[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44125-44129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15687]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-89325; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-060]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Adopt Related Futures
Cross (``RFC'') Orders
July 15, 2020.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 1, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to adopt Related Futures Cross (``RFC'') Orders. The text of the
proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
The Exchange proposes to adopt RFC orders on a permanent basis. On
the Exchange's trading floor, floor brokers execute crosses of option
combos (i.e., synthetic futures) on the trading floor on behalf of
market participants who were exchanging futures contracts for related
options positions. Market participants enter into these exchanges in
order to swap related exposures. For instance, if a market participant
has positions in VIX options but would prefer to hold a corresponding
position in VIX futures (such as, for example, to reduce margin or risk
related to the option positions), that market participant may swap its
VIX options positions with another market participant(s)'s VIX futures
positions that have corresponding risk exposure.\3\ The Exchange
understands from customers that the need to reduce risk is prevalent in
VIX and SPX, particularly when the markets are volatile, and that they
often have corresponding futures that could make these exchanges
possible. For example, Cboe Futures Exchange LLC (``CFE'') permit these
types of exchanges with respect to VIX futures pursuant to CFE Rule
414.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The transaction between the market participants for the
futures positions occurs in accordance with the rules of the
applicable designated contract market that lists the futures. See,
e.g., Cboe Futures Exchange LLC Rule 414.
\4\ Currently, CME, which lists futures that correspond to SPX
options, does not offer similar exchange opportunities. If CME
implements a rule to permit them, the proposed rule change will
permit TPHs to similar use RFC orders to swap exposure with
corresponding futures that transact pursuant to CME's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key element to these exchanges is that both of the option and
future transactions must occur between the same market participants.
When a floor broker represented the cross of the option contracts on
the trading floor in accordance with applicable rules,\5\ while in-
crowd market participants had the opportunity to bid or offer to
participate on the trade, those participants generally declined to
participate upon hearing that the cross was part of an exchange of
related futures contracts. While not required by the Rules, the Rules
permit in-crowd market participants to decline to accept contracts that
would otherwise be allocated to them.\6\ The Exchange understands these
market participants decline this allocation voluntarily, as
[[Page 44126]]
they are aware of the need for market participants to execute these
crosses cleanly for the transfer of risk between participants to be
effective.\7\ These are riskless exchanges that carry no profit or loss
for the market participants that are party to the transactions, but
rather are intended to provide a seamless method for market
participants to reduce margin and capital requirements while
maintaining the same risk exposure within their portfolios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Rules 5.85 and 5.87.
\6\ See Rule 5.85(a)(2)(C)(iv).
\7\ Additionally, many market-makers in the crowd that decline
their allocations in these crosses often similarly engage in these
exchanges for similar purposes, so may similarly benefit from the
ability to execute these clean crosses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From March 16 to June 12, 2020, the Exchange closed its trading
floor in response to the coronavirus pandemic. During that time, the
Exchange operated in an all-electronic configuration, which would have
prevented market participants from executing these crosses. As a
result, the Exchange adopted Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D) to permit Trading
Permit Holders (``TPHs'') to execute RFC orders while the trading floor
was closed.\8\ When the trading floor reopened on June 15, 2020, RFC
orders were no longer available. However, the Exchange has received
feedback from customers regarding the benefits of RFC orders, including
the efficiency it provided with respect to the execution of these
crosses. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to adopt RFC orders that can
be executed electronically or in open outcry on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Pursuant to current Rule 5.24(e)(1), RFC orders would be
available until the earlier of the reopening of the trading floor or
June 30, 2020. Because the proposed rule change proposes to adopt
RFC orders on a permanent basis, the proposed rule change deletes
the temporary RFC order rule in Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule change adds RFC orders to the list of complex
order instructions in Rule 5.33(b)(5). For purposes of electronic
trading, a ``Related Futures Cross'' or ``RFC'' order is an SPX or VIX
complex order comprised of an option combo order coupled with a contra-
side order or orders totaling an equal number of option combo orders.
For purposes of open outcry trading, an RFC order is an SPX or VIX
complex order comprised of an option combo that may execute against a
contra-side RFC order or orders totaling an equal number of option
combo orders. An RFC order must be identified to the Exchange as being
part of an exchange of option contracts for related futures
positions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See current Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed definition of RFC order for electronic trading
purposes is identical to the current definition in Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D).
The proposed definition of RFC order for open outcry trading is
identical as well, except it contemplates RFC orders to be submitted as
two separate orders rather than a paired order, as paired orders are
currently unable to route to PAR for manual handling. This is merely a
difference in form of submission--as two orders are submitted to the
System in one order message for electronic and two orders are submitted
to the System in separate messages for open outcry--but the criteria to
be considered an RFC order and the terms of execution are the same for
both. The Exchange notes that currently, if a TPH wants to execute a
cross of options orders as part of an exchange for related futures
positions, such cross occurs with two separate orders, so the proposed
rule change is consistent with current practice on the trading floor,
except it eliminates the need for exposure.
For purposes of the proposed RFC order instruction:
An SPX or VIX option combo order is a two-legged order
with one leg to purchase (sell) SPX or VIX calls and another leg to
sell (purchase) the same number of SPX or VIX, respectively, puts with
the same expiration date and strike price.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See current Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An exchange of option contracts for related futures
positions is a transaction entered into by market participants seeking
to swap option positions with related futures positions with related
exposures.
A related futures position is a position in a futures
contract with either the same underlying as or a high degree of price
correlation to the underlying of the option combo in the RFC order so
that execution of the option combos in the RFC order would serve as an
appropriate hedge for the related future positions.
In an exchange of contracts for related positions, one
party(ies) must be the buyer(s) of (or the holder(s) of the long market
exposure associated with) the options positions and the seller(s) of
corresponding futures contracts and the other party(ies) must be the
seller(s) of (or holder(s) of the short market exposure associated
with) the options positions and the buyer(s) of the corresponding
futures contracts. The quantity of the option contracts executed as
part of the RFC order must correlate to the quantity represented by the
related futures position portion of the exchange.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See current Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule change adopts Rule 5.33(m) to describe how RFC
orders may execute. Specifically, proposed subparagraph (m)(1) states
an RFC order will execute automatically on entry without exposure if:
Each option leg executes at a price that complies with
Rule 5.33(f)(2),\12\ provided that no option leg executes at the same
price as a Priority Customer Order in the Simple Book; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Rule 5.33(f)(2) requires complex orders, which would
include an RFC order, which by definition contains two option legs,
to execution only if the execution price: At a net price: (i) That
would cause any component of the complex strategy to be executed at
a price of zero; (ii) worse than the synthetic best bid or offer
(``SBBO'') or equal to the SBBO when there is a Priority Customer
Order at the SBBO, except all-or-none complex orders may only
execute at prices better than the SBBO; (iii) that would cause any
component of the complex strategy to be executed at a price worse
than the individual component prices on the Simple Book; (iv) worse
than the price that would be available if the complex order Legged
into the Simple Book; or (v) that would cause any component of the
complex strategy to be executed at a price ahead of a Priority
Customer Order on the Simple Book without improving the BBO of at
least one component of the complex strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
each option leg executes at a price at or between the
national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') for the applicable series; and
the execution price is better than the price of any
complex order resting in the complex order book (``COB''), unless the
RFC order is a Priority Customer Order and the resting complex order is
a non-Priority Customer Order, in which case the execution price may be
the same as or better than the price of the resting complex order.
The System cancels an RFC order if it cannot execute.\13\ This
provision provides that RFC orders must execute in accordance with the
same priority principles that apply to all other complex orders on the
Exchange, with additional restrictions so that no leg may trade at the
same price as a resting Priority Customer order, which protects
Priority Customer orders in the simple book and COB and prohibits
trades through prices available in the book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See current Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D)(1)(b) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (m) also provides the following:
The execution of an RFC order must happen
contemporaneously with the execution of the related futures position
portion of the exchange.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See proposed Rule 5.33(m)(3); see also current Rule
5.24(e)(1)(D)(6). Current Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D)(6) provides that RFC
orders may only execute during the Regular Trading Hours session.
The purpose of that restriction was because the functionality was
intended to temporarily replicate trading that only occurred on the
trading floor, which is only available during Regular Trading Hours.
With permanent availability of this order instruction, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to make electronic RFC orders available
during the Global Trading Hours session as well. This will provide
market participants with flexibility to execute these orders at more
times, particularly given that futures may trade nearly 24 hours a
day. See CFE trading hours, available at https://www.cboe.com/trading-resources/cfe-expiration-holiday-calendars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44127]]
An RFC order may only be entered in the standard increment
applicable to the class pursuant to Rule 5.33(f)(1)(A).\15\ Therefore,
RFC orders may only be submitted in the same increments as all other
complex orders in VIX and SPX, as applicable.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See proposed Rule 5.33(m)(2). Rule 5.33(f)(1)(A) provides
that the minimum increment for bids and offers on a complex order,
and the increments at which components of a complex order may be
executed, is set forth in Rule 5.4(b). Rule 5.4(b) states except as
provided in Rule 5.33, the minimum increment for bids and offers on
complex orders with any ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three
(.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) for equity and
index options, and for Index Combo orders, is $0.01 or greater,
which may be determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis,
and the legs may be executed in $0.01 increments. The minimum
increment for bids and offers on complex orders with any ratio less
than one-to-three (.333) or greater than three-to-one (3.00) for
equity and index options (except for Index Combo orders) is the
standard increment for the class pursuant to paragraph (a), and the
legs may be executed in the minimum increment applicable to the
class pursuant to paragraph (a). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
minimum increment for bids and offers on complex orders in options
on the S&P 500 Index (SPX) or on the S&P 100 Index (OEX and XEO),
except for box/roll spreads, is $0.05 or greater, or in any
increment, which may be determined by the Exchange on a class-by-
class basis.
\16\ See proposed Rule 5.33(m)(2); see also current Rule
5.24(e)(1)(D)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transaction involving the related futures position of
the exchange must comply with all applicable rules of the designated
contract market on which the futures are listed for trading.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See proposed Rule 5.33(m)(4); see also current Rule
5.24(e)(1)(D)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 5.9 (related to exposure of orders on the Exchange)
does not apply to executions of RFC orders.\18\ An RFC order is
intended to provide a seamless mechanism to execute crosses without
exposure, so proposed change is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See proposed Rule 5.33(m)(5); see also current Rule
5.24(e)(1)(D)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, market participants execute crosses related to an
exchange for related positions in open outcry on the Exchange's trading
floor. While in-crowd market participants have the opportunity to bid
or offer to participate on the trade, those participants generally
decline to participate upon hearing that the cross was part of an
exchange of related futures contracts. Therefore, in practice, the
orders execute as clean crosses. To provide for a seamless experience
in open outcry, the Exchange proposes to add RFC orders to the list of
complex orders it may make available in open outcry.\19\ RFC orders
will execute in open outcry in a substantially similar manner as they
do electronically. Specifically, proposed Rule 5.85(i) provides that an
RFC orders execute against each other without representation on the
trading floor if:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See proposed Rule 5.83(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each option leg executes at a price that complies with
Rule 5.85(b),\20\ provided that no option leg executes at the same
price as a Priority Customer Order in the Simple Book;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Rule 5.85(b) provides that a complex order (1) with any
ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or
equal to three-to-one (3.00) or (2) that is an Index Combo order may
be executed at a net debit or credit price without giving priority
to equivalent bids (offers) in the individual series legs that are
represented in the trading crowd or in the Book if the price of at
least one leg of the order improves the corresponding bid (offer) of
a Priority Customer order(s) in the Book by at least one minimum
trading increment as set forth in Rule 5.4(b). A complex order with
any ratio less than one-to-three (.333) and greater than three-to-
one (3.00) (except for an Index Combo order) may be executed in open
outcry on the trading floor at a net debit or credit price without
giving priority to equivalent bids (offers) in the individual series
legs that are represented in the trading crowd or in the Book if
each leg of the order betters the corresponding bid (offer) of a
Priority Customer order(s) in the Book on each leg by at least one
minimum trading increment as set forth in Rule 5.4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
each option leg executes at a price at or between the NBBO
for the applicable series; and
the execution price is better than the price of a complex
order resting in the COB, unless the RFC order is a Priority Customer
Order and the resting complex order is a non-Priority Customer Order,
in which case the execution price may be the same as or better than the
price of the resting complex order.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See proposed Rule 5.85(i)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFC orders may not be executed unless the above criteria are
satisfied. These execution criteria are the same as the proposed
criteria for execution of RFC order electronically as described above,
except the proposed rule change references the complex order priority
applicable to open outcry trading rather than electronic trading.
However, RFC orders, whether executed electronically or in open outcry
may not trade, and may not have a leg trade, at the same price as a
resting Priority Customer order.
Proposed Rule 5.85(i) adopts the following provision that
correspond to criteria applicable to electronic RFC orders, as
described above:
An RFC order may only be entered in the standard increment
applicable to the class pursuant to Rule 5.4(b).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See proposed Rule 5.85(i)(1)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The execution of an RFC order must happen
contemporaneously with the execution of the related futures position
portion of the exchange.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See proposed Rule 5.85(i)(1)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transaction involving the related futures position of
the exchange must comply with all applicable rules of the designated
contract market on which the futures are listed for trading.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See proposed Rule 5.85(i)(1)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 5.9 (related to exposure of orders on the Exchange)
does not apply to executions of RFC orders.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See proposed Rule 5.85(i)(1)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowing TPHs, and particularly market-makers, to exchange
synthetic futures (long (short) call, short (long) put--combos) for
listed futures replicates an execution opportunity available in an open
outcry environment market participants often use to obtain relief from
the effect of the current exposure method (``CEM'') on the options
market. However, the proposed RFC order will provide market
participants with opportunities to execute these necessary position
reducing trades in VIX and SPX options in a more efficient and seamless
manner, as it will not require exposure of these orders on the
Exchange.
The Exchange believes there are multiple reasons that make the
proposed rule change to make RFC orders available permanently is
appropriate to maintain fair and orderly markets. First, existing
margin models do not fully recognize similar risks present in VIX and
SPX derivatives positions held by the Exchange's liquidity providing
community. This results in an overestimation of risk causing Clearing
TPHs to require out-sized margin deposits from their market-maker
clients, which restricts the liquidity market-makers can provide to the
markets. Second, because the Clearing TPHs carrying these positions are
bank-owned broker/dealers they are subject to further bank regulatory
capital requirements pursuant to CEM, which result in these additional
punitive capital requirements being passed on to their market-maker
clients.\26\ Finally, market volatility, such as the recent extreme
volatility experienced in the markets, can make providing liquidity in
VIX and SPX options immensely more challenging. The execution of
options trades independent of the underlying futures hedge introduces
additional risk to these transactions, which further reduces available
liquidity a liquidity provider may
[[Page 44128]]
provide to the market. The combination of these factors negatively
impacts the market-making community, which reduces liquidity available
in the market. This is particularly true in an extremely volatile
market, which is when the market needs this liquidity the most.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Letter from Cboe, New York Stock Exchange, and Nasdaq,
Inc., to the Honorable Randal Quarles, Vice Chair for Supervision of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 18,
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will allow liquidity
providers to execute trades tied to the underlying future (i.e.,
``delta-neutral'') in a substantially similar manner as they are
currently only able to do on the trading floor, which the Exchange
believes will considerably reduce the risk inherent in trying to
maintain a hedged portfolio. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change will reduce existing inefficiencies in the execution of these
risk-reducing trades and provide market participants with additional
flexibility to execute them (either electronically or in open outcry).
As a result, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
provide an additional method for liquidity providers to free up much
needed capital, which will benefit the entire market and all investors.
The proposed rule will require that the executing TPH identify
these crosses as related to an exchange for related positions. As a
result, the Exchange's Regulatory Division has put in place a
regulatory review plan that will permit it to ensure any RFC orders
that are executed are done in conjunction with an exchange of contract
for related positions as required by the proposed rule.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ This will be a continuation of the plan implemented in
connection with the temporary RFC orders that were available when
the trading floor was closed, which will apply to electronic and
open outcry RFC orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\28\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \29\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \30\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed rule change will provide liquidity
providers and other market participants with the ability to exchange
SPX and VIX options positions with corresponding futures positions
electronically in a substantially similar manner as are able to do on
the trading floor was open. Additionally, the proposed rule change will
enhance the process by which market participants are currently able to
effect these exchanges on the trading floor. These exchanges allow
market participants to reduce options positions in their hedged
portfolios while maintaining the same risk exposure, which would reduce
the necessary capital associated with those positions and permit them
to provide more liquidity in the market. This additional liquidity may
result in tighter spreads and more execution opportunities, which
benefits all investors, particularly in the current volatile markets.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is also consistent with the
Act in that it seeks to mitigate the potentially negative effects of
the bank capital requirements on liquidity in the VIX and SPX markets.
As described above, current regulatory capital requirements could
potentially impede efficient use of capital and undermine the critical
liquidity role that Market-Makers and other liquidity providers play in
the SPX and VIX options market by limiting the amount of capital
Clearing TPHs (``CTPHs'') allocate to clearing member transactions.
Specifically, the rules may cause CTPHs to impose stricter position
limits on their clearing members. In turn, this could force Market-
Makers to reduce the size of their quotes and result in reduced
liquidity in the market. The Exchange believes that permitting TPHs to
reduce options positions in SPX and VIX options that will permit them
to maintain a hedged portfolio would likely contribute to the
availability of liquidity in the SPX and VIX options market and help
ensure that these markets retain their competitive balance. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule would serve to protect
investors by helping to ensure consistent continued depth of liquidity,
particularly given current market conditions when liquidity is needed
the most by investors. As noted above, the Exchange temporarily offered
RFC orders in an all-electronic trading environment while the trading
floor was closed. During that time, TPHs executed 869,800 VIX contracts
as RFC orders. The Exchange estimates this equates to more than $80
million in capital that market participants were able to free up using
RFC orders, which capital they then had available to put back into the
market.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act, because the proposed procedure is consistent with
transactions that are otherwise permitted on the trading floor. The
proposed rule would provide an electronic mechanism to replicate a
process used on the trading floor and enhance the current process used
on the trading floor. The proposed rule change will protect Priority
Customer orders and orders on top of the book that comprise the BBO, as
well as Priority Customer orders on the top of the COB. Additionally,
the proposed rule change requires RFC orders to execute in the same
increments as all other complex orders. While these crosses must
currently be exposed on the trading floor, the Exchange observed that
market participants generally deferred their allocations to permit a
clean cross, as that is necessary for these transactions to achieve
their intended effect. Because these orders were generally not broken
up on the trading floor, and because the purpose of these trades is
unrelated to profits and losses (making the price at which the
transaction is executed relatively unimportant like competitive
trades), the Exchange believes it is appropriate to not require
exposure of these orders in an electronic or open outcry setting. The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change, which is limited to two
classes the Exchange believes are being significantly impacted by the
inability to execute these crosses, and to option orders that qualify
as combos tied to related futures positions, is narrowly tailored for
the specific purpose of facilitating the ability of liquidity providers
to reduce positions requiring significant capital as a result of
current bank regulatory capital requirements and the current historic
levels of market
[[Page 44129]]
volatility. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will protect
investors by contributing to the continued depth of liquidity in the
SPX and VIX options market.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition, RFC orders will be available to all market participants.
As discussed above, while the proposed rule change is directed at
market-makers, all market participants may use these orders in the same
manner as long as all criteria of the proposed rule are satisfied. The
Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intermarket competition, as it will apply only to products
currently listed on the Exchange. Additionally, the proposed order is
intended to accommodate riskless transactions for which parties are not
seeking price improvement, but rather looking to swap risk exposure to
free up capital that will permit those parties to continue to provide
liquidity to the market, and thus is not intended to have a competitive
impact.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-060 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-060. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-060, and should be submitted
on or before August 11, 2020.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15687 Filed 7-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P