #1B
End of Complex Auction Allocation Using Proposed Allocation Methodology
(Price Protection Engaged)
icEBBO/dcEBBO 1.75 x 2.00
cNBBO 1.85 x 1.95
MPC 0.05
MPC Protection:
cNBB-MPC (1.85-0.05 = 1.80)
cNBO + MPC (1.95 + 0.05 = 2.00)
Complex Order 1 (CO1) Buy 10 @2.00 (Auction on Arrival)
CO1 marked AOA initiates an auction upon receipt.
MM Complex Order 2 (CO2) Sell 10 @1.80 (MPC = 1.80)
MM Complex AOC eQuote 3 (CO3) Sell 10 @1.00 (MPC = 1.80)
Unrelated order CO2 and related response CO3 arrive during the
auction and join the auction in progress. The Auction concludes with no
further interest being received.
Upon conclusion of the Auction CO2 and CO3 are subject to MPC
Protection and cannot trade more than 0.05 lower than the Away Best Bid
(1.85); meaning that these orders cannot trade lower than 1.80. With
allocation priority based on the protected price CO3 trades a pro-rata
share of 5 with CO1 at 1.80 based on its protected price. CO2 also
trades a pro-rata share of 5 with CO1 at 1.80 based on its protected
price. CO1 is filled, CO2 and CO3 each leave a balance of 5, booked at
their protected price of 1.80.
cToM 1.75 x 1.80 (10)
The Exchange believes that using the protected price is more
meaningful than using an order's original limit price in the context of
determining trade allocation priority as orders cannot be executed at
prices that would violate their protected price. Additionally, changing
the allocation priority in this fashion would align allocations for
orders with the same protected price, when price protection is engaged,
with allocations for orders with the same original limit price, when
price protection is not engaged, which can be seen in the examples
below.
Example #2A
End of Complex Auction Allocation Using Current Allocation Methodology
icEBBO/dcEBBO 1.75 x 2.00
cNBBO 1.85 x 1.95
MPC 0.05
MPC Protection:
cNBB-MPC (1.85-0.05 = 1.80)
cNBO + MPC (1.95 + 0.05 = 2.00)
Complex Order 1 (CO1) Buy 10 @2.00 (Auction on Arrival)
CO1 marked AOA initiates an auction upon receipt.
Market Maker (``MM'') Complex Order 2 (CO2) Sell 10 @1.90 (MPC = 1.80)
MM Complex AOC eQuote 3 (CO3) Sell 10 @1.90 (MPC = 1.80)
Unrelated order CO2 and related response CO3 arrive during the
auction and joins the auction in progress. The Auction concludes with
no further interest being received.
Upon conclusion of the Auction CO2 and CO3 when subject to MPC
Protection cannot trade more than 0.05 lower than the Away Best Bid
(1.85); meaning that these orders cannot trade lower than 1.80. However
since the limit price of CO2 and CO3 is not through the MPC Protected
Price, price protection is not engaged and the trade is based on the
best limit price among CO2 and CO3. With allocation based upon the
original limit price; CO3 trades a pro-rata share of 5 with CO1 at 1.90
based on its original price. CO2 also trades a pro-rata share of 5 with
CO1 at 1.90 based on its original price. CO1 is filled, CO2 and CO3
each leave a balance of 5, booked at their limit price.
Example 2B below illustrates the same scenario but with allocation
as proposed by the new rule language.
Example #2B
End of Complex Auction Allocation Using Proposed Allocation Methodology
(Price Protection Not Engaged)
icMBBO/dcMBBO 1.75 x 2.00
cNBBO 1.85 x 1.95
MPC 0.05
MPC Protection = cNBB-MPC (1.85-0.05 = 1.80)
Complex Order 1 (CO1) Buy 10 @2.00 (Auction on Arrival)
CO1 marked AOA initiates an auction upon receipt.
Market Maker (``MM'') Complex Order 2 (CO2) Sell 10 @1.90 (MPC = 1.80)
MM Complex AOC eQuote 3 (CO3) Sell 10 @1.90 (MPC = 1.80)
Unrelated order CO2 and related response CO3 arrive during the
auction and joins the auction in progress. The Auction concludes with
no further interest being received.
Upon conclusion of the Auction CO2 and CO3 when subject to MPC
Protection cannot trade more than 0.05 lower than the Away Best Bid
(1.85); meaning that these orders cannot trade lower than 1.80. However
since the limit price of CO2 and CO3 is not through the MPC Protected
Price, price protection is not engaged and the trade is based on the
best limit price among CO2 and CO3. With allocation based upon the
original limit price; CO3 trades a pro-rata share of 5 with CO1 at 1.90
based on its original price. CO2 also trades a pro-rata share of 5 with
CO1 at 1.90 based on its original price. CO1 is filled, CO2 and CO3
each leave a balance of 5, booked at their limit price.
There is no difference in the allocation results under the proposed
allocation algorithm or the current allocation algorithm for orders
with identical original limit prices when price protection is not
engaged. Additionally, as demonstrated in Example 3A and 3B below,
there is no difference in the allocation results under the proposed
allocation algorithm or the current allocation algorithm for orders
with differing original limit prices when price protection is not
engaged.
Example #3A
End of Complex Auction Allocation Using Current Allocation Methodology
icEBBO/dcEBBO 1.75 x 2.00
cNBBO 1.85 x 1.95
MPC 0.05
MPC Protection:
cNBB-MPC (1.85-0.05 = 1.80)
cNBO + MPC (1.95 + 0.05 = 2.00)
[[Page 38308]]
Complex Order 1 (CO1) Buy 10 @2.00 (Auction on Arrival)
CO1 marked AOA initiates an auction upon receipt.
Market Maker (``MM'') Complex Order 2 (CO2) Sell 10 @1.95 (MPC = 1.80)
MM Complex AOC eQuote 3 (CO3) Sell 10 @1.85 (MPC = 1.80)
Unrelated order CO2 and related response CO3 arrive during the
auction and join the auction in progress. The Auction concludes with no
further interest being received.
Upon conclusion of the Auction CO2 and CO3 when subject to MPC
Protection cannot trade more than 0.05 lower than the Away Best Bid
(1.85); meaning that these orders cannot trade lower than 1.80. However
since the limit price of CO2 and CO3 is not through the MPC Protected
Price, price protection is not engaged. With allocation based upon the
original limit price; CO3 trades 10 with CO1 at 1.90 ahead of CO2 since
its original limit price (1.85) was more aggressive than the original
limit price of CO2 (1.95). CO2 does not trade and leaves a balance of
10 to sell at 1.95.
Example #3B
End of Complex Auction Allocation Using Proposed Allocation Methodology
(Price Protection Not Engaged)
icMBBO/dcMBBO 1.75 x 2.00
cNBBO 1.85 x 1.95
MPC 0.05
MPC Protection = cNBB-MPC (1.85-0.05 = 1.80)
Complex Order 1 (CO1) Buy 10 @2.00 (Auction on Arrival)
CO1 marked AOA initiates an auction upon receipt.
Market Maker (``MM'') Complex Order 2 (CO2) Sell 10 @1.95 (MPC = 1.80)
MM Complex AOC eQuote 3 (CO3) Sell 10 @1.85 (MPC = 1.80)
Unrelated order CO2 and related response CO3 arrive during the
auction and joins the auction in progress. The Auction concludes with
no further interest being received.
Upon conclusion of the Auction CO2 and CO3 when subject to MPC
Protection cannot trade more than 0.05 lower than the Away Best Bid;
meaning that these orders cannot trade lower than 1.80. However since
the limit price of CO2 and CO3 is not through the MPC Protected Price,
price protection is not engaged. Allocation remains based upon original
limit price as price protection is not engaged. CO3 trades 10 with CO1
at 1.90 ahead of CO2 since its original limit price (1.85) was more
aggressive than the original limit price of CO2 (1.95). CO2 does not
trade and leaves a balance of 10 to sell at 1.95.
As illustrated by the examples above, there is no difference in
allocations under the proposal when orders have the same, or different,
original limit prices when price protection is not engaged (Examples 2
and 3 respectively). Under the current rule there is a difference in
allocation when orders have the same protected price but different
original limit prices, as illustrated in Example 1. Under the
Exchange's proposal, using the order's protected price, when price
protection is engaged, to determine allocation, will provide the same
allocation result as when orders have the same original limit price,
but when price protection is not engaged (as demonstrated in Example
2). The Exchange believes that allocating interest at the conclusion of
a Complex Auction based upon an order's protected price, when price
protection is engaged, as opposed to its original limit price, provides
a consistent allocation methodology when orders have the same price
(either original limit price when price protection is not engaged, or
protected price when price protection is engaged).
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend section (f) of
Interpretation and Policy .05 to add an opening quotation to the term
eQuotes in subsection (1), which states, [a]ll complex orders on the
Exchange, together with cAOC eQuotes and cIOC eQuotes \14\ (as defined
in Interpretations and Policies: 02.(c)(1) and (2) of this Rule)
(collectively, ``eQuotes''), are subject to the MPC Price Protection
feature. This is non-substantive change to make a typographical
correction to the rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ A ``Complex Immediate-or-Cancel eQuote'' or ``cIOC
eQuote,'' which is a complex eQuote with a time-in-force of IOC that
may be matched with another complex quote or complex order for an
execution to occur in whole or in part upon receipt into the System.
cIOC eQuotes will not: (i) Be executed against individual orders and
quotes resting on the Simple Order Book; (ii) be eligible to
initiate a Complex Auction or join a Complex Auction in progress;
(iii) rest on the Strategy Book; or (iv) be displayed. Any portion
of a cIOC eQuote that is not executed will be immediately cancelled.
See Exchange Rule 518.02(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Statutory Basis
MIAX Emerald believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \15\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that determining priority for allocating
interest at the conclusion of a Complex Auction based on an order's
protected price, when price protection is engaged, removes impediments
to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, protects investors and the public
interest by providing a consistent allocation methodology. Basing trade
allocation priority on an order's protected price provides for a more
equitable allocation of interest at the conclusion of a Complex Auction
versus using an order's original limit price to determine allocation
priority. An order's original limit price is not relevant for
determining allocation as the order cannot trade through its protected
price. Therefore, the Exchange believes that when price protection is
engaged, using the protected price as the basis for allocation priority
at the conclusion of a Complex Auction is more appropriate.
As demonstrated in Example 1A, under the current rule an order with
a limit price that is through its protected price supersedes an order
with a limit price equal to its protected price. In Example 1A, the
trade price is equal to the protected price, however the order with a
more aggressive original limit price receives the first allocation. In
Example 1A, the order's $1.00 original limit price to sell is illusory
in the sense that the order can never be executed below its protected
price of $1.80 due to price protection being engaged. With two orders
that can be executed at $1.80 the Exchange believes that basing
allocation on the protected price promotes just and equitable
principles of trade, as both orders receive an allocation. This aligns
to the allocation that results when two orders can be executed at their
original limit price without price protection being engaged, and
provides consistency in the allocation process used on the Exchange,
and prevents unfair allocations from occurring, which promotes just and
equitable principles of trade.
The Exchange believes its proposal to make a non-substantive change
to correct a typographical error protects investors and the public
interest by providing accuracy in the Exchange's rules. Clarity and
precision in the Exchange's rules helps avoid the
[[Page 38309]]
potential for confusion which benefits investors and the public.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange's proposal will not impose any burden on inter-market
competition as the proposal will only affect trade allocations
performed at the conclusion of a Complex Auction on the Exchange, when
price protection is engaged.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on intra-market competition as the rules of the Exchange are
applicable to all Members \17\ equally, and will equally impact those
Members who participate in Complex Auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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 Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of 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 pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \20\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \21\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. As
discussed above, the Exchange believes that using an order's protected
price when price protection is engaged, rather than an order's original
limit price, is appropriate for determining allocation priority at the
conclusion of a Complex Auction because an order cannot be executed at
a price that would violate its protected price. Thus, an order's
original limit price is not relevant for determining allocation
priority when price protection is engaged, and the Exchange believes
that using an order's protected price to determine auction allocations
when price protection is engaged will prevent unfair Complex Auction
allocations. The Commission believes that determining Complex Auction
allocations based on an order's protected price when price protection
is engaged, rather than on the order's original limit price, is
appropriate because an order will never execute at a price that
violates its protected price. The Commission believes that using an
order's protected price when price protection is engaged will help to
assure that orders are allocated fairly at the conclusion of a Complex
Auction. Therefore, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
\21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
\22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also 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 change should be approved or
disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-EMERALD-2019-27 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-EMERALD-2019-27. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-EMERALD-2019-27, and should be submitted
on or before August 27, 2019.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-16721 Filed 8-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P