So many people sent me versions of this story it would be impossible to thank each individually, but the numbers of people who did so clearly indicate that our "Gizars" are still on top of their game. Indeed, I am blogging about this story because it has my suspicion meter in the red zone. Here's a version shared by M.G.:
What's the story? Basically the NASDAQ stock exchange is considering pulling up stakes, and leaving its New Jersey/New York home, and heading for Texas, Dallas to be specific. And NASDAQ isn't the only exchange considering such a move. There are rumors that the NYSE itself might consider a move to Texas.
From the article:
Officials from Nasdaq and other major stock exchanges will meet with Gov. Greg Abbott on Nov. 20 in Austin to discuss a possible move from New Jersey to Texas, nbcdfw.com and the Dallas Morning News reported.
The meeting comes on the heels of the exchanges threatening to move their trading platforms out of New Jersey, the report said.
Abbott and other Texas officials plan to boast the state’s business-friendly environment during the meeting.
“Texas continues to be the premier economic destination in the country, attracting more leading businesses than any other state,” spokeswoman Renae Eze said in a statement to The Dallas Morning News. “The governor looks forward to meeting with Nasdaq and showcasing Texas' business-friendly environment, skilled workforce, robust infrastructure, and low taxes, all of which foster greater economic growth in the Lone Star State.”
According to The Dallas Morning News, Abbott’s office has been talking with Nasdaq and other exchanges about moving their data centers to Dallas because of a potential tax on financial transactions in New Jersey. (Emphases added)
Now this article, one might have noted, is a bit peculiar in several respects. For one thing, it mentions - twice - "NASDAQ and other exchanges," the clear implication being the NYSE itself. But that's only one of what might be "other exchanges." We'll get back to that in a moment. Then there is a second peculiarity in that the article specially mentions that what is being moved are the "trading platforms" and "data centers". I strongly suspect that the language here is meant to be reassuring to the low information news consumer, because the language implies that the actual exchange floors themselves - you know, that image we have in our minds of people on the floors of those exchanges shouting bids at each other and waving papers around. They're just moving the data centers and not the actual exchanges themselves.
Except in the modern world of dark pools and algorithmic trading, to move the data center so far away from the actual trading floor is a big clue, because in the dark pool world of quants and algorithmic trading, moving the data center is moving the trading floor, at least, the virtual one. And whatever may be left of real humans on the real trading floor shouting buy and sell orders at each other won't be far behind. THe reason? Because in the world of algorithmic trading, trading/data centers need to be as close to "the action" as possible, because trades are executed in nanoseconds. The farther the distance - even at the speed of light - the greater the risk that certain trades won't go through in time.
Which brings me back to "the other exchanges." The article, I suspect, has already given us the "public spin version" of the reasons for the move: higher taxes. But I suspect the deeper reason is the insanity of the political culture in the "blue states", and their increasing fiscal unsoundness and lack of stability. It's difficult - even in a dark pool - for traders manning the phone banks and computers to execute trades by following arrows on the floor, wearing masks, and "social distancing" (which Abbot will have to explain too). One needs sane environments in which to conduct market activities. So one wonders if "other exchanges" means that commodities exchanges - like in Chicago, another "blue" city with a mayor competing with DiBlasio for the nuttiest mayor of the year award - might be looking at Texas as well.
Which brings me to my high octane speculation of the day, for I do not for a moment think that this is just happenstance. All the mentioned "reasons" in the article seem to be to be a bit contrived. After all, New York and New Jersey have had high taxes for years if not decades. So what has changed? For one thing, the political and cultural climate. For another, the financial one. Texas is a producing state. It produces things: crops, cattle, horses, technologies, rockets, airplanes, cement... New York produces, hmmm... well, crops, horses, some technology, and things like that. But it's biggest product is "financial paper", or what I call "crapitalism." And it's produced a lot of that. And it also produces lots of taxes. So if one is entertaining the idea of a financial reset, or even a "coming split" in the country, one wants to be "where the action is," and that's not New York or California, it's Texas.
And while we're talking about splits and financial resets, Texas has something else New York doesn't, and that thing makes me wonder if we're looking at the public face of plans - detailed plans - that were set in motion some time ago...:
Texas has a state bullion depository. And isn't it funny how they're all of a sudden talking about crypto-"currencies" "backed" by gold...
All New York has is the Federal Reserve... which tends to lose massive amounts of gold on occasion. Just ask Hjalmar Schacht...
It's much easier to re-hypothecate and otherwise lose gold if one is dealing in currencies that aren't really currencies...
See you on the flip side...