WEBVTT
X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=MPEGTS:900000,LOCAL:00:00:00.000

00:00:00.360 --> 00:00:03.300
Hester, I want to start off with the big
one here that everyone was focused on,

00:00:03.300 --> 00:00:04.980
and that, of course, is payment for
order flow.

00:00:05.250 --> 00:00:08.880
The idea that a pay, at least based on
one of the main proposals here, more of

00:00:08.880 --> 00:00:12.870
these orders effectively would have to
be routed through the NYSE or the NASDAQ

00:00:12.870 --> 00:00:16.560
for that matter, and not necessarily
through the virtues and citadels of the

00:00:16.560 --> 00:00:17.460
world.
Why?

00:00:19.360 --> 00:00:24.010
Well, I should tell you that I did not
support this part of the proposal, but

00:00:24.010 --> 00:00:30.670
the idea is to drive retail orders onto
the exchange so that a broader range of

00:00:30.670 --> 00:00:32.830
market participants can interact with
them.

00:00:33.340 --> 00:00:36.610
And the hope of my colleagues who did
support it is that this will lead to

00:00:36.610 --> 00:00:39.430
better, better execution for retail
investors.

00:00:39.460 --> 00:00:43.390
I'm not convinced that it actually will
and it will be a very costly experiment.

00:00:44.910 --> 00:00:47.410
Add to that costs.
And one was I started with that because

00:00:47.410 --> 00:00:51.730
the whole migration that we saw from the
exchange is not just a full migration,

00:00:51.730 --> 00:00:54.610
obviously was more kind of just a
splintering off into some of these

00:00:54.610 --> 00:00:58.120
wholesalers, if you will.
It did effectively reduce costs.

00:00:58.150 --> 00:01:01.090
I mean, obviously, we know at least at
the retail level, you can pretty much

00:01:01.090 --> 00:01:04.420
trade for free on some platforms or next
to nothing on others here.

00:01:04.810 --> 00:01:07.690
Is there a sense here that there was a
direct correlation between that

00:01:07.690 --> 00:01:09.940
migration?
Is that still an argument that could be

00:01:09.940 --> 00:01:12.490
made?
Well, I think it is.

00:01:12.520 --> 00:01:16.600
I mean, I think one of the concerns is
that people would like to see more more

00:01:16.600 --> 00:01:20.470
happening on exchange.
But but you point out correctly that the

00:01:20.470 --> 00:01:24.640
market right now is a very attractive
one for retail investors and for

00:01:24.940 --> 00:01:27.430
institutional investors as well.
It's not perfect.

00:01:27.520 --> 00:01:29.590
Right.
But there are over.

00:01:29.650 --> 00:01:34.540
Over the past 20 years, I think you've
seen a lot of improvements and execution

00:01:34.540 --> 00:01:38.920
costs are very low for retail investors.
Now, I think what sometimes gets

00:01:38.920 --> 00:01:43.060
forgotten here is that these proposals
grew out of a review that was sparked by

00:01:43.060 --> 00:01:47.620
the meme stock frenzy of last year.
Now that we see trading in GameStop, for

00:01:47.620 --> 00:01:52.120
instance, back to four and a half
million shares a day versus what, the

00:01:52.120 --> 00:01:55.660
high of 44 million shares a day back in
the first quarter of 2021.

00:01:56.140 --> 00:01:59.530
What do you think is the most lasting
grievance of individual investors from

00:01:59.530 --> 00:02:05.760
that time that persist to right now?
Well, I mean, I think we've seen a lot

00:02:05.760 --> 00:02:10.560
of retail investor participation in
individual stock purchases, which is

00:02:10.560 --> 00:02:14.130
something that is a relatively new
phenomenon, and I think there are some

00:02:14.130 --> 00:02:20.850
concerns about how that market worked
for for the mean stocks and concerns

00:02:20.850 --> 00:02:25.650
that at some points retail orders were
not being filled in a particular

00:02:25.650 --> 00:02:28.800
direction.
What I actually am concerned about,

00:02:28.800 --> 00:02:32.880
though, is that this new approach, this
new auction model, actually will will

00:02:32.880 --> 00:02:39.060
function worse at a time like that when
you have a lot of buy orders coming in

00:02:39.060 --> 00:02:43.080
from retail investors.
So I think we we need to really do some

00:02:43.080 --> 00:02:46.770
work to think about what would actually
happen in that kind of a situation, even

00:02:46.770 --> 00:02:50.790
if the auctions work well in normal
times, I'm not convinced they would work

00:02:50.790 --> 00:02:54.270
at times like that.
So the status quo is better than what is

00:02:54.270 --> 00:02:57.320
being proposed.
I do think so.

00:02:57.350 --> 00:03:03.680
I mean, we that was one of four
proposals that we we put out today and

00:03:03.890 --> 00:03:08.150
the other two of the other ones.
One would increase the amount of data

00:03:08.180 --> 00:03:13.040
available to retail investors about
their execution quality and the other

00:03:13.070 --> 00:03:17.960
would make some changes to tick sizes,
which is another area where we're a lot

00:03:17.960 --> 00:03:22.370
of people think changes are necessary.
I think those two changes could go quite

00:03:22.370 --> 00:03:26.090
a long way toward addressing some of the
issues that we need to address.

00:03:26.150 --> 00:03:29.540
You're supportive of that tick size rule
of the change to the tax ISE rule?

00:03:30.080 --> 00:03:32.750
I am.
I will have to see what comment or say

00:03:32.750 --> 00:03:35.060
about whether we got the exact mechanics
right.

00:03:35.320 --> 00:03:38.510
It's a complicated rule, right?
I think that will be key.

00:03:38.690 --> 00:03:40.190
OK.
I wanted to walk through these.

00:03:40.190 --> 00:03:43.310
And one other one that you didn't
mention, of course, was the 10 B 5 1

00:03:43.310 --> 00:03:45.470
plan.
This is basically when executives

00:03:45.470 --> 00:03:47.990
basically set off.
These are, I guess, automatic stock

00:03:48.470 --> 00:03:52.160
purchase and selling plans.
The idea here is this would actually

00:03:52.160 --> 00:03:55.610
restrict from when they can actually
start all those sales from when they

00:03:55.610 --> 00:03:58.940
actually make this filing.
What is the rationale first behind the

00:03:58.940 --> 00:04:00.920
proposal?
And B, what is your.

00:04:01.130 --> 00:04:05.510
Where do you stand on that?
Well, that was a unanimous rule.

00:04:05.540 --> 00:04:09.170
We all agreed on that.
I think we've we've seen problems in the

00:04:09.170 --> 00:04:13.130
market where people have traded very
quickly after entering into a 10, B,

00:04:13.160 --> 00:04:16.940
five, one plan and so allowing for a
cooling off period.

00:04:17.690 --> 00:04:22.570
And some of the other measures in that
rule should help to ensure that they're

00:04:22.580 --> 00:04:28.100
used to allow insiders to trade when
it's legal and they're not doing based

00:04:28.100 --> 00:04:31.700
on a material note.
Was there a feeling here that what that

00:04:31.760 --> 00:04:35.300
what was currently taking place with
what effectively amounted to immediate

00:04:35.300 --> 00:04:40.190
sales in some circumstances, that there
was something, I guess not up to snuff

00:04:40.190 --> 00:04:41.910
with that?
Exactly.

00:04:41.930 --> 00:04:44.990
There were concerns that people were
taking advantage of their inside

00:04:44.990 --> 00:04:49.580
information to trade and doing so under
the guise of A, 10, B, 5 1 plan.

00:04:49.850 --> 00:04:54.020
We tried to lock the lock the rule down
so that it made made it much harder for

00:04:54.020 --> 00:04:56.450
people to do that.
But at the end of the day, Hester, you

00:04:56.450 --> 00:04:59.690
mentioned that there are four proposals
along with that separate rule on insider

00:04:59.690 --> 00:05:01.370
trading.
Which do you expect to generate the

00:05:01.370 --> 00:05:04.730
least amount of resistance during this
comment period that would go off

00:05:04.730 --> 00:05:10.140
smoothly at the insider trading one?
Well, the insider trading ones, a final

00:05:10.140 --> 00:05:12.300
rule.
I think that a lot of people are in

00:05:12.300 --> 00:05:16.340
agreement that we need to get better
data around execution quality out there.

00:05:16.350 --> 00:05:20.310
So while some aspects of that proposal
could be controversial, I think people

00:05:20.310 --> 00:05:23.310
are widely in agreement that we need
better data.