Perhaps we'll be seeing the "M" flying across ticker tapes sooner than we think.
I don't understand what advantage Microsoft would have now in becoming "M" on NYSE rather than "MSFT" on NASDAQ. Years ago, it was a prestige issue: Moving to NYSE meant that a company had "arrived". But by staying with NASDAQ, Microsoft and Intel have helped to level the playing field. They help make NASDAQ a near-equal these days. And since it is the more computer-dependent exchange, it is also a bigger client of high tech companies.
But what I really don't understand is how the politics of the exchanges work. I can see why the management of NYSE would want to see "M" and "I" on the ticker, but why would the member firms want to see it?
NYSE and NASDAQ each have different management, but the management of both seems to answer to pretty much the same people. Firms like Merrill, Goldman, Soloman, DLJ, and all the others are both the biggest members of the NYSE and the major market-makers on the NASDAQ. I may be missing something, but it looks to me like those firms can make more money if big-cap stocks like MSFT and INTC stay on NASDAQ since the NYSE adds a profit-taking middle-man in the specialist. Maybe the new NASD rules about spreads and covering ICNs makes it all balance out, but it still seems like the the big MM firms come out ahead when traders who work for them are responsible for making the balanced market rather than a specialist who works for the exchange.
Is that looking at it wrong? Why would Goldman-Sachs, for instance, want to see M rather than MSFT? |
