Yes, that's how they think.
Enormous charges for data coming?
- Thread starter Sergio77
- Start date
Yes, that's how they think.
Well, how is this related to non display fees? And why not tightening the settlement delay... After all you guys are behind the rest of the world
Most outside settle already T+2, some even T+1 abd very few STP.
Most outside settle already T+2, some even T+1 abd very few STP.
Exactly, at least for now. And a few FCMs pee their panties and almost get a heart attack while others push back and clearly tell the NYSE "listen guys, get your house in order, with this crap you will eventually lose all our business to other exchanges". Voila, all of a sudden the pressure is gone, the company is not pressured anymore, at least for the time being. That is exactly how I imagine this to go down.
Yes. I read it. Bravo Bloomberg. And they mention exactly the reason I believe this money grab will eventually fail. Sec stipulates that data fees much be equitable AND REASONABLE. Charging some retail algo trader several thousand a month just for top of the book data is clearly breaking with Sec regulation. For that reason alone i believe the non display fee idea will not survive too long. Secondly it's impossible to enforce it in the end. If I subscribed to a data service, even via Api I could simply state that it feeds my UI. Case closed. There is no way for them to verify. Hence it would not be enforceable nor would it be equitable if some are excempt and others not.
Robert Morse
Sponsor
This is how the NYSE enforces the fee. NYSE make us provide a list of clients that use an API and NYSE data. If we don't comply, they send us a bill. Bloomberg says they have 325,000 subscribers globally. If 10% use an API, that is 32,500*$9000=$292.5mm/month. Bloomberg is not going to pay that. I'd say that is the immediate cause for the letter. Bloomberg has known about this for over a year.
Bob
Well they have done something and said no to the exchange. You guys just fucked the customer and are in bed with greedy and inequitable market participants. How else should we see this please? If NYSE asked for 5 mln per month you would equally have just passed it on to clients instead of having used common sense that something is totally wrong and fishy here. Sorry mate, however you turn the page, your company doing nothing and just silently complying leaves a very bitter aftertaste about where you guys are standing. Basically "shut up, don't ask, don't tell, as long as we are out of the picture let others get it up the ass".
Robert has helped ET to understand this issue since the first posts about this in October, maybe even before:
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/non-display-fees.303379/
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/non-display-fees.301156/
It's true that his firm hasn't filed any complaint and DTN did. Reading this tweet, seems no one wanted to be the first to complaint:
I'm not exactly sure why firms are afraid to be the first to complain.
I'm for sure that next time I'm going to let Eric Hunsader know issues like this. He seems very involved in market transparency issues and such.
Robert has also helped a lot explaining how his firm has been asked to identify non-display users, regardless whether his firm is greedy or not.
Disagree, Bob rattled the cage saying "this will be street wide very soon". That was 7 months ago. Nobody was faster than his firm to happily pass those data on to his clients. Until today I use the IB API and can access NYSE quotes without paying any non-display fees. Nowhere in the customer agreement is there a clause that prohibits me to do so. So, IB and the rest of the street are acting illegally and violate agreements or is it perhaps that Bob's firm has been a little overzealous in all of this. Perhaps to the degree of being complicit and naive?