Notice2023-02602
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fees Schedule
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
February 8, 2023
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8325-8329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02602]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-96793; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-008]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule
February 2, 2023.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 20, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the 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
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (<a href="http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx">http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx</a>), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to modify the fee
for the SPX (and SPXW) Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee change, among
other changes, on June 1, 2022 (SR-CBOE-2022-026). On June 10, 2022,
the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2022-029. On
August 5, 2022, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-
CBOE-2022-042. On September 26, 2022, the Exchange withdrew that
filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2022-050 to address the proposed fee
change relating to the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment
Fee. On November 23, 2022, the Exchange advised of its intent to
withdraw that filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2022-060. On January 20,
2023, the Exchange withdrew SR-CBOE-2022-060 and submitted this
filing. No comment letters were received in connection with any of
the foregoing rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By way of background, Exchange Rule 5.50(g)(2) provides that the
Exchange may establish one or more types of tier appointments and
Exchange Rule 5.50(g)(2)(B) provides such tier appointments are subject
to such fees and charges the Exchange may establish. In 2010, the
Exchange established the SPX Tier Appointment and adopted an initial
fee of $3,000 per Market-Maker trading permit, per month.\4\ The SPX
(and SPXW) Tier Appointment fee for Floor Market-Makers currently
applies to any Market-Maker that executes any contracts in SPX and/or
SPXW on the trading floor.\5\ The Exchange now seeks to increase the
fee for the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment from $3,000
per Market-Maker Floor Trading Permit to $5,000 per Market-Maker Floor
Trading Permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62386 (June 25,
2010), 75 FR 38566 (July 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-060).
\5\ The Exchange notes that the fee is not assessed to a Market-
Maker Floor Permit Holder who only executes SPX (including SPXW)
options transactions as part of multi-class broad-based index spread
transactions. See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Market-Maker Tier
Appointment Fees, Notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the proposed change, the Exchange also proposes
to update Footnote 24 in the Fees Schedule, as well as remove the
reference to Footnote 24 in the Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee
Table. By way of background, in June 2020, the Exchange adopted
Footnote 24 to describe pricing changes that would apply for the
duration of time the Exchange trading floor was being operated in a
modified manner in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.\6\ Among
other changes, Footnote 24 provided that the monthly fee for the SPX/
SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee was to be increased to
$5,000 per Trading Permit from $3,000 per Trading Permit. As the
Exchange now proposes to maintain the $5,000 rate on a permanent basis
(i.e., regardless of whether the Exchange is operating in a modified
state due to COVID-19 pandemic), the Exchange proposes to eliminate the
reference to the SPX/SPXW Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment Fee in
Footnote 24.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89189 (June 30,
2020), 85 FR 40344 (July 6, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-058).
\7\ The Exchange notes that since its transition to a new
trading floor facility on June 6, 2022, it has not been operating in
a modified manner. As such Footnote 24 (i.e., the modified fee
changes it describes) does not currently apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed
[[Page 8326]]
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. The SEC
Division of Trading and Markets' Fee Guidance provides that in
determining whether a proposed fee is constrained by significant
competitive forces, the Commission will consider whether there are
reasonable substitutes for the product or service that is the subject
of a proposed fee.\11\ As described in further detail below, the
Exchange believes substitutable products are in fact available to
market participants, including in the Over-the-Counter (OTC) markets.
Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade
options, with a 17th options exchange expected to launch in 2023. Based
on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more
than 17% of the market share as of January 19, 2023.\12\ Further, low
barriers to entry mean that new exchanges may rapidly and inexpensively
enter the market and offer additional substitute platforms to further
compete with the Exchange and the products it offers, including
exclusively listed products as discussed further below. For example,
there are 3 exchanges that have been added in the U.S. options markets
in the last 5 years (i.e., Nasdaq MRX, LLC, MIAX Pearl, LLC, and MIAX
Emerald LLC) and one additional options exchange that is expected to
launch in 2023 (i.e., MEMX LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Chairman Jay Clayton, Statement on Division of Trading
and Markets Staff Fee Guidance, June 12, 2019.
\12\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
(January 19, 2023), available at <a href="https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/">https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes that competition in the marketplace
constrains the ability of exchanges to charge supracompetitive fees for
access to its products exclusive to that market (``proprietary
products''). Notably, just as there is no regulatory requirement to
become a member of any one options exchange, there is also no
regulatory requirement for any market participant to participate on the
Exchange in any particular capacity nor trade any particular product.
Additionally, there is no requirement that any Exchange create or
indefinitely maintain any particular product.\13\ The Exchange also
highlights that market participants may trade an exchange's proprietary
products through a third-party without directly or indirectly
connecting to the exchange. Further, market participants, including
Market-Makers, may trade the Exchange's products, including proprietary
products, on or off the Exchange's trading floor (i.e., all products
are available both electronically and via open outcry on the Exchange's
trading floor). Indeed, market participants are not obligated to trade
on the Exchange's trading floor and therefore a market participant,
including Market-Makers, can choose to trade a product electronically
instead of on the Exchange's trading floor at any time and for any
reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees
charged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ If an option class is open for trading on another national
securities exchange, the Exchange may delist such option class
immediately. For proprietary products, the Exchange may determine to
not open for trading any additional series in that option class; may
restrict series with open interest to closing transactions, provided
that, opening transactions by Market-Makers executed to accommodate
closing transactions of other market participants and opening
transactions by TPH organizations to facilitate the closing
transactions of public customers executed as crosses pursuant to and
in accordance with Rule 6.74(b) or (d) may be permitted; and may
delist the option class when all series within that class have
expired. See Cboe Rule 4.4, Interpretations and Policies .11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, market participants may trade any options product,
including proprietary products, in the unregulated Over-the-Counter
(OTC) markets for which there is no requirement for fees related to
those markets to be public. Given the benefits offered by trading
options on a listed exchange, such as increased market transparency and
heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of the Options
Clearing Corporation as issuer and guarantor, the Exchange generally
seeks to incentivize market participants to trade options on an
exchange, which further constrains fees that an Exchange may assess.
Market participants may also access other exchanges to trade other
similar or competing proprietary or multi-listed products. Alternative
products to the Exchange's proprietary products may include other
options products, including options on ETFs or options futures, as well
as particular ETFs or futures. Particularly, exclusively listed SPX
options (i.e., a proprietary product) may compete with the following
products traded on other markets: multiply-listed SPY options (options
on the ETF), E-mini S&P 500 Options (options on futures), and E-Mini
S&P 500 futures (futures on index). Indeed, as a practical matter,
investors utilize SPX and SPY options and their respective underlying
instruments and futures to gain exposure to the same benchmark index:
the S&P 500.
Notably, the Commission itself has affirmed that notwithstanding
the exclusive nature of SPX options, alternatives to this product exist
in the marketplace. Particularly, in approving SPXPM (the PM-settled
S&P 500 cash settled contract) on its affiliate exchange Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc. (which product was later transferred to the Exchange),
the Commission stated that it ``recognizes the potential impact on
competition resulting from the inability of other options exchanges to
list and trade SPXPM. In acting on this proposal, however, the
Commission has balanced the potentially negative competitive effects
with the countervailing positive competitive effects of C2's proposal.
The Commission believes that the availability of SPXPM on the C2
exchange will enhance competition by providing investors with an
additional investment vehicle, in a fully-electronic trading
environment, through which investors can gain and hedge exposure to the
S&P 500 stocks. Further, this product could offer a competitive
alternative to other existing investment products that seek to allow
investors to gain broad market exposure. Also, we note that it is
possible for other exchanges to develop or license the use of a new or
different index to compete with the S&P 500 index and seek Commission
approval to list and trade options on such index.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65256 (September 2,
2011), 76 FR 55969 (September 9, 2011) (SR-C2-2011-008). The
Exchanges notes SPXPM was later transferred to the Exchange, where
it currently remains listed. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
68888 (February 8, 2013), 78 FR 10668 (February 14, 2013) (SR-CBOE-
2012-120).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic equivalence of SPX and SPY options was further
acknowledged and cited as a basis for the elimination of position
limits for SPY options across the industry not long after the
Commission's findings above in 2011.\15\ Moreover, other exchanges have
acknowledged that SPY options are considered to be an economic
equivalent to SPX options.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67936
(September 27, 2012), 77 FR 60491 (October 3, 2012) (SR-BOX-2012-
013). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67999 (October 5,
2012), 77 FR 62295 (October 12, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-122).
\16\ NYSE Euronext, on behalf of its subsidiary options
exchanges, NYSE Arca Inc. and NYSE Amex LLC, commented on a Nasdaq
OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') proposal to increase the position limits for
SPY options, noting ``. . . when a contract that is considered by
many to be economically equivalent to SPY options--namely SPX
options . . .'' See (<a href="http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2011-58/phlx201158-1.pdf">http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2011-58/phlx201158-1.pdf</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in connection with a previous proposed amendment to
the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail
(``CAT
[[Page 8327]]
NMS Plan''),\17\ the Commission again discussed the existence of
competition in the marketplace generally, and particularly for
exchanges with unique business models. Similar to, and consistent with,
its findings in approving SPXPM, 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.\18\ Accordingly, although the Exchange may have proprietary
products not offered by other competitors, not unlike unique business
models, a competitor could create similar products to an existing
proprietary product if demand were adequate. As an illustration of this
point, MIAX created its exclusive product SPIKES specifically to
compete against VIX options, another product exclusive to the
Exchange.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86901 (September 9,
2019), 84 FR 48458 (September 13, 2019) (File No. S7-13-19).
\18\ Id.
\19\ MIAX has described SPIKES options as ``designed
specifically to compete head-to-head against Cboe's proprietary
VIX[supreg] product.'' See MIAX Press Release, SPIKES Options
Launched on MIAX, February 21, 2019, available at <a href="https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/press_release-files/MIAX_Press_Release_02212019.pdf">https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/press_release-files/MIAX_Press_Release_02212019.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, if a market participant views the Exchange's
proprietary products, including SPX and SPXW, as more or less
attractive than the competition they can switch between similar
products. As such, the Exchange is subject to competition and does not
possess anti-competitive pricing power, even with its offering of
proprietary products such as SPX.
The Exchange also believes the proposed fee is reasonable as the
Exchange believes it remains commensurate with the value of operating
as a Market-Maker on the Exchange's trading floor in the SPX pit. For
example, the Exchange recently transitioned from its previous trading
floor, which it had occupied since the 1980s, to a brand new, modern
and upgraded trading floor facility. The Exchange believes customers
continue to find value in open outcry trading and rely on the floor for
price discovery and the deep liquidity provided by floor Market-Makers.
The build out of a new modern trading floor reflects the Exchange's
commitment to open outcry trading and focus on providing the best
possible trading experience for its customers, including Market-Makers.
For example, the new trading floor provides a state-of-the-art
environment and technology and more efficient use of physical space,
which the Exchange believes better reflects and supports the current
trading environment. The Exchange also believes the new infrastructure
provides a cost-effective, streamlined, and modernized approach to
floor connectivity. For example, the new trading floor has more than
330 individual kiosks, equipped with top-of-the-line technology, that
enable floor participants to plug in and use their devices with greater
ease and flexibility. It also provides floor Market-Makers with more
space and increased capacity to support additional floor-based traders
on the trading floor.
Indeed, notwithstanding the proposed fee change, Market-Maker
presence on the new trading floor in SPX and SPXW has increased.
Particularly, as of December 30, 2022, there are 12 additional Market-
Makers trading SPX and SPXW on the trading floor as compared to May
2022 (which was the month prior to the proposed fee change being
implemented on a permanent basis and transition to the new trading
floor).\20\ Further, in June 2022, the month in which the proposed fee
change took effect on the new trading floor on a permanent basis, there
were 5 additional Market-Makers trading SPX and SPXW on the trading
Floor as compared to May 2022. Further, as of December 30, 2022, there
are 4 additional Market-Makers trading SPX and SPXW on the trading
floor as compared to March 2020, which was the last month the Exchange
assessed $3,000 for the SPX and SPXW Floor Market Maker Tier
Appointment fee. The Exchange believes the increasing SPX and SPXW
Market-Maker presence on the trading floor since the last time the
Exchange assessed $3,000 for the SPX and SPXW Floor Market Maker Tier
Appointment fee (i.e., March 2020) and since the time the current
proposal was submitted (i.e., June 2020) speaks not only to the value
Market-Makers find in participating as a Market-Maker in SPX and SPXW
on the (new and improved) trading floor, but also to the reasonableness
of the fee. Moreover, as established above, if a Market-Maker viewed
trading SPX and SPXW as less attractive than competitive products,
including those described above, they can switch between such similar
products and choose not to remain as a Market-Maker trading SPX and SPX
on the trading floor. As such, the Exchange is subject to competition
and does not possess anti-competitive pricing power, even with its
offering of proprietary products such as SPX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ As noted above, the Exchange has been assessing $5,000 for
the SPX and SPXW Floor Market Maker Tier Appointment fee since June
2020 as the Exchange was operating in a modified state until its
transition to the new trading floor in June 2022, at which time the
Exchange submitted this proposal to make such increase permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, as noted above, market participants are not obligated to
trade on the Exchange's trading floor and therefore a market
participant, including Market-Makers, can choose to trade a product
electronically instead of on the Exchange's trading floor at any time
and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the
reasonableness of fees charged. In particular, SPX and SPXW open outcry
volume currently accounts for only approximately 26% of total SPX and
SPXW volume (i.e., approximately 74% is traded electronically).
Accordingly, Market-Makers may also choose to trade SPX and SPXW
electronically should they deem fees associated with trading on the
trading floor as unreasonable, further demonstrating that the Exchange
is constrained from imposing unreasonable and supracompetitive fees.
The Exchange finally believes its proposal to increase the SPX (and
SPXW) Floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee is reasonable because the
proposed amount is not significantly higher than was previously
assessed (and is the same amount that has been assessed under Footnote
24 for the last two years). Additionally, the Exchange believes its
proposal to increase the fee is reasonable as the fee amount has not
been increased since it was adopted over 12 years ago in July 2010.\21\
Particularly, since its adoption 12 years ago, there has been notable
inflation. Indeed, the dollar has had an average inflation rate of 2.6%
per year between 2010 and today, producing a cumulative price increase
of approximately 37% inflation since 2010, when the SPX and SPXW Floor
Market-Maker Tier Appointment was first adopted.\22\ Additionally, for
nearly ten years, Market-Makers were only subject to the original rate
that was adopted in 2010 (i.e., $3,000) notwithstanding an average
inflation rate of 2.64% per year. The Exchange acknowledges its
proposed fee exceeds 37%. However, the Exchange believes such increase
is reasonable given many Market-Makers for nearly 10 years did not have
to pay increased fees notwithstanding yearly inflation. For
[[Page 8328]]
example, by not increasing the fee each year to correspond to the
average per year inflation rate of 2.6%, Market-Makers trading SPX on
the trading floor since 2011 through 2020 (when then Exchange
originally increased the fee due to the COVID-19 pandemic) have saved
nearly $10,000. The Exchange therefore believes that proposing a fee in
excess of the cumulative 37% inflation rate is still reasonable,
especially when considered in conjunction with all of the additional
and further rationale discussed above. The Exchange is also unaware of
any standard that suggests any fee proposal that exceeds a yearly or
cumulative inflation rate is unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62386 (June 25,
2010), 75 FR 38566 (July 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-060).
\22\ See <a href="https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1">https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/2010?amount=1</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it applies to all Market-Makers that trade SPX on the
trading floor uniformly. The Exchange believes it's reasonable
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the SPX/SPXW
floor Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee and not the SPX/SPXW electronic
Market-Maker Tier Appointment fee, as Floor Market-Makers are not
subject to other costs that electronic Market-Makers are subject to.
For example, while all Floor Market-Makers automatically have an
appointment to trade open outcry in all classes traded on the Exchange
and at no additional cost per appointment, electronic Market-Makers
must select an appointment in a class (such as SPX) to make markets
electronically and such appointments are subject to fees under the
Market-Maker Electronic Appointments Sliding Scale.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Cboe Options Rules 5.50(a) and (e). See also Cboe
Options Fees Schedule, Market-Maker EAP Appointments Sliding Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes
would be applied in the same manner to all Floor Market-Makers that
trade SPX (and/or SPXW). As noted above, the Exchange believes it's
reasonable to increase the SPX/SPWX Tier Appointment Fee for only Floor
Market-Makers only as opposed to electronic Market-Makers, because
electronic Market-Makers are subject to costs Floor Market-Makers are
not, such as the fees under Market-Maker EAP Appointments Sliding
Scale.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed rule changes apply only to a fee relating to a product
exclusively listed on the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange operates
in a highly competitive market. In addition to Cboe Options, TPHs have
numerous alternative venues that they may participate on (which, as
described above, list products that compete with SPX options) and
direct their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges (four of
which also maintain physical trading floors), as well as off-exchange
venues, where competitive products are available for trading. Based on
publicly available information, no single options exchange has more
than 17% of the market share of executed volume of options trades.\24\
Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of option order flow. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly
expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention
in determining prices, products, and services in the securities
markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, 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.'' \25\ The fact that this market is competitive has also
long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[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' . . . .''.\26\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed changes to the incentive programs impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
by Month (January 19, 2023), available at <a href="http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_share/">http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_share/</a>.
\25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
\26\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \27\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \28\
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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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<ls-thn-eq> Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f2d2a333a723c3032323a312b2c1f2c3a3c71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9defe8f1f8b0fef2f0f0f8f3e9eeddeef8feb3faf2eb">[email protected]</span></a>. Please
include File Number SR-CBOE-2023-008 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-CBOE-2023-008. 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
[[Page 8329]]
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-
CBOE-2023-008 and should be submitted on or before March 1, 2023.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-02602 Filed 2-7-23; 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 February 8, 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.