big data | big picture | big opportunities sec market d · pdf file trading success _.3...

Click here to load reader

Post on 27-Jun-2020




0 download

Embed Size (px)


  • P.O. Box 181, North Weymouth, MA 02191 Page 1 of 97 (Public)


    We see big to continuously boil down the essential improvements until you achieve sustainable growth!

     617.237.6111  [email protected]

    May 26, 2020 Via Electronic Mail ([email protected])

    Ms. Vanessa Countryman, Secretary

    U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549

    Re: Proposed Rule on Market Data Infrastructure1 File No. S7-03-20 (Release #: 34-88216; RIN 3235-AM61)

    Dear Ms. Countryman:

    On behalf of Data Boiler Technologies, I am pleased to provide the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with our

    comments on this release concerning market data infrastructure. First, we applaud the Commission for the 297 thoughts-

    provoking questions. It is humbling to marvel at how the market data and market access topic involves many intertwined

    Rules – 17 CFR §242.600 National Market System (NMS), 603 Quote Display, 605 a.k.a. Reg. Best Interest (BI), 610 Access

    Fee; 611 Order Protection, 613 Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT), and the new proposed Rule 614 Competing Consolidators

    (CCs). The SEC’s Trading and Markets division, together with other supporting teams, have definitely done a tremendous

    job to holistically showcase why our market data infrastructure needed a change right now. Yet, we have reservations and

    concerns about the SEC’s proposed Consolidated Market Data (CMD), Decentralized Consolidation Model (DCM), and

    related economic effects, including but not limited to, possible implications to the National Best Bid and Offer (NBBO) and

    broker-dealers (BDs). As an entrepreneur with a suite of patented inventions in market data and trade surveillance, I

    would like to point out some flaws in DCM, CMD and related matters. The proposal needs appropriate fixes before the

    industry can practically implement the necessary changes to transition to a new equilibrium.

    ① Our Understanding and Rebukes

    We would describe “new equilibrium” as the market where “fairness, reasonableness and non-discriminatory” principles

    are testified rather than merely using a disclosure or via self-claim promotion. We envisage this “new equilibrium” would

    achieve what Chairman Clayton have said, “Ensure that core data evolves along with the broader market ecosystem”2

    from the perspective of minimizing gaps, rather than spark another “drag-race” that only benefit telecom companies. The

    gaps we refer to are not only the gap between the existing Securities Information Processor (SIP) or the proposed CMD

    and the Exchanges’ Proprietary Products (PP), but the inequalities between High Frequency Trading firms (HFTs) and

    average investors in NMS where former Chairman Mary Jo White has stated the need to “deemphasize speed as a key to

    trading success”.3 We despise monopoly4 and favor competition (we do like to be one of the CC contenders if given the

    opportunity). Yet, “war to end all wars”5 has historically proven to fail and many adverse consequences6. We believe the

    competitive race should be about who has the best trade strategies to support economic growths, rather than the rich

    having privileges on their ever faster transmittal speed using microwave7, laser8, quantum9 technologies, etc.










    mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected]

  • P.O. Box 181, North Weymouth, MA 02191 Page 2 of 97 (Public)


    We see big to continuously boil down the essential improvements until you achieve sustainable growth!

     617.237.6111  [email protected]

    Table 1 below summarized key areas where we disagree or have concerns about the SEC’s proposal and its assumptions:

    # SEC’s preliminarily believe Our rationale for the rebukes


    “Same manner same method” will achieve same result as “market data available securely in synchronized time”

    Collocation10 ≠ Latency Equalization (LEQ)11 ≠ Market Data Available SECURELY in Synchronized Time12. It is a shame that even online gaming industry uses LEQ, while electronified markets13 adopt a lower standard. Without putting the right parameters to bound performance, it is merely a “standard price list”. “Same format” hurts average investors and gives HFTs a permanent advantage (See Figure 3).


    CC competition using microwave, laser will improve efficiencies and latency comparable to PP … substantially reduce the latency differential

    This exacerbates gap between the “have” and “have not”. The SEC’s proposal is based on 10G connectivity while NYSE launched 100G colocation service since April 2020. This 10 times difference would soon become 40, 80, or even 160 times soon. As long as NMS remains a “drag race”, the rich would access connectivity that will not be reasonably affordable to average investors. The industry does not need another ultra-fast bullet to harm one another. Ratio between non-CCs and CCs’ connectivity must not exceed a certain threshold. Also, real-time market data is valuable and its security must be protected by using time-lock14 to ensure no premature decryption.


    … previously concerned about the risk that fees for core data would increase … in contrast, under DCM, SROs would continue to develop jointly the fees … subject to Commission oversight under Rule 608 … benefits of less expensive alternatives to PP

    CC is indeed an intermediary between suppliers and users adding a layer of cost to the overall system if it does not perform any value-added function. Taking over some of the existing functionalities of Exchanges’ PP do not count as “value-added”. Whatever positive effect from breaking up Exchanges’ monopoly is going to be short- term, while long-term sustainability is doubtful because Exchanges may exploit any disparity between CMD and PP, and/or per #2, the rich may be allowed to access connectivity that not reasonably affordable to average investors. As mentioned in our Dec 2019 comment15, guidance16 reminds SROs that SEC is vigilant. Yet, no further exacerbating of market data price differences has not been achieved17 and it does not ensure a fair and efficient access.


    Competitive pressure will cause exchanges to lower PP fees in effort to stay competitive with the CMD

    “Exchanges may optimally restrict access to price information for rent seeking behaviors.”18 PP fees will go up rather than go down because demand is inelastic. Benefits from less expensive alternatives to PP will be offset if Exchanges exploit disparity (level 2 DOB, OTC, non-equity data, etc.) to recover loss profits to CMD.


    For co-location at same data center, speed performance can vary significantly depends on connectivity, kilowatts and equipment cabinet, as well as other configuration and firmware parameters. Some connectivity options offered by Exchanges as of today include: 1G/ 10G/ 40G/ 100G. However, 400G is already being offered commercially in other industry as of last year, 800G is already achieved in late 2019 to early 2020, and the Ethernet Alliance projects 1.6Tbit would become standard possibly between year 2023 and 2025. 11

    “Under Articles 48(8) and (9) of Directive 2014/65/EU in MiFID II, trading venues are required to provide “transparent, fair and non- discriminatory” colocation services that “do not create incentives for disorderly trading conditions or market abuse.”; “Latency equalization is a very different perspective to ‘low latenc