管理層發言
Thank you for standing by. My name is Alan, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Miami International Holdings, Inc. Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Call. 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, operator. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us for MIAX's Second 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 In addition, this call is being webcast, and an archived version will be available there shortly after the conclusion of the call.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. 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. We appreciate you joining us today. MIAX had a strong second quarter, delivering record net revenue as the industry trading environment continued to work in our favor. We were also thrilled to launch our first group of Bloomberg futures products, an important milestone that creates the foundation for our financial futures ecosystem. I'll first walk you through what drove our results, then hand things over to Lance for the financial details. Three things stood out to us in this quarter. First, our net revenue reached a record level and our margins once again improved, and we did it while continuing to invest in our product pipeline. Second, our first group of Bloomberg Financial Futures products is live. Screens are lit, market depth and volumes are in line with our expectations and enabling retail access is the next big step. Third, our options business continues to grow profitably as we balance market share with discipline on revenue per contract.
During the quarter, market conditions remained volatile as geopolitical tensions, trade policy uncertainty and continued AI-related market swings led to elevated options volumes. These market conditions might give some businesses pause. But remember that for MIAX, sustained market volatility drives higher demand for the risk management tools we offer and increased contract volumes on our exchanges. As a result of these market conditions and the strength of our platform, second quarter total net revenue grew 35% year-over-year to $141 million. Adjusted EBITDA margin improved by more than 700 basis points year-over-year to 54%, while our adjusted diluted EPS was $0.48. The story in Q2 was very similar to Q1. Options business strength, operating leverage and momentum across our exchanges. Let's now talk about our business segments. Our second quarter market share in multi-listed options was 16.5%, essentially flat versus the prior year period and a bit lower than what we saw in the first quarter.
However, revenue per contract, or RPC, was a strength again this quarter, driven largely by mix. We continue to see opportunity for option share gains over time as we build out new functionality and calibrate pricing where it makes sense to do so. A growing pipeline of new listings, including SpaceX and SK Hynix are part of a broader trend of additional IPO supply that is good for MIAX and the broader options market. Our early market share in these new listings is tracking ahead of our overall market share. We view this as an additive volume driver and believe volumes will grow as additional companies come to market. Before moving on to the futures business, we note that as disclosed in our recent 8-K filing, we resolved the Nasdaq litigation and now consider this matter closed. Turning now to futures. We were pleased with the performance of our agricultural futures business versus Q1 as average daily volume grew 20% and capture rates improved by 14%.
We are also pleased with the progress we've made with our Bloomberg financial futures. Step one was getting tight in liquid markets in our recently launched B500 and B100 futures contracts. Connecting retail brokers to the platform is the next milestone, and that work is actively underway. As a reminder, the institutional-size B500 contract and the smaller T&E B500 and T&E B100 contracts are designed to serve both institutional and retail participants. These products deliver similar broad equity market exposure as S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100 products with the added benefits of earlier inclusion of new IPOs and a very competitive fee structure. We believe the index composition, our fee structure, our technology and the existing relationships we have with market makers and trading firms deliver a strong foundation for our new products. This also provides market participants with compelling reasons to choose our Bloomberg Index product over incumbents.
We think of ourselves as a disruptor in this category, and we believe there is room for a differentiated alternative to take root and grow the overall pie, not just take share. It's still early, but we very much like our position. I want to spend a moment on why we're excited about where this can go. Bloomberg maintains a broad global suite of index products, and we have a services license agreement with them to develop a suite of branded proprietary products. Our 10-year exclusive license allows us to list index futures, options on futures and cash index options based on the B500, B100 and B500 volatility indices in North and South America. We also believe that the clearing and settlement agreement we've announced with the Options Clearing Corporation, or OCC, which is the world's largest equity derivatives clearing organization, will make it easier for market participants to transact in financial futures trading on our MIAX Futures Exchange.
Our FCM is in the process of applying for OCC membership, further demonstrating our strong commitment to financial futures. In that connection, we are increasing its net capital by $40 million. I also want to spend a moment on perpetual futures, or perps, which came up frequently in many investor conversations over the past few months. Our focus remains on our core options and futures businesses, though we're open to offering new supplemental products if and when regulatory approval and market demand exists. Our technology with some enhancements is capable of supporting these products on our MIAX Futures Exchange. We welcome the CFTC's framework bringing perpetual contracts into regulated U.S. markets. This policy shift, if it takes hold, could bring volumes that are currently being executed on offshore venues to U.S. regulated markets. We recognize that the CFTC's recent approvals in this area have led to litigation.
On the other hand, we see these recent developments as a potential opportunity. Accordingly, we are pursuing a path of active regulatory engagement with our regulators, both at the CFTC and the SEC as well as with our MIAX Futures Exchange members and prospective new partners to identify emerging opportunities. As potential opportunities arise, we may leverage our modern, agile trading and clearing infrastructure as well as our CFTC-licensed futures exchange and futures clearinghouse to consider offering capital-efficient derivatives products. One brief comment on our ownership stake in Rothera. As a reminder, we hold our remaining 10% stake at cost with any future distributions flowing through as dividend income. As a passive minority investor, we're not involved in the day-to-day management of the business, but we are excited about the recent progress and volumes as they publicly announced. With that, I'll turn it over to Lance to walk through our second quarter financial results.
Thanks, Tom, and good afternoon. It was a strong quarter across the business, and I'm glad to walk you through the details. I'll start by briefly recapping MIAX's revenue model. We generate revenue from transaction and non-transaction fees. Our key transaction fee revenue drivers are industry trading volumes, market share and revenue per contract, or RPC, which measures the average revenue we earn per contract or share traded. As a reminder, we post RPC and capture rates on a 3-month rolling average basis on our IR website. Non-transaction fee revenue comes from access fees, which customers pay to connect to our exchanges, market data earned through direct subscriptions and our participation in the U.S. tape plans and listings fees, primarily in our International segment. Q2 total net revenue grew 35% year-over-year to a record $141 million, reflecting continued options business strength and growth from our other business segments.
Adjusted Q2 operating expenses were $64 million compared to $57 million in the prior year period. This increase was primarily due to planned headcount expansion, advertising and promotion expenses related to our brand campaign and marketing programs for our Bloomberg financial futures. Adjusted EBITDA was $77 million, up 57% year-over-year, and adjusted EBITDA margin was 54% compared to 47% in the year-ago period. We continue to generate operating leverage given our revenue growth, high incremental margins and largely fixed cost base. Adjusted earnings grew 41% year-over-year to $53 million in Q2 compared to $38 million in the prior year period. Now let's move on to Q2 segment performance. Options segment net revenue was $124 million, up 34% year-over-year. This represents average daily volume of 11 million contracts, a 25% year-over-year increase that was in line with 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 RPC and industry ADV, slightly offset by lower market share. Non-transaction fee growth of 36% was primarily due to increased member connections, our January 1 fee increases and market data sales. I'll note that Q2 '26 included $1.8 million in data sales revenue from a recently introduced historical report offering. As we discussed last quarter, this type of revenue is episodic, and therefore, we would not model it into future quarterly estimates. Turning to market share and RPC. Q2 options market share was 16.5%, relatively flat year-over-year and down from 17.3% in the first quarter. As you know, our options market share varies month-to-month and quarter-to-quarter, and Q2 was part of that normal pattern. We've continued to deliver record quarterly revenue, and that's the outcome we managed toward.
Q2 RPC reflected a shift in mix and tiers toward higher pricing, a byproduct of our lower Q2 market share. Due to ongoing mix and tier effects as well as fee changes, including work-related ones that became effective on July 1, we would not recommend modeling our Q2 RPC of $0.124 into the second half of the year. With that in mind, and although it's difficult to guide on capture rates, we expect second half RPC will be closer to what we saw in the previous few quarters. Our Equities segment net revenue was $6 million, up from $4 million in the prior year period, primarily due to higher net transaction fees. Equities capture was less inverted in the quarter compared to the year-ago period. Futures segment net revenue was $5 million, which was flat compared to the prior year period. Our first Bloomberg financial futures products launched in May and did not contribute materially to the Q2 results.
Our International segment net revenue was $6 million compared to $2 million in the year-ago period due to the acquisition of TISE in June of 2025. Operationally, our efforts to streamline sales and marketing across our international listings businesses are underway and progressing well. Turning to our balance sheet. We ended the quarter with cash and cash equivalents of $660 million and outstanding debt of less than $2 million, which matures in December. Now let's walk through our updated 2026 guidance. Full details, including comparison to our prior guidance, can be found on Slide 16 of our earnings deck. We are lowering our full year 2026 adjusted operating expense guidance to between $260 million and $270 million compared to the prior $265 million to $275 million range. Our expense expectations for the rest of the year still include a planned increase in marketing costs, including quoting incentives associated with our Bloomberg Index futures products.
Based on recent grants, we now expect full year share-based compensation expense in a range between $29 million and $32 million versus the prior $27 million to $30 million range. We continue to expect full year capital expenditures in the range between $40 million and $45 million. As a reminder, we front-loaded CapEx in the first half and do not expect any material cost increases over the remainder of the year. We expect depreciation and amortization expense in the range between $35 million and $39 million compared to the prior range of $33 million to $38 million. Our Q2 adjusted effective tax rate was 27%. We continue to expect our full year rate will be in the 27% to 29% range. I'll now turn it back over to Tom.
Thanks, Lance. We're happy with our progress this quarter and remain confident in the road ahead. We'll keep leveraging the four competitive pillars you heard me talk about many times: our high-performance technology, our broad range of regulatory licenses, our diverse and expanding product range, and our deep customer relationships. These remain our core competitive advantages. There's a lot to be excited about here at MIAX. Getting retail distribution for our Bloomberg products is our top near-term priority, and we continue to see opportunity in an improving IPO pipeline, strong retail demand for options, and growth of structured products that use options in their strategies. We sincerely appreciate you joining us today. As a reminder, Doug and Shelly are here with Lance and me for our Q&A. So, let's begin.
分析師問答
Our first question today comes from Patrick Moley from Piper Sandler.
So, congrats on the quarter. I wanted to dive into the options business. You saw record volumes, record-high RPC. Lance, I know you said in your prepared remarks that you don't want people to extrapolate the RPC this quarter and expect it to be in line with where it's been the last couple of quarters. So, could you maybe just talk about what drove the step-up this quarter? What's going into that assumption that it comes back down? And then, Tom, you talked about calibrating price where it makes sense to pursue share gains. Could you maybe just talk about that as well? And should we read that as you potentially being open to tweaking pricing to maybe recapture some share that's been lost here year-to-date? Apologies for the multipart question.
Thank you, Patrick. Appreciate that question. Those series of questions. I'll turn it over to you, Lance, with respect to the RPC and your comments during the early part of our call.
Yes, Patrick, good to hear from you. The increase from about $0.11 in the first quarter to $0.124 in the second quarter was really driven by a couple of factors. One is as market share lowered, we had less volume at the highest rebate tiers or lowest fee tiers. So, it's a natural seesaw effect. We also saw some favorable mix in terms of higher capture flow that ebbs and flows from period to period. As we look ahead, market share has rebounded to about 17.1% in July; it's still early for August, but it's improved from the quarter. With that, we think the tier effects will bring the rate back down. We're also looking at a more normalized mix. Mix is very difficult to predict from day-to-day or month-to-month. We also implemented a couple of fee changes in July and August to try to find the right balance between capture rate and market share. Then the fourth factor is related to regulatory and fee mechanics: as volumes have been growing faster than our regulatory fee adjustments, the effect on the RPC naturally comes down. And there was a small impact from the new methodology that came into effect on July 1. If you take all four of those items together, that's why we're expecting RPC closer to the last couple of quarters, which ranged around $0.103 in Q3 to $0.11 in Q1.
And on the last part of your question about trading off some of the RPC for increases in volume: when you look at the volume for July, which is historically a low period, we came in at just over 17%, 17.1%. And Patrick, August looks even better though we're only a couple of days in. We absolutely look at RPC and market share, and we do want to continue our momentum in terms of market share. From time to time, we do adjust some of the tiers. In fact, one of the things we looked at and did in August was adjust tiers and pricing on Sapphire.
We made pricing changes in Sapphire, primarily for the trading floor. We tried some pricing changes in July on Pearl to try to attract further high-profit flow. We reverted some of those for this month after they did not have the expected impact. Managing market share and RPC is really as much an art as it is a science. We certainly recognize that market share and RPC are inversely correlated. We're always trying to maximize net revenue, so we continue to refine pricing as we move forward.
Congrats on the quarter, guys.
The next question comes from Michael Cyprys of Morgan Stanley.
Just wanted to ask about the financial futures that you launched this quarter in partnership with Bloomberg. I was hoping you could elaborate a bit on the competitive fee structure that you alluded to. And maybe you could talk to some of the steps that you're going to be taking in the coming months as you think about, I guess, step two, which is bringing retail brokers on board? Maybe you can comment on what that pipeline looks like, what your expectation is going into the end of the year in terms of onboarding retail brokers? And ultimately, what do you think it's going to take to drive success with that product?
Great, Michael, thanks very much for the question. I appreciate that. I'll have Shelly talk to the fee structure, but we're very excited about the Bloomberg product launches, which started on May 17. Our screens are lit. The depth of the market and the volumes over the past 60 days are right in line with our expectations. Now our focus is on enabling retail engagement. We're reaching out to a number of trading firms and retail brokers, working with them on educational programs, marketing programs and trying to educate retail users about the benefits of trading the B500. We've talked previously about the index methodology, the rules-based approach to listing securities in the index and the benefits of the way the index is constructed, particularly as the IPO pipeline improves and more large caps come into the index. Shelly, could you add more regarding the fee incentives and the go-to-market steps to garner initial market share?
Thank you, Tom, and thank you, Michael. We're very pleased with the progress Tom described. Liquidity providers are on board and performing as expected, and we have additional liquidity providers coming on over the next several weeks. Several retail firms are working through phases of connectivity and clearing arrangements. We're working with firms that we expect will be enabling customer activity over the next several weeks. There's been a lot of interest from several retail firms. It's still early; we're only a few months into the product launch, so we're about where we expected to be. I think we'll start seeing retail exposure to the product over the next couple of months. The fee structure is designed to incentivize retail firms to introduce their clients to the product. It's a different way of thinking about marketing a product. As Tom said, we're working closely with the retail firms' marketing teams to put together educational programs, and we're looking at sponsoring events with customers. The goal is to provide the right incentives to retail firms to want to interact with us. And of course, we have a technology advantage over the competitors.
Our goal is really to grow the overall pie, not just take share from incumbents. Shelly, you want to comment on that strategy?
Yes. It's not just taking market share from incumbents, it's growing the index pie. The industry is looking for competition; there hasn't been meaningful competition for a long time in this space. Bringing these products to market with Bloomberg is a breath of fresh air for the industry. Retail, institutional and liquidity providers are all excited to have competition within the category.
We also announced that our FCM has applied for OCC membership, and we view OCC approval, when completed, as an important step in terms of getting retail engagement for the B500 Mini and the B100 Mini.
The next question comes from Ken Worthington of JPMorgan.
Maybe first on expenses. You're lowering guidance on adjusted operating expenses, and you're doing this in the context of higher stock-based comp and depreciation. And you're also doing this in the context of a pretty robust volume environment. What are the pieces that are lower here versus your prior expectations? And how are you managing to take the adjusted operating expense outlook down?
Good question, Ken. In terms of OpEx and share-based comp, two things are tied together. As the compensation committee updated the executive compensation plans now that we're a public company, we moved a little less toward cash-based compensation, which comes out of OpEx, and a little more into share-based compensation. So those two are mostly tied together. In terms of other OpEx, it's really looking at our current run rate and how we've been spending. After those two changes, the expected expenses going forward reflect a pickup in some marketing and incentives related to the Bloomberg products, but overall the run rate is a bit lower than our prior expectation.
Great. Makes sense. You mentioned SpaceX market share exceeds your overall average, similar to comments you made last quarter about your presence in single-stock options. What's driving the better engagement in the new products relative to the legacy options products? And is there a way to leverage what you're doing in these new products to help market share in the more mature listings?
Ken, great question. Shelly, can you address that?
There are a number of factors. Primarily, we do better in more liquid classes that are higher-priced equities with slightly higher volatility because of the technology we've built that allows market makers to be very aggressive in their quoting. This enables market makers to participate more with retail because they can be on the market more and with tighter spreads. We also do better in names that have Monday and Wednesday weekly expirations; those are very retail-focused and we outperform there. Names that are more institutional-focused are areas where we don't perform as well yet. We're working on bringing that institutional flow to our trading floor. So, it's really about the technology driving better markets, which in turn draws more retail volume to the exchange.
The next question comes from Jeff Schmitt of William Blair.
The non-transaction fees for options were up around 40% in the first half. I think you called out a couple of things: fee increases on January 1 and you launched some new market data products. Could you give us a sense of how much growth is being driven by these different factors?
Jeff, great question. Lance, do you want to cover that?
Yes. On access fees and non-transaction fees: we did fee increases on January 1. We also had fee waivers or heavy discounts when we launched the Sapphire Exchange. Looking at the first six months of the year, roughly half of the increase in non-transaction revenue is from fee increases and the other half is from additional connections and services members have adopted.
Got it. And you've talked in the past about rolling out some new agricultural futures later this year. Could you give an update on when you plan to roll those out and what the underlying commodities would be?
I'll start and then Shelly will add color. In late October, we plan to launch the first of a series of agricultural futures products that are primarily focused in the fertilizer area. These products respond to demand for alternatives given geopolitical events that have affected certain commodity supply chains.
Tom is correct. We're adding four additional products in the fertilizer space. They are somewhat novel products in the industry. There's been greater demand recently given supply chain disruptions due to geopolitical issues overseas. Customers have asked us to bring these products to market, and we're planning to list them late this year on the commodity side of the futures exchange.
Our next question comes from Patrick O'Shaughnessy of Raymond James.
Curious about your thoughts on how CME's introduction of single-stock futures might impact the equity options world.
Good question. Shelly, do you want to take that?
Single-stock futures have been around for a while. There was a single-stock futures product listed previously that delisted in 2020 due to lack of interest. The crossover point is this: you can create a synthetic single-stock future today by using an options combo — buy call, sell put to be long the synthetic future, or sell call, buy put to be short; it's priced the same based on carry, interest minus dividends. The area where there might be interest is if there's regulatory or margin arbitrage between a CFTC-regulated product and an SEC-regulated product. It could also be used as a synthetic method for certain strategies. We'll watch how the reintroduction plays out. If it's successful, we could pursue single-stock futures on MIAX Futures Exchange with relatively modest technology work and some regulatory requirements, but it's not difficult. If demand is there, we can move quickly; if not, we'll prioritize other resources.
Our next question comes from Chris Brendler of Rosenblatt Securities.
Congrats on a really nice quarter. I'd love to hear more about the risk management aspect of volatile markets and how you help clients lean into that. Any quantification on the revenue impact from your risk management activities?
Shelly, sounds like this is in your wheelhouse. Can you address risk management and how it benefits market participants and MIAX's business?
Thanks for the question, Chris. This is actually my background coming from the market-making side. When we built MIAX, we said we'd build a system that caters to market makers, consolidators and retail firms, and we focused heavily on risk management. We created risk management methodologies that allow market makers to be more aggressive in their quoting. Risk management shows up in two primary ways. First, the technology we've built with speed and throughput allows market makers to get in and out of the market quickly. They can play defense when needed. That reduces negative expectancy trades. Second, we've created mechanisms similar to old trading-floor practices where a market maker can be forced to do only one trade versus being firm across many quotes. We've implemented system-level methodologies that handle this instantaneously for traders. We constantly enhance these tools. Earlier this year, we introduced a risk management tool that allows market makers to weigh trades in the risk tool based on the counterparty they're trading with. It's all about making market makers more comfortable to quote. The more comfortable they are, the longer and better their quotes remain on the screen, and that draws retail to the marketplace.
That's great color. Follow-up: is this capability above and beyond what competitors offer? Should we view it as a core competitive advantage for MIAX?
Some of the functionality is copyable in principle; once a rule is filed with the SEC, others could try to replicate aspects of it. But the reality is they don't have the same speed and throughput we have. That combination of features and performance is hard to replicate quickly. Doug can speak to the technology aspects.
Yes, basically we focused on massive overbuilding of the technology so we're not in a position to limit intended market maker behavior. As Shelly said, that results in deeper and tighter markets. There are a lot of technical things we do that are proprietary to MIAX that allow us to achieve that with a small hardware footprint and still remain low latency and highly deterministic. It's not one big thing but a combination of many optimizations, and we've been in the marketplace for a number of years while still leading in round-trip latency. It's not easy to copy.
Our next question comes from Michael Cyprys of Morgan Stanley.
I just wanted to circle back to your comments around the FCM applying for OCC membership. Could you elaborate on the longer-term strategy of your FCM? You purchased it to reduce barriers for smaller customers to access your markets, particularly on the futures side. With new competitors and direct-to-customer models emerging globally, how are you thinking about evolving the competitive landscape over the years ahead, and are there opportunities for a direct-to-customer model, perhaps even involving digital wallets over time?
Great. With respect to our FCM, we wanted it to become an OCC clearing member because there are opportunities for retail firms that want to access not only the B100 and B500 but other financial futures products we plan to offer. When we bought the FCM, we intended it to be an alternative ramp to access MIAX futures. Some prospective customers wanted to trade products on MIAX Futures but lacked an access point. The FCM reduces friction for predominantly retail firms to access our new financial futures products. We've rebuilt our Onyx trading platform and redone the clearinghouse, giving us optionality for both our own clearing capabilities and MIAX Futures becoming OCC-cleared. Shelly, do you want to add?
Traditionally, FCMs have not been members of the Options Clearing Corporation because there was limited need. We chose OCC to clear the Bloomberg products to enhance margin offsets and capital efficiency for our members trading those products. Having our FCM as an OCC member provides those FCMs that don't have OCC access indirect access to clearing, which creates a tailwind for the Bloomberg products. That's the rationale behind being one of the early OCC members to clear these products.
On the broader evolution: while there has been more direct access internationally, particularly for perpetuals, we believe the FCM model remains important in the U.S. market. A well-run FCM performs many duties, including AML and KYC and risk management, which are essential. As policy evolves, the FCM should remain a primary access point to the U.S. futures marketplace.
Our next question comes from Patrick Moley of Piper Sandler.
I wanted to ask on cash. You've got $660 million of cash and no debt. I know you said you're going to put $40 million into the FCM. How should we think about how much of that cash balance is available or deployable? What does the priority order look like in terms of organic investment, M&A, or at some point returning capital to shareholders?
Thanks, Patrick. It's taken us a while and it's been a journey to get to over $600 million in capital on our balance sheet. Near-term uses of capital include continued investment in the businesses that got us here. We want to keep investing in our existing futures business because we think there is more upside, particularly as we roll out new functionality. Sapphire is less than a year old and we have more to do. We also want to grow the futures pipeline and create incentive programs to garner retail and institutional flows into the new products now that the infrastructure and Bloomberg relationship are in place. We will be strategic with the capital. As opportunities arise, including inbound interest from member firms and potential partners domestically and overseas, we'll evaluate how best to use the cash. We have no plans today to announce a dividend or share repurchase program; I'd like to get this first year under our belt and assess the opportunities. The core focus for the cash is reinvesting in our people, continuing to build out the futures business and maintaining leadership in our technology stack.
I can't believe it's been a year already. I didn't realize that.
Yes. No, it's absolutely been a year, and it's been a great year.
This concludes the question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Tom Gallagher for any closing remarks.
Well, thank you very much, everyone, for joining us this afternoon. Obviously, we've had a great quarter, and we're very grateful for the support of all our member firms and our shareholders that helped us get to this spot on the eve of our one-year anniversary of our IPO. We're going to continue to focus on those four pillars that got us here. We'll keep working closely with the members we've developed relationships with since our first launch in 2012. I'm really proud of the new relationship with Bloomberg. I think we have a real exciting second half in front of us. Thanks very much for your participation this afternoon, and we're happy to follow up individually over the next few days and answer questions from various analysts and firms. So, thank you very much.