Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Electronic vs. Floor Based TradingIncreasing Returns by Decreasing Trading Costs

Electronic vs. Floor Based Trading: Increasing Returns by Decreasing Trading Costs CHAPTER 2: INCREASING RETURNS BY DECREASING TRADING COSTS Edward J. Nicoll Chief Executive Officer, Instinct Group Incorporated Thank you for the invitation to join you today to discuss some of the most critical market structure issues facing our industry. I cannot think of a more important pubHc poHcy issue facing all of us than how we design and shape the regulatory regime governing the trading of listed securities. For over three decades, we've operated under a set of rules and regulations constructed before electronic markets existed as competitive alternatives. Consequently, those of us in that business have long argued for finding a fair and effective way to integrate electronic markets into this regulatory environment. To its credit, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been a leading advocate in addressing these issues. Recently, the SEC issued its proposed rule, and has reached out to many of us to offer our thoughts and recommendations. Those of you who know me could guess that I was pretty eager to join that debate. In recent appearances before both the SEC and the U.S. Congress, I've sat beside my competitors from the NYSE and listened closely to their arguments. Today, I'd like to http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Electronic vs. Floor Based TradingIncreasing Returns by Decreasing Trading Costs

Part of the Zicklin School of Business Financial Markets Conference Series Baruch College Book Series
Editors: Schwartz, Robert A.; Byrne, John Aidan; Colaninno, Antoinette
Nicoll, Edward J.
Electronic vs. Floor Based Trading — Jan 1, 2006
Download PDF
8 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/electronic-vs-floor-based-trading-increasing-returns-by-decreasing-aogkt0Jqfc
Publisher
Springer US
Copyright
© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006
ISBN
978-0-387-29909-9
Pages
17 –25
DOI
10.1007/0-387-29910-6_2
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

CHAPTER 2: INCREASING RETURNS BY DECREASING TRADING COSTS Edward J. Nicoll Chief Executive Officer, Instinct Group Incorporated Thank you for the invitation to join you today to discuss some of the most critical market structure issues facing our industry. I cannot think of a more important pubHc poHcy issue facing all of us than how we design and shape the regulatory regime governing the trading of listed securities. For over three decades, we've operated under a set of rules and regulations constructed before electronic markets existed as competitive alternatives. Consequently, those of us in that business have long argued for finding a fair and effective way to integrate electronic markets into this regulatory environment. To its credit, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been a leading advocate in addressing these issues. Recently, the SEC issued its proposed rule, and has reached out to many of us to offer our thoughts and recommendations. Those of you who know me could guess that I was pretty eager to join that debate. In recent appearances before both the SEC and the U.S. Congress, I've sat beside my competitors from the NYSE and listened closely to their arguments. Today, I'd like to

Published: Jan 1, 2006

Keywords: Market Participant; Priority Rule; Limit Order; Price Discovery; Good Price

There are no references for this article.