question on getting fast nyse fills

Discussion in 'Order Execution' started by joeyata1, Dec 18, 2005.

  1. Island when it was Island not part of the NBBO, but now it INET.

    Brut is part of the NBBO via, CAES
    Trac" "
    INET" "


    Since all the buyouts they are on exchanges. Trac has two ECN's/books. Same with Attain which was bought out by Knight. It is now called Edge I think. As long as they are not part of an exchange(NMS) then you can trade through on listed. But it still happens all the time on regionals because sometimes the markets are too fast. And if it does it is their responsiblity not yours.


     
    #31     Dec 21, 2005
  2. mskl

    mskl

    It is my understanding that this "Order Protection Rule" will only apply to situations where the quotation of the best market is auto executable. Thus if the NYSE's quote is not auto executable then the quote can be traded through. If one takes a look at this new hybrid market one will find that there will be plenty of times where the quote will require Liquididty Replenishment Points (LRP's) (non auto quotes). From the NYSE website:

    Liquidity Replenishment Points (LRPs) are volatility curbs – pre-determined price points at which the Hybrid Market briefly converts to auction-market trading only. They may be triggered by a sweep or electronic trading that results in rapid price movement over a short period of time. LRPs will afford an opportunity for new orders and crowd and specialist interest to add liquidity, helping the NYSE maintain its hallmark lowest volatility and transaction costs. This lowers the cost of capital for issuers and the cost of trading for investors and traders.


    So, it does not appear that things will change much once the new trade-through rules/NYSE Hybrid market is in place. (In the MO example - there is NO question that this would be considered a LRP)

    It is also my understanding that ARCA will basically remain the same as it is today. I do not believe that it will be merged into this NYSE Hybrid market and that it will continue to trade as an ECN perhaps under a different name. Has anyone heard otherwise?
     
    #32     Dec 21, 2005