7 ms·
Up north in Canada instead of having a single SEC each province has its own securities regulation. Which let's the Texas of Canada, Alberta, run it's own stock
by Danieru 2y ago
Up north in Canada instead of having a single SEC each province has its own securities regulation.
Which let's the Texas of Canada, Alberta, run it's own stock exchange with much looser listing requirements and security requirements. This Texas exchange will not have that advantage.
The important aspect for Alberta within the context of Canada. Is how the local regulation allows the Alberta exchange to list and provide capital to junior drillers. Small companies which raise capital using ipos to use in speculative drilling. Alberta sees this as important for their economy. To the extent it prevents Canada from having a nation SEC like singular security regulator.
With that in mind, I question how a Texas based exchange will be more than a market for lemons. Companies too sketchy for the big exchanges might be interested in listing, but no one worth investing. This contrasts with Alberta where the difference in regulation allows a unique group of companies to list.
Instead we'd expect an exchange who's selling point is less regulation, to be filled with companies who cannot pass the higher bar. A self selection of the worst companies.
- lowkey 2y agoFrom the article Texas is home to more Fortune 500 companies than any other state including New York and California.
- tivert 2y ago> From the article Texas is home to more Fortune 500 companies than any other state including New York and California. But the question is: will they change their listing to this new stock market, or stay with the long-recognized ones?
- giantg2 2y agoThey could potentially dual list.
- bluGill 2y agoProbably not - Fortune 500 is probably already on the NYSE and unlikely to move. Will smaller companies list in Texas though?
- fdasfdasfdjf 2y agoThe Fortune 500 could still issue new shares on the new Texas exchange.
- chollida1 2y agoThat's not how things work. Shares can be freely traded on any of these exchanges at any time. its where you list that we are discussing here. Listing on an exchange is all about what reporting requirements you are required to make inorder to be a publicly listed company and what share requirement you are required to maintain to list. ie - share price above a certain threshold, - report your financials quarterly, etc. - often a minimum trading volume - certain requirements about the viability of the company, ie not bankrupt, etc. Foreign companies will often dual list in the US to get access to US liquidity as well as list on their own home exchanges. But once you are listed in the US there is no benefit to list on multiple exchanges as all you do is make your reporting requirements go up. Your shares can be traded on any US exchange once you are listed on any of htem.
- bluGill 2y agoWhat if a company wants a new class of stock - would they always list on the same exchange? I'm not sure what the rules are around this, but I know it is sometimes done.
- quickthrowman 2y ago‘The Fortune 500’ is not an index fund, it’s a list published by a magazine.
- duxup 2y agoWhy would they change their listing?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- arcticbull 2y agoAh yes forum shopping.
- bongobingo1 2y ago"Home" is probably a stretch, don't they mostly just incorporate via a P.O. Box in Delaware? I guess there is Austin too.
- jeffbee 2y agoIt's Panamanian-flagged ships, but corporations.
- rco8786 2y agoWikipedia says TX has 49 and CA/NY each have 53. But regardless of which state has the most at any given moment, even if 100% of Texas F500 companies decided to abandon their existing exchange and investor base for a more relaxed regulatory environment, that's...49 companies.
- fdasfdasfdjf 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- HWR_14 2y agoSure, or it's 10% of F500 companies. Which would be about 800 if a similar percentage of listed companies were TX based and moved to the new exchange. And if Tesla is a trendsetter, TX might be seeing an influx of large companies. At least for legal incorporation.
- vitus 2y agoFor what it's worth, Wikipedia cites the 2021 list. The 2023 list had Texas at 55: https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/06/05/texas-fortune-500-companies-list-2023-tesla-dell-oracle-austin/70290189007/ https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/06/05/texas-... edit: another commenter points out that California reclaimed the throne in the 2024 list, released just yesterday. As far as I can tell, there's some amount of movement to Texas for lower corporate taxes (especially companies led by executives like Musk or Ellison who prefer Texas's politics). I would be surprised if any major companies delist from NYSE / NASDAQ in order to go all-in on a new exchange, although I could see, say, Tesla considering it if it was a condition for an attractive ticker symbol like T (NYSE symbol for AT&T, which is also headquartered in Texas).
- mbreese 2y agoTexas has the headquarters of many companies, but how many are actually incorporated in Texas? What would the advantages be to a Texas exchange over NYSE or NASDAQ? I understand the desire for a different marketplace. But no matter where it is, they’ll still have to follow Federal securities laws, which will require some level of red tape. Many of those companies are national or multi-national companies. For example, Exxon has its headquarters outside of Houston, but is actually incorporated in New Jersey (According to Wikipedia). So, for them, what would the benefit be?
- kllrnohj 2y agoDon't they all incorporate in Delaware? Isn't that the thing to do because of the courts there?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mbreese 2y agoThat was my assumption too, but it's not across the board. For example, AT&T, Inc (HQ in Dallas) is a Delaware Corp. But, I expect that any of these companies that have many years of history will have complex organizational structures. As such, I'm not sure what benefit a brand new exchange would have for them. If I were TXSE, what I'd be arguing is that the new market would have a benefit for new companies. Can you list faster with fewer requirements? Will there be capital available on the market? Can an IPO on their market be a replacement for later stage VC? These are the companies they'd want to recruit.
- AJ007 2y agoThis is probably just a preemptive move in case of a New York state financial transaction tax and has less to do with any other political issues. This isn't "Texas" setting up their exchange, it's Blackrock and Citadel. The CME had this issue with Chicago/Illinois politicians demanding a financial transaction tax so they are did things to be set up to leave immediately if it passed.
- daemin 2y agoThis doesn't really matter on which world-wide stock exchange companies end up listing. There are many companies which list on the NASDAQ rather than in their home exchanges, or on a more theme appropriate exchange rather than one closer to their actual area of operations (I'm thinking mineral exploration companies on the ASX).
- georgeecollins 2y agoIt seems close behind California and New York, so maybe it has/ will become true: https://www.statista.com/statistics/303696/us-fortune-500-companies-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/303696/us-fortune-500-co... I think the economic growth of Texas is great for the US. States trying different models of regulation is a good way to test what works.
- testfrequency 2y agoThey don’t. California has 57 New York and Texas are at 52 Source: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/06/04/icymi-california-is-now-home-to-the-most-fortune-500-companies-in-the-country/ https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/06/04/icymi-california-is-now-ho...
- vitus 2y agoNotably, the 2024 list was released just yesterday, so I wouldn't fault anyone for not having seen that yet. Texas was in the lead for a couple of years, but honestly it's so close that I don't think it's interesting to assert that "X state has the most big companies according to some magazine's list!". CA, NY, and TX are all huge states with long-standing business investment. That's not changing any time soon.
- testfrequency 2y agoI get it, but the fact is…California is currently #1. As an aside, I do find it still impressive given the number of high profile companies that relocated, and the fact that there’s a constant news doom agenda against California. All this to say, it’s a healthy reminder of just how much California matters to the US and global economy
- chollida1 2y ago> Which let's the Texas of Canada, Alberta, run it's own stock exchange with much looser listing requirements and security requirements. This Texas exchange will not have that advantage. One point of note, there hasn't been an Alberta stock exchange since 1999. The Toronto stock exchange bought the Vancouver, Alberta and small cap option market form Montreal and merged them into one stock exchange called the Toronto Venture stock exchange. Its head quarters are in Calgary but its computer are located in Ontario and its under IIROC supervision and rules. And the BC and Alberta government co regulate it but their securities commission rules aren't what's followed, its the IIROC rules that apply.
- astrodust 2y agoThe Canadian Venture Exchange was absolute anarchy, and that was compared to the already lax Toronto exchange that had been chock full of sketchy mining stocks, the poster child of which was Bre-X. Which of course was from Calgary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bre-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bre-X
- chollida1 2y agoBre-X was actually dual listed on the TSX(in Toronto) and the Nasdaq in the US, not the junior venture exchange. But, agreed, that stock was a wild ride while it lasted!!
- chx 2y ago> Busang's gold resource was estimated by Bre-X's independent consulting company, Kilborn Engineering (a division of SNC-Lavalin of Montreal Ah yes, SNC-Lavalin and fraud, name a more iconic duo. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/snc-lavalin-trading-court-libya-charges-1.5400542 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/snc-lavalin-trading-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin_affair
- astrodust 2y agoIf only they still made Heritage Minutes.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- xyst 2y ago> With that in mind, I question how a Texas based exchange will be more than a market for lemons. Companies too sketchy for the big exchanges might be interested in listing, but no one worth investing. This is exactly how it will end up being used for. Companies that are listed as OTC (over the counter) or “pink sheets” are most certainly dog shit; and often subjected to pump and dump schemes. The TXSE will be no different especially with reported “fewer regulations” than NASDAQ or NYSE. This is great news for grifters. The average retail investor will likely end up getting shafted.
- ryandrake 2y agoYep. Let's say you're a reputable business with solid earnings and market cap, and a track record of following the rules and being able to meet listing standards. Which exchange(s) are you going to consider? The well-known, venerable NYSE or NASDAQ, or the Texas Freewheelin' Discount Bargain Barbecue Exchange? Now, if you're a less than reputable business, with questionable earnings and a disregard for following the rules, and you are ineligible to be listed on the NYSE or NASDAQ, which exchange are you going to consider?
- hermitdev 2y agoBSE, CHX, MS4X, NSX, PHLX and more? NYSE & NASDAQ aren't the only players in the US equities exchange market. NYSE & NASDAQ are merely the 2 largest players in a very large field. And that's _just_ equities. Get into commodities or options and other derivatives and there's even more. Also, not being listed on NYSE or NASDAQ doesn't mean you're any less of a reputable company. There's some real shit listed on both.
- throw0101d 2y ago> Up north in Canada instead of having a single SEC each province has its own securities regulation. Note that this is because of constitution reasons and areas of responsibility: * https://www.canada.ca/en/intergovernmental-affairs/services/federation/distribution-legislative-powers.html https://www.canada.ca/en/intergovernmental-affairs/services/... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism Every so often there's talk about consolidating things to a single SEC-like entity, but it has not happened at this point: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_securities_regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_securities_regulation
- Spooky23 2y agoElon has demonstrated that you can get high, make a stupid multi-billion dollar company acquisition, and just sack another public company that you control to make yourself whole. When the “overbearing regulatory regime” represents said company shareholders interests, you move to Texas where the MAGA vision of freedom reigns.
- TacticalCoder 2y agoWell do you take a world with Tesla and SpaceX or without it? We have to thank Musk, even if he does crazy things. It is thanks to his crazyness that we have Tesla and SpaceX. Without Musk EVs would be nowhere and NASA and ESA would still be the laggard they are with reusable launchers absolutely nowhere to be found. It's way too easy to say: "I want all the good side of capitalism (like wealth and science advances) but none of the bad sides". Starlink too btw.
- golemotron 2y agoElon is a ressentiment magnet. It's the price of success today.
- hn72774 2y agoI respected the guy on his merits until he fabricated the Saudi investor nonsense to take Tesla private at $420 a share. When that happened, I sold my last few Tesla shares that came from the SolarCity acquisition. It's been a word vomit rollercoaster since then. He feeds off negative attention and actively seeks it out.
- limpbizkitfan 2y agoPeople can use their successes for common good. I don’t see Elon Musk or Liza Powell-Jobs or Miriam Adelson doing that.
- pseudalopex 2y ago> Liza Powell-Jobs Laurene Powell Jobs? Lisa Brennan-Jobs? Liza Powel O'Brien?
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago> With that in mind, I question how a Texas based exchange will be more than a market for lemons. There is a non-trivial market for speculating on garbage. If you're Texas, why not go for it? If you're New York, it's not worth damaging your reputation.
- Fatnino 2y agoSounds like you just described exactly what's wrong with SPACs
- smsm42 2y agoYou are implying that the company that seeks less regulation necessarily does it because it's of lesser quality and this is the reason they can not abide by stricter regulations. I don't think this assumption is true.