[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 242 (Friday, December 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67270-67275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30064]



[[Page 67270]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61139; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-87]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate 
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Amex LLC To Add 
Commentary .01 to Rule 934.3NY

December 10, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby 
given that, on December 7, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II 
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory 
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance 
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to add Commentary .01 to Rule 934.3NY to 
allow hedging stock, security future or futures contract positions to 
be represented currently with option facilitations or solicitations in 
the Trading Crowd (``tied hedge'' orders) based on a recently approved 
rule change of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'').\4\ The 
text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 to the 19b-4 
form. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the 
Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, on the Commission's Web 
site at http://www.sec.gov, at the Exchange's principal office and at 
the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60499 (August 13, 
2009), 74 FR 42350 (August 21, 2009) (order approving SR-CBOE-2009-
007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization 
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 those 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 parts 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 is proposing to add Commentary .01 to Rule 934.3NY to 
allow hedging stock, security future or futures contract positions to 
be represented currently with option facilitations or solicitations in 
the Trading Crowd (``tied hedge'' orders), based on a recently approved 
rule change of the CBOE. Rule 934.3NY generally sets forth the 
procedures by which a floor broker may cross an order with a solicited 
contra-side order. Currently, transactions executed pursuant to Rule 
934.3NY are subject to the restrictions of paragraph (c) of Rule 995NY, 
Prohibited Conduct, which prohibits trading based on knowledge of 
imminent undisclosed solicited transactions (commonly referred to as 
``anticipatory hedging'').

Existing Anticipatory Hedge Rule

    By way of background, when Rule 934.3NY was adopted in 2009, the 
Exchange noted its belief that it is appropriate to permit solicitation 
between potential buyers and sellers of options in advance of the time 
they send actual orders to the trading crowd on the Exchange. The 
Exchange also noted that, if the orders that comprise a solicited 
transaction are not suitably exposed to the order interaction process 
on the Trading Floor, the execution of such orders would not be 
consistent with Exchange rules designed to promote order interaction in 
an open-outcry auction.\5\ Solicited transactions by definition entail 
negotiation, and if the orders that comprise a solicited transaction 
are not adequately exposed to the floor auction, the in-crowd market 
participants (e.g., Market-Makers in the trading crowd) cannot have 
sufficient time to digest and react to those orders' terms. The pre-
negotiation inherent in the solicitation process thus can enable the 
parties to a solicited transaction to preempt the crowd to an execution 
at the pre-negotiated price. Thus, the Exchange notes, Rule 995NY was 
designed to preserve the right to solicit orders in advance of 
submitting a proposed trade to the crowd, while at the same time 
assuring that orders that are the subject of a solicitation are exposed 
to the auction market in a meaningful way. In addition to requiring 
disclosure of orders,\6\ Rule 995NY provides that it is inconsistent 
with just and equitable principles of trade for any ATP Holder or 
associated person, who has knowledge of all the material terms of an 
originating order \7\ and a solicited order (including a facilitation 
order) that matches the original order's price, to enter an order to 
buy or sell an option of the same class as any option that is the 
subject of the solicitation prior to the time that the original order's 
terms are disclosed to the crowd or the execution of the solicited 
transaction can no longer reasonably be considered imminent. This 
prohibition extends to orders to buy or sell the underlying security or 
any ``related instrument,'' as that term is defined in the rule.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, Rule 931NY, Manner of Bidding and Offering, 
requires bids and offers to be made at the post by public outcry, 
and Rule 934NY imposes order exposure requirements on floor brokers 
seeking to cross buy orders with sell orders.
    \6\ For example, the rule requires that the ATP Holder 
representing an original order that is the subject of a solicitation 
to disclose the terms of the original order to the crowd before the 
original order can be executed. This disclosure is intended to 
eliminate the unfairness that can be associated with pre-negotiated 
transactions among the parties to the solicitation versus the in-
crowd market participants, and would subject the order that is the 
subject of the solicitation to full auction interaction with other 
orders in the crowd. In addition, priority is accorded depending on 
whether the original order is disclosed throughout the solicitation 
period; whether the solicited order improves the best bid or offer 
in the trading crowd; and whether the solicited order matches the 
original order's limit. Rule 934.1NY contains exceptions to these 
priority provisions in instances where a crossing participation 
entitlement is sought.
    \7\ An ``originating order'' is an order respecting an option 
traded on the Exchange, including a spread, combination, straddle, 
stock option, security-future-option or any other complex order. See 
Rule 934.3NY.
    \8\ For purposes of Rule 995NY(c), an order to buy or sell a 
``related instrument,'' means, ``in reference to an index option, an 
order to buy or sell securities comprising ten percent or more of 
the component securities in the index or an order to buy or sell a 
futures contract on any economically equivalent index.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When Rule 995NY was adopted in 2009, the Exchange believed that 
maintaining the prohibition on anticipatory hedging was necessary to 
prevent ATP Holders and associated persons from using undisclosed 
information about imminent solicited option transactions to trade the 
relevant option or any closely-related instrument in advance of persons 
represented in the relevant options crowd. NYSE Amex believes the basic 
principle remains true today, but changes in the marketplace have 
caused the Exchange to re-evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of 
the existing rule's procedural requirements. The Exchange believes that 
increased volatility in the markets, as well as the advent of penny 
trading in underlying

[[Page 67271]]

stocks and resultant decreased liquidity at the top of each underlying 
markets' displayed national best bid or offer, it has become 
increasingly difficult for ATP Holders to assess the ultimate execution 
prices and the extent of available stock to hedge related options 
facilitation/solicitation activities, and to manage that market risk. 
This risk extends to simple and complex orders, and to all market 
participants involved in the transaction (whether upstairs or on-floor) 
because of the uncertainty of the extent to which the market 
participant will participate in the transaction, the amount of time 
associated with the auction process, and the likelihood that the 
underlying stock prices in today's environment may be difficult to 
assess and change before they are able to hedge. These circumstances 
make it difficult to obtain a hedge, difficult to quote orders and 
difficult to achieve executions, and can translate into less liquidity 
in the form of smaller size and wider quote spreads, fewer 
opportunities for price improvement, and the inefficient handling of 
orders. Additionally, more and more trading activity appears to be 
taking place away from the exchange-listed environment and in the over-
the-counter (``OTC'') market, which by its nature is not subject to the 
same trade-through type risks present in the exchange environment. 
Therefore, the Exchange is seeking to make its trading rules more 
efficient not only to address the market risk and execution concerns, 
but also to effectively compete with and attract volume from the OTC 
market. What is more, Market Makers- trading strategies have evolved. 
Whereas before Market Makers tended to trade based on delta risk,\9\ 
now market-making strategy is based more on volatility.\10\ The tied 
hedge transaction procedures (described below) are designed in a way 
that is consistent with this shift toward a volatility trading 
strategy, and makes it more desirable for Market-Makers to compete for 
orders that are exposed through the solicitation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The price of an option is not completely dependent on supply 
and demand, nor on the price of the underlying security. Market-
Makers' price options based on basic measures of risk as well. One 
of these such measures, delta, is the rate of change in the price of 
an option as it relates to changes in the price of the underlying 
security, security future or futures contract. The delta of an 
option is measured incrementally based on movement in the price of 
the underlying security, security future or futures contract. For 
example, if the price of an option increases or decreases by $1.00 
for each $1.00 increase or decrease in the price of the underlying 
security, the option would have a delta of 100. If the price of an 
option increases or decreases by $0.50 for each $1.00 increase or 
decrease in the price of the underlying security, the option would 
have a delta of 50.
    \10\ Volatility is a measure of the fluctuation in the 
underlying security's market price. Market-Makers that trade based 
on volatility have options positions that they hedge with the 
underlying. Once hedged, the risk exposure to the Market-Maker is 
realized volatility and implied volatility. Realized volatility is 
the actual volatility in the underlying. Implied volatility is 
determined by using option prices currently existing in the market 
at the time rather than using historical data on the market price 
changes of the underlying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Exception to Anticipatory Hedge Rule

    In order to address the concerns associated with increased 
volatility and decreased liquidity and more effectively compete with 
the OTC market, the Exchange is proposing to adopt a limited exception 
to the anticipatory hedging restrictions that would permit the 
representation of hedging stock positions in conjunction with option 
orders, including complex orders, in the options trading crowd (a 
``tied hedge'' transaction). The Exchange believes this limited 
exception remains in keeping with the original design of Rule 934.3NY, 
but sets forth a more practicable approach considering today's trading 
environment that will provide the ability to hedge in a way that will 
still encourage meaningful competition among upstairs and floor 
brokers. Besides stock positions, the proposal would also permit 
security futures positions to be used as a hedge. In addition, in the 
case where the order is for options on indices, options on exchange-
traded funds (``ETF'') or a related instrument may be used as a hedge. 
A ``related instrument'' would mean, in reference to an index option, 
securities comprising ten percent or more of the component securities 
in the index or a futures contract on any economically equivalent index 
applicable to the option order. A ``related instrument'' would mean, in 
reference to an ETF, a futures contract on any economically equivalent 
index applicable to the ETF underlying the option order.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, a tied hedge order involving options on the 
iShares Russell 2000 Index ETF might involve a hedge position in the 
underlying ETF, security futures overlying the ETF, or futures 
contracts overlying the Russell 2000 Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With a tied hedge transaction, Exchange ATP Holders would be 
permitted to first hedge an option order with the underlying security, 
a security future or futures contract, as applicable, and then forward 
the option order and the hedging position to an Exchange floor broker 
with instructions to represent the option order together with the 
hedging position to the options trading crowd. The in-crowd market 
participants that chose to participate in the option transaction must 
also participate in the hedging position. First, under the proposal, 
the original option order must be in a class designated as eligible for 
a tied hedge transaction as determined by the Exchange, including FLEX 
Options classes.\12\ The original option order must also be within 
designated tied hedge eligibility parameters, which would be determined 
by the Exchange and would not be smaller than 500 contracts.\13\ The 
Exchange notes that the minimum order size would apply to an individual 
originating order.\14\ Multiple originating orders could not be 
aggregated to satisfy the requirement (though multiple contra-side 
solicited orders could be aggregated to execute against the originating 
order). The Exchange states that the primary purpose of this provision 
is to limit use of the tied hedge procedures to larger orders that 
might benefit from an ATP Holder's ability to execute a facilitating 
hedge. Assuming an option order meets these eligibility parameters, the 
proposal also includes a number of other conditions that must be 
satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ FLEX Options provide investors with the ability to 
customize basic option features including size, expiration date, 
exercise style, and certain exercise prices.
    \13\ The designated classes and minimum order size applicable to 
each class would be communicated to ATP Holders via Regulatory 
Circular. For example, the Exchange could determine to make the tied 
hedge transaction procedures available in options class XYZ for 
orders of 1,000 contracts or more. Such a determination would be 
announced via Regulatory Circular, which would include a cumulative 
list of all classes and corresponding sizes for which the tied hedge 
procedures are available.
    \14\ In determining whether an individual original order 
satisfies the eligible order size requirement, the proposed Rule 
text states that any Complex Order must contain one leg alone which 
is for the eligible order size or greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the proposal would require that, prior to entering tied 
hedge orders on behalf of customers, the ATP Holder must deliver to the 
customer a one-time written notification informing the customer that 
their order may be executed using the Exchange's tied hedge procedures. 
Under the proposal, the written notification must disclose the terms 
and conditions contained in the proposed rule and be in a form approved 
by the Exchange. Given the minimum size requirement of 500 contracts 
per order, the Exchange believes that use of the tied hedges procedures 
will generally consist of orders for the accounts of institutional or 
sophisticated, high net worth investors. The Exchange therefore 
believes that a one-time notification delivered by the ATP Holder to 
the customer would be sufficient, and that

[[Page 67272]]

an order-by-order notification would be unnecessary and overly 
burdensome.
    Third, an ATP Holder would be required to create an electronic 
record that it is engaging in a tied hedge order in a form and manner 
prescribed by the Exchange. The Exchange states that the purpose of 
this provision is to create a record to ensure that hedging trades 
would be appropriately associated with the related options order and 
appropriately evaluated in the Exchange's surveillance program. The 
Exchange believes that this requirement should enable the Exchange to 
monitor for compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule, as 
discussed below, by identifying the specific purchase or sell orders 
relating to the hedging position.
    Fourth, the proposed rule would require that ATP Holders that have 
decided to engage in tied hedge orders for representation in the 
trading crowd would have to ensure that the hedging position associated 
with the tied hedge order is comprised of a position that is designated 
as eligible for a tied hedge transaction. Eligible hedging positions 
would be determined by the Exchange for each eligible class and may 
include (i) the same underlying stock applicable to the options order, 
(ii) a security future overlying the same stock applicable to the 
option order, or (iii) in reference to an option on an index or an ETF, 
a ``related instrument'' (as described above). For example, for options 
overlying XYZ stock, the Exchange may determine to designate the 
underlying XYZ stock or XYZ security futures or both as eligible 
hedging positions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As with designated classes and minimum order size, the 
eligible hedging positions applicable to each class would be 
communicated to the ATP Holder via Regulatory Circular, which would 
include a cumulative list of all classes and corresponding sizes for 
which the tied hedge procedures are available. See note 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the purpose of this provision is to ensure 
that the hedging position would be for the same stock, equivalent 
security future or related instrument, as applicable, thus allowing 
crowd participants who may be considering participation in a tied hedge 
order to adequately evaluate the risk associated with the option as it 
relates to the hedge. With stock positions in particular, the Exchange 
notes that occasionally crowd participants hedge option positions with 
stock that is related to the option, such as the stock of an issuer in 
the same industry, but not the actual stock associated with the option. 
Except as otherwise discussed above for index options, the proposed 
rule change would not allow such a ``related'' hedging stock position, 
but would require the hedging stock position to be the actual security 
underlying the option.
    Fifth, the proposal would require that the entire hedging position 
be brought without undue delay to the trading crowd. In considering 
whether the hedging position is presented without ``undue delay,'' the 
Exchange believes that ATP Holders should continue to have the same 
ability to shop an order in advance of presenting it to the crowd and 
should be able to enhance that process through obtaining a hedge. The 
Exchange also believes that, once a hedge is obtained, the order should 
be brought to the crowd promptly in order to satisfy the ``undue 
delay'' requirement. In addition, the proposal would require that the 
hedging position be announced to the Trading Crowd concurrently with 
the options order, offered to the crowd in its entirety, and offered at 
the execution price received by the ATP Holder introducing the order to 
any in-crowd market participant who has established parity or priority 
for the related options. In-crowd market participants that participate 
in the option transaction must also participate in the hedging position 
on a proportionate basis \16\ and would not be permitted to prevent the 
option transaction from occurring by giving a competing bid or offer 
for one component of the tied hedge order. The Exchange states that the 
purpose of these requirements is to ensure that the hedging position 
represented to the crowd would be a good faith effort to provide in-
crowd market participants with the same opportunity as the ATP Holder 
introducing the tied hedge order to compete most effectively for the 
option order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, if an in-crowd market participant's allocation 
is 100 contracts out of a 500 contract option order (\1/5\), the 
same in-crowed market participant would trade 10,000 shares of a 
50,000 stock hedge position tied to that option order (\1/5\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, if an ATP Holder introducing a tied stock hedge order 
were to offer 1,000 XYZ option contracts to the crowd (overlying 
100,000 shares of XYZ stock) and concurrently offer only 30,000 of 
100,000 shares of the underlying stock that the ATP Holder obtained as 
a hedge, crowd participants might only be willing or able to 
participate in 300 of the option contracts offered if the hedging stock 
position cannot be obtained at a price as favorable as the stock 
hedging position offering price, if at all. The Exchange states that 
the effect of this would be to place the crowd at a disadvantage 
relative to the introducing ATP Holder for the remaining 700 option 
contracts in the tied stock hedge order, and thus create a disincentive 
for the crowd to bid or offer competitively for the remaining 700 
option contracts. The Exchange believes the requirement that the 
hedging position be presented concurrently with the option order in the 
crowd and offered to the crowd in its entirety at the execution price 
received by the ATP Holder introducing the order should ensure that the 
crowd would be competing on a level playing field with the introducing 
ATP Holder to provide the best price to the customer.
    Sixth, the proposal would require that the hedging position not 
exceed the options order on a delta basis. For example, in the 
situation where a tied stock hedge order involves the simultaneous 
purchase of 50,000 shares of XYZ stock and the sale of 500 XYZ call 
contract (known as a ``buy-write''), and the delta of the option is 
100, it would be considered ``hedged'' by 50,000 shares of stock. 
Accordingly, the proposed rule would not allow the introducing ATP 
Holder firm to purchase more than 50,000 shares of stock in the hedging 
stock position. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to require 
that the hedging position be in amounts that do not exceed the 
equivalent size of the related options order on a delta basis, and not 
for a greater number of shares. The Exchange believes that the proposed 
rule change would support its view that the ATP Holder introducing the 
tied hedge order be guided by the notion that any excess hedging 
activity could be detrimental to the eventual execution price of the 
option order. Consequently, while delta estimates may vary slightly, 
the introducing ATP Holder would be required to assume hedging 
positions not to exceed the equivalent size of the options order on a 
delta basis.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange notes that there may be scenarios where the 
introducing ATP Holder purchases (sells) less than the delta, e.g., 
when there is not enough stock is available to buy (sell) at the 
desired price. In such scenarios, the introducing ATP Holder would 
present the stock that was purchased (sold) and share it with the 
in-crowd market participants on equal terms. This risk of obtaining 
less than a delta hedge is a risk that exists under the current 
rules because of the uncertainty that exists when market 
participants price an option and have to anticipate the price at 
which they will be able to obtain a hedge. The proposed tied hedge 
procedures are designed to help reduce this risk, but the initiating 
ATP Holder may still be unable to execute enough stock at the 
desired price. To the extent the initiating ATP Holder is able to 
execute any portion of the hedge, the risk exposure to the 
initiating ATP Holder and the in-crowd market participants would be 
diminished because those shares would be ``tied up'' and available 
for everyone that participates on the resulting tied hedge 
transaction. The Exchange does not believe that the initiating ATP 
Holder would have an unfair advantage by having the ability to pre-
facilitate less than a delta hedge because the proposed procedures 
would require the in-crowd market participants to get a proportional 
share of the hedge. To the extent more stock is needed to complete a 
hedge, the initiating ATP Holder and the in crowd market 
participants would have the same risk exposure that they do today.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 67273]]

    The Exchange believes that the delta basis requirement, together 
with the additional conditions that an introducing ATP Holder bring the 
hedging position without undue delay to the trading crowd and announce 
it concurrently with the option order, offer it to the crowd in its 
entirety, and offer it at the execution price received by the ATP 
Holder or to any in-crowd market participant who has established parity 
or priority, will help assure that the hedging activity is bona fide 
and not for speculative or manipulative purposes. Additionally, the 
Exchange believes these conditions will help assure that there is no 
adverse affect on the auction market because, as discussed above, in-
crowd market participants will have the same opportunity as the ATP 
Holder introducing the tied hedge order to compete for the option order 
and will share the same benefits of limiting the market risk associated 
with hedging. The Exchange believes that customers will also benefit if 
the market risks are limited in the manner proposed. Once an original 
order is hedged, there is no delta risk. With the delta risk minimized, 
quotes will likely narrow as market participants (whether upstairs or 
on-floor) are better able to hedge and compete for orders. For example, 
Market-Makers could more easily quote markets to trade against a 
customer's original order based on volatility with the delta risk 
minimized, which would ultimately present more price improvement 
opportunities to the original order.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange also believes that the proposed exception to 
the anticipatory hedging procedures will assist in the Exchange's 
competitive efforts to attract order flow from the OTC market, which 
may result in increased volume on the exchange markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange is not proposing any special priority 
provisions applicable to tied hedge transactions, though it intends to 
evaluate whether such changes are desired and may submit a separate 
rule filing on this subject in the future. Under the instant proposal, 
all tied hedge transactions will be treated as Complex Orders 
(regardless of whether the original order was a simple or complex 
order). Priority will be afforded in accordance with the Exchange's 
existing open outcry allocation and reporting procedures for Complex 
Orders.\19\ Any resulting tied hedge transactions will also be subject 
to the existing NBBO trade-through requirements for options and stock, 
as applicable. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the resulting 
option and stock components of the tied hedge transactions may qualify 
for various NBBO trade through exceptions including, for example, the 
complex trade exception to the Options Order Protection And Locked/
Crossed Market Plan \20\ (``Order Protection Plan'') (except in the 
scenario where the originating order is a simple order) and the 
qualified contingent trade exception to Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS 
for the stock component.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Generally, a Complex Order may be expressed in any 
increment and executed at a net debit or credit price with another 
ATP Holder without giving priority to equivalent bids (offers) in 
the individual series legs that are represented in the trading crowd 
or in the Consolidated Book provided at least one leg of the order 
betters the corresponding bid (offer) in the Consolidated Book. For 
stock-option orders and security future-option orders, this means 
that the options leg of the order has priority over bids (offers) of 
the trading crowd but not over bids (offers) in the Consolidated 
Book. In addition, for complex orders with non-option leg(s), such 
as stock-option orders, a bid or offer is made and accepted subject 
to certain other conditions, including that the options leg(s) may 
be cancelled at the request of any ATP Holder that is a party to the 
transaction if market conditions in any other market(s) prevent the 
execution of the non-options leg(s) at the agreed price(s). See, 
e.g., NYSE Amex Rules 960NY, Trading Differentials, 963NY, Priority 
and Order Allocation Procedures--Open Outcry, 963.1NY, Complex Order 
Transactions, 965NY, Contract Made on Acceptance of Bid or Offer, 
and 934.3NY. Any crossing participation entitlement would also apply 
to the tied hedge procedures in accordance with Rule 934.3NY.
    \20\ A ``complex trade'' is defined as: (i) The execution of an 
order in an option series in conjunction with the execution of one 
or more related orders in different option series in the same 
underlying security occurring at or near the same time in a ratio 
that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than 
or equal to three-to-one (3.0) and for the purpose of executing a 
particular investment strategy; or (ii) the execution of a stock 
option order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an 
underlying stock or a security convertible into the underlying stock 
(``convertible security'') coupled with the purchase or sale of 
option contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing 
either (A) the same number of units of the underlying stock or 
convertible security, or (B) the number of units of the underlying 
stock or convertible security necessary to create a delta neutral 
position, but in no case in a ratio greater than 8 option contracts 
per unit of trading of the underlying stock or convertible security 
established for that series by the Options Clearing Corporation. See 
paragraph (4) of NYSE Amex Rule 990NY, Definitions (applicable to 
the Order Protection Plan), and subparagraph (b)(7) to NYSE Amex 
Rule 991NY, Order Protection.
    \21\ A ``qualified contingent trade'' is defined as a 
transaction consisting of two or more component orders, executed as 
agent or principal, where: (i) At least one component order is in an 
NMS stock; (ii) all components are effected with a product or price 
contingency that either has been agreed to by the respective 
counterparties or arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or 
agent; (iii) the execution of one component is contingent upon the 
execution of all other components at or near the same time; (iv) the 
specific relationship between the component orders (e.g., the spread 
between the prices of the component orders) is determined at the 
time the contingent order is placed; (v) the component orders bear a 
derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes 
of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of 
participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been 
announced or since cancelled; and (vi) any trade throughs caused by 
the execution of an order involving one or more NMS stocks (each an 
``Exempted NMS Stock Transaction) is fully hedged (without regard to 
any prior existing position) as a result of the other components of 
the contingent trade. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57620 
(April 4, 2008), 73 FR 19271 (April 9, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange recognizes that, at the time a tied hedge transaction 
is executed in a Trading Crowd, market conditions in any of the non-
options market(s) may prevent the execution of the non-options leg(s) 
at the price(s) agreed upon. For example, the execution price may be 
outside the non-options market's best bid or offer (``BBO''), e.g., the 
stock leg is to be executed at a price of $25.03 and the particular 
stock market's BBO is $24.93-$25.02, and such an execution would 
normally not be permitted unless an exception applies that permits the 
trade to be reported outside the BBO. The Exchange notes that the 
possibility of this scenario occurring exists with complex order 
executions today and tied hedge transactions would present nothing 
unique or novel in this regard. In the event the conditions in the non-
options market continue to prevent the execution of the non-option 
leg(s) at the agreed price(s), the trade representing the options 
leg(s) of the tied hedge transaction may ultimately be cancelled in 
accordance with NYSE Amex's proposed rules.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange notes that, in the event of a cancellation, 
ATP Holders may be exposed to the risk associated with holding the 
hedge position. The Exchange intends to address this point in a 
circular to ATP Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples illustrate these priority principles:
     Simple Original Order: Introducing member receives an 
original customer order to buy 500 XYZ call options, which has a delta 
of 100. The introducing member purchases 50,000 shares of XYZ stock on 
the NYSE for an average price of $25.03 per share. Once the stock is 
executed on the NYSE, the introducing member, without undue delay, 
announces the 500 contract option order and 50,000 share tied stock 
hedge at $25.03 per share to the NYSE Amex trading crowd.
     Complex Original Order: Introducing member receives an 
original customer stock-option order to buy 500 XYZ call options and 
sell 50,000 shares

[[Page 67274]]

of XYZ stock. The introducing member purchases 50,000 shares of XYZ 
stock on the NYSE for an average price of $25.03 per share. Once the 
stock is executed on the NYSE, the introducing ATP Holder, without 
undue delay, announces the 500 contract option order and 50,000 share 
tied stock hedge at $25.03 per share to the trading crowd.
    In either the simple or complex order scenario, the next steps are 
the same and are no different from the procedures currently used to 
execute a Complex Order on NYSE Amex in open outcry.
     The in-crowd market participants would have an opportunity 
to provide competing quotes for the tied hedge package (and not for the 
individual component legs of the package). For example, assume the best 
net price is $24.53 (equal to $0.50 for each option contract and $25.03 
for each corresponding share of hedging stock).
     The option order and hedging stock would be allocated 
among the in-crowd market participants that established priority or 
parity at that price, including the initiating ATP Holder, in 
accordance with the standard allocation procedures, with the options 
leg being executed and reported on NYSE Amex and the stock leg being 
executed and reported on the stock market specified by the initiating 
ATP Holder.
    For example, the introducing member might trade 40% pursuant to an 
open outcry crossing entitlement (200 options contracts and 20,000 
shares of stock) and the remaining balance might be with three 
different Market-Makers that each participated on 20% of the order (100 
options contracts and 10,000 shares of stock per Market-Maker).
     The resultant tied hedge transaction: (i) Would qualify as 
a ``complex trade'' under the Order Protection Plan and the execution 
of the 500 option contracts with the market participants would not be 
subject to the NBBO for the particular option series in the scenario 
where the originating order is a complex order (not a simple order); 
and (ii) would qualify as a ``qualified contingent trade'' under 
Regulation NMS and the execution of the 30,000 shares of stock (the 
original 50,000 shares less the initiating member's 20,000 portion) 
with the market participants would not be subject to the NBBO for the 
underlying XYZ stock.
     The execution of the options leg would have to satisfy the 
Exchange's intra-market priority rules for Complex Orders (including 
that the execution price may not be outside the NYSE Amex BBO). Thus, 
if the Exchange's BBO for the series was $0.40-$0.55, the execution 
could take place at or inside that price range (e.g., at the quoted 
price of $0.50) and could not take place outside that price range 
(e.g., not at $0.56).
     Similarly, the execution of the stock at $25.03 per share 
would have to satisfy the intra-market priority rules of the market(s) 
where the stock is to be executed (including that the execution price 
may not be outside that market's BBO) or, alternatively, qualify for an 
exception that permits the trade to be reported outside the executing 
market(s)' BBO.
     If market conditions in the executing market(s) prevent 
the execution of the stock leg(s) at the price(s) agreed upon from 
occurring (e.g., the BBO remains at $24.93-$25.02), then the options 
leg(s) could be cancelled at the request of any member that is a party 
to that trade.
    While the particular circumstances surrounding each transaction on 
the Exchange's trading floor are different, the Exchange does not 
believe, as a general proposition, that the tied hedge procedures would 
be inherently harmful or detrimental to customers or have an adverse 
affect on the auction market. Rather, the Exchange believes the 
procedures will improve the opportunities for an order to be exposed to 
a competitive auction and represent an improvement over the current 
rules. The fact that the parties to such a trade end up fully hedged 
may contribute to the best execution of the orders and, in any event, 
participants continue to be governed by, among other things, their best 
execution responsibilities. The Exchange also believes that the 
proposed tied hedge procedures are fully consistent with the original 
design of Rule 995(c)NY, which, as discussed above, was designed to 
eliminate the unfairness that can be associated with a solicited 
transaction and to encourage meaningful competition. The tied hedge 
procedures will keep in-crowd market participants on equal footing with 
solicited parties in a manner that minimizes all parties' market risk 
while continuing to assure that orders are exposed in a meaningful way.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with 
Section 6(b) of the Act \23\ in general, and furthers the objectives of 
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in that it is designed to promote just and 
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the 
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, 
in general, to protect investors and the public interest, as it will 
improve the opportunities for an order to be exposed to a competitive 
auction and represent an improvement over the current rules and will 
keep in-crowd market participants on equal footing with solicited 
parties in a manner that minimizes all parties' market risk while 
continuing to assure that orders are exposed in a meaningful way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed 
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the 
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \24\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\25\ 
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the 
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any 
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to 
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as 
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of 
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become 
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \26\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the 
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a 
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least 
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule 
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The 
Exchange has satisfied the pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule 
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it 
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate 
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise 
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

[[Page 67275]]

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 e-mail to [email protected]. Please include 
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-87 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-87. This 
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Web site (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 inspection 
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, 
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours 
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for 
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All 
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does 
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should 
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All 
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-87 and should 
be submitted on or before January 8, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30064 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P