What are the potential cost savings or additional expenses associated with maintaining a dual listing?

Maintaining a dual listing can generate both cost efficiencies and incremental outlays.

Potential cost savings:

- Reduced market‑access fees: By adding NYSE Texas—an all‑electronic, low‑latency venue—Insperity can tap a cheaper execution environment. NYSE Texas’s fee structure is generally lower than the legacy NYSE, so the per‑trade commission and clearing‑house charges may be reduced, especially for high‑volume, algorithm‑driven trades.

- Liquidity‑enhancing price‑improvement: The extra venue creates competition for order flow, which can narrow spreads and lower the “price‑improvement” cost for institutional investors. A tighter spread translates into a modest reduction in the implicit cost of trading the stock.

Additional expenses:

- Regulatory and compliance overhead: Each exchange requires separate filing, reporting, and ongoing compliance (e.g., periodic listing‑status reviews, market‑maker obligations, and surveillance‑testing). The administrative burden adds legal, audit, and staffing costs that are not offset by the fee reduction.

- Technology and connectivity costs: To ensure simultaneous presence on both order books, Insperier must maintain duplicate market‑data feeds, co‑location or cross‑connect infrastructure, and possibly pay for additional market‑maker incentives on NYSE Texas. These capital and operational expenditures can erode the net savings from lower execution fees.

Trading implications:

From a market‑microstructure perspective, the dual listing should improve depth and resilience of the NSP order book, making the stock more attractive to algorithmic and high‑frequency traders. Expect a modest uptick in intraday volume on NYSE Texas, with the potential for a slight price‑dislocation between the two venues that can be arbitraged by savvy traders. However, the incremental compliance and technology costs mean the net benefit is contingent on sustained high‑frequency activity; if volume remains modest, the expense side may dominate, limiting any upside to the share‑price. For short‑term positioning, monitor the spread and order‑flow metrics on both exchanges—tightening spreads and rising cross‑venue volume can be used as a signal that the dual‑listing is delivering net cost efficiencies, supporting a neutral‑to‑bullish stance on NSP. Conversely, persistent divergence or low participation on NYSE Texas may indicate that the added expenses outweigh the benefits, suggesting a more cautious approach.