[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 106 (Monday, June 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33136-33138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13036]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-69643; File Nos. SR-BYX-2013-008]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Order
Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change Amending the Attestation
Requirement of Rule 11.24 Allowing a Retail Member Organization To
Attest That ``Substantially All'' Orders Submitted to The Retail Price
Improvement Program Will Qualify As ``Retail Orders''
May 28, 2013.
I. Introduction
On February 12, 2013, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to allow Retail Member Organizations (``RMOs'') to
attest that ``substantially all,'' rather than all, orders submitted to
the Retail Price Improvement Program (``Program'') qualify as ``Retail
Orders.'' The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on March 1, 2013.\3\ The Commission received one
comment on the proposal.\4\ On April 12, 2013, the Commission extended
the time for Commission action on the proposed rule change to May 30,
2013.\5\ The Exchange submitted a response to the comment letter on May
17, 2013.\6\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68975 (Feb. 25,
2013), 78 FR 13915.
\4\ See Letter to the Commission from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), dated March 11, 2013.
\5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69369, 78 FR 23320
(April 18, 2013).
\6\ See Letter to the Commission from Eric J. Swanson, Senior
Vice-President and General Counsel, BATS Y-Exchange, dated May 24,
2013 (``Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposal
The Exchange began operating its Program after it was approved by
the Commission on a pilot basis in November, 2012.\7\ Under the current
rules, a member organization that wishes to participate in the Program
as a RMO must submit: (A) An application form; (B) supporting
documentation; and (C) an attestation that ``any order'' submitted as a
Retail Order \8\ will qualify as such under BYX Rule 11.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68303 (November 27,
2012), 77 FR 71650 (December 3, 2012) (``Program Approval Order'').
\8\ A Retail Order is defined in Rule 11.24(a)(2) as ``an agency
order that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the
Exchange by a Retail Member Organization, provided that no change is
made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of
market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or
any other computerized methodology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal seeks to lessen the attestation requirements of RMOs
that submit ``Retail Orders'' eligible to receive potential price
improvement through participation in the Program. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.24 to provide that an RMO may attest
that ``substantially all''--rather than all--of the orders it submits
to the Program are Retail Orders as defined in Rule 11.24(a)(2).
The Exchange represented that it believes the categorical nature of
the current ``any order'' attestation requirement is preventing certain
member organizations with retail
[[Page 33137]]
customer business from participating in the Program. According to the
Exchange, some of these member organizations that wish to participate
in the Program represent both ``Retail Orders,'' as defined in Rule
11.24(a)(2), as well as other agency order flow that may not meet the
strict definition of ``Retail Order.'' The Exchange understands that,
due to technical limitations in order management systems and routing
networks, such member organizations may not be able to fully segregate
Retail Orders from other agency, non-Retail Order flow. As a result,
the Exchange believes that some member organizations have chosen not to
participate in the Program because they cannot satisfy the current
categorical attestation requirement, although they could satisfy the
proposed ``substantially all'' requirement.
The Exchange clarified in its proposal that the ``substantially
all'' standard is meant to allow only de minimis amounts of orders to
participate in the Program that do not meet the definition of a Retail
Order in Rule 11.24 and that cannot be segregated from bona fide Retail
Orders due to systems limitations. Under the proposal, the Exchange
would require that RMOs retain in their books and records adequate
substantiation that substantially all orders sent to the Exchange as
Retail Orders met the strict definition and that those orders not
meeting the strict definition are agency orders that cannot be
segregated from Retail Orders due to system limitations, and are de
minimis in terms of the overall number of Retail Orders sent to the
Exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Exchange noted in its Response Letter that the Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), on behalf of the
Exchange, will review a member organization's compliance with these
requirements. See Response Letter, supra note 6 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Comment Letter and the Exchange's Response
The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal. The
comment letter expressed concern over the proposed ``substantially
all'' attestation requirement primarily for four reasons.
First, the comment letter questioned whether the proposal would
undermine the rationale on which the Commission approved the Retail
Price Improvement Program. According to the commenter, when the
Commission granted approval of the Program, along with exemptive relief
in connection with the operation of the Program, it did so with the
understanding that the Program would service ``only'' retail order
flow. To the extent the proposal would potentially allow non-Retail
Orders to receive price improvement in the Program, the commenter
suggested that the Commission should reexamine its rationale for
granting the exemptive relief relating to the Program.
In response, the Exchange noted that the proposed amendment is
designed to permit isolated and de minimis quantities of agency orders
that do not qualify as Retail Orders to participate in the Program
because such orders cannot be segregated from Retail Orders due to
systems limitations. The Exchange also noted that several significant
retail brokers have chosen not to participate in the Program currently
because of the categorical ``any order'' standard, and that the
proposed ``substantially all'' standard would allow the significant
amount of retail order flow represented by these brokers the
opportunity to receive the benefits of the Program. Additionally, the
Exchange noted that the Program is designed to replicate the existing
practices of broker-dealers that internalize much of the market's
retail order flow off-exchange, and that the Program, as modified by
the ``substantially all'' proposal, would offer a competitive and more
transparent alternative to internalization.
Second, the commenter expressed its belief that the Exchange did
not sufficiently explain why retail brokers are not able to separate
all Retail and non-Retail Orders, and thereby satisfy the current
attestation requirement. The commenter expressed its belief that the
Commission should require additional explanation as to how retail
brokers could satisfy the proposed ``substantially all'' standard if
they could not satisfy the current standard, including an analysis of
the costs and benefits to retail brokers of implementing technology
changes to identify orders as Retail or non-Retail. Furthermore, the
commenter suggested that the Exchange's proposal is at odds with the
situation found in options markets where exchanges and brokers
distinguish between public and professional customers--a distinction
the commenter analogized to the Retail v. non-Retail distinction.
The Exchange responded that several retail brokers have explained
that their order flow is routed in aggregate for retail execution
purposes and that a de minimis amount of such flow may have been
generated electronically, thus not meeting the strict Retail Order
definition. According to the Exchange, these retail brokers have chosen
not to direct any of their significant shares of retail order flow to
the Program because the cost of complying with the current ``any
order'' standard, such as implementing any necessary systems changes,
is too high. The Exchange represented that the retail brokers have
indicated their willingness to comply with the proposed ``substantially
all'' standard, as well as their ability to implement the proposed
standard on their systems with confidence. The Exchange further
responded that the distinction between public and professional
customers in the options market is not like distinction between Retail
and non-Retail Orders; the former distinction turns on volume and is
thus an easier bright-line threshold to implement, while the
distinction between Retail and non-Retail Orders turns on whether the
order originated from a natural person, which imposes a higher
threshold for order flow segmentation purposes.
Third, the commenter contended that the proposed ``substantially
all'' standard is overly vague. According to the commenter, the
Exchange's proposed guidance on what constitutes ``substantially all''
is so vague that it could allow a material amount of non-retail order
flow to qualify for the Program. The commenter suggested that, should
the Commission approve the proposal, it should first establish a
bright-line rule to define what constitutes ``substantially all''
retail order flow.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The commenter cited one example where a ``de minimis''
transaction is defined in 17 CFR 242.101(b)(7), in connection with a
distribution of securities, as ``less than 2%.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange responded that the proposal represents only a modest
modification of the attestation requirement. In this respect, the
Exchange noted that the proposal would permit only isolated and de
minimis quantities of agency orders to participate in the Program that
do not satisfy the strict definition of a Retail Order but that cannot
be segregated from Retail Orders due to systems limitations.
Furthermore, the Exchange noted that an RMO's compliance with this
requirement would be monitored and subject to books and record-keeping
requirements.
Fourth, the commenter stated that the proposal may cause an
exponential increase in monitoring and recordkeeping burdens associated
with the Program. The commenter expressed its belief that it could be
especially difficult for the Exchange not just to identify non-retail
order flow, but also to monitor whether such flow exceeded a de minimis
amount. The commenter also questioned whether the potential difficulty
of the Exchange monitoring its
[[Page 33138]]
Program might increase the likelihood that members may be subject to
unfair discrimination in the Program's approval and disqualification
process.
In response, the Exchange noted that it will issue Trader Notices
to provide clear guidance on how the ``substantially all'' standard
will be implemented and monitored. The Exchange also noted that the
Program is designed to attract as much retail order flow as possible,
and that, should RMOs begin submitting substantial amounts of non-
retail order flow, liquidity providers would become less willing to
participate in the Program. Finally, the Exchange disagreed with the
commenter's statement that a standard that provides a de minimis number
of exceptions would be any harder to enforce that a standard that
permitted no exceptions.
IV. Discussion and Commission Findings
After careful review of the proposal, the comment letter received,
and the Exchange's response, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national
securities exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be 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
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest; and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In approving the proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds that the proposed ``substantially all''
standard is a limited and sufficiently-defined modification to the
Program's current RMO attestation requirements that does not constitute
a significant departure from the Program as initially approved by the
Commission.\13\ The proposal makes clear that to comply with the
standard, RMOs may submit only isolated and de minimis amounts of
agency orders that cannot be segregated from Retail Orders due to
systems limitations.\14\ Furthermore, as the Exchange noted, RMOs will
need to adequately document their compliance with the ``substantially
all'' standard in their books and records. Specifically, an RMO would
need to retain adequate documentation that substantially all orders
sent to the Exchange as Retail Orders met that definition, and that
those orders not meeting that definition are agency orders that cannot
be segregated from Retail Orders due to system limitations, and are de
minimis in terms of the overall number of Retail Orders sent to the
Exchange. The Commission also notes that the CBOE will, on behalf of
the Exchange, monitor an RMO's compliance with this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Commission notes that it approved the Program on a
pilot basis subject to ongoing Commission review.
\14\ While the Commission recognizes the potential benefit of
the commenter's suggestion concerning a bright-line definition of de
minimis, see supra note 10, the Commission believes that, in light
of the facts surrounding the instant proposal, the proposal, and the
guidance that the Exchange will provide to its members on this
point, are sufficiently clear. The Commission also notes that the
example the commenter cites is found in Regulation M, which governs
different circumstances than those at issue here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Commission finds that the Exchange has provided
adequate justification for the proposal. The Exchange represented that,
as several significant retail brokers explained to them, the current
``any order'' standard is effectively prohibitive, given the brokers'
order flow aggregation and management systems. The Exchange further
represented that these retail brokers indicated their systems would
allow them to comply with the ``substantially all'' standard, as
proposed. By allowing these retail brokers to participate in the
Program, the proposal could bring the potential benefits of the
Program, including price improvement and increased transparency,\15\ to
the retail order flow that these brokers represent.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For a more detailed discussion of the Program's potential
benefits, see Program Approval Order, supra note 7.
\16\ The commenter also expressed concern that this proposal may
increase the burden upon the Exchange in monitoring compliance with
the Program. The Commission finds that any potential concerns raised
by this assertion, which is disputed by the Exchange, are outweighed
by the potential benefits of the proposal; namely, that the proposal
may allow more retail orders the opportunity to participate in the
Program and receive the attendant benefits of the Program. With
respect to the commenter's concern that members may be subject to
unfair discrimination in the approval and disqualification process
for participation in the Program, the Commission notes that it
previously found that the Program's provisions concerning the
certification, approval, and potential disqualification of RMOs not
inconsistent with the Act. See Program Approval Order, supra note 7,
at note 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BYX-2013-008) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13036 Filed 5-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P