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?
Has a bill ever even existed to pass in Illinois? This idea seems to be brought up more as a scare tactic from the trading and business community than as a revenue generator from actual politicians.
Most of Ken Griffin’s work has been buying his family name on things and repeating anxieties about crime and (lack of) policing without actually providing solutions or even calling out root causes. But again, he’s not really a citizen of Chicago, nor the US. People at his level of control (his admitted price fixing, or moving trades to dark pools) have inherited and expanded on wealth to the point where they don’t need friends or social programs or infrastructure to live out 90 years on the planet.
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.
It puts people in positions of authority based on their ethnicity, biological sex, and sexual orientation and therefore discriminates against others based on their ethnicity, biological sex, and sexual orientation.
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.
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).
And if Tesla is a trendsetter, TX might be seeing an influx of large companies. At least for legal incorporation.
But the question is: will they change their listing to this new stock market, or stay with the long-recognized ones?
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.
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.
California has 57
New York and Texas are at 52
Source: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/06/04/icymi-california-is-now-ho...
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