Tagged: issuers

25 Basis Points

Whether public companies are winning in the stock market comes down to basis points.

The Buttonwood Agreement formulating the US public equity market in 1792 affirmed in two terse sentences that its parties would charge a quarter-point commission.

Last weekend Jason Zweig wrote about “May Day” for the Wall Street Journal. On May 1, 1975, under pressure from the SEC and Justice Department antitrust lawyers, and seeing a path to reducing market-fragmentation and competition from low-cost platforms like Instinet, the NYSE ended fixed commissions. Many brokers saw doomsday looming and called it “Mayday.”

As Mr. Zweig says, assertions of industry demise proved both exaggerated and misplaced. Volumes boomed, advertising about stock-trading exploded, Charles Schwab created the greatest Everyman brokerage in the history of the profession and here in 2015 the notion that set costs for trading was ever a good one are scorned.

It was called “deregulation” since the rule inked by quill pen May 17, 1792 stating “We the Subscribers, Brokers for the Purchase and Sale of the Public Stock, do hereby solemnly promise and pledge ourselves to each other, that we will not buy or sell from this day for any person whatsoever, any kind of Public Stock, at a less rate than one quarter percent Commission on the Specie value of and that we will give preference to each other in our Negotiations” was rescinded.

Under deregulation has come tens of thousands of pages of rules ranging from exchange order-types that hide shares even though exchanges are markets where shares are displayed, to the structural opus magnum Regulation National Market System decreeing trading at the best national price and dividing consequent data revenue.

When you dine out, what’s a fair tip?  If somebody handles bags for you at the hotel, what do you give them?  In 1792, brokers thought 25 basis points an acceptable fee for finding a buyer for a seller, and vice versa. (more…)

The Committee

I’ve learned lots about politics the last couple weeks.

In June 2014, SEC Chair Mary Jo White said:  “We must evaluate all issues through the prism of the best interest of investors and the facilitation of capital formation for public companies. The secondary markets exist for investors and public companies, and their interests must be paramount.”

You remember that?  We wrote here about it, thinking perhaps for once a regulator wasn’t gazing over the heads of all the public companies in the room.

Last autumn, SEC Commissioner Kara Stein’s office asked me to join Chair White’s proposed Market Structure Advisory Committee, a group meant to help the SEC formulate inclusive policies. Energized by SEC rhetoric, I said I’d do it.

As time passed, we had wind through relationships in the capital markets of intense lobbying around the committee. We decided we’d do something contrary to my nature:  Keep our mouths shut.

On January 13 this year, the SEC revealed the members and I was not among them. I felt some relief, supposing CEOs of public companies with names weightier than ours had been added instead.

Then I read the list. The first person named was the co-CEO of a quantitative proprietary high-frequency-trading outfit. The head of Exchange-Traded Funds (ETF) for a broker was there, as was a former NYSE executive now at Barclays, the firm sued by the New York attorney general over trading practices. Four professors made the cut, one an ex-Senator.  People from Convergex, Citadel, Bloomberg Tradebook – all dark pools, or alternative-trading systems run by brokers. Heck, the corporate secretary for AARP somehow got on a market-structure committee. Really. (more…)