Indeed there is very little. Just some mumble mouthing about "intentions."

""But unlike those exchanges, ultimately our intention is that when companies list shares on LTSE for sale to the public, they will adopt a set of governing practices that are designed to help them build lasting businesses and empower long term-focused shareholders.""

Utterly indistinguishable from the Wooden Language heard from every such grandee.

I am not one to indulge the sort of naivety that might allow me to pretend that powerful investors are going to tolerate any more impediments to their desires than legally required, or at least enforceable, so unless there are concrete differences imposed by SEC et al. I expect this is -- or eventually will be -- simply Wall Street West.

HFT get special trading codes they use to their advantage. They can see when a large order is being placed by an institutional investor and use it to their advantage to skim off a little bit.

Example of how HFTs would "eat up" money, at least in the past: many instruments trade on multiple exchanges. So when a trader wants to execute what is conceptually a single large order, in practice this order may need to be split and routed to multiple exchanges.

HFTs will see the first order executing on one exchange, and will then jump in front of the rest on the other exchanges. For the trader it looks like large orders don't work; he can't buy every offer that's on his screen. Only part of his order works, and a price rise prevents the rest from executing.

Nowadays this may be less of a problem, because large traders now probably all use software that tunes injected latency to make all related orders arrive simultaneously at their different destinations. But I would still be careful about assuming that HFTs can't do any damage anymore.