Many trading firms already have their trading engines in that data center and I would assume TXSE would want quick access to that order flow and this might be easier if they are in NY4.
Of course, they may want to have their colo facilities in TX in their own data center, that way they can rent out space and make some extra revenue, but then they'd have to build that out.
Perhaps Texas could use a different trading model that doesn't require ultra high speed trading.
Matt Levine often mulls the idea of a system with a trading window that doesn't let the fastest connection to the order book win. Perhaps an order book that works at human speeds so humans can trade too (I can think of a few ways to do it - but would need modelling to try and figure what actually works). He points out that most trades are done in the last hour, so really trading only needs to occur once a day.
The issue is whether a market trading system can be designed with suitable restrictions that beats the current market design (for listed companies and for traders).
Designing markets is hard because you have to assume every player is selfish and only cooperates where it is to their benefit and will defect or cheat if the incentives of the market encourage that (Enron in the California energy markets).
Unlikely since SEC would need to approve of a different system of market trade incentives.
Edit: Personally I would like to see an exchange that was more international. I'm from New Zealand and our good businesses often list on the Australian exchange rather than the NZSX. The system of ADRs for other countries feels like a massive hack.
Wall Street (as in the sell side) is strongly incentivised to stamp out high-speed trading. It undercuts their dealer model. They have tried and failed to come up with an auction model that eliminates HFT without tradeoffs that real investors find unacceptable.
The practical effect isn’t just a bit of latency. It rewires incentives. With 611 in place, the question for latency-sensitive firms becomes: what HFT tactics can I run that are 611-compatible? Without 611, the question would be: what HFT tactics actually add value for my counterparties? That’s a very different optimization.
For firms on direct feeds (often building their own synthetic NBBO), 611 doesn’t add much information. The constraint is compliance, not discovery.
Because NBBO is size-agnostic and top-of-book, anchoring execution to it lets micro-lot quotes steer outcomes. You can influence the protected price with tiny displayed size. That’s great for gamesmanship, bad for displayed depth, size-sensitive pricing, and near-touch discovery.
Also: if two informed counterparties want to trade away from the protected price to reflect size or information, 611 mostly blocks that outside limited carve-outs. We lose mutually beneficial, size-aware prints to satisfy a benchmark that ignores size.
On settlement, the uniform benchmark helps in calm markets. But it’s naïve to think that holds through a real black swan. In stress, timestamp ambiguities and fragmented data make “what was executable” contestable, and disputes spike regardless of quote protection.
In a sound market structure, the clearer (CCP or clearing broker) should carry and underwrite that tail risk—margin, default funds, capital, and enforceable rulebooks. Instead, 611 shifts accountability onto quote-protection mechanics, insulating clearers from responsibility and, perversely, amplifying systemic risk when the system most needs well-capitalized risk absorbers.
Also what's the difference between a system, a dynamic system and a 'dynamical' system?
Rule 611 compresses that signal. By forcing everything to orbit a size-agnostic NBBO, it collapses a lot of the “behavioral bandwidth” (depth, imbalance, sweep patterns, replenishment, cancel/replace cadence) into a single top-of-book tick. Less resolution, less information.
High-resolution flow tells you who wants what, at what size, and how urgently. When we gate execution through protected quotes, we encourage tactics that flick the top-of-book with tiny size and discourage truthful size revelation. That’s signal destruction dressed up as protection.
Letting informed counterparties print away from the protected price (to reflect size or information) increases informational content. You get cleaner read-through from actual willingness to trade, instead of a compliance-driven dance around a fragile benchmark.
So yes: other people’s actions are the best data feed. The more of that behavior we can see—in size, time, and venue—the better our discovery gets. 611 reduces that visibility by design.
The better the computers hooked directly into the exchange get you mean.
My millionth of a second is different than yours, and everyone else’s.
It is no different than buying or selling anything else. And there is no loss from the additional liquidity, you can easily set a limit at which you want to buy or sell.
Nope, not me. I don't mind if it takes like 20 seconds or so.
Which is fine! You can probably find a broker who will give you fee-free trading with that preference. The price you execute at won’t be as good. But unless you’re trading millions, that’s probably fine.
No it isn't.
> I want the transaction to happen as quickly as possible. So does everyone else.
Your monitor refresh is about 16,000 times slower so you aren't going to know.
The only reason you need something faster is because you think you have to compete with other people trading on microseconds.
If matches happened at 1 second intervals you wouldn't have to worry about it at all.
This is nonsense. There is still advantage to submitting your trade as close to that settlement deadline as possible.
Presumably then the last trader has the most information, and so the game would be getting the info as late as possible and trading as late as possible, but not too late.
What would that look like? Periodic auctions? Certainly it could be done, I'm just trying to understand what problem might be solved, and whether the solution would be effective.
For example, even with the opening and closing auctions we have today, there can be an advantage to getting your order accepted right before the deadline. Some participants do this, most don't really (depending on the exact definition of "right before"). But the fact that some do tells me that some participants would do the same thing with periodic auctions, and at least for them latency would still be important.
If, as seems likely, latency is fundamentally important to at least some styles of trading, how do you incentivize participants to not value it?
I'd love to see a stock market actually do this.
You're not wrong to say that most participants don't care about what IEX offers, but enough do to make a meaningful dent in trading volume.
https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/
I don’t know if that is “remarkably well” but it certainly isn’t some market paradigm shift.
If you were to tell me in 10 years the Texas exchange would have 2% of the market I’d believe you. But I’d still not be terribly impressed.
According to their stats, they are usually around 3% of the market:
A fair market could be huge, but the trick is keeping it fair. It used to be more fair, and we used to have a healthier economy because of it.
It’s not like most of the unfairness in the current market couldn’t be dealt with, probably with laws already on the books. Most HFT strategies are not only blatantly dishonest but also clearly illegal. The government looks the other way though, because corruption.
What specific strategies are you referring to? Genuinely curious.
Another approach that Aztec and some others are taking is to shield all transactions with zkSNARKs such that the intent of a transaction isn't known until it's completed. Combined with deterministic block times you could force random ordering of transactions in batches, effectively mitigating the fastest connection OR highest bidder advantage.
I can trade at human speed now: when I want to make a trade, I put in the order and it gets executed. Speed elsewhere in the market makes it easier, not harder, for me to trade when I want to. And I don’t care who my counterparty is; that’s a fundamental feature of a stock exchange. If A is always faster than B because A is 2 racks closer to my broker in the data center… so what? How does that hurt me? Good for A.
A computer-powered trading strategy can react faster than me to news—true. But that’s fine because I don’t have to follow a breaking-news investing strategy. There are tons of others, many of which have proven to work very well.
Because lit orders get front run. Every sophisticated participant/algo is exceptionally efficient at extracting money from less sophisticated participants.
As someone who trades decent volume but doesn't have a fully institutional grade workflow, I have the fortune of dealing with this...
Simple lit orders (posting an order directly to an exchange) will be taking advantage of by both market makers, by HFTs, and by smarter execution algorithms. The algorithms running the bids and asks will widen spreads. Sell orders will peg to one cent below your ask, and if flows start to reverse, they will pull their liquidity and the slower participants get their liquidity swept through (adverse selection).
The next step up is to use something like a midpoint algorithm or hidden order, but hidden orders will be pinged with one share from the robots and you will get sniffed out and positioned against. If they detect size in a midpoint algorithm, the liquidity in the opposite direction will evaporate, and they will "walk" the dumb midpoint algorithm down, take the liquidity, and then reset the mid back to where it was. The list goes on. It's generally an awful environment for "regular" participants.
Moving on from simple improvements available to the more advanced retail space like midpoint algorithms and VWAP algorithms, you have algo routes that are explicitly designed to take advantage of the "lesser" order types. If they are in a position to get a fair fill, they will rest the order in case they see a situation they can take advantage of, and only take mid fill if the outlook deteriorates (this is all millisecond time frame stuff, but the orders will be worked in an automated fashion throughout the day - time frame is configurable).
On the more developed institutional side, liquidity is sourced in dark venues designed to ward off HFTs and front-running, or sourced in fair flash-auctions which are again designed to ward off hfts and information leakage from the auction spawner.
So the argument would be that perhaps the modern developments like batched flash auctions should just be the new baseline, and designed so that all of the participants feeding into them get an equivalent quality of fill.
These "phenomena" are fairly significant. Let's say you have a 100k position in a smaller cap stock. You may move the stock down a few percent if you start walking down your order and it becomes clear that you are looking to take liquidity. Vs 100k in one of the more advanced order routes where you're basically going to get filled near mid. And of course it goes without saying that 100k won't even move the needle in the institutional routes.
For a while I got so sick of it that if I was looking to buy back my short options (the same things happen in the option space, but with more slippage), I would stuff a basic midpoint algorithm on the underlying, it would be sniffed out and liquidity would evaporate, price would fall, and I'd slam the ask to buy/cover my short calls on the price drop. At least I could get a fair fill when I played two different areas of the market complex against each other... It's just a pain. To the average participant, they will find that liquidity is there when it suits the counterparty, yet not there when they need it.
NBBO/best bid offer itself can be illusory. There are many situations where if you sweep the bid, you will get a fair fill, but I'd you just hit the bid price, you will essentially take off the very small front order of an iceberg order, they will run their calculations, and the liquidity pegs a cent below you if it suits them. That's how it works.
This goes for all areas of the financial market, including the bond market itself, and it contributes to systemic fragility in addition to harvesting retail money.
Granted, almost no retail participant is actually shipping orders directly to exchanges like I laid out. They are going to payment for order flow routes. These are actually fairly efficient, but again, remember that if you are posting a bid or ask, exchanges pay you (yes, you actually net money, albeit small) to post these orders, and anyone feeding into PFOF routes is getting this income taken from them. The frontrunning risk in the payment for order flow routes is also much more severe, since your order is getting blasted out in all directions before it is posted. So when those sorts of routes go wrong for retail traders (ex making the mistake of posting a large order during a major market event), they're could catastrophically get screwed.
It's also worth noting that retail does have access to a relatively Fair auction system though. Open and closing auctions are probably the best ways to fill orders. Just be careful not to ship too much size into them since a large enough net imbalance (say in a small cap stock) in a closing auction will have the same "walk down the price" effect that happens with midpoint orders.
Personally I think that the institutional flash auctions are pretty neat. For my understanding this sort of liquidity sourcing is growing. I would think that this sort of functionality could be regulated and integrated into the base level market venues.
Anyone executing via lit orders is either forced to do so or an idiot. That’s why most of the market doesn’t execute via lit orders. Which is fine. The trade is still reported ex post facto, and the inefficiencies this creates are always less than the convoluted auction formats one must use to make low latency non-advantageous.
Sounds great for Wall Street. Spreads would necessarily widen as people buffer out. Meanwhile, you’ve turned every lit order into a 10-second option for market participants. Which means there is still a latency advantage to lifting or hitting a standing order first.
People in the finance industry will arb between digital and human markets and net a profit from it. It seems pointless to me, but perhaps I’m not fully grasping what that would do.
> TXSE’s primary matching engine is located in Equinix NY6 in Secaucus, NJ, with latency equalization across NY4, NY5, and NY6. Customers outside these buildings will experience additional latency. The disaster recovery (DR) matching engine is hosted in Equinix DA11 in Dallas, TX.
> Customers may connect to DR either directly to DA11 or through TXSE infrastructure at 350 E. Cermak in Chicago. Cermak connections will have traffic backhauled to DA11 over redundant TXSE circuits. Backhaul from Cermak to the production data center is not available.
This has been “in progress” for over 5 years now.
This is one of those ideas that actually makes zero sense. It's why the "long term stock exchange" has failed so miserably.
Flash Boys by Michael Lewis was a fun read on the subject. One memorable quote alleged that HFT traders would "sell their grandmothers for a microsecond [of edge]"
I'll obviously google it now but I'd appreciate some insight.
So yes it’s just a way to capture fees from listers who like your exchange better as the primary listing exchange and from market participants that must be in every exchange (latency sensitive HFT).
None of the many exchanges that have started have made a dent in the existing duopoly for real share listings that Nasdaq/nyse have. But some exchanges have made good business off of other products like etfs.
The state of Texas is the world's 8th largest GDP and a diverse one, with no one sector exceeding 9%. Texas is well-positioned relative to NYC for attention around AI, as it is not geographically constrained and has an energy advantage. There is financial credibility built in as 10% of NYSE listings are already HQ'd in Texas. And Texas has a pro-business regulatory environment.
This isn’t a zero-sum game where Texas grows at New York’s expense. The hope is it creates a larger, more dynamic market.
Environmental regs are not well managed generally.
Anyhow, not the worst state, not the best. Pretty balanced economy, like Ohio, Illinois, California, and Georgia.
I'm curious what this is referring to.
No, not really. Texas is still below average state taxes and you can see the breakdown of each state here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax#/media/File:S...
There are lots of stock exchanges, which have started for lots of reasons but there isn’t really much of an industry desire to be out of nyse/nasdaq for vanilla listings. If there was it would have already happened.
Seems like a publicity stunt to siphon some regnms traffic and maybe some etf listings to me, but no big drama if not.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68e6a1a5-e634-8002-ac97-6e2e36052e...
No. Each company chooses what exchange their stock is sold on. Sometimes (often for large companies) you are on more then one exchange, but never all of them.
Nothings stops an exchange (laws may not allow this but remember exchanges are in many countries and only subject to the laws of their country) from handling stock that the company doesn't want on them, but the value of an exchange is other people are looking there when they want to buy and sell and so it would be hard to get enough traders if the company doesn't want to list with you.
Not all exchanges handle stocks. There are other things traded as well.
Doesn’t regulation NMS make this significantly less relevant? A stock trading on an exchange where it isn’t listed is going to trade at the same price as everywhere else, modulo however long it takes to arbitrate the price between the exchanges.
Also, I too am struggling to understand posting a trade of an unlisted stock to an exchange. This sounds pretty similar to a dark pool?
Back in 1800 an exchange was a place where a lot of buyers and sellers agreed to meet up so that you had good odds of finding a buyer when you wanted to sell. The exchange happened by exchanging papers which then got sent to the company to know how the new owners were.
This gets at why there were a lot more exchanges in the past than now. Ownership is recorded electronically (you can get paper but almost nobody does) do you don't need to send papers into head quarters. We also have fast communication so can have your agent take care of things in New York in seconds no matter where in the world you are - in 1800 you had to physically go to an exchange (or send an agent).
An unlisted exchange is similar to a dark pool. The company whoes stock is traded on one will treat the trade like any other dark pool. However if they are trying to operate like a listed exchange they will doing other exchange like things (posting prices), so you get the worst of both worlds.
Nothing stops an exchange from accepting trades for a stock that isn't listed there. (there may be local laws that say otherwise, but there are lots of different countries). However if you are not a listing exchange brokers might not think to check your exchange when someone wants to trade and so you won't get enough volume. If you are the exchange a broker checks first though you can be the exchange.
Norbert's Gambit is a good reason. It is potentially the cheapest way to effectively do a currency exchange.
Does this actually mean something specific?
Probably:
Trade matching algorithms (prorata, FIFO, TOP) and rules (capital requirements, market impact definitions) will align with the interests of the most profitable customers.
Citadel Securities, with their HFT-level returns of 50-100% per year will not venture into a losing business.
Note, CitSec is different from Citadel (hedge fund), and the hedge fund is also crazy with 40% annual return before fees (past 20 years) and 19% after fees to the outside passive investor.
California's economy is $4.1 trillion and has a much higher chance of growing larger with most of the AI companies based out of CA.
I’m a Dallas resident and this has been a large coordinated effort that has a lot of banks relocating here. Not going to debate the good or bad of it, but Texas tends to go after these types of things and creates a favorable environment for it from a business/tax/political standpoint. I don’t know what California does, but I know a whole bunch of Californian corporations have moved here citing similar reasons. So again, what’s stopping something similar from happening in California? (If it doesn’t already exist)
I think this is a loop that hurts regular people.
Less regulation could open people to more risk and less ways to combat it.
Lower taxes for businesses means that state funding must be made up with either cuts to services or higher taxes on people.
I think Republicans will use these incentives and the federal government's power to push all the money to red states causing economic decline in blue states which they can then blame on the leaders of those states.
I know this already happens but now that Trump is open to blackmailing states with funding because they aren't run by Republicans it will get worse
I've seen this described as "a race to the bottom."
Corruption, tax inequality, and the use of political power to benefit business will always be present and therefore the amount is what's important.
Every politician lies so that doesn't matter. What matters is what the lie about and how often it occurs. It's the same with corruption.
It's not like the article was suggesting Texas had America's largest state economy. It was just showing that it is large. Which it is.
What does California have to do with anything?
I should be happy right now as X and Y and Z are available, some of which support some of my ideas, but I'm smart enough to know that giving me a few trinkets while screwing the system as a whole doesn't work.
TXSE's goal is to provide greater alignment with issuers and investors and address the high cost of going and staying public.
So it is as one might imagine, the formation was probably for similar reasons why owners are moving their company registration out of Delaware.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-01/texas-... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-02-03/texas-...
Delaware law exclusively protects the interests of the board of directors. It allows for a unique provision - the hilariously misnamed "Shareholders Rights Plan" that enable a board of directors to issue shares as they please, in order to make sure every attempt at takeover isn't against the interests of the directors.
The only check on the power of the board in a Delaware corporation is the Delaware court of chancellery.
> it is weird that Tesla’s management and board of directors and (a large majority of) shareholders all agreed that Musk should get paid $55.8 billion for creating $600 billion of shareholder value, and he did do that, and he got paid that, and a judge overruled that decision and ordered him to give back the money. I can see why Musk — and Tesla’s board, and its shareholders — would find that objectionable! They’re trying to run a company here.
I think it's fair to have a hard discussion about the effectiveness of or need for the DoEd, but the way to do that is in Congress, not by fiat by the president. The way the Trump administration has approached it IMHO is grossly unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers. The only semi-reasonable rationale I can think of is that Congress is implicitly approving of or voting on the president's actions by not impeaching him, but that seems like an unreasonably high bar, equates lack of action with active approval, and it also infringes on the power of the Congress that enacted the law.
As someone else here on HN noted recently: what is the point of anything pertaining to congressional vote procedures, veto authority, overrides, and so forth if the president ignores, and is allowed to ignore, the laws that are passed anyway?
Wow. The inter-state commerce clause is a real thing and it does give the federal government broad lattitude to regulate "commerce" across state lines. Commerce seems to entail the flow of both goods and services. We are in this situation because people at the state level decided, democratically, that some decisions should be made federally so as to avoid a huge patchwork of differing laws. To put it bluntly, I don't want to have to carefully review and compare Oregon state law with say Texas state law before I undertake any travel lest I accidentally commit a felony in Texas by doing something that isn't against the law in Oregon, and that's a really good reason to try to limit the differences between the two. If you don't, you'll necessarily chill travel and commerce across state lines because those differences will present a huge barrier to entry and create a big suck on peoples' time and attention.
> These United States, and after the Civil War the de fact illegitimate federal government called itself The United States
This is getting into Soverign Citizen type reasoning.
Getting? The dog whistle is a bullhorn.
Simply put, this is Republicans pushing for “Y'all Street". Target one will be earnings reports, but the eventual push will be to not be overseen by the SEC in some important capacity.
How would a securities exchange avoid being regulated by the securities and exchange commission?
By having a Governor who's friendly with the President?
The President has a good amount of sway over the SEC. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/legal/2025/03/03/sec-dr...
SEC Chair says they are going to hunt crooks more aggressively, but won't leverage dawn raids as much to chase technical violations.
> US SEC buyouts hit legal, investment divisions hardest, data shows https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/secs-legal-in...
> SEC Formally Withdraws Fourteen Rule Proposals https://www.proskauer.com/alert/sec-withdraws-fourteen-rule-...
The actions generally do not seem to match the words, and seem to point to a general trend of deregulation and lack of oversight (as the administration has said they would do, and especially in the crypto space has essentially stopped prosecuting crimes)
>> will be to not be overseen by the SEC in some important capacity.
Your articles don't dispute this.
As for whether oversight will be "weaker" and more de-regulated, maybe.
1. There's a headcount reduction. At worst, there's a quote that some really experienced watchdogs are out the door. Hard to tell until we get outcomes.
2. As for withdrawal of proposals, look closer.
> Although most observers doubted that the current Commission would adopt these proposals
Which makes it sound like the proposals were just withdrawn for later submittal and new discussion. Footnote #1 goes into how this isn't really unprecedented, citing similar withdrawals (or resets) under the Biden admin.
Those were struck down 11 months ago, though?
> eventual push will be to not be overseen by the SEC
But no crimes will be committed, because they're trustworthy businessmen
Forgive my ignorance, but what does that mean in this context?
> On August 6, 2021, the SEC approved Nasdaq’s proposed diversity rule for companies listed on its exchange. The rule required Nasdaq-listed companies to (1) publicly disclose board-level demographic data annually and (2) have, or explain why they do not have, a certain number of diverse directors on their boards. Companies with more than five board members were required to have two members from an underrepresented group, including one female and one person who self-identifies as Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, biracial, or LGBTQ+.
https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/fifth-cir...
There is a party actively committed to implementing autocracy as fast as it can. To willfully ignore that and attempt to deflect from it as you are doing is wrong.
Moreover, if you don't think an autocracy will hurt YOU because you are in some protected group, you are wrong — it might not hurt you first, but it will hurt everyone, including you.
IEX data is now free after 15minutes instead of 15milliseconds.
One option is the Databento US Equities Mini for 200 USD per month. If I understand it correctly it is some sort of weighted average between multiple exchanges.
Their EQUS Mini dataset is a great way to dip the toe if you want live data without licensing restrictions. Databento's article talks exactly about how it is sourced, but it is not that it is averaged but anonymized, specifically because of the complexities of upstream exchange licensing. [2]
You don't have to pay $200 per month for that -- that's for all-you-can-eat. You can experiment with pay as you go.
You can use my dbn-go tools to help you... here's the cost to get all the 1-day candlesticks for all the US Equity Symbols for 1-year... which you could use to make all sorts of charts and redistribute them freely (the trickiest part honestly):
$ dbn-go-hist cost --dataset EQUS.SUMMARY -t 2024-07-01 -e 2025-07-01 -s ohlcv-1d ALL_SYMBOLS
EQUS.SUMMARY ohlcv-1d $ 4.380178 156772672 bytes 2799512 records
$ dbn-go-hist cost --dataset XNAS.ITCH -t 2024-07-01 -e 2025-07-01 -s ohlcv-1d ALL_SYMBOLS
XNAS.ITCH ohlcv-1d $ 3.784698 135459632 bytes 2418922 records
I hang out on their Slack. Today there was a deep discussion about optimizing C++ SPSC queues, although it is usually isn't too technical like that. They are pretty transparent about how they implement things.
[1] https://github.com/NimbleMarkets/dbn-go
[2] https://databento.com/blog/databento-us-equities-mini-now-av...
Reality is there are tax and regulatory advantages. The courts are setup in a way that is favorable to business. They read a very strict interpretation of contracts which is good in some scenarios.
Texas politics is a train wreck, but their bureaucracy is pretty good for a business - things like permitting and other regulatory processes are faster. They also will firehouse you with incentives.
> Texas politics is a train wreck, but their bureaucracy is pretty good for a business - things like permitting and other regulatory processes are faster. They also will firehouse you with incentives.
None of that is really relevant to a stock exchange though. Being on the Texas stock exchange doesn't mean you are subject to Texas laws and regulations just like being on the New York Stock Exchange doesn't subject you to New York laws and regulations.
CEO OF Robinhood has been talking about offering crypto as a vector for acquiring shares for private companies:
https://www.sec.gov/about/crypto-task-force/written-submissi...
This admin and this new exchange would probably allow all kinds of nonsense to be publicly traded compared to other exchanges.
We’ve got three more years to go and this exchange, or anything new that happens in Texas is absolutely going to be tied with deregulatory ambitions.
The main reason to move away from the NYSE or NASDAQ is if you don't like the rules those stock exchanges have.
“Well, we IPOed!”
“Congratulations!”
“…in Texas.”
“Do you need to use me as a reference?”
1. Texas is a corrupt state and you can bribe your way in to power
2. No income tax
Here's an article that appears to provide a bit more perspective: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/txse-says-sec-appro...
Also, this is a fun nugget from the Reuters article about this new exchange providing competition to NYSE and NASDAQ:
> But those rivals are not sitting idly by. On March 31, the NYSE opened its own Texas outpost, disclosing that Trump Media & Technology would be the first company to list there.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/10/06/texas-stock-exchange...
House doesn’t always share with outside investors
Maybe it is the strict regulation that makes it not viable?
TSE is valued at 2.4tn.
otherwise there is one more trouble for me.
- once when the DC ran out of diesel and couldn't get any more after Hurricane Sandy
- once when the backup generators caught fire and the fire department needed to kill grid power to the facility
Everything else is pretty reliable or easier to decouple from the local real world
Why can't it be MORE reliable than XNYS/XNAS?
Dallas was a T5 datacenter hub before Uri in 2021 and did well during the storm because they were designed to service level guarantees [0].
It's also silly to claim that TXSE's performance is disconnected from serious TX investors.
[0] https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/analysis/how-data-cent...
I'm afraid your comments just come off as an attack on local politicians and their priorities, not the topic of addressing whether TXSE could be more resilient than peers.
(ofc, I'm looking at retail rates, who knows what specific numbers can be cut in contract)
I mean, you'll need a backup generator anywhere, but the report I found (admittedly with just a bit of googling) makes it seem like Texas is a better potential location than quite a few states (including California).
[1] - https://www.citizensutilityboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2021...
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9832754,-97.2573651,467m/dat...
So I’d imagine they could keep everything running for as long as necessary. I remember during the big winter outage a few years ago, they didn’t have any issues at all.
> Equinix's infrastructure supports the digital services businesses rely on, from cloud computing and enterprise applications to content delivery and financial trading platforms.
A lot of large companies put their servers into Equinix data centers.
Also in 2021 210 people died. This is a huge deal. This wasn't just a little outage.
We have high power demand in both winter and summer: in the latter, air conditioners use a lot; in the former, about half of Texans heat with electricity because we have less cold and so less usage of cost-effective, grid-preserving furnaces.
Texas has been building a ton of wind and solar to supplement generation capacity and is taking some leadership in the next-gen nuclear stuff for a reliable base load, but in the mean time the shortage of CCGTs is going to bite in a state where demand goes up this much, this fast. SB6 passed this summer also should help with reasonable control and oversight.
> Also in 2021 210 people died. This is a huge deal. This wasn't just a little outage.
Yes, a rare storm knocked out power and people died. It is a big deal and a lot of things changed after the event.
But I want to put it into perspective. In 2024, ~62,800 people in Europe died to heat-related events.
>But I want to put it into perspective. In 2024, ~62,800 people in Europe died to heat-related events.
Most of these deaths are not because of electrification but the fact that homes are built out of bricks and mortar and become ovens with heat waves that get hotter each year and ~10% to ~20% [2] of homes in Europe have air conditioning meanwhile ~95% [3] of homes have air conditioning. Your apples to oranges comparison mostly shows how Europe is generically unprepared for climate adaption (specifically heat resilience) and has nothing to do with electrification stability.
[1] https://www.texasenvironment.org/news-room/heat-related-deat... [2] It's all over the place some places like UK are around 5% adoption while southern Europe can be close to as much as 95% adoption. [3] https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/state/...
Texas had the most number of power outages between 2019 and 2023 [1].
It wasn't one time. And it's not a joke. Infrastructure weatherization is a very real overlooked (and expensive) investment that still has not taken place.
[1]: https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116952/documents/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis#Backgr...
> In 2011, Texas was hit by the Groundhog Day blizzard between February 1 and 5, resulting in rolling blackouts across more than 75% of the state… Following this disaster, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation made several recommendations for upgrading Texas's electrical infrastructure to prevent a similar event occurring in the future, but these recommendations were ignored due to the cost of winterizing the systems.
> Unlike other power interconnections, Texas does not require a reserve margin of power capacity beyond what is expected. A 2019 North American Electric Reliability Corporation report found that ERCOT had a low anticipated reserve margin of generation capacity and was the only part of the country without sufficient resources available to meet projected peak summer electricity demand.
The report your wikipedia article cites for 75% says this: "In the case of ERCOT, where rolling blackouts affected the largest number of customers (3.2 million), there were 3100 MW of responsive reserves available on the first day of the event, compared to a minimum requirement of 2300 MW." So an eighth or so of Texas' ~25 million population in 2011.
What if that person has also lived in Texas for 30 years? And what if they had a family member that died during that power grid failure in 2021? I personally would find it quite difficult to communicate to them the nuance of a local problem and a state-wide problem when the end result is the same: no power.
In the future, you might consider approaching an interaction online with more balanced judgement.
Edit: Actually, looking back at the original comment, it's not even clear they're talking about the Texas power outage in 2021. All they said was "Hope they have ample backup power." Seems like a reasonable thing to hope for what might be critical infrastructure.
Admittedly anectodal, but I don't remember any power outage here in Chicago over the last 11 years I lived here, but I was in Texas for work for a few weeks this summer at the NASA balloon base and there were multiple power outages.
This was supposed to change after the 2021 crisis, but I haven't seen much evidence that it has.
that way any infrastructure that related to serve the citizen well being isn't exploited for profit
why US can't do this????
In the 1990s this started to change. The idea was that the different utilities could compete for customers, and thus they wouldn't be monopolies any more and thus market forces would take the place of government regulation.
Of course this has failed spectacularly. Deregulation brought us the Enron disaster and the 2021 Texas grid crisis, among others. But since corporations control the US government now, there's no chance regulation will be brought back.
and US citizen let them do it, how can't you vote the fck out of this is crazy
Deregulation and "free" markets are something that many americans actively want. You can argue that they're misinformed and they're advocating against their own self-interest. But it's still something they actively want, this isn't just the evil corporations taking control of the corrupt government.
In fact on this very site I'd wager that more than half of Americans users are against regulation in general, state ownership of any utility, or any additional control on financial markets.
I still remember the northeast blackout from 2003 too and that was only a part of a day for me
But you won’t be able to take the Redditors off the internet. They be lurking, waiting with a perfectly annoying post ironic millennial reply.
I hope the TSE does well and expect the state with the largest concentration of energy tycoons and businessmen will figure out how to add grid robustness - a problem solved in nearly all states.
This reads like the energy tycoons and businessmen only recently moved to the state, and now they can fix the problems. My understanding is that these energy tycoons and businessmen presided over the creation and deterioration of the Texas grid in the first place.
Shouldn't that drive the question of why Texas is so bad, though? This argument seems to amount to "Everyone else is better than us, so we must be the experts in fixing the problem.", which seems weirdly backwards.
Texas has more reliable electricity than California
considering the California electricity provider PG&E shuts off the electricity multiple times a year when it gets windy outside, to prevent power lines falling (due to lazy maintenance) and starting a wildfire
I wonder where the California’s additional 13% tax on capital gains is being spent? SF parking ticket enforcement?
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO05/20240312/116952/HHRG...
Texas is the favorite punching bag of the left, and California is the favorite punching bag for the right. When one side is attacked, they defensively jump to the default. Which is kind of ironic, when you consider there's more Democrats in Texas than in many "blue" states, and the inverse is also true for California.
The only negative comments from Democrat representatives and the media on the left I see is are critical of specific laws, for example abortion, but they don't insult the entire state or generalize.
If you need specific quotes let me know.
(Regional controlled brownouts and state wide power grid failure are not comparable)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: your account has unfortunately been posting a lot of unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45412687 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45404646). Can you please stop doing that? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for—we're trying for something different here.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
No, this is defined by the knowledge and skill involved.
Most smaller companies are just listing on something like NASDAQ, which isn't confined to a city. With modern computers the idea of an exchange in a city is not nearly as useful as it was 150 years ago.
When you can buy a State, you buy a State.
When you can buy a SCOTUS Justice, you buy a SCOTUS Justice or 6.
When you can buy a POTUS, you buy a POTUS.
Elon bought them all and many of you cheer. Says more about you than Elon but speaks mountains about the core of our culture and our national ethos but mostly about how easy it is to pervert people and their false ideology with money.
The worst part? HN users are much better educated and tend to be much smarter than the average person. If this audience is so easily manipulated, it's no wonder the larger population is being controlled by such obvious tactics.
sigh...
And why is it the TXSE?
