Notice2023-00662
Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule To Modify Certain Connectivity and Port Fees
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 17, 2023
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2707-2729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00662]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-96632; File No. SR-PEARL-2022-62]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX
Pearl Options Fee Schedule To Modify Certain Connectivity and Port Fees
January 10, 2023.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 30, 2022, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Pearl Options
Fee Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to amend certain connectivity and
port fees.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at <a href="http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl">http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl</a> at MIAX
Pearl's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.
[[Page 2708]]
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 the Fee Schedule as follows: (1)
increase the fees for a 10 gigabit (``Gb'') ultra-low latency (``ULL'')
fiber connection for Members \3\ and non-Members; (2) amend the
calculation of fees for MIAX Express Network Full Service (``MEO'') \4\
Ports (Bulk and Single); and (3) amend the fees for Full Service MEO
Ports (Bulk and Single). The Exchange and its affiliate, Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'') operated 10Gb ULL
connectivity on a single shared network that provided access to both
exchanges via a single 10Gb ULL connection. The Exchange last increased
fees for 10Gb ULL connections from $9,300 to $10,000 per month on
January 1, 2021.\5\ At the same time, MIAX also increased its 10Gb ULL
connectivity fee from $9,300 to $10,000 per month.\6\ The Exchange and
MIAX shared a combined cost analysis in those filings due to the single
shared 10Gb ULL connectivity network for both exchanges. In those
filings, the Exchange and MIAX allocated a combined total of $17.9
million in expenses to providing 10Gb ULL connectivity.\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 Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
\4\ The term ``MEO Interface'' or ``MEO'' means a binary order
interface for certain order types as set forth in Rule 516 into the
MIAX Pearl System. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule
and Exchange Rule 100.
\5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90981 (January 25,
2021), 86 FR 7582 (January 29, 2021) (SR-PEARL-2021-01).
\6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90980 (January 25,
2021), 86 FR 7602 (January 29, 2021) (SR-MIAX-2021-02).
\7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in late January 2023, the Exchange also recently
determined a substantial operational need to no longer operate 10Gb ULL
connectivity on a single shared network with MIAX. The Exchange is
bifurcating 10Gb ULL connectivity due to ever-increasing capacity
constraints and to enable it to continue to satisfy the anticipated
access needs for Members and other market participants.\8\ Since the
time of 2021 increase discussed above, the Exchange experienced ongoing
increases in expenses, particularly internal expenses.\9\ As discussed
more fully below, the Exchange recently calculated increased annual
aggregate costs of $11,567,509 for providing 10Gb ULL connectivity on a
single unshared network (an overall increase over its prior cost to
provide 10Gb ULL connectivity on a shared network with MIAX) and
$1,644,132 for providing Full Service MEO Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See MIAX Options and MIAX Pearl Options--Announce planned
network changes related to shared 10G ULL extranet, issued August
12, 2022, available at <a href="https://www.miaxoptions.com/alerts/2022/08/12/miax-options-and-miax-pearl-options-announce-planned-network-changes-related-0">https://www.miaxoptions.com/alerts/2022/08/12/miax-options-and-miax-pearl-options-announce-planned-network-changes-related-0</a>. The Exchange will continue to provide access to
both the Exchange and MIAX over a single shared 1Gb connection. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 96553 (December 20, 2022), 87
FR 79379 (December 27, 2022) (SR-PEARL-2022-60); 96545 (December 20,
2022) 87 FR 79393 (December 27, 2022) (SR-MIAX-2022-48).
\9\ The Exchange notes it last filed to amend the fees for Full
Service MEO Ports in 2018 (excluding filings made in July 2021
through early 2022), prior to which the Exchange provided Full
Service MEO Ports free of charge since the it launched operations in
2017 and absorbed all costs since that time. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 82867 (March 13, 2018), 83 FR 12044 (March 19, 2018)
(SR-PEARL-2018-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the cost relates to monitoring and analysis of data and
performance of the network via the subscriber's connection with
nanosecond granularity, and continuous improvements in network
performance with the goal of improving the subscriber's experience. The
costs associated with maintaining and enhancing a state-of-the-art
network is a significant expense for the Exchange, and thus the
Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to help offset
those increased costs by amending fees for connectivity services.
Subscribers expect the Exchange to provide this level of support so
they continue to receive the performance they expect. This
differentiates the Exchange from its competitors.
The Exchange now proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to amend the
fees for 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk and
Single) in order to recoup cost related to bifurcating 10Gb
connectivity to the Exchange and MIAX as well as the ongoing costs and
increase in expenses set forth below in the Exchange's cost
analysis.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Exchange notes that MIAX will make a similar filing to
increase its 10Gb ULL connectivity fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Starting in 2017, following the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia's Susquehanna Decision \11\ and various other
developments, the Commission began to undertake a heightened review of
exchange filings, including non-transaction fee filings that was
substantially and materially different from it prior review process
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Revised Review Process''). In the
Susquehanna Decision, the D.C. Circuit Court stated that the Commission
could not maintain a practice of ``unquestioning reliance'' on claims
made by a self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') in the course of
filing a rule or fee change with the Commission.\12\ Then, on October
16, 2018, the Commission issued an opinion in Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association finding that exchanges failed both to
establish that the challenged fees were constrained by significant
competitive forces and that these fees were consistent with the
Act.\13\ On that same day, the Commission issued an order remanding to
various exchanges and national market system (``NMS'') plans challenges
to over 400 rule changes and plan amendments that were asserted in 57
applications for review (the ``Remand Order'').\14\ The Remand Order
directed the exchanges to ``develop a record,'' and to ``explain their
conclusions, based on that record, in a written decision that is
sufficient to enable us to perform our review.'' \15\ The Commission
denied requests by various exchanges and plan participants for
reconsideration of the Remand Order.\16\ However, the Commission did
extend the deadlines in the Remand Order ``so that they d[id] not begin
to run until the resolution of the appeal of the SIFMA Decision in the
D.C. Circuit and the issuance of the
[[Page 2709]]
court's mandate.'' \17\ Both the Remand Order and the Order Denying
Reconsideration were appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Susquehanna International Group, LLP v. Securities &
Exchange Commission, 866 F.3d 442 (D.C. Circuit 2017) (the
``Susquehanna Decision'').
\12\ Id.
\13\ See Sec. Indus. & Fin. Mkts. Ass'n, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 84432, 2018 WL 5023228 (October 16, 2018) (the ``SIFMA
Decision'').
\14\ See Sec. Indus. & Fin. Mkts. Ass'n, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 84433, 2018 WL 5023230 (Oct. 16, 2018). See 15 U.S.C.
78k-1, 78s; see also Rule 608(d) of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.608(d) (asserted as an alternative basis of jurisdiction in some
applications).
\15\ Id. at page 2.
\16\ Sec. Indus. & Fin. Mkts. Ass'n, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 85802, 2019 WL 2022819 (May 7, 2019) (the ``Order
Denying Reconsideration'').
\17\ Order Denying Reconsideration, 2019 WL 2022819, at *13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the above appeal to the D.C. Circuit was pending, on March
29, 2019, the Commission issued an order disapproving a proposed fee
change by BOX Exchange LLC (``BOX'') to establish connectivity fees
(the ``BOX Order''), which significantly increased the level of
information needed for the Commission to believe that an exchange's
filing satisfied its obligations under the Act with respect to changing
a fee.\18\ Despite approving hundreds of access fee filings in the
years prior to the BOX Order (described further below) utilizing a
``market-based'' test, the Commission changed course and disapproved
BOX's proposal to begin charging connectivity at one-fourth the rate of
competing exchanges' pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85459 (March 29,
2019), 84 FR 13363 (April 4, 2019) (SR-BOX-2018-24, SR-BOX-2018-37,
and SR-BOX-2019-04) (Order Disapproving Proposed Rule Changes to
Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC Options Facility to
Establish BOX Connectivity Fees for Participants and Non-
Participants Who Connect to the BOX Network). The Commission noted
in the BOX Order that it ``historically applied a `market-based'
test in its assessment of market data fees, which [the Commission]
believe[s] present similar issues as the connectivity fees proposed
herein.'' Id. at page 16. Despite this admission, the Commission
disapproved BOX's proposal to begin charging $5,000 per month for
10Gb connections (while allowing legacy exchanges to charge rates
equal to 3-4 times that amount utilizing ``market-based'' fee
filings from years prior).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also while the above appeal was pending, on May 21, 2019, the
Commission Staff issued guidance ``to assist the national securities
exchanges and FINRA . . . in preparing Fee Filings that meet their
burden to demonstrate that proposed fees are consistent with the
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act.'' \19\ In the Staff
Guidance, the Commission Staff states that, ``[a]s an initial step in
assessing the reasonableness of a fee, staff considers whether the fee
is constrained by significant competitive forces.'' \20\ The Staff
Guidance also states that, ``. . . even where an SRO cannot
demonstrate, or does not assert, that significant competitive forces
constrain the fee at issue, a cost-based discussion may be an
alternative basis upon which to show consistency with the Exchange
Act.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Staff Guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees
(May 21, 2019), available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rule-filings-fees">https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rule-filings-fees</a> (the ``Staff Guidance'').
\20\ Id.
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the BOX Order and Staff Guidance, on August 6, 2020, the
D.C. Circuit vacated the Commission's SIFMA Decision in NASDAQ Stock
Market, LLC v. SEC \22\ and remanded for further proceedings consistent
with its opinion.\23\ That same day, the D.C. Circuit issued an order
remanding the Remand Order to the Commission for reconsideration in
light of NASDAQ. The court noted that the Remand Order required the
exchanges and NMS plan participants to consider the challenges that the
Commission had remanded in light of the SIFMA Decision. The D.C.
Circuit concluded that because the SIFMA Decision ``has now been
vacated, the basis for the [Remand Order] has evaporated.'' \24\
Accordingly, on August 7, 2020, the Commission vacated the Remand Order
and ordered the parties to file briefs addressing whether the holding
in NASDAQ v. SEC that Exchange Act Section 19(d) does not permit
challenges to generally applicable fee rules requiring dismissal of the
challenges the Commission previously remanded.\25\ The Commission
further invited ``the parties to submit briefing stating whether the
challenges asserted in the applications for review . . . should be
dismissed, and specifically identifying any challenge that they contend
should not be dismissed pursuant to the holding of Nasdaq v. SEC.''
\26\ Without resolving the above issues, on October 5, 2020, the
Commission issued an order granting SIFMA and Bloomberg's request to
withdraw their applications for review and dismissed the
proceedings.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ NASDAQ Stock Mkt., LLC v. SEC, No 18-1324, --- Fed. App'x -
---, 2020 WL 3406123 (D.C. Cir. June 5, 2020). The court's mandate
was issued on August 6, 2020.
\23\ Nasdaq v. SEC, 961 F.3d 421, at 424, 431 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
The court's mandate issued on August 6, 2020. The D.C. Circuit held
that Exchange Act ``Section 19(d) is not available as a means to
challenge the reasonableness of generally-applicable fee rules.''
Id. The court held that ``for a fee rule to be challengeable under
Section 19(d), it must, at a minimum, be targeted at specific
individuals or entities.'' Id. Thus, the court held that ``Section
19(d) is not an available means to challenge the fees at issue'' in
the SIFMA Decision. Id.
\24\ Id. at *2; see also id. (``[T]he sole purpose of the
challenged remand has disappeared.'').
\25\ Sec. Indus. & Fin. Mkts. Ass'n, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 89504, 2020 WL 4569089 (August 7, 2020) (the ``Order
Vacating Prior Order and Requesting Additional Briefs'').
\26\ Id.
\27\ Sec. Indus. & Fin. Mkts. Ass'n, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 90087 (October 5, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the Commission's loss of the NASDAQ vs. SEC case
noted above, the Commission never followed through with its intention
to subject the over 400 fee filings to ``develop a record,'' and to
``explain their conclusions, based on that record, in a written
decision that is sufficient to enable us to perform our review.'' \28\
As such, all of those fees remained in place and amounted to a baseline
set of fees for those exchanges that had the benefit of getting their
fees in place before the Commission Staff's fee review process
materially changed. The net result of this history and lack of
resolution in the D.C. Circuit Court resulted in an uneven competitive
landscape where the Commission subjects all new non-transaction fee
filings, particularly those submitted by new exchanges, to the new
Revised Review Process, while allowing the previously challenged fee
filings, mostly submitted by incumbent exchanges prior to 2019, to
remain in effect and not subject to the ``record'' or ``review''
earlier intended by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See supra note 14, at page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Exchange appreciates that the Staff Guidance articulates
an important policy goal of improving disclosures and requiring
exchanges to justify that their market data and access fee proposals
are fair and reasonable, the practical effect of the Revised Review
Process, Staff Guidance, and the Commission's related practice of
continuous suspension of new fee filings, is anti-competitive,
discriminatory, and has put in place an un-level playing field, which
has negatively impacted smaller, nascent, non-legacy exchanges (``non-
legacy exchanges''), while favoring larger, incumbent, entrenched,
legacy exchanges (``legacy exchanges'').\29\ The legacy exchanges all
established a significantly higher baseline for access and market data
fees prior to the Revised Review Process. From 2011 until the issuance
of the Staff Guidance in 2019, national securities exchanges filed, and
the Commission Staff did not abrogate or suspend (allowing such fees to
become effective), at least 92 filings \30\
[[Page 2710]]
to amend exchange connectivity or port fees (or similar access fees).
The support for each of those filings was a simple statement by the
relevant exchange that the fees were constrained by competitive
forces.\31\ These fees remain in effect today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Commission Chair Gary Gensler recently reiterated the
Commission's mandate to ensure competition in the equities markets.
See ``Statement on Minimum Price Increments, Access Fee Caps, Round
Lots, and Odd-Lots'', by Chair Gary Gensler, dated December 14, 2022
(stating ``[i]n 1975, Congress tasked the Securities and Exchange
Commission with responsibility to facilitate the establishment of
the national market system and enhance competition in the securities
markets, including the equity markets'' (emphasis added)). In that
same statement, Chair Gary Gensler cited the five objectives laid
out by Congress in 11A of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78k-1),
including ensuring ``fair competition among brokers and dealers,
among exchange markets, and between exchange markets and markets
other than exchange markets. . . .'' (emphasis added). Id. at note
1. See also Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, available at <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/94/s249">https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/94/s249</a>.
\30\ This timeframe also includes challenges to over 400 rule
filings by SIFMA and Bloomberg discussed above. Sec. Indus. & Fin.
Mkts. Ass'n, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84433, 2018 WL
5023230 (Oct. 16, 2018). Those filings were left to stand, while at
the same time, blocking newer exchanges from the ability to
establish competitive access and market data fees. See The Nasdaq
Stock Market, LLC v. SEC, Case No. 18-1292 (D.C. Cir. June 5, 2020).
The expectation at the time of the litigation was that the 400 rule
flings challenged by SIFMA and Bloomberg would need to be justified
under revised review standards.
\31\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74417
(March 3, 2015), 80 FR 12534 (March 9, 2015) (SR-ISE-2015-06); 83016
(April 9, 2018), 83 FR 16157 (April 13, 2018) (SR-PHLX-2018-26);
70285 (August 29, 2013), 78 FR 54697 (September 5, 2013) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2013-71); 76373 (November 5, 2015), 80 FR 70024 (November
12, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-90); 79729 (January 4, 2017), 82 FR 3061
(January 10, 2017) (SR-NYSEARCA-2016-172).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The net result is that the non-legacy exchanges are effectively now
blocked by the Commission Staff from adopting or increasing fees to
amounts comparable to the legacy exchanges (which were not subject to
the Revised Review Process and Staff Guidance), despite providing
enhanced disclosures and rationale to support their proposed fee
changes that far exceed any such support provided by legacy exchanges.
Simply put, legacy exchanges were able to increase their non-
transaction fees during an extended period in which the Commission
applied a ``market-based'' test that only relied upon the assumed
presence of significant competitive forces, while exchanges today are
subject to a cost-based test requiring extensive cost and revenue
disclosures, a process that is complex, inconsistently applied, and
rarely results in a successful outcome, i.e., non-suspension. The
Revised Review Process and Staff Guidance changed decades-long
Commission Staff standards for review, resulting in unfair
discrimination and placing an undue burden on inter-market competition
between legacy exchanges and non-legacy exchanges.
Commission Staff now require exchange filings, including from non-
legacy exchanges such as MIAX Pearl, to provide detailed cost-based
analysis in place of competition-based arguments to support such
changes. However, even with the added detailed cost and expense
disclosures, the Commission Staff continues to either suspend such
filings and institute disapproval proceedings, or put the exchanges in
the unenviable position of having to repeatedly withdraw and re-file
with additional detail in order to continue to charge those fees.\32\
By impeding any path forward for non-legacy exchanges to establish
commensurate non-transaction fees, or by failing to provide any
alternative means for smaller markets to establish ``fee parity'' with
legacy exchanges, the Commission is stifling competition: non-legacy
exchanges are, in effect, being deprived of the revenue necessary to
compete on a level playing field with legacy exchanges. This is
particularly harmful, given that the costs to maintain exchange systems
and operations continue to increase. The Commission Staff's change in
position impedes the ability of non-legacy exchanges to raise revenue
to invest in their systems to compete with the legacy exchanges who
already enjoy disproportionate non-transaction fee based revenue. For
example, the Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') reported ``access and
capacity fee'' revenue of $70,893,000 for 2020 \33\ and $80,383,000 for
2021.\34\ Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2'') reported ``access and
capacity fee'' revenue of $19,016,000 for 2020 \35\ and $22,843,000 for
2021.\36\ Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') reported ``access and
capacity fee'' revenue of $38,387,000 for 2020 \37\ and $44,800,000 for
2021.\38\ Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') reported ``access and
capacity fee'' revenue of $26,126,000 for 2020 \39\ and $30,687,000 for
2021.\40\ For 2021, the affiliated Cboe, C2, BZX, and EDGX (the four
largest exchanges of the Cboe exchange group) reported $178,712,000 in
``access and capacity fees'' in 2021. NASDAQ Phlx, LLC (``NASDAQ
Phlx'') reported ``Trade Management Services'' revenue of $20,817,000
for 2019.\41\ The Exchange notes it is unable to compare ``access fee''
revenues with NASDAQ Phlx (or other affiliated NASDAQ exchanges)
because after 2019, the ``Trade Management Services'' line item was
bundled into a much larger line item in PHLX's Form 1, simply titled
``Market services.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The Exchange has filed, and subsequently withdrew, various
forms of this proposed fee change numerous times since August 2021
with each proposal containing hundreds of cost and revenue
disclosures never previously disclosed by legacy exchanges in their
access and market data fee filings prior to 2019.
\33\ According to Cboe's 2021 Form 1 Amendment, access and
capacity fees represent fees assessed for the opportunity to trade,
including fees for trading-related functionality. See Cboe 2021 Form
1 Amendment, available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000465.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000465.pdf</a>.
\34\ See Cboe 2022 Form 1 Amendment, available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2200/22001155.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2200/22001155.pdf</a>.
\35\ See C2 2021 Form 1 Amendment, available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000469.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000469.pdf</a>.
\36\ See C2 2022 Form 1 Amendment, available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2200/22001156.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2200/22001156.pdf</a>.
\37\ See BZX 2021 Form 1 Amendment, available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000465.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000465.pdf</a>.
\38\ See BZX 2022 Form 1 Amendment, available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2200/22001152.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2200/22001152.pdf</a>.
\39\ See EDGX 2021 Form 1 Amendment, available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000467.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000467.pdf</a>.
\40\ See EDGX 2022 Form 1 Amendment, available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2200/22001154.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2200/22001154.pdf</a>.
\41\ According to PHLX, ``Trade Management Services'' includes
``a wide variety of alternatives for connectivity to and accessing
[the PHLX] markets for a fee. These participants are charged monthly
fees for connectivity and support in accordance with [PHLX's]
published fee schedules.'' See PHLX 2020 Form 1 Amendment, available
at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2001/20012246.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2001/20012246.pdf</a>.
\42\ See PHLX Form 1 Amendment, available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000475.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000475.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The much higher non-transaction fees charged by the legacy
exchanges provides them with two significant competitive advantages.
First, legacy exchanges are able to use their additional non-
transaction revenue for investments in infrastructure, vast marketing
and advertising on major media outlets,\43\ new products and other
innovations. Second, higher non-transaction fees provide the legacy
exchanges with greater flexibility to lower their transaction fees (or
use the revenue from the higher non-transaction fees to subsidize
transaction fee rates), which are more immediately impactful in
competition for order flow and market share, given the variable nature
of this cost on member firms. The prohibition of a reasonable path
forward denies the Exchange (and other non-legacy exchanges) this
flexibility, eliminates the ability to remain competitive on
transaction fees, and hinders the ability to compete for order flow and
market share with legacy exchanges. While one could debate whether the
pricing of non-transaction fees are subject to the same market forces
as transaction fees, there is little doubt that subjecting one exchange
to a materially different standard than that historically applied to
legacy exchanges for non-transaction fees leaves that exchange at a
disadvantage in its ability to compete with its pricing of transaction
fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See, e.g., CNBC Debuts New Set on NYSE Floor, available at
<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/id/46517876">https://www.cnbc.com/id/46517876</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Commission has clearly noted that the Staff Guidance is
merely guidance and ``is not a rule, regulation or statement of the . .
. Commission . . . the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved
its
[[Page 2711]]
content. . .'',\44\ this is not the reality experienced by exchanges
such as MIAX Pearl. As such, non-legacy exchanges are forced to rely on
an opaque cost-based justification standard. However, because the Staff
Guidance is devoid of detail on what must be contained in cost-based
justification, this standard is nearly impossible to meet despite good-
faith efforts by the Exchange to provide substantial amount of cost-
related details. The Exchange has attempted to increase fees using a
cost-based justification numerous times, having submitted over six
filings.\45\ However, despite providing 100+ page filings describing in
extensive detail its costs associated with providing the services
described in the filings, Commission Staff continues to suspend such
filings, with the rationale that the Exchange has not provided
sufficient detail of its costs. The Commission Staff appears to be
interpreting the reasonableness standard set forth in Section 6(b)(4)
of the Act \46\ in a manner that is not possible to achieve. This
essentially nullifies the cost-based approach for exchanges as a
legitimate alternative as laid out in the Staff Guidance. By refusing
to accept a reasonable cost-based argument to justify non-transaction
fees (in addition to refusing to accept a competition-based argument as
described above), or by failing to provide the detail required to
achieve that standard, the Commission Staff is effectively preventing
non-legacy exchanges from making any non-transaction fee changes, which
benefits the legacy exchanges and anticompetitive to the non-legacy
exchanges. This does not meet the fairness standard under the Act and
is discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See supra note 19, at note 1.
\45\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 92798 (August 27,
2021), 86 FR 49360 (September 2, 2021) (SR-PEARL-2021-33); 92644
(August 11, 2021), 86 FR 46055 (August 17, 2021) (SR-PEARL-2021-36);
93162 (September 28, 2021), 86 FR 54739 (October 4, 2021) (SR-PEARL-
2021-45); 93556 (November 10, 2021), 86 FR 64235 (November 17, 2021)
(SR-PEARL-2021-53); 93774 (December 14, 2021), 86 FR 71952 (December
20, 2021) (SR-PEARL-2021-57); 93894 (January 4, 2022), 87 FR 1203
(January 10, 2022) (SR-PEARL-2021-58); 94258 (February 15, 2022), 87
FR 9659 (February 22, 2022) (SR-PEARL-2022-03); 94286 (February 18,
2022), 87 FR 10860 (February 25, 2022) (SR-PEARL-2022-04); 94721
(April 14, 2022), 87 FR 23573 (April 20, 2022) (SR-PEARL-2022-11);
94722 (April 14, 2022), 87 FR 23660 (April 20, 2022) (SR-PEARL-2022-
12); 94888 (May 11, 2022), 87 FR 29892 (May 17, 2022) (SR-PEARL-
2022-18).
\46\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the un-level playing field created by the Revised Review
Process and Staff Guidance, the Exchange believes that the Commission
Staff, at this point, should either (a) provide sufficient clarity on
how its cost-based standard can be met, including a clear and
exhaustive articulation of required data and its views on acceptable
margins,\47\ to the extent that this is pertinent; (b) establish a
framework to provide for commensurate non-transaction based fees among
competing exchanges to ensure fee parity; \48\ or (c) accept that
certain competition-based arguments are applicable given the linkage
between non-transaction fees and transaction fees, especially where
non-transaction fees among exchanges are based upon disparate standards
of review, lack parity, and impede fair competition. Considering the
absence of any such framework or clarity, the Exchange believes that
the Commission does not have a reasonable basis to deny the Exchange
this change in fees, where the proposed change would result in fees
meaningfully lower than comparable fees at competing exchanges and
where the associated non-transaction revenue is meaningfully lower than
competing exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ To the extent that the cost-based standard includes
Commission Staff making determinations as to the appropriateness of
certain profit margins, the Exchange believes that Staff should be
clear as to what they determine is an appropriate profit margin.
\48\ In light of the arguments above regarding disparate
standards of review for historical legacy non-transaction fees and
current non-transaction fees for non-legacy exchanges, a fee parity
alternative would be one possible way to avoid the current unfair
and discriminatory effect of the Staff Guidance and Revised Review
Process. See, e.g., CSA Staff Consultation Paper 21-401, Real-Time
Market Data Fees, available at <a href="https://www.bcsc.bc.ca/-/media/PWS/Resources/Securities_Law/Policies/Policy2/21401_Market_Data_Fee_CSA_Staff_Consulation_Paper.pdf">https://www.bcsc.bc.ca/-/media/PWS/Resources/Securities_Law/Policies/Policy2/21401_Market_Data_Fee_CSA_Staff_Consulation_Paper.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the above, disapproval of this would not meet the
fairness standard under the Act, would be discriminatory and place a
substantial burden on competition. The Exchange would be uniquely
disadvantaged by not being able to increase its access fees to
comparable levels (or lower levels than current market rates) to those
of other options exchanges for connectivity. If the Commission Staff
were to disapprove this proposal, that action, and not market forces,
would substantially affect whether the Exchange can be successful in
its competition with other options exchanges. Disapproval of this
filing could also be viewed as an arbitrary and capricious decision
should the Commission Staff continue to ignore its past treatment of
non-transaction fee filings before implementation of the Revised Review
Process and Staff Guidance and refuse to allow such filings to be
approved despite significantly enhanced arguments and cost
disclosures.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ The Exchange's costs have clearly increased and continue to
increase, particularly regarding capital expenditures, as well as
employee benefits provided by third parties (e.g., healthcare and
insurance). Yet, practically no fee change proposed by the Exchange
to cover its ever increasing costs has been acceptable to the
Commission Staff since 2021. The only other fair and reasonable
alternative would be to require the numerous fee filings
unquestioningly approved before the Staff Guidance and Revised
Review Process to ``develop a record,'' and to ``explain their
conclusions, based on that record, in a written decision that is
sufficient to enable us to perform our review,'' and to ensure a
comparable review process with the Exchange's filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, the Exchange notes that the Commission Staff has allowed
similar fee increases by other exchanges to remain in effect by
publishing those filings for comment and allowing the exchange to
withdraw and re-file numerous times.\50\ Recently, the Commission Staff
has not afforded the Exchange the same flexibility.\51\ This again is
evidence that the Commission Staff is not treating non-transaction fee
filings in a consistent manner and is holding exchanges to different
levels of scrutiny in reviewing filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 93937
(January 10, 2022), 87 FR 2466 (January 14, 2022) (SR-MEMX-2021-22);
94419 (March 15, 2022), 87 FR 16046 (March 21, 2022) (SR-MEMX-2022-
02); SR-MEMX-2022-12 (withdrawn before being noticed); 94924 (May
16, 2022), 87 FR 31026 (May 20, 2022) (SR-MEMX-2022-13); 95299 (July
15, 2022), 87 FR 43563 (July 21, 2022) (SR-MEMX-2022-17); SR-MEMX-
2022-24 (withdrawn before being noticed); 95936 (September 27,
2022), 87 FR 59845 (October 3, 2022) (SR-MEMX-2022-26); 94901 (May
12, 2022), 87 FR 30305 (May 18, 2022) (SR-MRX-2022-04); SR-MRX-2022-
06 (withdrawn before being noticed); 95262 (July 12, 2022), 87 FR
42780 (July 18, 2022) (SR-MRX-2022-09); 95710 (September 8, 2022),
87 FR 56464 (September 14, 2022) (SR-MRX-2022-12); 96046 (October
12, 2022), 87 FR 63119 (October 18, 2022) (SR-MRX-2022-20); 95936
(September 27, 2022), 87 FR 59845 (October 3, 2022) (SR-MEMX-2022-
26); and 96430 (December 1, 2022), 87 FR 75083 (December 7, 2022)
(SR-MEMX-2022-32).
\51\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 94721 (April 14,
2022), 87 FR 23573 (April 20, 2022) (SR-PEARL-2022-11) and 94722
(April 14, 2022), 87 FR 23660 (April 20, 2022) (SR-PEARL-2022-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
10Gb ULL Connectivity Fee Change
The Exchange recently filed a proposal to no longer operate 10Gb
connectivity to the Exchange on a single shared network with its
affiliate, MIAX. This change is an operational necessity due to ever-
increasing capacity constraints and to accommodate anticipated access
needs for Members and other market participants.\52\ This proposal: (i)
sets forth the applicable fees for the bifurcated 10Gb ULL network; and
(ii) removes provisions in the Fee Schedule that provides for a shared
10Gb ULL network; and (iii)
[[Page 2712]]
specifies that market participants may continue to connect to both the
Exchange and MIAX via the 1Gb network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange plans to bifurcate the Exchange and MIAX 10Gb ULL
networks in the first quarter of 2023, currently anticipated to be
effective on January 23, 2023. The Exchange issued an alert on August
12, 2022 publicly announcing the planned network change and
implementation plan and dates to provide market participants adequate
time to prepare.\53\ Upon bifurcation of the 10Gb ULL network,
subscribers would need to purchase separate connections to the Exchange
and MIAX at the applicable rate. The Exchange's proposed amended rate
for 10Gb ULL connectivity is described below. Until the 10Gb ULL
network is bifurcated, subscribers to 10Gb ULL connectivity would be
able to connect to both the Exchange and MIAX at the applicable rate
set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange, therefore, proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to
increase the fees for Members and non-Members to access the Exchange's
system networks \54\ via a 10Gb ULL fiber connection and to specify
that this fee is for a dedicated connection to the Exchange and no
longer provides access to MIAX. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
amend Sections (5)(a)-(b) of the Fee Schedule to increase the 10Gb ULL
connectivity fee for Members and non-Members from $10,000 per month to
$13,500 per month (``10Gb ULL Fee'').\55\ The Exchange also proposes to
amend the Fee Schedule to reflect the bifurcation of the 10Gb ULL
network and specify that only the 1Gb network provides access to both
the Exchange and MIAX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ The Exchange's system networks consist of the Exchange's
extranet, internal network, and external network.
\55\ Market participants that purchase additional 10Gb ULL
connections as a result of this change will not be subject to the
Exchange's Member Network Connectivity Testing and Certification Fee
under Section (4)(c) of the Exchange's fee schedule. See Section
(4)(c) of the Exchange's fee schedule available at <a href="https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_10192022.pdf">https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_10192022.pdf</a> (providing that ``Network
Connectivity Testing and Certification Fees will not be assessed in
situations where the Exchange initiates a mandatory change to the
Exchange's system that requires testing and certification. Member
Network Connectivity Testing and Certification Fees will not be
assessed for testing and certification of connectivity to the
Exchange's Disaster Recovery Facility.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to reflect the
bifurcated 10Gb ULL network for the Exchange and MIAX. First, in the
Definitions section of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange proposes to amend
the last sentence in the definition of ``MENI'' to specify that the
MENI can be configured to provide network connectivity to the trading
platforms, market data systems, test systems, and disaster recovery
facilities of the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX, via a single, shared 1Gb
connection. Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the explanatory
paragraphs below the network connectivity fee tables in Sections
(5)(a)-(b) of the Fee Schedule to specify that, with the bifurcated
10Gb ULL network, Members (and non-Members) utilizing the MENI to
connect to the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems,
and disaster recovery facilities of the Exchange and MIAX via a single,
can only do so via a shared 1Gb connection.
The Exchange will continue to assess monthly Member and non-Member
network connectivity fees for connectivity to the primary and secondary
facilities in any month the Member or non-Member is credentialed to use
any of the Exchange APIs or market data feeds in the production
environment. The Exchange will continue to pro-rate the fees when a
Member or non-Member makes a change to the connectivity (by adding or
deleting connections) with such pro-rated fees based on the number of
trading days that the Member or non-Member has been credentialed to
utilize any of the Exchange APIs or market data feeds in the production
environment through such connection, divided by the total number of
trading days in such month multiplied by the applicable monthly rate.
Implementation of 10Gb ULL Fee. The proposed 10Gb ULL fee will be
effective January 1, 2023. From January 1, 2023 until January 22, 2023,
subscribers to 10Gb ULL connectivity will continue to receive access to
both the Exchange and MIAX via a single 10Gb ULL connection. Upon
bifurcation of the 10Gb ULL network on January 23, 2023, subscribers
that elect to continue to access both the Exchange and MIAX via a 10Gb
ULL connection will need to purchase separate 10Gb ULL connections from
each exchange. Existing subscribers of 10Gb ULL connections on the
Exchange that also purchase a new 10Gb ULL connection to access MIAX
would pay a pro-rated portion of the monthly fee for the added
connection for the remainder of the month.
Full Service MEO Ports--Bulk and Single
Background
The Exchange also proposes to amend Section (5)(d) of the Fee
Schedule to amend the calculation and amount of fees for Full Service
MEO Ports. The Exchange currently offers different types of MEO Ports
depending on the services required by the Member, including a Full
Service MEO Port-Bulk,\56\ a Full Service MEO Port-Single,\57\ and a
Limited Service MEO Port.\58\ For one monthly price, a Member may be
allocated two (2) Full-Service MEO Ports of either type per matching
engine \59\ and may request Limited Service MEO Ports for which MIAX
Pearl will assess Members Limited Service MEO Port fees based on a
sliding scale for the number of Limited Service MEO Ports utilized each
month. The two (2) Full-Service MEO Ports that may be allocated per
matching engine to a Member may consist of: (a) two (2) Full Service
MEO Ports--Bulk; (b) two (2) Full Service MEO Ports--Single; or (c) one
(1) Full Service MEO Port--Bulk and one (1) Full Service MEO Port--
Single.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ ``Full Service MEO Port--Bulk'' means an MEO port that
supports all MEO input message types and binary bulk order entry.
See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
\57\ ``Full Service MEO Port--Single'' means an MEO port that
supports all MEO input message types and binary order entry on a
single order-by-order basis, but not bulk orders. See the
Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
\58\ ``Limited Service MEO Port'' means an MEO port that
supports all MEO input message types, but does not support bulk
order entry and only supports limited order types, as specified by
the Exchange via Regulatory Circular. See the Definitions Section of
the Fee Schedule.
\59\ A ``Matching Engine'' is a part of the Exchange's
electronic system that processes options orders and trades on a
symbol-by-symbol basis. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the Exchange assesses Members Full Service MEO Port
Fees, either for a Full Service MEO Port--Bulk and/or for a Full
Service MEO Port--Single, based upon the monthly total volume executed
by a Member and its Affiliates \60\ on the Exchange, across all origin
types, not including Excluded Contracts,\61\ as compared to the Total
Consolidated Volume (``TCV''),\62\ in all
[[Page 2713]]
MIAX Pearl-listed options. The Exchange adopted a tier-based fee
structure based upon the volume-based tiers detailed in the definition
of ``Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers'' described in the
Definitions section of the Fee Schedule. The Exchange assesses these
and other monthly Port fees to Members in each month the market
participant is credentialed to use a Port in the production
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ ``Affiliate'' means (i) an affiliate of a Member of at
least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each
firm's Form BD, Schedule A, or (ii) the Appointed Market Maker of an
Appointed EEM (or, conversely, the Appointed EEM of an Appointed
Market Maker). See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
\61\ ``Excluded Contracts'' means any contracts routed to an
away market for execution. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
\62\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
total national volume in those classes listed on MIAX Pearl for the
month for which the fees apply, excluding consolidated volume
executed during the period of time in which the Exchange experiences
an Exchange System Disruption (solely in the option classes of the
affected Matching Engine). See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) Fee Changes
Current Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) Fees. The Exchange currently
assesses all Members (Market Makers \63\ and Electronic Exchange
Members \64\ (``EEMs'')) monthly Full Service MEO Port--Bulk fees as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The term ``Market Maker'' means a Member registered with
the Exchange for the purpose of making markets in options contracts
traded on the Exchange and that is vested with the rights and
responsibilities specified in Chapter VI of Exchange Rules. See the
Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
\64\ The term ``Electronic Exchange Member'' or ``EEM'' means
the holder of a Trading Permit who is a Member representing as agent
Public Customer Orders or Non-Customer Orders on the Exchange and
those non-Market Maker Members conducting proprietary trading.
Electronic Exchange Members are deemed ``members'' under the
Exchange Act. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 1 of the Non-
Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume up to 0.30%, $3,000;
(ii) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 2 of the
Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.30% up to
0.60%, $4,500; and
(iii) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 3 of the
Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.60%, $5,000.
Proposed Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) Fees. The Exchange proposes
to amend the calculation and amount of Full Service MEO Port (Bulk)
fees for EEMs and Market Makers. In particular, for EEMs, the Exchange
proposes to move away from the above-described volume tier-based fee
structure and instead charge all EEMs that utilize Full Service MEO
Ports (Bulk) a flat monthly fee of $7,500. For this flat monthly fee,
EEMs will continue to be entitled to two (2) Full Service MEO Ports
(Bulk) for each Matching Engine for the single monthly fee of $7,500.
The Exchange now proposes to amend the calculation and amount of Full
Service MEO Port (Bulk) fees for Market Makers by moving away from the
above-described volume tier-based fee structure to harmonize the Full
Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee structure for Market Makers with that of
the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald.\65\ The Exchange
proposes that the amount of the monthly Full Service MEO Port (Bulk)
fees for Market Makers would be based on the lesser of either the per
class traded or percentage of total national average daily volume
(``ADV'') measurement based on classes traded by volume. The amount of
monthly Market Maker Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee would be based
upon the number of classes in which the Market Maker was registered to
quote on any given day within the calendar month, or upon the class
volume percentages. This change in how Full Service MEO Port (Bulk)
fees are calculated is identical to how the Exchange assesses Market
Makers Trading Permit fees, which is in line with how numerous
exchanges charge similar membership fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section (5)(d)(ii) and MIAX Emerald
Fee Schedule, Section (5)(d)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following Full
Service MEO Port (Bulk) fees for Market Makers: (i) $5,000 for Market
Maker registrations in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option
classes by national ADV; (ii) $7,500 for Market Maker registrations in
up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by ADV; (iii)
$10,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 100 option classes or
up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and (iv) $12,000 for Market Maker
registrations in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes
by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX Pearl. For example, if
Market Maker 1 elects to quote the top 40 option classes which consist
of 58% of the total national average daily volume in the prior calendar
quarter, the Exchange would assess $7,500 to Market Maker 1 for the
month which is the lesser of `up to 40 classes' and `over 50% of
classes by volume up to all classes listed on MIAX Pearl'. If Market
Maker 2 elects to quote the bottom 1000 option classes which consist of
10% of the total national average daily volume in the prior quarter,
the Exchange would assess $5,000 to Market Maker 2 for the month which
is the lesser of `over 100 classes' and `up to 20% of classes by
volume. The Exchange notes that the proposed tiers (ranging from $5,000
to $12,000) are lower than the tiers that the Exchange's affiliates
charge for their comparable ports (ranging from $5,000 to $20,500) for
similar per class tier thresholds.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the proposed changes, a Market Maker would be determined to be
registered in a class if that Market Maker has been registered in one
or more series in that class.\67\ The Exchange will assess MIAX Pearl
Market Makers the monthly Market Maker Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee
based on the greatest number of classes listed on MIAX Pearl that the
MIAX Pearl Market Maker registered to quote in on any given day within
a calendar month. Therefore, with the proposed changes to the
calculation of Market Maker Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fees, the
Exchange's Market Makers would be encouraged to quote in more series in
each class they are registered in because each additional series in
that class would not count against their total classes for purposes of
the Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee tiers. The class volume percentage
is based on the total national ADV in classes listed on MIAX Pearl in
the prior calendar quarter. Newly listed option classes are excluded
from the calculation of the monthly Market Maker Full Service MEO Port
(Bulk) fee until the calendar quarter following their listing, at which
time the newly listed option classes will be included in both the per
class count and the percentage of total national ADV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Pursuant to Exchange Rule 602(a), a Member that has
qualified as a Market Maker may register to make markets in
individual series of options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange also proposes to adopt an alternative lower Full
Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee for Market Makers who fall within the 2nd,
3rd and 4th levels of the proposed Market Maker Full Service MEO Port
(Bulk) fee table: (i) Market Maker registrations in up to 40 option
classes or up to 35% of option classes by volume; (ii) Market Maker
registrations in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option
classes by volume; and (iii) Market Maker registrations in over 100
option classes or over 50% of option classes by volume up to all option
classes listed on MIAX Pearl. In particular, the Exchange proposes to
adopt footnote ``**'' following the Market Maker Full Service MEO Port
(Bulk) fee table for these Monthly Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) tier
levels. New proposed footnote ``**'' will provide that if the Market
Maker's total monthly executed volume during the relevant month is less
than 0.040% of the total monthly TCV for MIAX Pearl-listed option
classes for that month, then the fee will be $6,000 instead of the fee
otherwise applicable to such level.
The purpose of the alternative lower fee designated in proposed
footnote ``**'' is to provide a lower fixed fee to
[[Page 2714]]
those Market Makers who are willing to quote the entire Exchange market
(or substantial amount of the Exchange market), as objectively measured
by either number of classes assigned or national ADV, but who do not
otherwise execute a significant amount of volume on the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that, by offering lower fixed fees to Market Makers
that execute less volume, the Exchange will retain and attract smaller-
scale Market Makers, which are an integral component of the option
marketplace, but have been decreasing in number in recent years, due to
industry consolidation. Since these smaller-scale Market Makers utilize
less Exchange capacity due to lower overall volume executed, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to offer such Market
Makers a lower fixed fee. The Exchange notes that the Exchange's
affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald, also provide lower MIAX Express
Interface (``MEI'') Port fees (the comparable ports on those exchanges)
for Market Makers who quote the entire MIAX and MIAX Emerald markets
(or substantial amount of those markets), as objectively measured by
either number of classes assigned or national ADV, but who do not
otherwise execute a significant amount of volume on MIAX or MIAX
Emerald.\68\ The proposed changes to the Full Service MEO Port (Bulk)
fees for Market Makers who fall within the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of
the fee table are based upon a business determination of current Market
Maker assignments and trading volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section (5)(d)(ii), note ``*'' and
MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule, Section (5)(d)(ii), note ````.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike other options exchanges that provide similar port
functionality and charge fees on a per port basis,\69\ the Exchange
offers Full Service MEO Ports as a package and provides Members with
the option to receive up to two Full Service MEO Ports (described
above) per matching engine to which that Member connects. The Exchange
currently has twelve (12) matching engines, which means Market Makers
may receive up to twenty-four (24) Full Service MEO Ports for a single
monthly fee, that can vary based on the lesser of either the per class
traded or percentage of total national ADV measurement based on classes
traded by volume, as described above. For illustrative purposes, the
Exchange currently assesses a fee of $5,000 per month for Market Makers
that reach the highest Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) tier, regardless of
the number of Full Service MEO Ports allocated to the Market Maker. For
example, assuming a Market Maker connects to all twelve (12) matching
engines during a month, with two Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk) per
matching engine, this results in an effective fee of $208.33 per Full
Service MEO Port ($5,000 divided by 24) for the month, as compared to
other exchanges that charge over $1,000 per port and require multiple
ports to connect to all of their matching engines.\70\ This fee had
been unchanged since the Exchange adopted Full Service MEO Port fees in
2018.\71\ The Exchange proposes to increase Full Service MEO Port fees,
with the highest monthly fee of $12,000 for the Full Service MEO Ports
(Bulk). Market Makers will continue to receive two (2) Full Service MEO
Ports to each matching engine to which they connect for the single flat
monthly fee. Assuming a Market Maker connects to all twelve (12)
matching engines during the month, with two Full Service MEO Ports per
matching engine, this would result in an effective fee of $500 per Full
Service MEO Port ($12,000 divided by 24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section V.A., Port
Fees (each port charged on a per matching engine basis, with NYSE
American having 17 match engines). See NYSE Technology FAQ and Best
Practices: Options, Section 5.1 (How many matching engines are used
by each exchange?) (September 2020) (providing a link to an Excel
file detailing the number of matching engines per options exchange);
NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule, Port Fees (each port charged on a
per matching engine basis, NYSE Arca having 19 match engines); and
NYSE Technology FAQ and Best Practices: Options, Section 5.1 (How
many matching engines are used by each exchange?) (September 2020)
(providing a link to an Excel file detailing the number of matching
engines per options exchange). See NASDAQ Fee Schedule, NASDAQ
Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 3, Nasdaq Options Market--Ports
and Other Services (each port charged on a per matching engine
basis, with Nasdaq having multiple matching engines). See NASDAQ
Specialized Quote Interface (SQF) Specification, Version 6.5b
(updated February 13, 2020), Section 2, Architecture, available at
<a href="https://www.nasdaq.com/docs/2020/02/18/Specialized-Quote-Interface-SQI-6.5b.pdf">https://www.nasdaq.com/docs/2020/02/18/Specialized-Quote-Interface-SQI-6.5b.pdf</a> (the ``NASDAQ SQF Interface Specification''). The
NASDAQ SQF Interface Specification also provides that NASDAQ's
affiliates, NASDAQ Phlx and NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX''), have trading
infrastructures that may consist of multiple matching engines with
each matching engine trading only a range of option classes.
Further, the NASDAQ SQF Interface Specification provides that the
SQF infrastructure is such that the firms connect to one or more
servers residing directly on the matching engine infrastructure.
Since there may be multiple matching engines, firms will need to
connect to each engine's infrastructure in order to establish the
ability to quote the symbols handled by that engine.
\70\ Id. See also infra notes 95 to 102 and accompanying text.
\71\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82867 (March 13,
2018), 83 FR 12044 (March 19, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-07).
Full Service MEO Ports
[Bulk]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of
ports for market
Number of match maker to connect Total fee Effective per
engines to all match (monthly) port fee
engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pricing Based on Market Maker Being Charged 12 24 $5,000 $208.33
the Highest Tier (Current).................
Pricing Based on Market Maker Being Charged 12 24 12,000 500
the Highest Tier (as proposed).............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Service MEO Port (Single) Fee Changes
Current Full Service MEO Port (Single) Fees. The Exchange currently
assesses all Members (Market Makers and EEMs) monthly Full Service MEO
Port (Single) fees as follows:
(i) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 1 of the Non-
Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume up to 0.30%, $2,000;
(ii) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 2 of the
Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.30% up to
0.60%, $3,375; and
(iii) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 3 of the
Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.60%, $3,750.
Proposed Full Service MEO Port (Single) Fees. The Exchange proposes
to
[[Page 2715]]
amend the calculation and amount of Full Service MEO Port (Single) fees
for EEMs and Market Makers. In particular, the Exchange proposes to
move away from the above-described volume tier-based fee structure and
instead charge all Members that utilize Full Service MEO Ports (Single)
a flat monthly fee of $4,000. For this flat monthly fee, all Members
will continue to be entitled to two (2) Full Service MEO Ports (Single)
for each Matching Engine for the single monthly fee of $4,000.
The Exchange offers various types of ports with differing prices
because each port accomplishes different tasks, are suited to different
types of Members, and consume varying capacity amounts of the network.
For instance, MEO ports allow for a higher throughput and can handle
much higher quote/order rates than FIX ports. Members that are Market
Makers or high frequency trading firms utilize these ports (typically
coupled with 10Gb ULL connectivity) because they transact in
significantly higher amounts of messages being sent to and from the
Exchange, versus FIX port users, who are traditionally customers
sending only orders to the Exchange (typically coupled with 1Gb
connectivity). The different types of ports cater to the different
types of Exchange Memberships and different capabilities of the various
Exchange Members. Certain Members need ports and connections that can
handle using far more of the network's capacity for message throughput,
risk protections, and the amount of information that the System has to
assess. Those Members account for the vast majority of network capacity
utilization and volume executed on the Exchange, as discussed
throughout. For example, three (3) Members account for 64% of all 10Gb
ULL connections and Full Service MEO Ports purchased.
The Exchange proposes to increase its monthly Full Service MEO Port
fees since it has not done so since the fees were adopted in 2018,\72\
which are designed to recover a portion of the costs associated with
directly accessing the Exchange. As described above, the Exchange's
affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald, also charge fees for their high
throughput, low latency ports in a similar fashion as the Exchange
proposes to charge for its MEO Ports--generally, the more active user
the Member (i.e., the greater number/greater national ADV of classes
assigned to quote on MIAX and MIAX Emerald), the higher the MEI Port
fee.\73\ This concept is, therefore, not new or novel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See id.
\73\ See Exchange Fee Schedule, Section (5)d)ii); MIAX Emerald
Fee Schedule, Section (5)(d)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation of Full Service MEO Port Fees. This proposed fee
change will be effective January 1, 2023.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \74\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \75\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among Members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange also believes the proposed
fees further the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \76\ in that
they are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general protect investors
and the public interest and are not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\75\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
\76\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that the information provided to justify the
proposed fees meets or exceeds the amount of detail required in respect
of proposed fee changes under the Revised Review Process and as set
forth in recent Staff Guidance. Based on both the BOX Order \77\ and
the Staff Guidance,\78\ the Exchange believes that the proposed fees
are consistent with the Act because they are: (i) reasonable, equitably
allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not an undue burden on
competition; (ii) comply with the BOX Order and the Staff Guidance; and
(iii) supported by evidence (including comprehensive revenue and cost
data and analysis) that they are fair and reasonable and will not
result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See supra note 18.
\78\ See supra note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that exchanges, in setting fees of all types,
should meet high standards of transparency to demonstrate why each new
fee or fee amendment meets the requirements of the Act that fees be
reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not
create an undue burden on competition among market participants. The
Exchange believes this high standard is especially important when an
exchange imposes various fees for market participants to access an
exchange's marketplace.
In the Staff Guidance, the Commission Staff states that, ``[a]s an
initial step in assessing the reasonableness of a fee, staff considers
whether the fee is constrained by significant competitive forces.''
\79\ The Staff Guidance further states that, ``. . . even where an SRO
cannot demonstrate, or does not assert, that significant competitive
forces constrain the fee at issue, a cost-based discussion may be an
alternative basis upon which to show consistency with the Exchange
Act.'' \80\ In the Staff Guidance, the Commission Staff further states
that, ``[i]f an SRO seeks to support its claims that a proposed fee is
fair and reasonable because it will permit recovery of the SRO's costs,
. . . , specific information, including quantitative information,
should be provided to support that argument.'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Id.
\80\ Id.
\81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed fees are reasonable because they promote parity among
exchange pricing for access, which promotes competition, including in
the Exchanges' ability to competitively price transaction fees, invest
in infrastructure, new products and other innovations, all while
allowing the Exchange to recover its costs to provide dedicated access
via 10Gb ULL connectivity (driven by the bifurcation of the 10Gb ULL
network) and Full Service MEO Ports. As discussed above, the Revised
Review Process and Staff Guidance have created an uneven playing field
between legacy and non-legacy exchanges by severely restricting non-
legacy exchanges from being able to increase non-transaction relates
fees to provide them with additional necessary revenue to better
compete. The much higher non-transaction fees charged by the legacy
exchanges provides them with two significant competitive advantages:
(i) additional non-transaction revenue that may be used to fund areas
other than the non-transaction service related to the fee, such as
investments in infrastructure, advertising, new products and other
innovations; and (ii) greater flexibility to lower their transaction
fees (or use the revenue from the higher non-transaction fees to
subsidize transaction fee rates). The latter is more immediately
impactful in competition for order flow and market share, given the
variable nature of this cost on Member firms. The absence of a
reasonable path forward to increase non-transaction fees to comparable
(or lower rates) limits the
[[Page 2716]]
Exchange's flexibility to, among other things, make additional
investments in infrastructure and advertising, diminishes the ability
to remain competitive on transaction fees, and hinders the ability to
compete for order flow and market share. Again, while one could debate
whether the pricing of non-transaction fees are subject to the same
market forces as transaction fees, there is little doubt that
subjecting one exchange to a materially different standard than that
applied to other exchanges for non-transaction fees leaves that
exchange at a disadvantage in its ability to compete with its pricing
of transaction fees.
The Proposed Fees Ensure Parity Among Exchange Access Fees, Which
Promotes Competition
The Exchange commenced operations in February 2017 \82\ and adopted
its initial fee schedule, with 10Gb ULL connectivity fees set at $8,500
(the Exchange originally had a non-ULL 10Gb connectivity option, which
it has since removed) and a fee waiver for all Full Service MEO Port
fees.\83\ As a new exchange entrant, the Exchange chose to offer Full
Service MEO Ports free of charge to encourage market participants to
trade on the Exchange and experience, among things, the quality of the
Exchange's technology and trading functionality. This practice is not
uncommon. New exchanges often do not charge fees or charge lower fees
for certain services such as memberships/trading permits to attract
order flow to an exchange, and later amend their fees to reflect the
true value of those services, absorbing all costs to provide those
services in the meantime. Allowing new exchange entrants time to build
and sustain market share through various pricing incentives before
increasing non-transaction fees encourages market entry and fee parity,
which promotes competition among exchanges. It also enables new
exchanges to mature their markets and allow market participants to
trade on the new exchanges without fees serving as a potential barrier
to attracting memberships and order flow.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See MIAX PEARL Successfully Launches Trading Operations,
dated February 6, 2017, available at <a href="https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/alert-files/MIAX_Press_Release_02062017.pdf">https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/alert-files/MIAX_Press_Release_02062017.pdf</a>.
\83\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80061 (February 17,
2017), 82 FR 11676 (February 24, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-10).
\84\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94894 (May 11,
2022), 87 FR 29987 (May 17, 2022) (SR-BOX-2022-17) (stating, ``[t]he
Exchange established this lower (when compared to other options
exchanges in the industry) Participant Fee in order to encourage
market participants to become Participants of BOX. . .''). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90076 (October 2, 2020), 85 FR
63620 (October 8, 2020) (SR-MEMX-2020-10) (proposing to adopt the
initial fee schedule and stating that ``[u]nder the initial proposed
Fee Schedule, the Exchange proposes to make clear that it does not
charge any fees for membership, market data products, physical
connectivity or application sessions.''). MEMX's market share has
increased and recently proposed to adopt numerous non-transaction
fees, including fees for membership, market data, and connectivity.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 93927 (January 7, 2022), 87
FR 2191 (January 13, 2022) (SR-MEMX-2021-19) (proposing to adopt
membership fees); 96430 (December 1, 2022), 87 FR 75083 (December 7,
2022) (SR-MEMX-2022-32) and 95936 (September 27, 2022), 87 FR 59845
(October 3, 2022) (SR-MEMX-2022-26) (proposing to adopt fees for
connectivity). See also, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No.
88211 (February 14, 2020), 85 FR 9847 (February 20, 2020) (SR-
NYSENAT-2020-05), available at <a href="https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-national/rule-filings/filings/2020/SR-NYSENat-2020-05.pdf">https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-national/rule-filings/filings/2020/SR-NYSENat-2020-05.pdf</a> (initiating market data fees for the NYSE National exchange
after initially setting such fees at zero).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later in 2018, as the Exchange's market share increased,\85\ the
Exchange adopted nominal fees for Full Service MEO Ports.\86\ The
Exchange last increased the fees for its 10Gb ULL fiber connections
from $9,300 to $10,000 per month on January 1, 2021.\87\ The Exchange
balanced business and competitive concerns with the need to financially
compete with the larger incumbent exchanges that charge higher fees for
similar connectivity and use that revenue to invest in their technology
and other service offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ The Exchange experienced a monthly average trading volume
of 3.94% for the month of March 2018. See Market at a Glance,
available at <a href="http://www.miaxoptions.com">www.miaxoptions.com</a>.
\86\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82867 (March 13,
2018), 83 FR 12044 (March 19, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-07).
\87\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90981 (January 25,
2021), 86 FR 7582 (January 29, 2021) (SR-PEARL-2021-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed changes to the Fee Schedule are reasonable in several
respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant
competitive forces, which constrains its pricing determinations for
transaction fees as well as non-transaction fees. The fact that the
market for order flow is competitive has long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C.
Circuit stated, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . ..'' \88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR
74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention to determine
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress directed the Commission to ``rely on `competition,
whenever possible, in meeting its regulatory responsibilities for
overseeing the SROs and the national market system.''' \90\ As a
result, and as evidenced above, the Commission has historically relied
on competitive forces to determine whether a fee proposal is equitable,
fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory. ``If
competitive forces are operative, the self-interest of the exchanges
themselves will work powerfully to constrain unreasonable or unfair
behavior.'' \91\ Accordingly, ``the existence of significant
competition provides a substantial basis for finding that the terms of
an exchange's fee proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory.'' \92\ In the Revised Review
Process and Staff Guidance, Commission Staff indicated that they would
look at factors beyond the competitive environment, such as cost, only
if a ``proposal lacks persuasive evidence that the proposed fee is
constrained by significant competitive forces.'' \93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 534-35; see also H.R. Rep.
No. 94-229 at 92 (1975) (``[I]t is the intent of the conferees that
the national market system evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed.'').
\91\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74,770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
\92\ Id.
\93\ See Staff Guidance, supra note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes the competing exchanges' 10Gb connectivity
and port fees are useful examples of alternative approaches to
providing and charging for access and demonstrating how such fees are
competitively set and
[[Page 2717]]
constrained. To that end, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are
reasonable because the proposed fees are similar to or less than fees
charged for similar connectivity and port access provided by other
options exchanges with comparable market shares. As such, the Exchange
believes that denying its ability to institute fees that are closer to
parity with legacy exchanges, in effect, impedes its ability to
compete, including in its pricing of transaction fees and ability to
invest in competitive infrastructure.
The following table shows how the Exchange's proposed fees remain
similar to or less than fees charged for similar connectivity and port
access provided by other options exchanges with similar market share.
Each of the market data rates in place at competing options exchanges
were filed with the Commission for immediate effectiveness and remain
in place today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange Type of connection or port Monthly fee (per connection or per port)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIAX Pearl (as proposed) (equity options 10Gb ULL connection........ $13,500.
market share of 4.45% for the month of Full Service MEO Port Lesser of either the per class basis or
November 2022) \94\. (Bulk) for Market Makers. percentage of total national ADV by the
Market Maker, as follows:
$5,000-up to 10 classes or up to 20% of
classes by volume.
$7,500 **-up to 40 classes or up to 35%
of classes by volume.
$10,000 **-up to 100 classes or up to 50%
of classes by volume.
$12,000 **-over 100 classes or over 50%
of all classes by volume up to all
classes (or $500 per port per matching
engine).
** A lower rate of $6,000 will apply to
these tiers if the Market Maker's total
monthly executed volume is less than
0.040% of total monthly TCV for MIAX
Pearl options.
Full Service MEO Port $7,500 (or $312.50 per port per matching
(Bulk) for EEMs. engine).
Full Service MEO Port $4,000 (or $166.66 per port per matching
(Single) for Market Makers engine).
and EEMs.
NASDAQ \95\ (equity options market share 10Gb Ultra fiber connection $15,000 per connection.
of 7.14% for the month of November SQF Port................... 1-5 ports: $1,500 per port.
2022) \96\. 6-20 ports: $1,000 per port.
21 or more ports: $500 per port.
NASDAQ ISE LLC (``ISE'') \97\ (equity 10Gb Ultra fiber connection $15,000 per connection.
options market share of 6.19% for the SQF Port................... $1,100 per port.
month of November 2022) \98\.
NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'') 10Gb LX LCN connection..... $22,000 per connection.
\99\ (equity options market share of Order/Quote Entry Port..... Ports 1-40. $450 per port.
6.93% for the month of November 2022) Ports 41 and greater. $150 per port.
\100\.
NASDAQ GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'') \101\ 10Gb Ultra connection...... $15,000 per connection.
(equity options market share of 1.93% SQF Port................... $1,250 per port.
for the month of November 2022) \102\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange acknowledges that, without additional contextual
information, the above table may lead someone to believe that the
Exchange's proposed fees for Full Service MEO Ports is higher than
other exchanges when in fact, that is not true. The Exchange provides
each Member or non-Member access to two (2) ports on all twelve (12)
matching engines for a single fee and a vast majority choose to connect
to all twelve (12) matching engines and utilize both ports for a total
of 24 ports. Other exchanges charge on a per port basis and require
firms to connect to multiple matching engines, thereby multiplying the
cost to access their full market.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See supra note 85.
\95\ See NASDAQ Pricing Schedule, Options 7, Section 3, Ports
and Other Services and NASDAQ Rules, General 8: Connectivity,
Section 1. Co-Location Services.
\96\ See supra note 85.
\97\ See ISE Pricing Schedule, Options 7, Section 7,
Connectivity Fees and ISE Rules, General 8: Connectivity.
\98\ See supra note 85.
\99\ See NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section V.A. Port
Fees and Section V.B. Co-Location Fees.
\100\ See supra note 85.
\101\ See GEMX Pricing Schedule, Options 7, Section 6,
Connectivity Fees and GEMX Rules, General 8: Connectivity.
\102\ See supra note 85.
\103\ See Specialized Quote Interface Specification, Nasdaq
PHLX, Nasdaq Options Market, Nasdaq BX Options, Version 6.5a,
Section 2, Architecture (revised August 16, 2019), available at
<a href="http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/technicalsupport/specifications/TradingProducts/SQF6.5a-2019-Aug.pdf">http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/technicalsupport/specifications/TradingProducts/SQF6.5a-2019-Aug.pdf</a>. The Exchange notes that it is
unclear whether the NASDAQ exchanges include connectivity to each
matching engine for the single fee or charge per connection, per
matching engine. See also NYSE Technology FAQ and Best Practices:
Options, Section 5.1 (How many matching engines are used by each
exchange?) (September 2020). The Exchange notes that NYSE provides a
link to an Excel file detailing the number of matching engines per
options exchange, with Arca and Amex having 19 and 17 matching
engines, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no requirement, regulatory or otherwise, that any broker-
dealer connect to and access any (or all of) the available options
exchanges. Market participants may choose to become a member of one or
more options exchanges based on the market participant's assessment of
the business opportunity relative to the costs of the Exchange. With
this, there is elasticity of demand for exchange membership. As an
example, one Member will terminate their membership effective January
1, 2023 as a direct result of the proposed fee changes.
It is not a requirement for market participants to become members
of all options exchanges, in fact, certain market participants conduct
an options business as a member of only one options market.\104\ A very
small number
[[Page 2718]]
of market participants choose to become a member of all sixteen options
exchanges. Most firms that actively trade on options markets are not
currently Members of the Exchange and do not purchase connectivity or
port services at the Exchange. Connectivity and ports are only
available to Members or service bureaus, and only a Member may utilize
a port.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ BOX recently adopted an electronic market maker trading
permit fee. See Securities Exchange Release No. 94894 (May 11,
2022), 87 FR 29987 (May 17, 2022) (SR-BOX-2022-17). In that
proposal, BOX stated that, ``. . . it is not aware of any reason why
Market Makers could not simply drop their access to an exchange (or
not initially access an exchange) if an exchange were to establish
prices for its non-transaction fees that, in the determination of
such Market Maker, did not make business or economic sense for such
Market Maker to access such exchange. [BOX] again notes that no
market makers are required by rule, regulation, or competitive
forces to be a Market Maker on [BOX].'' Also in 2022, MEMX
established a monthly membership fee. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 93927 (January 7, 2022), 87 FR 2191 (January 13, 2022)
(SR-MEMX-2021-19). In that proposal, MEMX reasoned that that there
is value in becoming a member of the exchange and stated that it
believed that the proposed membership fee ``is not unfairly
discriminatory because no broker-dealer is required to become a
member of the Exchange'' and that ``neither the trade-through
requirements under Regulation NMS nor broker-dealers' best execution
obligations require a broker-dealer to become a member of every
exchange.''
\105\ Service Bureaus may obtain ports on behalf of Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One other exchange recently noted in a proposal to amend their own
trading permit fees that of the 62 market making firms that are
registered as Market Makers across Cboe, MIAX, and BOX, 42 firms access
only one of the three exchanges.\106\ The Exchange and its affiliates,
MIAX and MIAX Emerald, have a total of 47 members. Of those 47 total
members, 35 are members of all three affiliated exchanges, four are
members of only two (2) affiliated exchanges, and eight (8) are members
of only one affiliated exchange. The Exchange also notes that no firm
is a Member of the Exchange only. The above data evidences that a
broker-dealer need not have direct connectivity to all options
exchanges, let alone the Exchange and its two affiliates, and broker-
dealers may elect to do so based on their own business decisions and
need to directly access each exchange's liquidity pool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94894 (May 11,
2022), 87 FR 29987 (May 17, 2022) (SR-BOX-2022-17) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend the
Fee Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC Facility To Adopt
Electronic Market Maker Trading Permit Fees). The Exchange believes
that BOX's observation demonstrates that market making firms can,
and do, select which exchanges they wish to access, and,
accordingly, options exchanges must take competitive considerations
into account when setting fees for such access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only is there not an actual regulatory requirement to connect
to every options exchange, the Exchange believes there is also no ``de
facto'' or practical requirement as well, as further evidenced by the
broker-dealer membership analysis of the options exchanges discussed
above. As noted above, this is evidenced by the fact that one Member
will terminate their membership effective January 1, 2023 as a direct
result of the proposed fee changes. Indeed, broker-dealers choose if
and how to access a particular exchange and because it is a choice, the
Exchange must set reasonable pricing, otherwise prospective members
would not connect and existing members would disconnect from the
Exchange. The decision to become a member of an exchange, particularly
for registered market makers, is complex, and not solely based on the
non-transactional costs assessed by an exchange. As noted herein,
specific factors include, but are not limited to: (i) an exchange's
available liquidity in options series; (ii) trading functionality
offered on a particular market; (iii) product offerings; (iv) customer
service on an exchange; and (v) transactional pricing. Becoming a
member of the exchange does not ``lock'' a potential member into a
market or diminish the overall competition for exchange services.
In lieu of becoming a member at each options exchange, a market
participant may join one exchange and elect to have their orders routed
in the event that a better price is available on an away market.
Nothing in the Order Protection Rule requires a firm to become a Member
at--or establish connectivity to--the Exchange.\107\ If the Exchange is
not at the NBBO, the Exchange will route an order to any away market
that is at the NBBO to ensure that the order was executed at a superior
price and prevent a trade-through.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market
Plan (August 14, 2009), available at <a href="https://www.theocc.com/getmedia/7fc629d9-4e54-4b99-9f11-c0e4db1a2266/options_order_protection_plan.pdf">https://www.theocc.com/getmedia/7fc629d9-4e54-4b99-9f11-c0e4db1a2266/options_order_protection_plan.pdf</a>.
\108\ Members may elect to not route their orders by utilizing
the Do Not Route order type. See Exchange Rule 516(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the submission of orders, Members may also choose
not to purchase any connection at all from the Exchange, and instead
rely on the port of a third party to submit an order. For example, a
third-party broker-dealer Member of the Exchange may be utilized by a
retail investor to submit orders into an Exchange. An institutional
investor may utilize a broker-dealer, a service bureau,\109\ or request
sponsored access \110\ through a member of an exchange in order to
submit a trade directly to an options exchange.\111\ A market
participant may either pay the costs associated with becoming a member
of an exchange or, in the alternative, a market participant may elect
to pay commissions to a broker-dealer, pay fees to a service bureau to
submit trades, or pay a member to sponsor the market participant in
order to submit trades directly to an exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Service Bureaus provide access to market participants to
submit and execute orders on an exchange. On the Exchange, a Service
Bureau may be a Member. Some Members utilize a Service Bureau for
connectivity and that Service Bureau may not be a Member. Some
market participants utilize a Service Bureau who is a Member to
submit orders.
\110\ Sponsored Access is an arrangement whereby a Member
permits its customers to enter orders into an exchange's system that
bypass the Member's trading system and are routed directly to the
Exchange, including routing through a service bureau or other third-
party technology provider.
\111\ This may include utilizing a floor broker and submitting
the trade to one of the five options trading floors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Member third-parties, such as service bureaus and extranets,
resell the Exchange's connectivity. This indirect connectivity is
another viable alternative for market participants to trade on the
Exchange without connecting directly to the Exchange (and thus not pay
the Exchange's connectivity fees), which alternative is already being
used by non-Members and further constrains the price that the Exchange
is able to charge for connectivity and other access fees to its market.
The Exchange notes that it could, but chooses not to, preclude market
participants from reselling its connectivity. Unlike other exchanges,
the Exchange also does not currently assess fees on third-party
resellers on a per customer basis (i.e., fees based on the number of
firms that connect to the Exchange indirectly via the third-
party).\112\ Indeed, the Exchange does not receive any connectivity
revenue when connectivity is resold by a third-party, which often is
resold to multiple customers, some of whom are agency broker-dealers
that have numerous customers of their own.\113\ Particularly, in the
event that a market participant views the Exchange's direct
connectivity and access fees as more or less attractive than competing
markets, that market participant can choose to connect to the Exchange
indirectly or may choose not to connect to the Exchange and connect
instead to one or more of the other 16 options markets. Accordingly,
the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are fair and
[[Page 2719]]
reasonable and constrained by competitive forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See, e.g., Nasdaq Price List--U.S. Direct Connection and
Extranet Fees, available at, US Direct-Extranet Connection
(<a href="http://nasdaqtrader.com">nasdaqtrader.com</a>); and Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74077
(January 16, 2022), 80 FR 3683 (January 23, 2022) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-
002); and 82037 (November 8, 2022), 82 FR 52953 (November 15, 2022)
(SR-NASDAQ-2017-114).
\113\ The Exchange notes that resellers, such as SFTI, are not
required to publicize, let alone justify or file with the Commission
their fees, and as such could charge the market participant any fees
it deems appropriate (including connectivity fees higher than the
Exchange's connectivity fees), even if such fees would otherwise be
considered potentially unreasonable or uncompetitive fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange is obligated to regulate its Members and secure access
to its environment. In order to properly regulate its Members and
secure the trading environment, the Exchange takes measures to ensure
access is monitored and maintained with various controls. Connectivity
and ports are methods utilized by the Exchange to grant Members secure
access to communicate with the Exchange and exercise trading rights.
When a market participant elects to be a Member, and is approved for
membership by the Exchange, the Member is granted trading rights to
enter orders and/or quotes into Exchange through secure connections.
Again, there is no legal or regulatory requirement that a market
participant become a Member of the Exchange, or, if it is a Member, to
purchase connectivity beyond the one connection that is necessary to
quote or submit orders on the Exchange. Members may freely choose to
rely on one or many connections, depending on their business model.
Bifurcation of 10Gb ULL Connectivity and Related Fees
The Exchange stresses that bifurcating the 10Gb ULL connectivity
between the Exchange and MIAX was not designed with the objective to
generate an overall increase in access fee revenue. Rather, the
proposed change is necessitated by 10Gb ULL connectivity experiencing a
significant decrease in port availability mostly driven by connectivity
demands of latency sensitive Members that seek to maintain multiple
10Gb ULL connections on every switch in the network. Due to the ever-
increasing connectivity demands, the Exchange found it necessary to
bifurcate 10Gb ULL connectivity to the Exchange's and MIAX Pearl's
Systems and networks to continue to meet ongoing and future 10Gb ULL
connectivity and access demands. Such changes accordingly necessitated
a review of the Exchange's previous 10Gb ULL connectivity fees and
related costs. The proposed fees are reasonable as they are intended to
allow the Exchange to cover ongoing costs related to providing and
maintaining such connectivity, described more fully below. The ever
increasing connectivity demands that necessitated this change also
proves that the proposed fees are reasonable because this demand
reflects that Members and non-Members believe they are getting value
from the 10Gb ULL connections they purchase.
The Exchange announced on August 12, 2022 the planned network
change and January 23, 2023 implementation date to provide market
participants adequate time to prepare.\114\ Since August 12, 2022, the
Exchange has worked with current 10Gb ULL subscribers to address their
connectivity needs ahead of the January 23, 2023 date. Based on those
interactions and subscriber feedback, the Exchange expects a minimal
net increase of approximately six (6) overall 10Gb ULL connectivity
subscriptions across the Exchange and MIAX. This anticipated immaterial
increase in overall connections reflect a minimal fee impact for all
types of subscribers and reflects that subscribers elected to
reallocate existing 10Gb ULL connectivity directly to the Exchange or
MIAX, or chose to decrease or cease connectivity as a result of the
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should the Commission Staff disapprove such fees, it would
effectively dictate how an exchange manages its technology and would
hamper the Exchange's ability to continue to invest in and fund access
services in a manner that allows it to meet existing and anticipated
access demands of market participants. Disapproval could also have the
adverse effect of discouraging exchanges from innovating technology to
the benefit of market participants if it believes the Commission would
later prevent that exchange from monetizing its innovation, thus
adversely impacting competition. Also, as noted above, the economic
consequences of not being able to better establish fee parity with
other exchanges for non-transaction fees hampers the Exchange's ability
to compete as aggressively on transaction fees.
Cost Analysis
In general, the Exchange believes that exchanges, in setting fees
of all types, should meet very high standards of transparency to
demonstrate why each new fee or fee increase meets the Exchange Act
requirements that fees be reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly
discriminatory, and not create an undue burden on competition among
members and markets. In particular, the Exchange believes that each
exchange should take extra care to be able to demonstrate that these
fees are based on its costs and reasonable business needs.
In proposing to charge fees for connectivity services, the Exchange
seeks to be especially diligent in assessing those fees in a
transparent way against its own aggregate costs of providing the
related service, and also carefully and transparently assessing the
impact on Members--both generally and in relation to other Members,
i.e., to assure the fee will not create a financial burden on any
participant and will not have an undue impact in particular on smaller
Members and competition among Members in general. The Exchange believes
that this level of diligence and transparency is called for by the
requirements of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\115\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\116\ with respect to the types of information SROs should
provide when filing fee changes, and Section 6(b) of the Act,\117\
which requires, among other things, that exchange fees be reasonable
and equitably allocated,\118\ not designed to permit unfair
discrimination,\119\ and that they not impose a burden on competition
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act.\120\ This rule change proposal addresses those requirements, and
the analysis and data in each of the sections that follow are designed
to clearly and comprehensively show how they are met.\121\ The Exchange
notes that the legacy exchanges with whom the Exchange vigorously
competes for order flow and market share, were not subject to any such
diligence or transparency in setting their baseline non-transaction
fees, most of which were put in place before the Revised Review Process
and Staff Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\116\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\117\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\118\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
\119\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\120\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
\121\ See Staff Guidance, supra note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed below, the Exchange recently calculated its aggregate
annual costs for providing physical 10Gb ULL connectivity to the
Exchange at $11,567,509 (or approximately $963,959 per month, rounded
to the nearest dollar when dividing the annual cost by 12 months) and
its aggregate annual costs for providing Full Service MEO Ports at
$1,644,132 (or approximately $137,012 per month, rounded to the nearest
dollar when dividing the annual cost by 12 months). In order to cover
the aggregate costs of providing connectivity to its Users (both
Members and non-Members \122\) going forward and to make a modest
profit, as described below, the Exchange proposes to modify its Fee
[[Page 2720]]
Schedule to charge a fee of $13,500 per month for each physical 10Gb
ULL connection and to remove language providing for a shared 10Gb ULL
network between the Exchange and MIAX. The Exchange also proposes to
modify its Fee Schedule to charge tiered rates for Full Service MEO
Ports (Bulk) depending on the number of classes assigned or the
percentage of national ADV, which is in line with how the Exchange's
affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald, assess fees for their comparable MEI
Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Types of market participants that obtain connectivity
services from the Exchange but are not Members include service
bureaus and extranets. Service bureaus offer technology-based
services to other companies for a fee, including order entry
services, and thus, may access application sessions on behalf of one
or more Members. Extranets offer physical connectivity services to
Members and non-Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2019, the Exchange completed a study of its aggregate costs to
produce market data and connectivity (the ``Cost Analysis'').\123\ The
Cost Analysis required a detailed analysis of the Exchange's aggregate
baseline costs, including a determination and allocation of costs for
core services provided by the Exchange--transaction execution, market
data, membership services, physical connectivity, and port access
(which provide order entry, cancellation and modification
functionality, risk functionality, the ability to receive drop copies,
and other functionality). The Exchange separately divided its costs
between those costs necessary to deliver each of these core services,
including infrastructure, software, human resources (i.e., personnel),
and certain general and administrative expenses (``cost drivers'').
Next, the Exchange adopted an allocation methodology with various
principles to guide how much of a particular cost should be allocated
to each core service. For instance, fixed costs that are not driven by
client activity (e.g., message rates), such as data center costs, were
allocated more heavily to the provision of 1Gb and 10Gb ULL physical
connectivity (62%), with smaller allocations to all ports (5%), and the
remainder to the provision of transaction execution, membership
services and market data services (33%). The allocation methodology was
developed through conversations with senior management familiar with
each area of the Exchange's operations. After adopting this allocation
methodology, the Exchange then applied an estimated allocation of each
cost driver to each core service, resulting in the cost allocations
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ The Exchange frequently updates it Cost Analysis as
strategic initiatives change, costs increase or decrease, and market
participant needs and trading activity changes. The Exchange's most
recent Cost Analysis was conducted ahead of this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By allocating segmented costs to each core service, the Exchange
was able to estimate by core service the potential margin it might earn
based on different fee models. The Exchange notes that as a non-listing
venue it has five primary sources of revenue that it can potentially
use to fund its operations: transaction fees, fees for connectivity and
port services, membership fees, regulatory fees, and market data fees.
Accordingly, the Exchange must cover its expenses from these five
primary sources of revenue. The Exchange also notes that as a general
matter each of these sources of revenue is based on services that are
interdependent. For instance, the Exchange's system for executing
transactions is dependent on physical hardware and connectivity, only
Members and parties that they sponsor to participate directly on the
Exchange may submit orders to the Exchange, many Members (but not all)
consume market data from the Exchange in order to trade on the
Exchange, and the Exchange consumes market data from external sources
in order to comply with regulatory obligations. Accordingly, given this
interdependence, the allocation of costs to each service or revenue
source required judgment of the Exchange and was weighted based on
estimates of the Exchange that the Exchange believes are reasonable, as
set forth below. While there is no standardized and generally accepted
methodology the allocation of an exchange's costs, the Exchange's
methodology is the result of an extensive review and analysis and will
be consistently applied going forward for any other potential fee
proposals.
Through the Exchange's extensive updated Cost Analysis, the
Exchange analyzed every expense item in the Exchange's general expense
ledger to determine whether each such expense relates to the provision
of connectivity services, and, if such expense did so relate, what
portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports the provision
of connectivity services, and thus bears a relationship that is, ``in
nature and closeness,'' directly related to network connectivity
services. In turn, the Exchange allocated certain costs more to
physical connectivity and others to ports, while certain costs were
only allocated to such services at a very low percentage or not at all,
using consistent allocation methodologies as described above. Based on
this analysis, the Exchange estimates that the cost drivers to provide
10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service MEO Port services, results in an
aggregate monthly cost of approximately $1,106,971 (utilizing the
rounded numbers when dividing the annual cost for 10Gb ULL connectivity
and annual cost for Full Service MEO Ports by 12 months, then adding
both numbers together), as further detailed below.
Costs Related To Offering Physical 10Gb ULL Connectivity
The following chart details the individual line-item costs
considered by the Exchange to be related to offering physical dedicated
10Gb ULL connectivity via an unshared network as well as the percentage
of the Exchange's overall costs that such costs represent for such area
(e.g., as set forth below, the Exchange allocated approximately 26.9%
of its overall Human Resources cost to offering physical connectivity).
[[Page 2721]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual cost Monthly cost
Cost drivers \124\ \125\ % of all
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Resources................................................ $3,675,098 $306,258 26.3
Connectivity (external fees, cabling, switches, etc.).......... 70,163 5,847 60.6
Internet Services, including External Market Data.............. 322,388 26,866 73.3
Data Center.................................................... 739,983 61,665 60.6
Hardware and Software Maintenance and Licenses................. 959,157 79,930 58.6
Depreciation................................................... 1,885,969 157,164 58.2
Allocated Shared Expenses...................................... 3,914,751 326,229 49.2
------------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... 11,567,509 963,959 40.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below are additional details regarding each of the line-item costs
considered by the Exchange to be related to offering physical 10Gb ULL
connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ The Annual Cost includes figures rounded to the nearest
dollar.
\125\ The Monthly Cost was determined by dividing the Annual
Cost for each line item by twelve (12) months and rounding up or
down to the nearest dollar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Resources
For personnel costs (Human Resources), the Exchange calculated an
allocation of employee time for employees whose functions include
providing and maintaining physical connectivity and performance thereof
(primarily the Exchange's network infrastructure team, which spends
most of their time performing functions necessary to provide physical
connectivity) and for which the Exchange allocated a percentage of
42.9% of each employee's time. The Exchange also allocated Human
Resources costs to provide physical connectivity to a limited subset of
personnel with ancillary functions related to establishing and
maintaining such connectivity (such as information security and finance
personnel), for which the Exchange allocated cost on an employee-by-
employee basis (i.e., only including those personnel who do support
functions related to providing physical connectivity) and then applied
a smaller allocation to such employees (less than 17%). The Exchange
notes that it has 184 employees and each department leader has direct
knowledge of the time spent by those spent by each employee with
respect to the various tasks necessary to operate the Exchange. The
estimates of Human Resources cost were therefore determined by
consulting with such department leaders, determining which employees
are involved in tasks related to providing physical connectivity, and
confirming that the proposed allocations were reasonable based on an
understanding of the percentage of their time such employees devote to
tasks related to providing physical connectivity. The Exchange notes
that senior level executives were only allocated Human Resources costs
to the extent the Exchange believed they are involved in overseeing
tasks related to providing physical connectivity. The Human Resources
cost was calculated using a blended rate of compensation reflecting
salary, equity and bonus compensation, benefits, payroll taxes, and
401(k) matching contributions.
Connectivity and Internet Services
The Connectivity cost includes external fees paid to connect to
other exchanges and third parties, cabling and switches required to
operate the Exchange. The Connectivity line-item is more narrowly
focused on technology used to complete connections to the Exchange and
to connect to external markets. The Exchange notes that its
connectivity to external markets is required in order to receive market
data to run the Exchange's matching engine and basic operations
compliant with existing regulations, primarily Regulation NMS.
The Exchange relies on various connectivity and content service
providers for connectivity and data feeds for the entire U.S. options
industry, as well as content, connectivity, and infrastructure services
for critical components of the network that are necessary to provide
and maintain its System Networks and access to its System Networks via
10Gb ULL connectivity. Specifically, the Exchange utilizes connectivity
and content service providers to connect to other national securities
exchanges, the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA''), and to
receive market data from other exchanges and market data providers. The
Exchange understands that these service providers provide services to
most, if not all, of the other U.S. exchanges and other market
participants. Connectivity and market data provided these service
providers is critical to the Exchanges daily operations and performance
of its System Networks to which market participants connect to via 10Gb
ULL connectivity. Without these services providers, the Exchange would
not be able to connect to other national securities exchanges, market
data providers, or OPRA and, therefore, would not be able to operate
and support its System Networks. The Exchange does not employ a
separate fee to cover its connectivity and content service provider
expense and recoups that expense, in part, by charging for 10Gb ULL
connectivity.
Data Center
Data Center costs includes an allocation of the costs the Exchange
incurs to provide physical connectivity in the third-party data centers
where it maintains its equipment (such as dedicated space, security
services, cooling and power). The Exchange notes that it does not own
the Primary Data Center or the Secondary Data Center, but instead,
leases space in data centers operated by third parties. The Exchange
has allocated a high percentage of the Data Center cost (60.6%) to
physical 10Gb ULL connectivity because the third-party data centers and
the Exchange's physical equipment contained therein is the most direct
cost in providing physical access to the Exchange. In other words, for
the Exchange to operate in a dedicated space with connectivity of
participants to a physical trading platform, the data centers are a
very tangible cost, and in turn, if the Exchange did not maintain such
a presence then physical connectivity would be of no value to market
participants.
External Market Data
External Market Data includes fees paid to third parties, including
other exchanges, to receive and consume market data from other markets.
The Exchange included External Market Data fees to the provision of
10Gb ULL connectivity as such market data is necessary here to offer
certain services related to such connectivity, such as certain risk
checks that are performed prior to execution, and checking for other
conditions (e.g., re-pricing of orders to avoid lock or crossed
markets, trading collars). This allocation was included as part of the
Internet Services
[[Page 2722]]
cost described above. Thus, as market data from other Exchanges is
consumed at the matching engine level, (to which 10Gb ULL connectivity
provides access to) in order to validate orders before additional
entering the matching engine or being executed, the Exchange believes
it is reasonable to allocate a small amount of such costs to 10Gb ULL
connectivity.
Hardware and Software Maintenance and Licenses
Hardware and Software Licenses includes hardware and software
licenses used to operate and monitor physical assets necessary to offer
physical connectivity to the Exchange.
Monthly Depreciation
All physical assets and software, which also includes assets used
for testing and monitoring of Exchange infrastructure, were valued at
cost, depreciated or leased over periods ranging from three to five
years. Thus, the depreciation cost primarily relates to servers
necessary to operate the Exchange, some of which are owned by the
Exchange and some of which are leased by the Exchange in order to allow
efficient periodic technology refreshes. As noted above, the Exchange
allocated 58.2% of all depreciation costs to providing physical 10Gb
ULL connectivity. The Exchange notes, however, that it did not allocate
depreciation costs for any depreciated software necessary to operate
the Exchange to physical connectivity, as such software does not impact
the provision of physical connectivity.
Allocated Shared Expenses
Finally, a limited portion of general shared expenses was allocated
to overall physical connectivity costs as without these general shared
costs the Exchange would not be able to operate in the manner that it
does and provide physical connectivity. The costs included in general
shared expenses include general expenses of the Exchange, including
office space and office expenses (e.g., occupancy and overhead
expenses), utilities, recruiting and training, marketing and
advertising costs, professional fees for legal, tax and accounting
services (including external and internal audit expenses), and
telecommunications costs. The Exchange notes that the cost of paying
directors to serve on its Board of Directors is also included in the
Exchange's general shared expenses.\126\ The Exchange notes that the
49.2% allocation of general shared expenses for physical 10Gb ULL
connectivity is higher than that allocated to general shared expenses
for Full Service MEO Ports based on its allocation methodology that
weighted costs attributable to each Core Service based on an
understanding of each area. While physical connectivity has several
areas where certain tangible costs are heavily weighted towards
providing such service (e.g., Data Centers, as described above), Full
Service MEO Ports do not require as many broad or indirect resources as
other Core Services. The total monthly cost for 10Gb ULL connectivity
of $963,959 was divided by the number of physical 10Gb ULL connections
the Exchange maintained at the time that proposed pricing was
determined (108), to arrive at a cost of approximately $8,925 per
month, per physical 10Gb ULL connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ The Exchange notes that MEMX allocated a precise amount of
10% of the overall cost for directors to providing physical
connectivity. The Exchange does not calculate is expenses at that
granular a level. Instead, director costs are included as part of
the overall general allocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Related To Offering Full Service MEO Ports
The following chart details the individual line-item costs
considered by the Exchange to be related to offering Full Service MEO
Ports as well as the percentage of the Exchange's overall costs such
costs represent for such area (e.g., as set forth below, the Exchange
allocated approximately 8.3% of its overall Human Resources cost to
offering Full Service MEO Ports).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual cost Monthly cost
Cost drivers \127\ \128\ % of all
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Resources................................................ $1,159,831 $96,653 8.3
Connectivity (external fees, cabling, switches, etc.).......... 1,589 132 1.4
Internet Services, including External Market Data.............. 6,033 503 1.4
Data Center.................................................... 41,881 3,490 3.4
Hardware and Software Maintenance and Licenses................. 22,438 1,870 1.4
Depreciation................................................... 127,986 10,666 3.9
Allocated Shared Expenses...................................... 284,374 23,698 3.6
------------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... 1,644,132 137,012 5.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Resources
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ See supra note 124 (describing rounding of Annual Costs).
\128\ See supra note 125 (describing rounding of Monthly Costs
based on Annual Costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Full Service MEO Ports, the Exchange calculated
Human Resources cost by taking an allocation of employee time for
employees whose functions include providing Full Service MEO Ports and
maintaining performance thereof (including a broader range of employees
such as technical operations personnel, market operations personnel,
and software engineering personnel) as well as a limited subset of
personnel with ancillary functions related to maintaining such
connectivity (such as sales, membership, and finance personnel). The
estimates of Human Resources cost were again determined by consulting
with department leaders, determining which employees are involved in
tasks related to providing application sessions and maintaining
performance thereof, and confirming that the proposed allocations were
reasonable based on an understanding of the percentage of their time
such employees devote to tasks related to providing application
sessions and maintaining performance thereof. The Exchange notes that
senior level executives were only allocated Human Resources costs to
the extent the Exchange believed they are involved in overseeing tasks
related to providing application sessions and maintaining performance
thereof. The Human Resources cost was again calculated using a blended
rate of compensation reflecting salary, equity and bonus compensation,
benefits, payroll taxes, and 401(k) matching contributions.
Connectivity and Internet Services
The Connectivity cost includes external fees paid to connect to
other exchanges, cabling and switches, as described above. For purposes
of Full Service MEO Ports, the Exchange also includes a portion of its
costs related to
[[Page 2723]]
External Market Data, as described below.
Data Center
Data Center costs includes an allocation of the costs the Exchange
incurs to provide physical connectivity in the third-party data centers
where it maintains its equipment as well as related costs (the Exchange
does not own the Primary Data Center or the Secondary Data Center, but
instead, leases space in data centers operated by third parties).
External Market Data
External Market Data includes fees paid to third parties, including
other exchanges, to receive and consume market data from other markets.
The Exchange included External Market Data fees to the provision of
application sessions as such market data is also necessary here (in
addition to physical connectivity) to offer certain services related to
such sessions, such as validating orders on entry against the national
best bid and national best offer and checking for other conditions
(e.g., whether a symbol is halted). This allocation was included as
part of the internet Services cost described above.\129\ Thus, as
market data from other Exchanges is consumed at the application session
level in order to validate orders before additional processing occurs
with respect to such orders, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
allocate a small amount of such costs to application sessions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ The Exchange notes that MEMX separately allocated 7.5% of
its external market data costs to providing physical connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardware and Software Maintenance and Licenses
Hardware and Software Licenses includes hardware and software
licenses used to monitor the health of the order entry services
provided by the Exchange, as described above.
Monthly Depreciation
All physical assets and software, which also includes assets used
for testing and monitoring of order entry infrastructure, were valued
at cost, depreciated or leased over periods ranging from three to five
years. Thus, the depreciation cost primarily relates to servers
necessary to operate the Exchange, some of which is owned by the
Exchange and some of which is leased by the Exchange in order to allow
efficient periodic technology refreshes. The Exchange allocated 3.9% of
all depreciation costs to providing Full Service MEO Ports. In contrast
to physical connectivity, described above, the Exchange did allocate
depreciation costs for depreciated software necessary to operate the
Exchange to Full Service MEO Ports because such software is related to
the provision of such connectivity.
Allocated Shared Expenses
Finally, a limited portion of general shared expenses was allocated
to overall Full Service MEO Ports costs as without these general shared
costs the Exchange would not be able to operate in the manner that it
does and provide application sessions. The costs included in general
shared expenses include general expenses of the Exchange, including
office space and office expenses (e.g., occupancy and overhead
expenses), utilities, recruiting and training, marketing and
advertising costs, professional fees for legal, tax and accounting
services (including external and internal audit expenses), and
telecommunications costs. The Exchange again notes that the cost of
paying directors to serve on its Board of Directors is included in the
calculation of Allocated Shared Expenses, and thus a portion of such
overall cost amounting to less than 4.0% of the overall cost for
directors was allocated to providing Full Service MEO Ports. The
Exchange notes that the 3.6% allocation of general shared expenses for
Full Service MEO Ports is lower than that allocated to general shared
expenses for physical connectivity based on its allocation methodology
that weighted costs attributable to each Core Service based on an
understanding of each area. While Full Service MEO Ports have several
areas where certain tangible costs are heavily weighted towards
providing such service (e.g., Data Centers, as described above), 10Gb
ULL connectivity requires a broader level of support from Exchange
personnel in different areas, which in turn leads to a broader general
level of cost to the Exchange. The total monthly cost of $137,012 was
divided by the number of Full Service MEO Ports the Exchange maintained
at the time that proposed pricing was determined (20 total; 16 Full
Service MEO Port, Bulk, and 4 Full Service MEO Port, Single), to arrive
at a cost of approximately $6,851 per month, per Full Service MEO Port.
Cost Analysis--Additional Discussion
In conducting its Cost Analysis, the Exchange did not allocate any
of its expenses in full to any core services (including physical
connectivity or Full Service MEO Ports) and did not double- count any
expenses. Instead, as described above, the Exchange allocated
applicable cost drivers across its core services and used the same Cost
Analysis to form the basis of this proposal and the filings the
Exchange submitted proposing fees for proprietary data feeds offered by
the Exchange. For instance, in calculating the Human Resources expenses
to be allocated to physical connections, the Exchange has a team of
employees dedicated to network infrastructure and with respect to such
employees the Exchange allocated network infrastructure personnel with
a high percentage of the cost of such personnel (42.9%) given their
focus on functions necessary to provide physical connections. The
salaries of those same personnel were allocated only 12.3% to Full
Service MEO Ports and the remaining 44.8% was allocated to 1Gb
connectivity, other port services, transaction services, membership
services and market data. The Exchange did not allocate any other Human
Resources expense for providing physical connections to any other
employee group, outside of a smaller allocation of 16.9% for 10Gb ULL
connectivity or 17.3% for the entire network, of the cost associated
with certain specified personnel who work closely with and support
network infrastructure personnel. In contrast, the Exchange allocated
much smaller percentages of costs (6.0% or less) across a wider range
of personnel groups in order to allocate Human Resources costs to
providing Full Service MEO Ports. This is because a much wider range of
personnel are involved in functions necessary to offer, monitor and
maintain Full Service MEO Ports but the tasks necessary to do so are
not a primary or full-time function.
In total, the Exchange allocated 26.9% of its personnel costs to
providing physical connections and 8.3% of its personnel costs to
providing Full Service MEO Ports, for a total allocation of 35.2% Human
Resources expense to provide these specific connectivity services. In
turn, the Exchange allocated the remaining 64.8% of its Human Resources
expense to membership services, transaction services, other port
services and market data. Thus, again, the Exchange's allocations of
cost across core services were based on real costs of operating the
Exchange and were not double-counted across the core services or their
associated revenue streams.
As another example, the Exchange allocated depreciation expense to
all core services, including physical connections and Full Service MEO
Ports, but in different amounts. The Exchange believes it is reasonable
to allocate the identified portion of such expense because such expense
includes the actual cost of the computer
[[Page 2724]]
equipment, such as dedicated servers, computers, laptops, monitors,
information security appliances and storage, and network switching
infrastructure equipment, including switches and taps that were
purchased to operate and support the network. Without this equipment,
the Exchange would not be able to operate the network and provide
connectivity services to its Members and non-Members and their
customers. However, the Exchange did not allocate all of the
depreciation and amortization expense toward the cost of providing
connectivity services, but instead allocated approximately 62.1% of the
Exchange's overall depreciation and amortization expense to
connectivity services (58.2% attributed to 10Gb ULL physical
connections and 3.9% to Full Service MEO Ports). The Exchange allocated
the remaining depreciation and amortization expense (approximately
37.9%) toward the cost of providing transaction services, membership
services, other port services and market data.
The Exchange notes that its revenue estimates are based on
projections across all potential revenue streams and will only be
realized to the extent such revenue streams actually produce the
revenue estimated. The Exchange does not yet know whether such
expectations will be realized. For instance, in order to generate the
revenue expected from connectivity, the Exchange will have to be
successful in retaining existing clients that wish to maintain physical
connectivity and/or Full Service MEO Ports or in obtaining new clients
that will purchase such services. Similarly, the Exchange will have to
be successful in retaining a positive net capture on transaction fees
in order to realize the anticipated revenue from transaction pricing.
The Exchange notes that the Cost Analysis is based on the
Exchange's 2023 fiscal year of operations and projections. As such, the
Exchange believes that its costs will remain relatively similar in
future years. It is possible however that such costs will either
decrease or increase. To the extent the Exchange sees growth in use of
connectivity services it will receive additional revenue to offset
future cost increases.
However, if use of connectivity services is static or decreases,
the Exchange might not realize the revenue that it anticipates or needs
in order to cover applicable costs. Accordingly, the Exchange is
committing to conduct a one-year review after implementation of these
fees. The Exchange expects that it may propose to adjust fees at that
time, to increase fees in the event that revenues fail to cover costs
and a reasonable mark-up of such costs. Similarly, the Exchange would
propose to decrease fees in the event that revenue materially exceeds
our current projections. In addition, the Exchange will periodically
conduct a review to inform its decision making on whether a fee change
is appropriate (e.g., to monitor for costs increasing/decreasing or
subscribers increasing/decreasing, etc. in ways that suggest the then-
current fees are becoming dislocated from the prior cost-based
analysis) and would propose to increase fees in the event that revenues
fail to cover its costs and a reasonable mark-up, or decrease fees in
the event that revenue or the mark-up materially exceeds our current
projections. In the event that the Exchange determines to propose a fee
change, the results of a timely review, including an updated cost
estimate, will be included in the rule filing proposing the fee change.
More generally, we believe that it is appropriate for an exchange to
refresh and update information about its relevant costs and revenues in
seeking any future changes to fees, and the Exchange commits to do so.
Projected Revenue \130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ For purposes of calculating revenue for 10Gb ULL
connectivity, the Exchange used projected revenues for February
2023, the first full month for which it will provide dedicated 10Gb
ULL connectivity to the Exchange and cease operating a shared 10Gb
ULL network with MIAX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed fees will allow the Exchange to cover certain costs
incurred by the Exchange associated with providing and maintaining
necessary hardware and other network infrastructure as well as network
monitoring and support services; without such hardware, infrastructure,
monitoring and support the Exchange would be unable to provide the
connectivity services. Much of the cost relates to monitoring and
analysis of data and performance of the network via the subscriber's
connection(s). The above cost, namely those associated with hardware,
software, and human capital, enable the Exchange to measure network
performance with nanosecond granularity. These same costs are also
associated with time and money spent seeking to continuously improve
the network performance, improving the subscriber's experience, based
on monitoring and analysis activity. The Exchange routinely works to
improve the performance of the network's hardware and software. The
costs associated with maintaining and enhancing a state-of-the-art
exchange network is a significant expense for the Exchange, and thus
the Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to help
offset those costs by amending fees for connectivity services.
Subscribers, particularly those of 10Gb ULL connectivity, expect the
Exchange to provide this level of support to connectivity so they
continue to receive the performance they expect. This differentiates
the Exchange from its competitors. As detailed above, the Exchange has
five primary sources of revenue that it can potentially use to fund its
operations: transaction fees, fees for connectivity services,
membership and regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the
Exchange must cover its expenses from these five primary sources of
revenue.
The Exchange's Cost Analysis estimates the annual cost to provide
10Gb ULL connectivity services at $11,567,509. Based on current 10Gb
ULL connectivity services usage, the Exchange would generate annual
revenue of approximately $17,496,000. This represents a modest profit
of 34% when compared to the cost of providing 10Gb ULL connectivity
services. The Exchange's Cost Analysis estimates the annual cost to
provide Full Service MEO Port services at $1,644,132. Based on current
Full Service MEO Port services usage, the Exchange would generate
annual revenue of approximately $1,644,000. This represents a small
negative margin when compared to the cost of providing Full Service MEO
Port services. Even if the Exchange earns those amounts or
incrementally more, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are fair
and reasonable because they will not result in excessive pricing or
supra-competitive profit, when comparing the total expense of the
Exchange associated with providing 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full
Service MEO Port services versus the total projected revenue of the
Exchange associated with network 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service
MEO Port services.
* * * * *
The Exchange has operated at a cumulative net annual loss since it
launched operations in 2017.\131\ The Exchange has operated at a net
loss due to a number of factors, one of which is choosing to forgo
revenue by offering certain products, such as connectivity, at lower
rates than other options
[[Page 2725]]
exchanges to attract order flow and encourage market participants to
experience the high determinism, low latency, and resiliency of the
Exchange's trading systems. The Exchange should not now be penalized
for seeking to raise its fees in light of necessary technology changes
and its increased costs after offering such products as discounted
prices. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are
reasonable because they are based on both relative costs to the
Exchange to provide dedicated 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service
MEO Ports, the extent to which the product drives the Exchange's
overall costs and the relative value of the product, as well as the
Exchange's objective to make access to its Systems broadly available to
market participants. The Exchange also believes the proposed fees are
reasonable because they are designed to generate annual revenue to
recoup the Exchange's costs of providing dedicated 10Gb ULL
connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ The Exchange has incurred a cumulative loss of $79 million
since its inception in 2017 to 2021. See Exchange's Form 1/A,
Application for Registration or Exemption from Registration as a
National Securities Exchange, filed July 28, 2021, available at
<a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000461.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/2100/21000461.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange notes that its revenue estimate is based on
projections and will only be realized to the extent customer activity
actually produces the revenue estimated. As a competitor in the hyper-
competitive exchange environment, and an exchange focused on driving
competition, the Exchange does not yet know whether such projections
will be realized. For instance, in order to generate the revenue
expected from 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports, the
Exchange will have to be successful in retaining existing clients that
wish to utilize 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports and/or
obtaining new clients that will purchase such access. To the extent the
Exchange is successful in encouraging new clients to utilize 10Gb ULL
connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports, the Exchange does not believe
it should be penalized for such success. The Exchange, like other
exchanges, is, after all, a for-profit business, which provides
economic value to its Members. To the extent the Exchange has mispriced
and experiences a net loss in clients, the Exchange could experience a
net reduction in revenue. While the Exchange believes in transparency
around costs and potential revenue, the Exchange does not believe that
these estimates should form the sole basis of whether or not a proposed
fee is reasonable or can be adopted.
Further, the proposal reflects the Exchange's efforts to control
its costs, which the Exchange does on an ongoing basis as a matter of
good business practice. A potential profit margin should not be judged
alone based on its size, but is also indicative of costs management and
whether the ultimate fee reflects the value of the services provided.
For example, a profit margin on one exchange should not be deemed
excessive where that exchange has been successful in controlling its
costs, but not excessive where on another exchange where that exchange
is charging comparable fees but has a lower profit margin due to higher
costs. Doing so could have the perverse effect of not incentivizing
cost control where higher costs alone could be used to justify fees
increases.
The Proposed Pricing Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory and Provides for
the Equitable Allocation of Fees, Dues, and Other Charges
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, fair,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they are designed to
align fees with services provided and will apply equally to all
subscribers.
10Gb ULL Connectivity
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitably
allocated among users of the network connectivity and port
alternatives, as the users of 10Gb ULL connections consume
substantially more bandwidth and network resources than users of 1Gb
ULL connection. Specifically, the Exchange notes that 10Gb ULL
connection users account for more than 99% of message traffic over the
network, driving other costs that are linked to capacity utilization,
as described above, while the users of the 1Gb ULL connections account
for less than 1% of message traffic over the network. In the Exchange's
experience, users of the 1Gb connections do not have the same business
needs for the high-performance network as 10Gb ULL users.
The Exchange's high-performance network and supporting
infrastructure (including employee support), provides unparalleled
system throughput with the network ability to support access to several
distinct options markets. To achieve a consistent, premium network
performance, the Exchange must build out and maintain a network that
has the capacity to handle the message rate requirements of its most
heavy network consumers. These billions of messages per day consume the
Exchange's resources and significantly contribute to the overall
network connectivity expense for storage and network transport
capabilities. The Exchange must also purchase additional storage
capacity on an ongoing basis to ensure it has sufficient capacity to
store these messages to satisfy its record keeping requirements under
the Exchange Act.\132\ Thus, as the number of messages an entity
increases, certain other costs incurred by the Exchange that are
correlated to, though not directly affected by, connection costs (e.g.,
storage costs, surveillance costs, service expenses) also increase.
Given this difference in network utilization rate, the Exchange
believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory that the 10Gb ULL users pay for the vast majority of the
shared network resources from which all market participants' benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ 17 CFR 240.17a-1 (recordkeeping rule for national
securities exchanges, national securities associations, registered
clearing agencies and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Service MEO Ports
The tiered pricing structure for Full Service MEO Ports has been in
effect since 2018.\133\ The Exchange now proposes a pricing structure
that is used by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald,
except with lower pricing for each tier for Full Service MEO Ports
(Bulk) and a flat fee for Full Service MEO Ports (Single). Members that
are frequently in the highest tier for Full Service MEO Ports consume
the most bandwidth and resources of the network. Specifically, like
above for the 10Gb ULL connectivity, the Exchange notes that the Market
Makers who reach the highest tier for Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk)
account for approximately greater than 84% of ADV on the Exchange,
while Market Makers that are typically in the lowest Tier for Full
Service MEO Ports, account for approximately less than 14% of ADV on
the Exchange. The remaining 1% is accounted for by Market Makers who
are frequently in the middle Tier for Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82867 (March 13,
2018), 83 FR 12044 (March 19, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To achieve a consistent, premium network performance, the Exchange
must build out and maintain a network that has the capacity to handle
the message rate requirements of its most heavy network consumers.
Billions of messages per day consume the Exchange's resources and
significantly contribute to the overall network connectivity expense
for storage and network transport capabilities. The Exchange must also
purchase additional storage capacity on an ongoing basis to ensure it
has sufficient capacity to store these messages as part of it
surveillance program and to satisfy its record keeping requirements
under the
[[Page 2726]]
Exchange Act.\134\ Thus, as the number of connections a Market Maker
has increases, the related pull on Exchange resources also increases.
The Exchange sought to design the proposed tiered-pricing structure to
set the amount of the fees to relate to the number of connections a
firm purchases. The more connections purchased by a Market Maker likely
results in greater expenditure of Exchange resources and increased cost
to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ 17 CFR 240.17a-1 (recordkeeping rule for national
securities exchanges, national securities associations, registered
clearing agencies and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory
because, for the flat fee, the Exchange provides each Member two (2)
Full Service MEO Ports for each matching engine to which that Member is
connected. Unlike other options exchanges that provide similar port
functionality and charge fees on a per port basis,\135\ the Exchange
offers Full Service MEO Ports as a package and provides Members with
the option to receive up to two Full Service MEO Ports per matching
engine to which it connects. The Exchange currently has twelve (12)
matching engines, which means Members may receive up to twenty-four
(24) Full Service MEO Ports for a single monthly fee, that can vary
based on certain volume percentages. The Exchange currently assesses
Members a fee of $5,000 per month in the highest Full Service MEO
Port--Bulk Tier, regardless of the number of Full Service MEO Ports
allocated to the Member. Assuming a Member connects to all twelve (12)
matching engines during a month, with two Full Service MEO Ports per
matching engine, this results in a cost of $208.33 per Full Service MEO
Port--Bulk ($5,000 divided by 24) for the month. This fee has been
unchanged since the Exchange adopted Full Service MEO Port fees in
2018.\136\ Members will continue to receive two (2) Full Service MEO
Ports to each matching engine to which they are connected for the
single flat monthly fee. Assuming a Member connects to all twelve (12)
matching engines during the month, and achieves the highest Tier for
that month, with two Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk) per matching engine,
this would result in a cost of $500 per Full Service MEO Port ($12,000
divided by 24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ See supra notes 95 to 102 and accompanying text.
\136\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82867 (March 13,
2018), 83 FR 12044 (March 19, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intra-Market Competition
The Exchange believes the proposed fees will not result in any
burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed fees
will allow the Exchange to recoup some of its costs in providing 10Gb
ULL connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports at below market rates to
market participants since the Exchange launched operations. As
described above, the Exchange has operated at a cumulative net annual
loss since it launched operations in 2017 \137\ due to providing a low-
cost alternative to attract order flow and encourage market
participants to experience the high determinism and resiliency of the
Exchange's trading Systems. To do so, the Exchange chose to waive the
fees for some non-transaction related services and Exchange products or
provide them at a very lower fee, which was not profitable to the
Exchange. This resulted in the Exchange forgoing revenue it could have
generated from assessing any fees or higher fees. The Exchange could
have sought to charge higher fees at the outset, but that could have
served to discourage participation on the Exchange. Instead, the
Exchange chose to provide a low-cost exchange alternative to the
options industry, which resulted in lower initial revenues. Examples of
this are 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports, for which
the Exchange only now seeks to adopt fees at a level similar to or
lower than those of other options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ See supra note 131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed fee
increase for the 10Gb ULL connection change would place certain market
participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to
other market participants or affect the ability of such market
participants to compete. As is the case with the current proposed flat
fee, the proposed fee would apply uniformly to all market participants
regardless of the number of connections they choose to purchase. The
proposed fee does not favor certain categories of market participants
in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative
disadvantage compared to other market participants or affect the
ability of such market participants to compete. In particular, Exchange
personnel has been informally discussing potential fees for
connectivity services with a diverse group of market participants that
are connected to the Exchange (including large and small firms, firms
with large connectivity service footprints and small connectivity
service footprints, as well as extranets and service bureaus) for
several months leading up to that time. The Exchange does not believe
the proposed fees for connectivity services would negatively impact the
ability of Members, non-Members (extranets or service bureaus), third-
parties that purchase the Exchange's connectivity and resell it, and
customers of those resellers to compete with other market participants
or that they are placed at a disadvantage.
The Exchange does anticipate, however, that some market
participants may reduce or discontinue use of connectivity services
provided directly by the Exchange in response to the proposed fees. In
fact, as mentioned above, one Member will terminate their membership on
January 1, 2023 as a direct result of the proposed fee changes. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed fees for connectivity
services place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage
to other market participants because the proposed connectivity pricing
is associated with relative usage of the Exchange by each market
participant and does not impose a barrier to entry to smaller
participants. The Exchange believes its proposed pricing is reasonable
and, when coupled with the availability of third-party providers that
also offer connectivity solutions, that participation on the Exchange
is affordable for all market participants, including smaller trading
firms. As described above, the connectivity services purchased by
market participants typically increase based on their additional
message traffic and/or the complexity of their operations. The market
participants that utilize more connectivity services typically utilize
the most bandwidth, and those are the participants that consume the
most resources from the network. Accordingly, the proposed fees for
connectivity services do not favor certain categories of market
participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition;
rather, the
[[Page 2727]]
allocation of the proposed connectivity fees reflects the network
resources consumed by the various size of market participants and the
costs to the Exchange of providing such connectivity services.
Inter-Market Competition
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As
discussed above, options market participants are not forced to connect
to all options exchanges. There is no reason to believe that our
proposed price increase will harm another exchange's ability to
compete. There are other options markets of which market participants
may connect to trade options at higher rates than the Exchange's. There
is also a range of alternative strategies, including routing to the
exchange through another participant or market center or accessing the
Exchange indirectly. Market participants are free to choose which
exchange or reseller to use to satisfy their business needs.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee changes
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees for 10Gb
connectivity are appropriate and warranted in light of it bifurcating
10Gb connectivity between the Exchange and MIAX and would not impose
any burden on competition because this is a technology driven change
that would assist the Exchange in recovering costs related to providing
dedicating 10Gb connectivity to the Exchange while enabling it to
continue to meet current and anticipated demands for connectivity by
its Members and other market participants. Separating its 10Gb network
from MIAX would enable the Exchange to better compete with other
exchanges by ensuring it can continue to provide adequate connectivity
to existing and new Members, which may increase in ability to compete
for order flow and deepen its liquidity pool, improving the overall
quality of its market.
The proposed rates for 10Gb ULL connectivity are also driven by the
Exchange's need to bifurcate its 10Gb ULL network shared with MIAX so
that it can continue to meet current and anticipated connectivity
demands of all market participants. Similarly, and also in connection
with a technology change, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') amended access
and connectivity fees, including port fees.\138\ Specifically, Cboe
adopted certain logical ports to allow for the delivery and/or receipt
of trading messages--i.e., orders, accepts, cancels, transactions, etc.
Cboe established tiered pricing for BOE and FIX logical ports, tiered
pricing for BOE Bulk ports, and flat prices for DROP, Purge Ports, GRP
Ports and Multicast PITCH/Top Spin Server Ports. Cboe argued in its fee
proposal that the proposed pricing more closely aligned its access fees
to those of its affiliated exchanges, and reasonably so, as the
affiliated exchanges offer substantially similar connectivity and
functionality and are on the same platform that Cboe migrated to.\139\
Cboe also justified its proposal by stating that, ``. . . the Exchange
believes substitutable products and services are in fact available to
market participants, including, among other things, other options
exchanges a market participant may connect to in lieu of the Exchange,
indirect connectivity to the Exchange via a third-party reseller of
connectivity and/or trading of any options product, including
proprietary products, in the Over-the-Counter (OTC) markets.'' \140\
Cboe stated in its proposal that,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90333 (November 4,
2020), 85 FR 71666 (November 10, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-105). The
Exchange notes that Cboe submitted this filing after the Staff
Guidance and contained no cost based justification.
\139\ Id. at 71676.
\140\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule structure for options exchanges are also fundamentally
different from those of equities exchanges. In particular, options
market participants are not forced to connect to (and purchase market
data from) all options exchanges. For example, there are many order
types that are available in the equities markets that are not utilized
in the options markets, which relate to mid-point pricing and pegged
pricing which require connection to the SIPs and each of the equities
exchanges in order to properly execute those orders in compliance with
best execution obligations. Additionally, in the options markets, the
linkage routing and trade through protection are handled by the
exchanges, not by the individual members. Thus not connecting to an
options exchange or disconnecting from an options exchange does not
potentially subject a broker-dealer to violate order protection
requirements. Gone are the days when the retail brokerage firms (such
as Fidelity, Schwab, and eTrade) were members of the options
exchanges--they are not members of the Exchange or its affiliates, they
do not purchase connectivity to the Exchange, and they do not purchase
market data from the Exchange. Accordingly, not only is there not an
actual regulatory requirement to connect to every options exchange, the
Exchange believes there is also no ``de facto'' or practical
requirement as well, as further evidenced by the recent significant
reduction in the number of broker-dealers that are members of all
options exchanges.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ Id. at 71676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal also referenced the National Market System Plan
Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (``CAT NMS Plan''),\142\ wherein
the Commission discussed the existence of competition in the
marketplace generally, and particularly for exchanges with unique
business models. The Commission acknowledged that, even if an exchange
were to exit the marketplace due to its proposed fee-related change, it
would not significantly impact competition in the market for exchange
trading services because these markets are served by multiple
competitors.\143\ Further, the Commission explicitly stated that
``[c]onsequently, demand for these services in the event of the exit of
a competitor is likely to be swiftly met by existing competitors.''
\144\ Finally, the Commission recognized that while some exchanges may
have a unique business model that is not currently offered by
competitors, a competitor could create similar business models if
demand were adequate, and if a competitor did not do so, the Commission
believes it would be likely that new entrants would do so if the
exchange with that unique business model was otherwise profitable.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86901 (September
9, 2019), 84 FR 48458 (September 13, 2019) (File No. S7-13-19).
\143\ Id.
\144\ Id.
\145\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cboe also filed to establish a monthly fee for Certification
Logical Ports of $250 per Certification Logical Port.\146\ Cboe
reasoned that purchasing additional Certification Logical Ports, beyond
the one Certification Logical Port per logical port type offered in the
production environment free of charge, is voluntary and not required in
order to participate in the production
[[Page 2728]]
environment, including live production trading on the Exchange.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94512 (March 24,
2002), 87 FR 18425 (March 30, 2022) (SR-Cboe-2022-011). Cboe offers
BOE and FIX Logical Ports, BOE Bulk Logical Ports, DROP Logical
Ports, Purge Ports, GRP Ports and Multicast PITCH/Top Spin Server
Ports. For each type of the aforementioned logical ports that are
used in the production environment, the Exchange also offers
corresponding ports which provide Trading Permit Holders and non-
TPHs access to the Exchange's certification environment to test
proprietary systems and applications (i.e., ``Certification Logical
Ports'').
\147\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94512 (March 24,
2002), 87 FR 18425 (March 30, 2022) (SR-Cboe-2022-011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its statutory basis, Cboe justified the new port fee by stating
that it believed the Certification Logical Port fee were reasonable
because while such ports were no longer completely free, TPHs and non-
TPHs would continue to be entitled to receive free of charge one
Certification Logical Port for each type of logical port that is
currently offered in the production environment.\148\ Cboe noted that
other exchanges assess similar fees and cited to NASDAQ LLC and
MIAX.\149\ Cboe also noted that the decision to purchase additional
ports is optional and no market participant is required or under any
regulatory obligation to purchase excess Certification Logical Ports in
order to access the Exchange's certification environment.\150\ Finally,
similar proposals to adopt a Certification Logical Port monthly fee
were filed by Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.,\151\ BZX,\152\ and Cboe EDGA
Exchange, Inc.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Id. at 18426.
\149\ Id.
\150\ Id.
\151\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94507 (March 24,
2002), 87 FR 18439 (March 30, 2022) (SR-CboeBYX-2022-004).
\152\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94511 (March 24,
2002), 87 FR 18411 (March 30, 2022) (SR-CboeBZX-2022-021).
\153\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94517 (March 25,
2002), 87 FR 18848 (March 31, 2022) (SR-CboeBZX-2022-021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cboe fee proposals described herein were filed subsequent to
the D.C. Circuit decision in Susquehanna Int'l Grp., LLC v. SEC, 866
F.3d 442 (D.C. Cir. 2017), meaning that such fee filings were subject
to the same (and current) standard for SEC review and approval as this
proposal. In summary, the Exchange requests the Commission apply the
same standard of review to this proposal which was applied to the
various Cboe and Cboe affiliated markets' filings with respect to non-
transaction fees. If the Commission were to apply a different standard
of review to this proposal than it applied to other exchange fee
filings it would create a burden on competition such that it would
impair the Exchange's ability to make necessary technology driven
changes, such as bifurcating its 10Gb ULL network, because it would be
unable to monetize or recoup costs related to that change and compete
with larger, non-legacy exchanges.
* * * * *
In conclusion, as discussed thoroughly above, the Exchange
regrettably believes that the application of the Revised Review Process
and Staff Guidance has adversely affected inter-market competition
among legacy and non-legacy exchanges by impeding the ability of non-
legacy exchanges to adopt or increase fees for their market data and
access services (including connectivity and port products and services)
that are on parity or commensurate with fee levels previously
established by legacy exchanges. Since the adoption of the Revised
Review Process and Staff Guidance, and even more so recently, it has
become extraordinarily difficult to adopt or increase fees to generate
revenue necessary to invest in systems, provide innovative trading
products and solutions, and improve competitive standing to the benefit
of non-legacy exchanges' market participants. Although the Staff
Guidance served an important policy goal of improving disclosures and
requiring exchanges to justify that their market data and access fee
proposals are fair and reasonable, it has also negatively impacted non-
legacy exchanges in particular in their efforts to adopt or increase
fees that would enable them to more fairly compete with legacy
exchanges, despite providing enhanced disclosures and rationale under
both competitive and cost basis approaches provided for by the Revised
Review Process and Staff Guidance to support their proposed fee
changes.
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
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\154\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \155\ thereunder.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
\155\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
<bullet> Use the Commission's internet comment form (<a href="http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>); or
<bullet> Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#097b7c656c246a6664646c677d7a497a6c6a276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5123243d347c323e3c3c343f2522112234327f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2022-62 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
<bullet> 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-PEARL-2022-62. 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 (<a href="http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml">http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml</a>).
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-PEARL-2022-62 and should be submitted on
or before February 7, 2023.
[[Page 2729]]
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-00662 Filed 1-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 17, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.