On November 15, 2025, and December 13, 2025, a coordinated testing of contingency closing auction procedures will take place involving multiple exchanges including NYSE, Nasdaq, and Cboe BZX. This testing is designed to assess the response to potential disruptions that could prevent a primary listing exchange from conducting a closing auction.

During the November test, if an exchange determines by 3:00 p.m. that it cannot conduct a closing auction due to technical issues, an alternate exchange will be designated for determining the official closing price of its listed securities. If this determination occurs after 3:00 p.m., the official closing price will be calculated as the volume-weighted average price (VWAP) of trades in the last five minutes of regular trading hours.

The timeline for November includes systems ceasing operations at 11:05 a.m., followed by order rejections until noon. Consolidated trades will be sent to the SIAC SIP for affected securities during this period. The specific symbols involved in this test include various NYSE and CBOE BZX listed securities.

On December 13, similar procedures will apply specifically for Nasdaq-listed securities with timelines mirroring those of November's test. Firms are encouraged to participate in these tests by registering with Nasdaq Trading Services prior to each event.

These tests aim to ensure readiness for potential market disruptions and maintain operational integrity across exchanges during critical trading periods.

Original article

The article provides information about upcoming coordinated tests of contingency closing auction procedures involving major exchanges, but it lacks actionable information for the average reader. While it mentions that firms are encouraged to register with Nasdaq Trading Services, it does not provide clear steps for individual investors or traders on how to participate or what they should do in response to these tests.

In terms of educational depth, the article offers basic facts about the testing procedures and timelines but does not delve into the reasons behind these tests or their significance in a broader context. It fails to explain how potential disruptions could affect market operations or why these specific measures are being implemented.

Regarding personal relevance, while the topic may be significant for professionals in finance or trading, it does not directly impact the daily lives of most readers. The information is more relevant to firms and exchanges rather than individual investors who may not need to adjust their behavior based on this testing.

The article has a limited public service function as it primarily relays news without providing actionable advice or safety tips that would benefit the general public. It does not offer emergency contacts or tools that people can use during market disruptions.

When assessing practicality, any advice provided is vague and directed towards firms rather than individuals. There are no clear instructions for normal people on what they can realistically do with this information.

In terms of long-term impact, while understanding market operations is important, this article focuses on short-term testing events without offering insights that could help readers plan for future financial decisions or understand market dynamics better.

Emotionally, the article does not provide reassurance or empowerment; instead, it presents technical details that might leave readers feeling disconnected from its implications. There’s no encouragement or guidance offered to help them navigate potential market changes effectively.

Lastly, there are no clickbait elements present; however, the lack of depth and practical advice limits its effectiveness as a resource. The article misses opportunities to educate by failing to explain how these procedures might affect individual investors and what steps they can take during such events.

To find better information on this topic, individuals could look up trusted financial news websites like Bloomberg or Reuters for deeper analysis on how such tests might impact trading practices. Additionally, consulting with a financial advisor could provide personalized insights into navigating potential disruptions in trading markets.

The described coordinated testing of contingency closing auction procedures among exchanges raises significant concerns regarding the implications for local communities and kinship bonds. While the focus is on financial markets, the underlying principles of trust, responsibility, and community cohesion are at stake.

Firstly, the reliance on centralized exchanges to determine official closing prices in the event of disruptions can create a disconnect between families and their economic well-being. When financial decisions are made by distant entities rather than local kinship networks, it undermines personal responsibility and diminishes the role of families in managing their resources. This detachment can lead to economic dependencies that fracture family cohesion, as individuals may feel less empowered to make decisions that directly affect their livelihoods.

Moreover, these procedures highlight a potential neglect of duties that bind families together. The emphasis on technical solutions may overshadow the importance of nurturing relationships within communities. If families become overly reliant on external systems for stability during market disruptions, they risk losing sight of their responsibilities to one another—particularly in caring for children and elders who depend on strong familial support systems.

The testing protocols also suggest a shift towards impersonal mechanisms for resolving conflicts or addressing crises. In times of uncertainty or disruption, it is crucial that families maintain clear lines of communication and trust among themselves. When such processes are dictated by centralized authorities without local input or oversight, it can erode community bonds and diminish the capacity for peaceful resolution within kinship structures.

Furthermore, if these practices become normalized without critical evaluation, they could lead to long-term consequences for procreative continuity within communities. Families may struggle to prioritize child-rearing when faced with economic pressures imposed by distant financial systems. The focus on market stability over family stability risks diminishing birth rates as individuals prioritize survival over nurturing future generations.

In essence, if these ideas spread unchecked within communities—where reliance on external authorities supersedes personal duty—the very fabric that holds families together will weaken. Trust will erode as individuals feel disconnected from decision-making processes affecting their lives; children yet unborn may find themselves in environments lacking strong familial support; community stewardship over shared resources could falter as people look outward rather than inward for guidance.

To counteract these trends, there must be a renewed commitment to local accountability and personal responsibility within families. Communities should foster environments where decisions about economic well-being are made collaboratively among kin rather than dictated from afar. By emphasizing ancestral duties—protecting life through care for children and elders while stewarding land responsibly—families can reinforce their bonds against external pressures that threaten their survival.

Ultimately, survival depends not just on abstract systems but on daily deeds rooted in love and commitment to one another—a principle that must guide all actions moving forward if we wish to secure our future generations' wellbeing amidst any disruption.

The text uses the phrase "coordinated testing of contingency closing auction procedures" which sounds technical and formal. This choice of words may create a sense of importance or urgency, suggesting that the tests are crucial for market stability. However, it does not explain what these procedures entail or why they are necessary, potentially leading readers to accept them without question. This can make the process seem more reliable than it may actually be.

The text states that "this testing is designed to assess the response to potential disruptions." The word "potential" softens the reality of possible issues in trading. It implies that disruptions might happen but does not provide evidence or examples of past incidents that justify this concern. This could lead readers to believe there is a significant risk without clear justification.

When discussing how an alternate exchange will be designated if an exchange cannot conduct a closing auction, the text says this determination occurs "by 3:00 p.m." This specific time creates a sense of order and control over what could be seen as chaotic situations in trading. However, it does not mention what happens if no alternate exchange can be designated by this time, leaving out important information about potential failures in the system.

The phrase "official closing price will be calculated as the volume-weighted average price (VWAP)" uses technical jargon that may confuse some readers. By using complex terms without explanation, it can alienate those who do not have advanced knowledge of trading practices. This language choice might favor those already familiar with such concepts while excluding others from understanding critical information about market operations.

The text mentions firms are encouraged to participate by registering with Nasdaq Trading Services prior to each event. The word “encouraged” suggests voluntary participation but does not clarify whether there are any consequences for non-participation or if participation is truly optional. This ambiguity could mislead readers into thinking all firms must comply when they might face pressure to join despite being told it is voluntary.

In describing systems ceasing operations at 11:05 a.m., the text states there will be “order rejections until noon.” The use of “rejections” carries a negative connotation and implies failure or disruption within the system's functionality. It frames this operational halt in a way that emphasizes problems rather than explaining why such measures might be necessary for overall market health during testing periods.

The statement about sending consolidated trades to SIAC SIP for affected securities during order rejections lacks context on how this affects traders and investors directly impacted by these actions. By omitting details on how these actions influence market participants' experiences, it presents a one-sided view focusing solely on procedural aspects rather than human consequences involved in such disruptions.

When mentioning timelines mirroring those of November's test for December's procedures, there is an implication that past events were successful enough to warrant repetition without critique or analysis of their effectiveness. This assumption overlooks any potential flaws from previous tests and suggests blind trust in processes without questioning their actual outcomes or improvements needed based on earlier experiences.

The text conveys several emotions that are intertwined with the message regarding the coordinated testing of contingency closing auction procedures. One prominent emotion is concern, which arises from the mention of potential disruptions that could prevent a primary listing exchange from conducting a closing auction. This concern is evident in phrases like "technical issues" and "potential disruptions," suggesting a sense of urgency and seriousness about maintaining market stability. The strength of this emotion is moderate to high, as it highlights the importance of being prepared for unforeseen circumstances, thereby emphasizing the gravity of ensuring operational integrity across exchanges.

Another emotion present in the text is reassurance. This feeling emerges through statements about designated alternate exchanges and specific procedures for calculating official closing prices if disruptions occur. By outlining these contingency plans, the text aims to instill confidence among market participants that there are measures in place to handle unexpected situations effectively. The reassurance serves to build trust among readers, particularly firms encouraged to participate in these tests by registering with Nasdaq Trading Services.

Additionally, there is an underlying sense of urgency associated with participation in these tests. Phrases like "firms are encouraged to participate" convey a call to action, urging stakeholders not only to acknowledge potential risks but also to actively engage in preparations for them. This urgency can evoke feelings of responsibility among firms, prompting them to take proactive steps toward ensuring their readiness for possible market disruptions.

The emotional landscape crafted by these elements guides readers’ reactions effectively. The combination of concern and reassurance works together to create an atmosphere where individuals feel both aware of risks and confident in their ability to respond appropriately through participation in testing procedures. This duality fosters a sense of community responsibility while encouraging individual action.

The writer employs various persuasive techniques throughout the message. For instance, using specific timelines and detailed descriptions enhances emotional impact by painting a vivid picture of what will happen during testing periods—this specificity makes potential disruptions feel more tangible and immediate rather than abstract concerns. Additionally, repeating key ideas about readiness and operational integrity reinforces their importance while keeping readers focused on essential points.

Overall, through careful word choice and structured information delivery, the text successfully evokes emotions that shape how readers perceive both risks associated with market operations and their role within this framework—ultimately steering them toward taking necessary actions while fostering trust in established protocols designed for crisis management.