Comment: Time for Exchange to find a new role
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Time for Exchange to find a new role
There is something of a history behind the Stock Exchange's high-handed decision both to threaten ShareLink, the private client stockbroker, with disciplinary action, and sue the company's chief executive, David Jones, for defamation. Mr Jones has been warning the Exchange for years that it needed to develop alternative market systems to complement the quote- driven system favoured by the big institutions. It also needed to do more to support the retail market, he argued. If the Exchange didn't do something, he warned, then somebody else would. That competition is now on its way, most seriously in the form of Tradepoint, a rival exchange due to open next week.
Mr Jones's warnings were and are not those of a fringe player. A few years ago, as the representative of Britain's largest retail stockbroker, he sat on the Exchange's council, to which he returned for a second spell last spring. This second bite at the cherry, by all accounts, was as disappointing for him as his first, lasting only six months. He left disillusioned, convinced that nothing had, or ever would, change.
Against this history of friction, the Exchange's present action is at least understandable. But it is also silly and smacks of desperation. Instead of embracing new technology for the sake of the London market, it appears bent on using its rule book to clamp down on competition. It has taken on the accoutrements of all monopolies; its approach is to stamp out the competition rather than outdo it. Michael Lawrence, the chief executive, would be well advised to concentrate on carving out a genuine new role for the Exchange in a fast-changing-world - it certainly needs one if it is to survive - rather than spending its memberships' money on fighting diversionary legal battles.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments