Miami International Holdings, Inc. (MIAX) Q3 2026 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Thank you for standing by. My name is Gary, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Miami International Holdings, Inc. Third Quarter 2026 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note this event is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to John T. Williams, Senior Vice President and Head of Investor Relations. You may begin your conference.

Thank you, Gary. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us for MIAX's third quarter 2026 earnings conference call. I'm John T. Williams, Head of Investor Relations. With us today are Thomas P. Gallagher, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Lance Emmons, Chief Financial Officer. We will also have Douglas Schafer, Jr., Chief Information Officer, and Shelly Brown, Chief Executive Officer of MIAX Futures and Chief Strategy Officer of MIH, joining us for the Q&A session following our prepared remarks. Our earnings announcement was released prior to this call, and we have published an accompanying slide presentation on our Investor Relations website at ir.miaxglobal.com. In addition, this call is being webcast, and an archived version will be available there shortly after the conclusion of the call. Our discussion today includes forward-looking statements that are based on the expectations, estimates, and projections regarding the company's future performance, anticipated events or trends, and other matters that are not historical facts. The forward-looking statements in our discussion are subject to various assumptions, risks, uncertainties, and other factors that are difficult to predict and which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance, and therefore, you should not place undue reliance on them. We refer you to our earnings press release and filings with the SEC for a more detailed discussion of the risks and uncertainties that could impact the future operating results and financial condition of MIAX's. We do not intend to update any forward-looking statements made on this conference call to reflect events or circumstances after today or to reflect new information or the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as required by law. During today's call, we will refer to non-GAAP measures as defined and reconciled in our earnings materials. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Tom.

Thanks, John, and good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining us. We had a solid third quarter. Net revenue grew 20% year-over-year. We gained market share, and we meaningfully expanded margins while investing in the business. We also made real progress on the futures side, including getting retail distribution for our Bloomberg products underway. Three things stood out this quarter. First, our options business continued to grow. Net revenue was $131 million, up 20% year-over-year, and options market share increased to 17.4%. Second, we continue to operate the business efficiently. Adjusted EBITDA was $71 million and adjusted EBITDA margin was 54%, up more than 1,000 basis points year-over-year. Notably, we made that progress while continuing to invest in our options business and our Bloomberg Financial Futures suite. Third, we continued to execute our futures business strategy. In mid-October, we announced NinjaTrader as the first retail broker distributing our Bloomberg Financial Futures products, an exciting initial milestone. And last week, we launched 4 new physically settled futures contracts on MIAX Futures. Let me frame how we're thinking about recent industry trends. Three things are reshaping our industry. Growing retail investor interest in derivatives, a pipeline of large IPOs that expands the opportunity for options, and a regulatory environment that continues to evolve. All 3 should reward a company that stays disciplined and ready to move. Lance, can you, maybe go to yours real quick? I'm just having a little allergy here.

Yes, absolutely, Tom. It's that time of year. So thanks, everyone. Thanks for joining us. Third quarter net revenue was $131 million, up 20% from the prior year period. We continued to manage expenses carefully. Adjusted operating expenses were $60 million compared to $62 million a year ago, roughly flat year-over-year, and a growth rate well below our revenue growth. We are continuing to invest in new products but are doing it on a largely fixed cost base, and we remain disciplined. As mentioned, adjusted EBITDA was $71 million, and adjusted EBITDA margin was 54%, compared to 44% in the third quarter of last year. That's 1,000 basis points of year-over-year margin improvement as we continue to generate operating leverage tied to revenue growth with high incremental margins. Adjusted earnings were $50 million, up 25% year-over-year, and adjusted diluted EPS was $0.45. Now let's discuss our Q3 segment performance. Options segment net revenue was $113 million, up 19% year-over-year. Average daily volume of 11.1 million contracts grew 15% year-over-year, slightly outpacing industry ADV growth. Options segment net revenues were driven by an increase in both net transaction fees and non-transaction fees. Growth in net transaction fees reflected higher industry ADV and market share, partially offset by lower revenue per contract. Non-transaction fee revenue growth of 38% was primarily due to increased member connections, our January 1, 2026 fee increases, and market data sales. For 2027, we plan to increase our access fees by approximately 10% effective January 1. Q3 '26 included approximately $2 million in historical data sales from new products introduced earlier this year, similar to what we saw in Q1 and Q2. While this revenue has now materialized each quarter this year, the amount can vary meaningfully, so we suggest modeling it conservatively. Turning to market share and RPC. Q3 options market share was 17.4%, compared to 17.2% in the third quarter of last year and 16.5% last quarter. Q3 RPC was $0.098, compared to $0.124 in Q2 and $0.11 in Q1. Recall that back in August, we discussed the factors expected to shape our second half RPC, while noting that Q2 RPC was an outlier. With that in mind, the step-down in options RPC from $0.11 in Q1 '26 to $0.098 in Q3 '26 was driven by 3 factors: pricing changes we made during the quarter, the change in ORF effective July 1, and several mix factors which largely offset each other. Capture rates are always difficult to project, especially in the short-term. But we are comfortable with our approach to pricing, and our focus remains on optimizing revenue. We will continue to make adjustments to ensure RPC and market share remain in a healthy balance over time. Our Equities segment net revenue was $7 million, up from $4 million in the prior year period, mainly due to higher net transaction fees. Equities capture was positive as compared to inverted in the year-ago period. Futures segment net revenue was $5 million, up 4% compared to the prior year period. Our Bloomberg Financial Futures products launched in May and did not contribute materially to our overall Q3 results, though segment adjusted EBITDA continues to reflect our investment in launch incentive programs. International segment net revenue was $6 million, up 11% year-over-year. We continue to streamline sales and marketing efforts across our international listings business, which we believe offers attractive long-term upside. Turning to our balance sheet. We ended the quarter with cash and cash equivalents of $699 million and outstanding debt of less than $2 million, which matures in December. Our significant cash balance is a strength, and we will remain judicious in our deployment of capital while staying open to disciplined opportunities that fit our strategy. Now let's discuss our updated 2026 guidance. Full details, including comparison to our prior guidance, can be found on Slide 17 of the earnings deck. With 1 quarter remaining of the year, we are lowering our full year 2026 adjusted operating expense guidance range to between $254 million and $257 million. That compares to the prior $260 million to $270 million range and reflects our continued careful expense management in Q3 and over the course of the year. Our expense expectations for Q4 include a planned increase in marketing cost, including Bloomberg Futures quoting incentives. We now expect our full year share-based compensation expense in a range between $30 million and $32 million, narrower from the prior $29 million to $32 million range. We expect full year capital expenditures in a range between $43 million and $46 million versus the prior $40 million to $45 million range. We chose to pull forward some planned 2027 CapEx to mitigate expected cost increases, similar to what we did earlier this year. We expect depreciation and amortization in a range between $36 million and $38 million, narrower from the prior range of $35 million to $39 million. Our Q3 adjusted effective tax rate was 26%, and we now expect our full year rate will be in the 26% to 28% range versus the prior 27% to 29% range. Looking ahead, we remain confident in our ability to expand margins over time as revenue grows against a largely fixed cost base and as our new products scale. On that, I'll turn it back over to you, Tom.

Great. Thank you, Lance. I'm going to have Shelly also talk a little bit about some of our options strategy in a moment or 2. But we continue to execute on the strategy that's really driven our success, and that's building, launching, and operating high-performance exchanges. Today, that means bringing competition to retail financial futures with Bloomberg, meeting institutional demands in our agricultural futures franchise, and rolling out new functionality on our options exchanges. Shelly, why don't you talk to us a little bit now about the options business, then I'll pick up with the next one.

Thank you, Tom. Industry options volumes were again a tailwind in the third quarter. Retail participation, short-dated options, new listings, and structured products are all contributing to industry volumes. Importantly, we expect those trends to continue. Our Q3 market share was 17.4%, and our focus remains optimizing revenue mix and driving share growth. For MIAX, share gains are driven over time by execution in our core business options business, including market share expansion on our Sapphire trading floor. We hit a number of milestones in the trading floor in quarter 3, capturing over 12% of total industry multi-listed trading floor volume. We continue to see strong demand from members to have a presence on the floor and welcomed a number of new market makers during the quarter. Now turning to our futures segment.

Yes, I'll pick up with that, Shelly. Thank you. We've made significant progress on 2 fronts, our Bloomberg Financial Futures products and our agricultural futures. On Bloomberg, we're pleased with where we stand today. Screens are lit, and we have 4 clearing members and 4 market makers active and connected. Retail distribution was a key milestone. And as we mentioned earlier, that's now happening as our Bloomberg Tini B500 and Tini B100 equity index futures are available on NinjaTrader. We expect additional brokerage platforms to begin offering these retail-focused products in Q4 of this year. I want to take a moment to speak about why we believe these products will succeed over time. We're bringing a differentiated product to market, and it's built to work better for everyone who trades it, not just the exchange. That means smaller notional sizes, no exchange fees for retail traders, and free market data. Just a reminder on the big picture. On the big picture, we have a 10-year exclusive license with Bloomberg to list index futures, options on futures, and cash index options based on the B500, the B100, B500 volatility indices in North and South America. Success for MIAX equates to 3 things: expanding distribution, growing volumes, and improving capture rates over time. It's still very, very early, and we believe this is a significant opportunity to disrupt this category. We also have a growing agricultural futures product pipeline and recently launched 4 new physically settled fertilizer contracts in response to member demand. We expect more products will come as we build on decades-long relationships with our MIAX Futures Exchange members. We also recently announced OCC clearing membership and a $40 million capital increase for our FCM, Dorman Trading, bringing its adjusted net capital to $67 million. That capital supports larger volumes and new client growth as futures activity on our platform expands, including clearing for Bloomberg products that trade on our MIAX Futures Exchange. It also supports our FCM's customers across all the exchanges it serves. We're investing to strengthen and position our FCM as a well-capitalized partner for futures market participants. And let's be clear, a key benefit of our FCM joining the OCC is that, retail brokers have an additional path to access our Bloomberg equity index futures, trading on our MIAX Futures Exchange. Now I want to spend a few minutes on how our technology adapts to the different markets we serve. Our technology moat continues to set us apart. We built it in-house, and we control it. Our options, futures, and equities exchanges are built on a unified technology foundation. That allows us to scale cost effectively across asset classes while having the flexibility to match the unique functional and performance characteristics of each specific market model we employ. We also have the ability to mix and match between on-prem and cloud solutions to further maximize our cost savings. Four strengths define our technology: low latency, high throughput, determinism, and reliability. Different market models across asset classes demand varying degrees of ultra-low latency, throughput, and determinism. This allows our customers to reliably count on MIAX systems, even during periods of market stress or high volatility. Knowing how a system will react during these conditions allows traders to take more risk with deeper and tighter markets. For example, on MIAX Options, our latency is industry-leading at just 36 microseconds at the 99.9 percentile, providing a maximum of 32 million quotes per second with a 99.999% operational uptime since inception. Coupled with our built-in risk protections, this allows a market maker to be more aggressive while they take a more defensive posture on other exchanges. Turning to new products. The environment is moving quickly, and our regulators have been clear that they're embracing speed and innovation in our industry. We think that's constructive, and we welcome it. Today, we have all the pieces in place to act. SEC registered options and equities exchanges, a CFTC registered futures exchange and clearing house, an FCM, 2 international exchanges, and our technology stack. We're in a great position to evaluate and launch new products as demand develops, both domestically and internationally. Building on these pieces, we will file with the SEC to list cash-settled binary index options, which will include our licensed Bloomberg indices. We will also file with the SEC to list cash-settled binary KPI options. Again, cash-settled binary KPI options. A number of other significant developments have occurred in our markets this year, including the approval of certain types of perpetual futures, tokenization, various types of event contracts, and extended trading hours in both options and equities. Let me speak for a moment on perpetuals. Regarding perpetuals, our Onyx Futures platform could support them with a few technology enhancements. We see them as a possible extension of our product offerings and an opportunity, not a replacement. We do not believe perps are having an impact on industry options volume, which we believe and we confirm continue to grow, and we do not see evidence of any cannibalization. On the other emerging areas, such as tokenization, extended trading hours, and prediction markets, we recognize that market structure is evolving and that customers in the industry are increasingly focused on them. On predictions markets, our 10% stake in Rothera gives us an additional way to participate. So whether in perps, tokenization, or other asset classes, we will move decisively and be prepared to commit capital when demand warrants and clarity emerges. And that's how we're proceeding. Keep executing on the strategy that got us here and stay ready to move on what's next. Now, as I close, it's a dynamic and exciting time in our industry here at MIAX. We continue to execute the strategy that we laid out when we entered the public markets, safely build, launch, and operate exchanges, and respond to what our customers want. This approach has driven strong revenue growth and margin expansion since going public. In retail futures, we believe there's a potential for growth that follows a path similar to what we saw in retail options. Our near-term priorities are clear. Roll out new functionality across our options exchanges and the Sapphire trading floor, bring competition to financial markets and Financial Futures with Bloomberg, meet institutional demands in our agricultural futures, and bring new products to market. We're making progress on all of these priorities. The tailwinds that accelerate our growth over the last few years are intact, and we have the flexibility to embrace new opportunities as they develop. I'm as excited about the opportunities in front of us today as I've been at any point since we started MIAX. So thanks again for joining us. Doug and Shelly are here with me and Lance, and we can start our Q&A, operator.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question today is from Patrick Moley with Piper Sandler.

I wanted to get back to the RPC and just double-click there. So, Lance, appreciate the comments and the 3 factors you laid out there that contributed to that decline. But I was hoping you could maybe just give us a better sense for what impact each of the 3 buckets had on the decline. And then on the pricing piece in particular, I think Shelly last quarter mentioned reverting some of the July Pearl fee changes. So what pricing is still in place today versus what was unwound? And do you think the 3Q RPC is a clean reflection of the current fee schedule, or should we expect some rebound here?

Yes, Patrick, sure, I can cover that. Yes. So as you said, if you kind of throw out the second quarter and bridge from Q1 at $0.11 to Q3 at $0.098, the ORF was about $0.006, sort of split between sort of the new model for ORF, and then also just naturally kind of goes down over time as volumes grow much faster than our regulatory costs. The bulk of the balance was the fee changes we made in July, partially reversing some of them, but to a much smaller effect in August. So I think that was probably about $0.008 or $0.009. And then, just sort of mix impacts were plus about $0.003. Tough to predict where fourth quarter is going. I think maybe the best guidance I can give is that, in October, we haven't made any additional fee changes. At this point, we don't anticipate making any for November. We could still make something tomorrow, but at this point, we have nothing planned. So I think, that $0.10 range or that $0.10 mark, I think might be a good reset point from this point. And of course, mix could always have an impact. As volatility increases, we tend to see less business go through things like auctions, which generally have a low capture rate across the industry. We saw some lower volatility in the third quarter. And then, of course, there's always interactions with member mix, members going up and down tiers, some of based upon their own, especially on the consolidator side, some of them winning and losing business from month to month.

And then just as a follow-up, OpEx was down year-over-year. You've cut the full-year guide twice now. Can you just talk about the levers that you've been able to pull thus far? And then as we think about 2027 and beyond, what levers are left to pull, and how should we be thinking about the operating leverage that you can generate from here?

Yes. Great question. So I think, look, from Q2 to Q3, we'll go sequentially. So some lower marketing costs, primarily around the timing of our marketing around the launch of the Bloomberg products, kind of took a dip during the summer as expected. We expect that to pick up or that is picking up in the third quarter, both sort of company-wide and Bloomberg-focused branding events, but also customer events and incentives. So that'll pick up and has picked up in the fourth quarter. I think the rest is, we will have to pick up in some headcounts a little bit in the fourth quarter, but I think as we focus on our road map for next year, I would expect that to pick up a little bit as well. We've got a lot of projects in the pipeline, new products in the pipeline for next year that we're excited about. And again, we think those have some pretty good return on investments. So I think that will pick up a bit as well. But I think those are probably the 2 biggest levers. We certainly have, like everybody else, have seen some pressure on technology costs, both sort of software, hardware maintenance, as well as CapEx. I think we've done a good job or a best job as we can do of sort of mitigating some of that by ordering some hardware early. That worked for us pretty well in the first quarter of this year. We're doing it a little bit as well to sort of pull in some CapEx that we originally had planned for next year. We pulled it in a little bit in the quarter. Obviously, it won't have an impact on D&A since it's so late in the year. And then, look, I think like everybody else, we are seeing increases in sort of data center cost and hardware maintenance cost. But I think we do a pretty good job or the best job we could do in sort of mitigating those cost increases. And of course, we'll give full year guidance with the fourth quarter numbers in early February.

The next question is from Jeff Schmitt with William Blair.

So how much are you spending on the new product rollouts in futures, especially the Bloomberg products? And when should we expect those costs to begin rolling off? Is that kind of like a late '27 or even into '28?

Yes, I think -- look, there's a couple different pieces, components there. Just first on transaction fees, right? We have very sort of aggressive fee waivers and rebates for market makers in terms of actual trading. And those kind of show up in the sort of inverted capture rate you see for financial futures. I think it was inverted about $1.42 per contract. Look, over time, as it goes, as we have more retail activity in there, more retail customers trading that product, those incentives will go away. Those inverted capture rates will sort of get to 0 and then we'll be, I think as we sort of mentioned, in sort of the 10 to -- it depends on the product, right? But looking more like around the quarter range, $0.25, $0.30 range. In terms of marketing dollars overall -- I'm sorry, just one other thing. In terms of quoting incentives, that's, I don't know, $0.5 million, maybe a little more per quarter, $0.5 million to $1 million a quarter to provide those quoting incentives. Those show up in OpEx because essentially they're paid regardless of whether or not there's a trade, so it doesn't show up as a cost of revenue. Those, like I said, like the fees, as the fees go positive, those incentives kind of fall away. And then I think just in terms of the marketing and branding, I think when we see an opportunity to do some events with customers, find ways to expand the product, I think we'll keep doing that, kind of like what we've seen this year, that's a couple million dollars. But again, we think that's some money well spent, especially on prop products, right? Because if you think about it from the exchange -- from the options exchange point, right up to this point, right, is primarily multi-listed products, not a lot of marketing around that, it's more just sort of corporate branding. But as we get into the prop products, it's very important to spend some specific marketing and customer incentive around those products to build the market.

And then you had mentioned NinjaTrader is now live with the Bloomberg Futures products, and you've said additional retail platforms should come online beginning next quarter. So how quickly do you expect retail distribution to broaden from here? And what will be sort of the key drivers of adoption?

That's a great question, a follow-on question. Shelly, do you want to take that one?

Yes. Thank you for the question, Jeff. So we have a number of retail firms in the pipeline. Two have completed testing. One, as you said, NinjaTrader is live. We have a second that's completed testing. We expect them to go live probably next 30 days. We have 2 more firms in the pipeline that are close. So -- and we're working closely with them to complete their connectivity and testing. And then, as Lance said, we will have marketing incentives and marketing programs with those firms. We will be jointly marketing to their customers, both retail and professional customers, that use their platforms.

Next question is from Ken Worthington with JPMorgan.

I wanted to dig more into the relationship between pricing and market share in options. So we saw the market share bounce in the quarter, but MIAX seems to have given up maybe more in terms of pricing than we would have expected. So can you talk about why pricing contracted to the degree it did without seeing more market share gains to kind of show for it? So mix seems to be part of it. Maybe talk about the other factors that also contributed to this pricing to share dynamic that we saw in Q3.

Yes. Thank you, Ken, for that question. Shelly, do you want to take this one?

Sure. Yes. As you know, generally speaking, market share and pricing are negatively correlated. But sometimes, depending on the market conditions, that doesn't necessarily hold. It varies from month-to-month. A lot of the RPC, while some of it has to do with the fee changes we made early last quarter, and some of it also has to do with the quality of the market itself, how much customer volume there is, how much volume there is in different mechanisms, different trading mechanisms. There's a lot of variables there. And as customer volume grows as a percentage of volume, that will hit RPC across the industry. We saw some of that last quarter. These things are all variations that we see over time. While we can't anticipate them, we expect them to happen over time. So I'm not concerned at all about the lower capture with the slightly lower market share or not as much market share growth as one would expect.

So I think in the earlier comments, I think, Lance, you mentioned that we should see pricing around maybe $0.10 or so for options contracts. If we think about that being the base, should we see market share kind of rebound beyond the share levels that we saw earlier in the year? Or is that $0.10 level really commensurate with the market share that we've seen in more recent months?

Yes, look, I think there's a lot more dynamic than that, right? I think the $0.10 we're seeing is kind of reflective of the current mix of business that we've had. We don't have any planned fee changes, as I said, for the month of October or the month of November, where we could see that increasing. Look, market share, we can gain and have gained market share, not just because of low fees, right? Things like launching the trading floor has certainly brought in additional market share actually at a higher capture rate than the overall. Things like complex orders, same thing as well. And we've been able to grow that over time. So, I guess, what I'm trying to say is, look, cutting the fee by $0.01 is not necessarily going to bring us -- it's not the sole determinant of whether we get another point or 2 of market share. So I think it's kind of looking at very specific segments of the market, talking discussions with our members where we could win business from them, and sometimes there are offsetting factors.

One more related. As we think about your technology advantage, do you think this technology advantage can continue to drive market share gains like it's driven for you, I don't know, since inception? Or has the technology advantage kind of worked its way and matured at this point, given how big you've gotten?

Yes. I'm happy to take that, Ken. I think that the technology advantage that we have is still playing a major role in our growth. When you think about some of these historic AI-related IPOs, whether it is SpaceX, whether it's Anthropic, these are going to drive more and more volumes to the overall industry. And as market makers go out there and they want to buy flow, I think they want to put these up on an exchange that can handle the throughput and the low latency and the determinism that they need in order to make it worth their time and their effort to go out there and buy flow. Doug, maybe a comment in terms of the investment we've made in the technology and how important those are as you do some of these deep dives with customers.

Yes. As Tom said, you can look at things generically like latency and at a fundamental level that helps to make market makers feel safer in posting deeper and tighter markets. But there's a lot more subtleties going on in the marketplace. Things like, how do customers compete in mid-market retail customer order taking business? There is a very competitive fight in that area as far as determinism and latency goes. There are lots of things around risk protections, of which we've been innovative and continue to improve, and we have some other things rolling out in '27 related to that. So I think it's not just as simple as latency and determinism and uptime and that sort of thing. There's a lot of subtleties that happen in that area, and we're right on the forefront, I think, of R&D with the customers on that.

And again, I think that what we have built is still so important to allow market makers to be more aggressive. While they may take a more defensive posture on another exchange, they can be much more aggressive here because, as we've talked to you guys, we still have the ability to have 36 microseconds of latency at the 99.9 percentile. And this does not change that much when it gets extremely volatile and you get to those days where there is extreme volatility. Shelly, do you want to add something to that?

Yes. Tom just hit a key point. I mean, volatility has been relatively stable this quarter. We're in the mid-teens. Vol of vol has been low. And as you see more volatility in the market is when the technology makes a huge difference. When the market makers can stay on their markets longer, be more aggressive in their pricing. So as we move along in lower volatility environments, you see more stabilization volume across exchanges. Higher volatility will push volume our way because our markets are better.

[Operator Instructions] Next question is from Chris Brendler with Rosenblatt.

Unfortunately, I want to ask a follow-up question on the options business, and I don't think you really addressed this question in this angle so far. But is it safe to assume there really hasn't been any material changes in the competitive environment? The trends we're seeing is more sort of specific impacts from either mix or the fee structures. It's not really anything on the competitive side.

The competitive marketplace is interesting, given some new entrants to the exchange space. Generally, we don't view that as usually competitive with us. They don't come in with the level of technologies that we have, and they don't have the functionality we have. We certainly welcome more entrants into the marketplace. But the competition that they bring is really on the fringes, and I don't see that having a big impact on our market share or our ability to grow market share. Our growth going forward is going to be from additional functionality we're adding in the electronic marketplace, additional functionality we're bringing to the trading floor. So we're still growing the trading floor. It's not even halfway done. So I'm not concerned about that competitive aspect of the new exchanges.

And my follow-up question was on your comments around perpetual futures. One of the things I like about the MIAX story is you kind of stick to your core business and do a lot of focus on what your insurance is known for. But kind of surprised in some ways to see those comments about sort of willingness to invest in technology to potentially start trading perpetual futures. Could you just give us a little more color there and how you're thinking? I would think that it would kind of be a situation where you take a wait and see approach.

Yes. So again, and appreciate the question, Chris. Obviously, there are 4 things we're currently doing, and I'll talk to you about the future. We're obviously continuing to move forward on the Bloomberg suite of products, getting retail futures engagement there. We're moving into institutional ag products with the release of these 4 new fertilizer products, and we've more of those ags in the pipeline for 2027. And then we have, obviously, our exposure to the business through Rothera. But when I look at whether it's perps, tokenization, single stock futures, really 3 things we really have to see. We got to see clear-cut demand from customers. I really have to see a clear-cut regulatory pathway by either the SEC or the CFTC. And then I challenge Shelly and Joe Bracco that the economics of a new product have to justify the investment in moving forward. Now, having said that, again, whether it's with perps or we just mentioned today that we're going to go forward with binary options on our SEC-registered exchanges. Each of these new products have a multiple path to enter the markets, and we have the necessary license, whether it's the CFTC, allowing things that are deemed swaps or the SEC. So we have the licenses, whether it's in CFTC in futures, SEC with options and equities internationally. And we have relationships that we can build products around, the relationships with Bloomberg. So to the extent that we see that one of these new opportunities like perps, we have the licenses, and we have the customer relationships that we've developed over the last 15 years with our major market participants, and we're going to listen to them. And if they say, "Look, we think that there should be some exposure to perps," we're going to listen. And then lastly, I think we have the best technology stack to be able to move into these asset classes. Doug, just from your perspective, to move from some of the things we have with multi-listed options to the new proprietary futures products, these other asset classes, for example, perps.

Yes. Thank you, Tom. So yes, I think we're well-positioned for that for a few reasons. One, we own our own clearing house, control the development of that. We own our own trading platform, which is used across all the different asset classes, and that's how we're able to maintain our expense and control those costs. So I would say that common stack that we have that we're able to put into multiple asset classes plays well when we look at new products like perps or binary options, where we're making functional changes. We're not re-architecting systems. We're not putting huge investments into technology. It's really just a matter of, okay, does this product rise to the level of priority that it would be a potential better use of our time and money than another potential project? So we're constantly evaluating that. As we build operational plans for 2027, we have those debates internally, and as the world shifts, we'll move those priorities around as it makes sense. But I agree with Tom. We're not looking to make huge new investments. It's more of an evolutionary kind of migration.

Yes. And look, perps are an opportunity, if they take hold, to bring volumes that are really being executed in offshore venues and bringing them to U.S.-regulated markets. Shelly, any comment on some of the size of these perps when you look at some of the competitors? It's really just in its early stages, correct?

It's in its early stages, and they are always generally expressed in notional value, and they sound like big numbers. But remember, they're trading Bitcoin, which is about $80,000 a contract. So when you talk about $1 billion or $10 billion in volume, it sounds like a lot of volume, but actual contract volume, it's not as impressive.

The bottom line -- yes. As these opportunities arise, I think we're well-suited to be able to develop products in this area as well.

That was the final question. This concludes our question-and-answer session and also the conference call has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.