Exchanges

01:32 PM
Ivy Schmerken
Ivy Schmerken
Commentary
Connect Directly
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The Battle Over Index Options

An industry source reminded me recently that major events happen in the financial industry for three reasons: fear, greed and regulation.

Advanced Trading Spring 2005An industry source reminded me recently that major events happen in the financial industry for three reasons: fear, greed and regulation. I disagree. In today's equity and options world, competition is emerging as the major catalyst for change.

As everyone knows, there are two important court cases circulating in the industry right now (and a third could be brewing) that are fighting against allowing exchanges to hold exclusive rights to proprietary products. Industry executives say exclusive licenses are necessary to reward innovation. Though inventors of index products should be rewarded for their efforts, I believe that there should be a time limit on exclusive listings, and licensing fees should not be used to block competition. As each of these cases illustrates, incumbents don't share my views.

First, a licensing battle erupted because the International Securities Exchange (ISE) wanted to trade options based on Spiders - the popular exchange-traded fund (ETF) that tracks the Standard & Poor's 500 index - without a license from S&P. S&P believed that it was entitled to sell a license on the index to each of the exchanges that creates a product based on it. The court ruled that ISE needed a license to trade the option. Though ISE lost the licensing battle, the decision gave S&P the green light to sell licenses to each of the options exchanges. As a result, on Jan. 10, six U.S. options exchanges introduced options contracts on Spiders and orders now are routed electronically everywhere in the spirit of competition.

Another fight brewing is Nasdaq's suit against Archipelago and the Pacific Exchange over trading the QQQs - the ETF based on the Nasdaq 100 stock index. In September, a federal court ruled that Archipelago didn't need a license from Nasdaq to trade the QQQs (which has since been renamed QQQQs). This created a huge precedent for the trading community, especially neophyte electronic exchanges such as the ISE that aspire to trade competitive products listed on traditional exchanges.

What's next? Probably the CBOE's SPX. Since 1983, the CBOE has had an exclusive license with Standard & Poor's Corp. to trade the S&P's Index Option.

Two years ago, the ISE petitioned the SEC to ban the CBOE's exclusively listed products. In a letter to member firms, dated Jan. 7, CBOE senior management writes: "Obviously, we will vigorously defend and protect our legal rights to trade our proprietary index products."

Though I am not a lawyer and I am not qualified to analyze the legal nuances of intellectual property law - patents, copyrights and trademarks - I do know when something smacks of unfairness. Is it fair for one exchange to have a lock on trading a vital index contract?

The CBOE has been the leading innovator in index options and now other exchanges are invading its turf. While I agree that inventors should be rewarded for innovation, does that mean an exchange should have an exclusive on trading a product forever?

Perhaps there should be a time limit on licensing agreements. Look at the pharmaceutical industry, in which big drug companies like Merck and Pfizer spend millions - far more than index publishers - on developing and marketing new drugs and then the Federal Drug Administration awards them patents that expire in six or seven years. Once these patents expire, blockbuster drugs are sold under generic brands - equivalent to multiple listings. By instilling more competition, consumers pay lower prices and vital drugs reach more people.

Similarly, when securities and options contracts are traded on multiple exchanges, investors benefit because spreads narrow, liquidity deepens, volumes increase and customer service improves. And isn't that the point?

Ivy Schmerken is a 20-year WS&T veteran. As Editor at Large, she covers trading for both Wall Street & Technology and Advanced Trading. ischmerken@cmp.com

Ivy is Editor-at-Large for Advanced Trading and Wall Street & Technology. Ivy is responsible for writing in-depth feature articles, daily blogs and news articles with a focus on automated trading in the capital markets. As an industry expert, Ivy has reported on a myriad ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
More Commentary
Raising the Data Management Stakes
Data management can get firms only so far. Advanced data analytics is needed for all business lines and for calculating risk, especially with BCBS 239 on the horizon.
Asia/Pacific Challenged by T+2 European Settlement Cycle
A survey commissioned by Omgeo shows market participants in Asia/Pacific are ill prepared for Europe's T+2 settlement deadline in October.
The Future of the CIO
Todayís chief information officers are no longer hardcore technologists. And they arenít pure business leaders either. They need to have excellent business and technology acumen to succeed.
HFT's Death by a Thousand Cuts
It took a while for regulators to catch up with high-frequency traders. Unfortunately for the HFT players, the regulators found their footing in September.
100 Years: Charles Dow to Quants to Predictive Analytics for Everyone
High-frequency trading and quantitative financial analysis left most investors in the dust. Today modern advanced data analytics tools are giving all investors access to unique information.
Register for Wall Street & Technology Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
Wall Street & Technology - Elite 8, October 2014
The in-depth profiles of this year's Elite 8 honorees focus on leadership, talent recruitment, big data, analytics, mobile, and more.
Video
Exclusive: Inside the GETCO Execution Services Trading Floor
Exclusive: Inside the GETCO Execution Services Trading Floor
Advanced Trading takes you on an exclusive tour of the New York trading floor of GETCO Execution Services, the solutions arm of GETCO.