ShareThis Page

SEC weighs bigger stock-price increments 12 years after pennies

| Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

Twelve years after the nation switched to 1-cent increments for stock trading to save investors money, regulators and broker-dealers are considering a test of larger tick sizes.

A pilot study of bigger quoting increments to improve liquidity in less-active stocks will be debated by executives from exchanges and brokers, market makers and academics at a Securities and Exchange Commission meeting on Tuesday, according to an agenda posted online. The United States moved to minimum ticks of a penny from sixteenths of $1 in 2001. Panelists will also discuss the impact of 1-cent price moves on capital raising and trading.

Proponents say using larger increments would spur market makers to supply more buying and selling volume, particularly for less-active stocks, while skeptics say it will cause people to pay more when they trade. An SEC advisory group last week recommended the creation of a stock exchange limited to small companies that have trouble raising capital in public markets as part of efforts to encourage more initial public offerings.

“A test would tell you if there's a benefit or not,” Jim Maguire, 82, a former New York Stock Exchange specialist who began working at the Big Board in the 1970s and has opposed the move to 1-cent increments since 2000, said in a phone interview. “I assume there would be. The 1-cent spread has been a toxic element in trading.”

The shift to smaller increments enabled retail investors to buy shares at lower prices and sell for more. Combined with the growth of computing power and rules that boosted competition among venues, the process of decimalization decreased the profitability of equity dealers, who used money earned on wider bid-ask spreads to fund analyst research. Smaller tick sizes also complicated the way institutions trade by driving them to use more automated electronic strategies to handle blocks.

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, signed into law by President Obama in April, authorized the SEC to increase the tick size to as much as 10 cents from 1 cent for emerging-growth companies, or those with annual revenue of less than $1 billion. A July study by SEC staff members said that while rulemaking wasn't immediately necessary, discussions with market participants could generate ideas for a pilot study.

Market makers and dealers need more economic incentives to bring smaller companies public.

, provide bids and offers and publish stock research, said David Weild, New York-based chairman and chief executive officer of Weild & Co. and head of capital markets at Grant Thornton LLP. About 150 to 350 IPOs each raised less than $25 million a year from 1991 to 1997, according to data compiled by Grant Thornton. Fewer than 50 did so annually on average starting in 2000, the data show.

“The crisis in capital formation is a product of ill-advised market-structure changes that had massive consequences for small-cap stocks,” said Weild, a former vice chairman at Nasdaq Stock Market. “The SEC needs to increase tick sizes and make them permanent to improve liquidity. It's Armageddon for sub-$25 million IPOs.”

SEC rule changes focused on Nasdaq trading in the 1990s blunted companies' interest in going public by hurting the dealers that facilitated their trading, while later one-size-fits-all marketplace rules ignored the needs of smaller companies, Weild said. The regulator should consider allowing all companies to decide what increment their shares use from 1 cent to 25 cents as a partial remedy, he said.

The Security Traders Association, which represents more than 4,000 financial-industry professionals, recommends a pilot study lasting at least a year with 900 companies of different market capitalizations and trading characteristics such as daily volume and price volatility, said Jim Toes, president and CEO of the New York-based group.

“There's not one regulatory or competitive event you can point to and say that's why IPOs are down, but decimalization is on the list,” Toes said in an interview. “Enhanced liquidity is impossible to measure but it affects investor confidence. It's time to try a pilot study.”

The types of market makers providing liquidity in the United States have changed since SEC mandates in the 1990s, decimalization and Regulation NMS, a set of rules that spurred competition for NYSE when it was implemented in 2007, said Brian Conroy, president of Fidelity Capital Markets, the institutional trading arm of Boston-based Fidelity Investments. Many of the biggest market makers don't provide research or get involved with equity deals, he said.

Revenue fell more than 50 percent for NYSE specialists and 70 percent for Nasdaq market makers from 2000 to 2004, a Government Accountability Office report found in 2005. Regulatory changes, the increase in electronic trading and a 18 percent drop in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index over those five years cut the number of specialists and market makers almost in half, to about 260 from almost 500, the GAO said.

The squeeze helped give rise to the proprietary and high- frequency trading firms that now account for more than half of American equity volume. Today, with activity fragmented across more than a dozen exchanges and electronic communications networks and about 50 dark pools, venues rely on computerized firms to supply the buy and sell orders that make it possible for investors to trade shares rapidly.

“If you're a retail client, you'd be concerned that your cost to execute would go up,” said Conroy, speaking on behalf of Fidelity's mutual fund and institutional business. “We would be wary of market-structure changes that increase execution costs for the vast majority of investors, be they retail or mutual funds. We would also be wary of disrupting what is overall not perfect, but a highly efficient market structure.”

Smaller companies tend to be difficult to trade because of the number of shares publicly available and their concentration of ownership, Conroy said. Still, Fidelity would be open to a pilot, depending on how it's structured and what it aims to accomplish, he said. Fidelity oversaw $1.7 trillion in client assets as of Nov. 30.

The Investment Company Institute, which represents mutual funds, as well as NYSE Euronext and market makers such as Getco LLC and Knight Capital Group Inc. support experimentation with tick sizes, according to testimony during market-structure hearings held by the House financial services committee last June. The SEC advisory group on small and emerging companies recommended larger tick sizes at a meeting in Washington on Friday.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.