April 19, 2024

DealBook: A Bigger Paycheck on Wall Street

Outside the New York Stock Exchange in the financial district, where jobs have been pared back.Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesOutside the New York Stock Exchange in the financial district, where jobs have been pared back.

It still pays to be on Wall Street.

The financial industry in New York has slashed jobs by the thousands over the last two years. For those who remain, annual compensation in total is at near-record levels, according to a report released Tuesday by the New York State comptroller.

Since the financial crisis, Wall Street firms have wrestled with two competing market forces. Faced with a heavier regulatory burden, a lethargic economic recovery and the loss of once-big moneymakers like complex derivatives tied to mortgages, the banks have instead tried to cut their biggest expense: people. Yet there persists a view on Wall Street that profits can’t come simply by holding the line on costs — big pay is still needed to lure talent from other firms.

Related Links



Toward that end, firms have sought to cut jobs and noncompensation expenses rather than compensation itself. Both Goldman Sachs and Bank of America have announced big noncompensation cost-cutting efforts over the past year, for example.

The result is that compensation over all continues to rise even as some shareholders press firms to cut costs further amid weak profit growth. (Nearly half of all revenue on Wall Street is earmarked for compensation; in 2009, Morgan Stanley, which was hit harder during the crisis than most of its rivals, found itself paying out a record 62 percent of its net revenue in compensation and benefits. That number has since come down.)

The report showed that total compensation on Wall Street last year rose 4 percent, to more than $60 billion. That was higher than any total except those in 2007 and 2008 — before the financial crisis fully took its toll on pay.

The average pay package of securities industry employees in New York State was $362,950, up 16.6 percent over the last two years.

“It’s good work if you can get it,” said Thomas P. DiNapoli, the comptroller.

The results are sure to raise eyebrows on Main Street and in Washington, where lavish pay packages have come under attack since the crisis.

Still, the report provides only a snapshot of Wall Street’s finances. The wage data largely covers 2011. With the third quarter in the books, Wall Street firms will soon begin figuring out their bonus pool and how to distribute it. For some Wall Street professionals, the year-end bonus can easily account for more than half their total compensation.

Yet expectations for this year appear to be high, according to another study out on Tuesday. Some 48 percent of 911 Wall Street employees surveyed by eFinancialCareers.com said they felt their bonuses this year would higher than in 2011. That was an increase from 2011, when 41 percent of survey respondents said they believed their annual bonus would increase.

There, the comptroller’s report was not encouraging, saying that a survey it took earlier in the year suggested that Wall Street’s total cash bonus pool for 2012 was likely to decline for the second consecutive year.

The comptroller’s report attested to the importance of financial services to New York City. Financial jobs accounted for nearly a quarter of all private sector wages paid in the city last year, even though they accounted for just a fraction, 5.3 percent, of the city’s private sector jobs.

Over all, the annual report depicted a cloudy outlook for the financial industry and its thousands of employees.

“The securities industry remains in transition and volatility in profits and employment show that we have not yet reached the new normal,” Mr. DiNapoli said.

After posting a “disappointing” $7.7 billion in earnings last year, Wall Street in the first half of 2012 earned $10.5 billion, he said. The industry “is on pace” to earn more than $15 billion by the end of the year.

But even with some signs of improvement, Wall Street is rapidly shedding jobs. The austerity efforts have claimed 1,200 positions so far this year, according to the report. Mr. DiNapoli estimated that the industry lost more than 20,000 jobs since late 2007.

“In the short run, as a way to keep profits up, the firms will drive down costs and that will mean contraction in the work force,” Mr. DiNapoli said.

Goldman Sachs had 32,300 on the payroll at the end of its second quarter in June, down 3,200 people from the year-ago period. Bank of America has cut 12,624 employees over the past year, leaving it with 275,460 people.

Banks have also taken aim at lavish cash bonuses. The comptroller in February estimated that cash bonuses declined 13.5 percent, to $19.7 billion.

As Wall Street reins in cash payouts to top executives, the banks have been encouraged to reward employees with more stock and other long-term compensation. Some people argue that such a move discourages outsize risk-taking and ties an employee’s interest to the long-term health of the bank.

While pay remains high across the board, senior executive pay has fallen since the financial crisis. In 2007, the year before the financial crisis, Goldman’s chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, made $68.5 million. In 2011 he took home $12 million.

For an executive like Mr. Blankfein, $12 million may be a pay cut, but it is still a princely sum compared with other industries. Between 2009 and 2011, compensation in the securities industry grew at an average annual rate of 8.7 percent, outpacing 5.3 percent for the rest of the private sector.

“Whether you love or hate people on Wall Street, they are spending money that is driving our economy,” Mr. DiNapoli said.

New York State Comptroller’s Report on Securities Industry (PDF)

New York State Comptroller’s Report on Securities Industry (Text)

A version of this article appeared in print on 10/10/2012, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: A Bigger Paycheck On Wall St..

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/wall-street-pay-remains-high-even-as-jobs-shrink/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Trulia Prices I.P.O. at $17 a Share, Above Expected Range

A screen shot provided by Trulia.com.Trulia.com, via Associated PressA screen shot provided by Trulia.com.

Trulia priced its initial public offering at $17 a share on Wednesday, surpassing expectations as the real estate search site raised $102 million.

Earlier this month, the company set its expected price range at $14 to $16 a share. Most of the proceeds from the sale are earmarked for the company, though existing investors are selling some of their holdings as well.

In going public, Trulia is following a path set by its bigger competitor, Zillow. Both companies have bet on an improving housing market and the waves of new buyers and sellers that it can bring. In August, housing starts rose 2.3 percent while existing home sales jumped 7.8 percent jump.

Shares in Zillow have risen nearly 33 percent since the company went public last July, closing on Wednesday at $45.55.

But while Trulia’s losses have largely narrowed over the last five years, the company is still reporting red ink. It lost $6.2 million last year, and has run up a $7.6 million loss in the six months that ended June 30.

The company reported 22 million monthly unique visitors for the first six months of the year. It also had more than 360,000 active real estate workers in its marketplace, about six percent of whom were paying subscribers.

The company will begin trading Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “TRLA.” Its offering was led by JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, RBC Capital Markets, Needham Company and William Blair.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/trulia-prices-i-p-o-at-17-a-share-above-expected-range/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: New York Stock Exchange Settles Case Over Early Data Access

Traders on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Friday.Brendan McDermid/ReutersNew York Stock Exchange trading data gave some clients a split-second advantage.

In the latest federal action against a major exchange, the New York Stock Exchange settled accusations on Friday that its trading data gave select clients a split-second advantage over retail investors.

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued a civil enforcement action citing the Big Board for “compliance failures” that allowed certain customers to receive stock data before the broader public. The improper actions, which began in 2008, ran afoul of safeguards set up to promote fairness in a system known for favoring elite investors.

The S.E.C. forced the exchange to adopt a battery of internal controls and pay a $5 million penalty. While the fine is a token sum for the country’s biggest and most prominent trading platform, it represents the first penalty the agency has levied against an exchange.

“Improper early access to market data, even measured in milliseconds, can in today’s markets be a real and substantial advantage that disproportionately disadvantages retail and long-term investors,” Robert Khuzami, the agency’s enforcement director, said in a statement. “That is why S.E.C. rules mandate that exchanges give the public fair access to basic market data.”

In a statement, the Big Board played down the significance of the action. The S.E.C., the exchange noted, did not unearth intentional wrongdoing or evidence that the problems harmed individual investors. Instead, the exchange blamed the lapses on “technology issues,” which it said had since been fixed.

Traders on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday.Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesTraders on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday.

“N.Y.S.E. Euronext is pleased to have this matter resolved, and believes that the settlement is in the best interest of its share owners, clients and employees,” Duncan L. Niederauer, the company’s chief executive, said in the statement. “We will continue to take every responsible measure to ensure that our market operates with the utmost fairness and transparency.”

The action on Friday was part of a wider federal crackdown on the nation’s biggest exchanges. The S.E.C. has penalized the Direct Edge exchange for having “weak internal controls,” and it is also pursuing the Chicago Board Options Exchange for not properly policing the markets.

The sprawling investigation has grown after the so-called flash crash on May 6, 2010, when the Dow Jones industrial average plummeted more than 700 points in minutes before quickly recovering. Federal authorities and Congressional committees have focused their scrutiny on technological breakdowns and high-speed trading.

“Today’s action by the S.E.C. affirms what many have believed for years: that our U.S. capital markets are threatened by those with the resources and access to get split-second advantages over the rest of us,” Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat whose Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has examined high-speed trading, said in a statement.

In its most prominent case, the S.E.C. is investigating Nasdaq in connection with Facebook’s botched public offering in May. BATS Global Markets has also acknowledged receiving a request from the agency, which is examining whether collaboration between BATS and high-frequency trading firms could hinder competition. Separately, the agency is looking into BATS’s own aborted public offering.

The companies often blame their woes on technological malfunctions. But in the New York Stock Exchange case, regulators described a more pervasive problem, tracing the improper actions to multiple technological mishaps and compliance issues.

In highlighting disparities in the distribution of stock data, the S.E.C. pointed to an “internal N.Y.S.E. system” and a “software issue.” The problems, regulators said, caused the exchange to send stock prices and other data to certain customers milliseconds, or even multiple seconds, before it released information more widely. The breakdown, which first came to light after the flash crash, dates back to 2008.

Despite the scope of the issues, the S.E.C. suggested they were preventable.

The exchange, regulators say, failed to keep computer files that detailed the timing of data feeds. The exchange’s compliance department also steered clear of major technology decisions, according to the S.E.C. The compliance staff, for example, did not help design or adopt the exchange’s market data systems. Under the terms of the settlement, the exchange must hire an independent consultant to study its “market data systems.”

“The violations at N.Y.S.E. may have been technological, but they were not technical,” said Daniel M. Hawke, chief of the agency’s Market Abuse Unit, which is leading the investigations into various exchanges. “Robust technology governance is just as important to preventing investor harm as any other compliance or supervisory function.”

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/n-y-s-e-settles-regulatory-action-on-trading-data/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Manchester United Trades Flat in Debut

Traders wearing Manchester United jerseys on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Friday.Justin Lane/European Pressphoto AgencyTraders wearing Manchester United jerseys on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Friday.

7:55 p.m. | Updated Manchester United had hoped to add to its soccer successes with a strong debut as a newly public company on Friday. But its initial public offering fell short of that aim.

On Friday, their first day of trading on the New York Stock Exchange, the soccer team’s shares closed flat at their offer price of $14, after having opened only 5 cents above that level.

The stock’s performance appeared to meet low expectations, after underwriters for the club priced the offering on Thursday below an expected range of $16 to $20 a share.

The team’s offering, which raised $232.4 million, was one of the biggest this year. The offering values the franchise over all at about $2.3 billion.

Manchester United has returned to the public markets during a year in which stock offerings have largely struggled. About $29.6 billion has been raised from initial stock sales through the end of July, according to data from Renaissance Capital, roughly 5 percent higher than at the same time last year. But nearly two-thirds of this year’s proceeds came from Facebook’s gigantic offering.

By going public — while remaining firmly under the control of its majority owner, the Glazer family — Manchester United is hoping to challenge the history of sports teams that have flailed when traded on stock exchanges.

Ed Woodward, Manchester United’s vice chairman, emphasized that the newly public company was less a team than a branding empire — with revenue from broadcasts and merchandise sales — built around one of the most successful soccer clubs in memory.

He said that officials from six sports leagues from around the world had asked how Manchester United officials built up an expansive commercial operation.

“This feels like it’s a fantastic opportunity,” he said in a telephone interview on Friday. “The story has been incredibly well received, especially in the U.S.”

Mr. Woodward recalled heading into meetings during Manchester United’s road show over the last two weeks that were standing room only, with potential investors clamoring for the team’s signature red-and-white gear.

But by Thursday afternoon, the company and its underwriters looked at the offering book and decided to accommodate what Mr. Woodward called “very-high-quality institutional investors” who were willing to buy in bulk at $14.

Skeptics of the offering pointed not only to the tortured history of publicly traded sports teams but also the specifics of Manchester United’s offering. The team raised money to pay some of the debt it incurred when Malcolm Glazer bought the club in 2005.

The Glazers also sold some of their holdings in the offering, though they are retaining control by holding onto a class of stock that carries 10 times the voting rights of the ordinary shares.

The Boston Celtics went public in 1986 and the Cleveland Indians in 1998. But the stocks struggled, and both were taken private in the last decade. Many British Premier League soccer clubs were publicly traded at one point or another, and performed miserably.

Manchester United fans have also expressed dismay over the offering, with one group having organized a letter-writing campaign complaining about the Glazers’ cashing out some of their holdings through the stock sale.

Mr. Woodward said that Manchester United remained committed to strengthening its team, with improvements in its commercial revenue making more cash available to attract top-flight players. “Through growing these business lines, we’ll have huge firepower to make player acquisitions,” he said.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/manchester-united-opens-at-14-05-in-first-day-of-trading/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Manchester United Prices I.P.O. Below Target

6:52 p.m. | Updated

Manchester United priced its initial public offering at $14 a share on Thursday, valuing the 134-year-old English soccer team at about $2.3 billion.

The price is below the price range of $16 to $20 it outlined last week.

Underwriters decided to price the offering below the range after several institutions requested allotments late on Thursday afternoon, after the company’s investor book had closed, according to a person briefed on the matter. Because of the perceived high quality of the potential shareholders, bankers decided to accommodate them at the lower price.

About 16.6 million shares are being sold in the offering. Its underwriters have the option of selling an additional 2.5 million shares to cover additional demand.

The shares will begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Friday under the ticker symbol “MANU.”

Shares of the team had traded on the London Stock Exchange until 2005, when Malcolm Glazer, an American who also controls the Tampa Bay Buccaneers football team, took the company private in a $1.45 billion buyout. Manchester United had previously considered listing in Hong Kong and Singapore before choosing the United States market.

Manchester United has been the most successful English soccer team of late, winning 19 league titles, Last season, however, it finished second to Manchester City. Still, it has attracted a large following around the world, selling more than 5 million licensed products in the last year.

The offering is being led by the Jefferies Group, Credit Suisse, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/manchester-united-prices-i-p-o-at-14-a-share/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: As Knight Capital Gains a Lifeline, It Loses Market-Making Duties

Errant trades from the Knight Capital Group began hitting the New York Stock Exchange almost as soon as the opening bell rang on Wednesday.Brendan McDermid/ReutersErrant trades from the Knight Capital Group began hitting the New York Stock Exchange almost as soon as the opening bell rang on Wednesday.

The Knight Capital Group confirmed on Monday that it had struck a $400 million rescue deal with a group of investors, staving off collapse after a recent trading mishap, even as the New York Stock Exchange temporarily revoked the firm’s market-making responsibilities.

The rescue package, which was arranged by the Jefferies Group, includes investments from TD Ameritrade and the Blackstone Group. Getco and Stifel, Nicolaus Company were also involved.

“We are grateful for the support of these leading Wall Street firms that came together to invest in Knight,” Tom Joyce, the firm’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. “The array of participants in this capital infusion underscores Knight’s critical role in the capital markets.”

In a regulatory filing, Knight Capital said the investors agreed to purchase $400 million of the brokerage firm’s preferred stock. Under the terms of the deal, Knight will also expand its board by adding three new members.

The deal could provide the investors with more than 260 million shares of the firm, affording the investors the right to buy the shares at $1.50 a piece, according to the statement. Last week, before the trading blunder, the firm’s shares closed over $10.

The rescue deal will hugely dilute existing shareholders of the company. In mid-morning trading, shares of Knight Capital were down 24 percent.

The lifeline was assembled in the wake of Knight Capital’s disclosure of a $440 million trading loss. The loss stemmed from a technology error that occurred on Wednesday when the firm unveiled new trading software, a glitch that generated erroneous orders to buy shares of major stocks. The orders affected the shares of 148 companies, including Ford Motor, RadioShack and American Airlines, sending the markets into upheaval.

Knight Capital said it reached the deal on Sunday, and it expected to close the transaction on Monday. It was a rapid a recovery for a firm that just days ago was facing collapse.

Still, the firm faces significant challenges. The New York Stock Exchange said on Monday it “temporarily” reassigned the firm’s market-making responsibilities for more than 600 securities to Getco, the high-speed trading firm that also invested in Knight. Market makers buy and sell securities on behalf of clients.

The move, the exchange said in a statement on Monday, was a stop-gap measure needed until the investor deal was final. Once the recapitalization plan is complete, Knight will resume its duties.

“We believe this interim transition is in the best interests of investors, our listed issuers, market stability and efficiency, as well as Knight, as the firm finalizes its equity financing transaction,” Larry Leibowitz, chief operating officer of NYSE Euronext, said in the statement.

Knight Capital also faces heavy regulatory scrutiny. The Securities and Exchange Commission is examining potential legal violations as it pieces together the firm’s missteps.

The problems for Knight Capital began at the start of trading on Wednesday. The firm tweaked its computer coding to push itself onto a new trading platform that the New York Stock Exchange opened that day. Under this program, trades from retail investors shift to a special platform where firms like Knight compete to offer them the best price.

But when Knight’s new system went live, the firm “experienced a human error and/or a technology malfunction related to its installation of trading software,” the firm explained in the filing on Monday.

Chaos ensued. The error caused Knight to place unauthorized offers to buy and sell shares of big American companies, driving up the volume of trading and causing a stir among traders and exchanges.

Knight had to sell the stocks that it accidentally bought, prompting a $440 million loss. The loss drained Knight’s capital cushion and caused “liquidity pressures,” the firm said in the filing.

“In view of the impact to the company’s capital base and the resultant loss of customer and counterparty confidence, there is substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern,” the filing said.

Knight and its chief executive, Thomas M. Joyce, began contacting potential suitors for parts of the business, and the firm consulted restructuring lawyers on a potential Chapter 11 filing, according to the people with direct knowledge of the matter.

But events soon turned in the firm’s favor.

The firm secured emergency short-term financing that allowed it to operate on Friday, and it used Goldman Sachs to buy at a discount the shares Knight had erroneously accumulated.

Some of the firm’s biggest customers, including TD Ameritrade and Scottrade, said that they had resumed doing business with Knight by Friday afternoon.

The firm capped its efforts to stay afloat on Sunday with the rescue deal. Knight expects to finalize the agreement on Monday morning and detail the financing terms in a regulatory filing.

“Knight’s financial position and capital base have been restored to a level that more than offsets the loss incurred last week,” Mr. Joyce said in a statement. “We thank our clients, employees and partners for their steadfastness during a brief yet difficult period and we are getting back to business as usual.”

Knight was advised by Sandler O’Neill and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen Katz. Barclays is TD Ameritrade’s financial advisor.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/knight-capital-confirms-lifeline-loses-market-making-duties/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Trying to Be Nimble, Knight Capital Stumbles

Traders from the Knight Capital Group watched from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange as Knight's chief, Thomas Joyce, was interviewed on television.Brendan McDermid/ReutersTraders from the Knight Capital Group watched from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange as Knight’s chief, Thomas Joyce, was interviewed on television.

As the leader of one of the largest brokerage firms in the nation, Thomas M. Joyce has been an unapologetic advocate of electronic trading and one of the most vociferous critics of companies that struggled to keep up with the ever-changing stock market.

Now, Mr. Joyce, a longtime trader who seized the reins of the Knight Capital Group in 2002, is fighting for his company’s survival.

In a bid to keep a grip on its customers, Knight pushed to introduce a new system that would position it competitively amid market changes that took effect on Wednesday, according to people briefed on the matter. Unlike rivals that hesitated, Knight Capital’s presence on Day 1 would ensure bragging rights and extra profits.

But in the rollout of the system that morning, Knight created a blizzard of erroneous orders to buy shares of major stocks. The orders caused wild swings that affected the shares of more than 100 companies, including Ford Motor, RadioShack and American Airlines.

While the companies quickly recovered, the 17-year-old Jersey City firm was left reeling. Knight will lose $440 million in selling all the stocks that it accidentally bought on Wednesday — more than its entire revenue in the second quarter of this year, when it brought in $289 million.

Timeline: Trading Errors

Knight Capital, in a bid to keep a grip on customers, rushed to introduce a new system that would position it competitively.Mel Evans/Associated PressKnight Capital, in a bid to keep a grip on customers, rushed to introduce a new system that would position it competitively.

On Thursday, rattled customers like Citigroup, Fidelity Investments and Vanguard took their business elsewhere. Knight shares plunged 63 percent, to $2.58. The fallout prompted the company to contact JPMorgan Chase and other big banks for emergency financing.

The company is also facing an onslaught of regulatory scrutiny. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division is examining potential legal violations, people briefed on the matter said.

As it faces the flight of confidence, Knight is desperately seeking potential buyers for parts of its business. On Thursday, Knight’s senior executives reached out to hedge funds and rivals like Citadel and Virtu Financial, according to people briefed on the matter. But by day’s end, interest was uncertain and there were questions about whether the company would collapse into bankruptcy.

“With the events of yesterday, you have to question if this is the beginning of the end for Knight,“ said Christopher Nagy, founder of the consulting firm KOR Trading.
Knight Capital declined to comment.
Within the company, the mood grew grimmer as hopes for a recovery dwindled, according to traders at Knight, who were not authorized to discuss the matter. Some employees slept at the company overnight on Wednesday.

“I am grateful that at this point I still have my job,” one trader said.

Originally named Roundtable Partners, in a nod to Arthurian legend, the trading company rose to prominence with the proliferation of high-speed electronic trading. In the first half of the year, Knight accounted for 11 percent of all stock trading in the United States, according to the TABB Group.

The pressures to stay competitive, however, meant that the time between developing new trading software and putting it in use became shorter and shorter.

On Wednesday, the New York Stock Exchange began a program intended to loosen the stranglehold that brokerage firms like Knight had over retail investors. Under this program, trades from retail investors now shift to a special platform where trading houses compete to offer them the best price.

Knight sought to stay nimble. Over the last several weeks, the company tweaked its computer coding to push itself onto the new platform.

Two competitors who declined to be named because they didn’t want to publicly criticize a rival said that they took a more measured approach, choosing not to create new software to coincide with the debut. Some also questioned Knight’s aggressive approach.

“The time between the approval of the software and the time it was implemented was incredibly quick,” said a head of equity trading at another firm.

The errant trades on Wednesday quickly seized Wall Street’s attention. Within seconds of the New York Stock Exchange’s opening bell ringing at 9:30 a.m., Knight’s computer coding malfunctioned.

The code was supposed to direct the firm’s computers to react to trading. Instead, it placed its own runaway offers to buy and sell shares of big American companies, driving up the volume of trading to suspicious levels.

Officials at the exchange began noticing an enormous spike in volume shortly after the opening bell. Exchange officials soon touched base with the S.E.C. in Washington, where an internal e-mail system alerted regulators to the problem. A regulator stationed in the agency’s market watch room sent out regular alerts to senior agency officials.
Within minutes, the authorities traced the problem to Knight.

Yet even after that detection, the New York Exchange had limited authority to take action. Most measures that curb erratic trading are tied to wild swings in stock prices, whereas the problem at Knight was initially tied to the volume of trading and not the price of shares. In addition, circuit breakers that halt individual stocks do not work during the first 15 minutes of trading.

About 45 minutes into the debacle, the exchange shut down Knight’s trading.

By the end of Wednesday, there were winners and losers.

Many big investors cashed in on the market volatility. They saw what was happening when the surprisingly large trades began to register, and they quickly moved to profit from the disruptions.

The winnings were spread from individual traders to proprietary firms that use specialized computer algorithms to spot and profit from market aberrations, including the DRW Trading Group. Hedge funds and other asset managers that trawl the market looking to profit from abnormal pricing also won big.

But while many institutional traders managed to profit from the fiasco, individual investors did not fare as well.

“It’s the retail investor that gets hurt because they are not sitting in front of a computer watching the market all day,” said Scott Freeze, president of Street One Financial, a trade execution firm.

In the aftermath of the bruising day, the S.E.C. is taking a closer look at Knight’s decisions. The agency is examining whether Knight properly tested the coding change — and whether it had sufficient internal controls to avert such a disaster. Some regulatory officials, however, commended Knight for steering customers to other brokerage firms.

On Thursday, S.E.C. examiners remained on the ground at the brokerage firm. Mary L. Schapiro, the agency’s chairwoman, spoke with Mr. Joyce Wednesday afternoon.

Ultimately, the debacle is a significant blow to Mr. Joyce, 57, whose ambition came to define the rapid rise of the firm.

Mr. Joyce, who made his name at Merrill Lynch and Sanford C. Bernstein Company, was a trusted ambassador of electronic trading. On June 20, he testified before a House Financial Services subcommittee, arguing that the booming business democratized a stock market once dominated by a handful of Wall Street firms.

He was also seen as an eager critic of other firms’ missteps. In recent months, he excoriated Nasdaq for bungling the stock market debut of Facebook, which cost Knight $35.4 million.

“This was arguably the worst performance by an exchange on an I.P.O. ever,“ he said in an interview in May with CNBC.

When Mr. Joyce took control of Knight in 2002, he was tasked with cleaning up the firm.

In 2004, Knight agreed to pay $79 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle accusations that it “defrauded” customers. Knight did not admit wrongdoing.
Just last month, however, some outside traders indicated they experienced problems when routing trades through Knight Capital. Craig Warner, head of trading at Capstone Investments, a research boutique firm, said that a few weeks ago an order he placed with Knight went wrong. The trade was supposed to be spread throughout the entire day, but a half-hour before the market close, the remainder of the trade was executed all at once.

“It was alarming because if the stock had been really moving, it could have been a big problem,” Mr. Warner said. “After having the issue I had last week and with the issue yesterday, I lost a lot of confidence in them,” he said, adding that he was no longer using Knight to clear trades.

Even on his first day at Knight, Mr. Joyce was greeted by irregular trading. On June 3, in 2002, the company’s stock was suspiciously trading at 14 cents, after a software malfunction misread a Knight trader’s order. Instead of placing an order to sell roughly one million shares of a penny stock, the system sold the firm’s own stock.

In an interview with Institutional Investor magazine, Mr. Joyce recalled getting on the intercom that day and introducing himself to his staff. “I’m Tom Joyce, he said, “and yes, I know that our stock is trading at 14 cents.”

Azam Ahmed, Michael J. de la Merced and Nathaniel Popper contributed reporting.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/trying-to-be-nimble-knight-capital-stumbles/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: S.E.C. Looking at Possible Violations by Exchanges

Facebook executives ring the opening bell on May 18 with Nasdaq chief Robert Greifeld.Zef Nikolla/Facebook, via European Pressphoto AgencyFacebook executives ring the opening bell on May 18 with Nasdaq chief Robert Greifeld.

Nasdaq has blamed Facebook’s botched debut last month on flawed computers and “technical errors.”

Regulators suspect it may be something more. The Securities and Exchange Commission has opened an investigation into the exchange for its role in the initial public offering of Facebook, according to people briefed on the inquiry. Regulators are examining whether Nasdaq failed to properly test its trading systems, which broke down during the I.P.O., and whether the exchange violated rules when it rewrote computer code to jump-start trading.

The Facebook investigation comes after a broader inquiry into trading breakdowns and other problems at the nation’s largest exchanges, including two previously undisclosed cases involving Nasdaq’s archrival, the New York Stock Exchange, the people said.

The agency’s enforcement unit, which has opened more than a dozen related cases, is examining whether exchanges lack adequate controls and favor select investors.

As investor confidence in the market wanes, the worry is that missteps by the exchanges are contributing to the dissatisfaction. Since the financial crisis, investors have seen their portfolios erode, prompting them to flee stocks.

“If exchanges have technical problems, that slows capital formation and erodes the confidence,” said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, who held a hearing this week on the initial public offering process.

While none of the exchanges has been accused of any wrongdoing and the S.E.C. may never take enforcement action, the crackdown represents a significant shift. Traditionally, the agency has been relatively cozy with the industry, which is increasingly under pressure to produce profits since the exchanges became publicly traded companies.

Along with the threat of enforcement cases, the S.E.C. has stepped up its inspections of exchanges and introduced several measures to improve the safety of the markets. For example, the agency has approved proposals that would help limit volatility in specific stocks, including circuit breakers that would halt trading.

“Cases against exchanges are few and far between, and inevitably a big deal,” said Stephen J. Crimmins, a partner at the law firm KL Gates and a former enforcement official at the S.E.C.

Facebook’s initial public offering highlights the problems facing exchanges — and how regulators are finding their responses lacking.

On May 18, its first day of trading, Facebook got off to a rocky start. Nasdaq delayed the start of trading and later flooded the market with shares, adding to investor trepidation.

Nasdaq’s lack of communication — and at times, lack of contrition — aggravated the situation, according to documents and executives, bankers and regulators. On a May 31 call with the chairwoman of the S.E.C., Mary L. Schapiro, and other officials, Nasdaq’s chief executive expressed confusion about the S.E.C.’s aggressive approach.

“We’re regulators, too,” said the chief executive, Robert Greifeld, adding “we’re all in this together.”

The Facebook debacle comes after a flurry of trading breakdowns. In March, BATS Global Markets canceled its own I.P.O., after its systems faltered. Nasdaq last year halted trading in dozens of stocks amid technical problems.

Such experiences echo the so-called flash crash. On May 6, 2010, the Dow Jones industrial average plummeted more than 700 points in minutes, before recovering shortly thereafter.

In nearly every case, companies blamed technical malfunctions. But regulators say some breakdowns may point to more fundamental issues.

The S.E.C. is also examining whether some exchanges give undue priority to high-frequency trading firms and big institutional investors through its order types and data disclosure.

The New York Stock Exchange is among the most prominent players facing scrutiny from regulators, who have opened two investigations into the Big Board, according to people briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the cases are not public.

The S.E.C., the people said, is examining whether the New York exchange violated rules by distributing in-depth stock data to paying clients faster than the public received general information. The issue was first discovered in the rubble of the flash crash.

The exchange declined to comment. But people close to the exchange have attributed the problem to unintended technical shortcomings.

The S.E.C., which has penalized the Direct Edge exchange for having “weak internal controls,” is also pursuing the Chicago Board Options Exchange for not properly policing the markets.

In February, BATS Global Markets acknowledged receiving a request from the S.E.C. The agency, a person briefed on the matter said, is examining whether any collaboration between BATS and high-frequency trading firms could hinder competition.

Nasdaq represents one of the most prominent cases.

On the day of Facebook’s debut, its finance team, led by David A. Ebersman, stood on Morgan Stanley’s trading floor surrounded by scores of traders sporting white baseball caps stamped with “Facebook.” While the mood was initially festive, he was growing anxious.

The chief financial officer turned to the bankers: “Why aren’t we starting?” Nearby, a trader clutched phones to his ears, one with a call to another bank, the other to Nasdaq.

At about 11 a.m., Nasdaq said trading would begin in five minutes. After nothing happened, Nasdaq officials phoned S.E.C. trading experts to explain that everything was under control, according to a person briefed on the call.

Nasdaq’s computers were programmed to accept last-second modifications to orders of Facebook shares. When these trades kept piling in, the system reset the price over and over again. Some orders were not executed — or were placed at prices other than the opening bid of $42. Many traders, who usually receive confirmations in seconds, had no idea how many shares they held. “We were flying blind,” said one person at a market-making firm.

The S.E.C. is examining why Nasdaq lacked an action plan for navigating such a crisis, including plans to abort the I.P.O., and whether it failed to follow federal guidelines in running system tests. Nasdaq did run some 400 tests ahead of the Facebook I.P.O., and the company used the system in question for more than five years. Mr. Greifeld has publicly blamed “design flaws” in the system.

Ultimately, Nasdaq overrode the system manually, switching to a backup server. That move, too, has drawn scrutiny. Exchanges must follow their own strict trading procedures. In this case, Nasdaq changed its procedure on the fly without amending its rules. While the exchange may not have followed the letter of the law, a person close to Nasdaq said that the company had previously used the backup system with approval from regulators.

The exchange declined to comment.

Shares started trading at 11:30 a.m., sending brief applause through Morgan Stanley’s trading floor. The Facebook team, which had been hoping for a 5 to 10 percent jump from the offering price of $38, was relieved when it rose. The team headed to Teterboro Airport to fly back to California.

Then at 1:50 p.m., a second wave of confusion ripped through Wall Street. Traders saw an unexpected sell order of roughly 11 million shares. Some wondered whether a big hedge fund had dumped shares. Investors, on the fence about buying, backed off. Others sold. Within minutes, Facebook slipped $2, to roughly $40.

There was no mystery hedge fund seller. As Nasdaq started processing trades backed up in the system, those shares were dumped on the market, according to people with knowledge of the matter. About the same time, some Facebook shares that had ended up in an account at Nasdaq were also sold without warning. The move may have violated Nasdaq’s own rules, which do not explicitly allow the exchange to take a position in the shares of an I.P.O., according to one of the people.

While some analysts have pinned Facebook’s woes on Nasdaq, others have blamed the company and its bankers for being too aggressive on the size and price of the offering.

Facebook shares ended that first day at $38.23, roughly where they started.

Two days later, Mr. Greifeld called the I.P.O. “quite successful” over all and said that technical issues had not affected the price.

Facebook’s management team, which was beginning to grasp the extent of the problems, was livid. Some wondered why Nasdaq had made little effort to keep them apprised on Friday and kept them out of decision-making.

Mr. Greifeld called a senior executive, asking how the exchange could get back into its good graces. The executive erupted. “Bob,” the executive said, “You don’t understand what a hole you’re in.”

Nasdaq soon aggravated the trading woes. The exchange informed traders it might offer “financial accommodation” for claims filed on Monday. Some investors dumped shares, to prove a loss.

In the first hour of Monday trading, Facebook plunged from $38 to less than $34, swiftly wiping out billions of dollars in market value.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/as-facebook-seeks-answers-s-e-c-investigates-exchanges/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Awakening in the Glow of a Bloomberg Terminal

Gone are the days when traders showed up to work just before the New York Stock Exchange opened at 9:30 a.m. Now, Wall Street has an unofficial opening bell: the 2:30 a.m. alarm clock.

“We have a new credo: carpe noctem — seize the night,” said Douglas A. Kass, a hedge fund manager who routinely sets his alarm for precisely that time to scan the headlines coming out of Europe. All last week, the musings of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and other European leaders put the markets on edge. “You are almost forced to get up and watch the goings-on,” he added.

The nest of night owls is growing more crowded. Senior executives at the Pacific Investment Management Company, the giant bond-trading house, wake up at 1 a.m. in Southern California, to check their BlackBerrys for updates from colleagues in Europe.

“Your nerves are twitching,” said Christian Stracke, Pimco’s global head of credit research.

Michael Mayo, a longtime bank stock analyst, said he was working the lobster shift so often just to keep up with the latest International Monetary Fund rescue or Slovenian parliamentary vote that he might as well call himself a 24-hour-a-day research shop. “Who would have thought we would have to be looking at Italian sovereign debt yields to figure out what Morgan Stanley’s stock will do?” he said.

For traders, there is too much to lose if they sleep through history.

That’s why Craig Gorman, a partner at First New York Securities, routinely monitors his trading positions in the middle of the night. He turns on CNBC and fires up the Bloomberg terminal with six screens at the foot of his bed. “With the TV and all my monitors on, it gets a little bright in there,” he said. “My wife is not thrilled about it.”

The other downside? It is hard to fall back asleep once the adrenaline from trading starts pumping. Even so, Mr. Gorman said it was worth the price: “You can’t get the same feel for market psychology looking back at the charts in the morning as when you are up,” he added.

News organizations and brokerage firms see an uptick in early-morning activity, too. Bloomberg reports at least a 30 percent jump from a year ago in the use of its mobile applications, which allow customers to remotely log into the trading terminal at their office desk. The biggest spikes have occurred well before the New York markets open, between 5 and 7 a.m., when traders wake up and commute to work, as well as between midnight and 3 a.m., when trading in Asia winds down and the European markets open, according to company officials.

CNBC has recorded a 50 percent increase in the tiny audience watching “Worldwide Exchange,” which broadcasts between 4 and 6 a.m. Traffic on its Web site between 2 and 5 a.m. has risen about 30 percent compared with a year ago.

There are also signs that predawn trading by American retail investors has increased. TD Ameritrade, which caters to individual investors, said customer trading volume in S. P. futures — a bet on the coming day’s direction in the market — has more than doubled between 3 and 6 a.m. over the last year.

Wall Street has long been the land of the early riser, and plenty of fixations in high finance have come and gone. In the late 1970s and 1980s, traders obsessed over the state of the money supply; in the late 1990s, they focused on rapidly rising Web page views of the leading dot-com companies. Last year, traders acted like armchair engineers in deep-water drilling as they monitored images of the BP oil spill gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.

Whether or not Europe’s new plan struck on Friday to achieve budgetary discipline brings market stability, some suggest that the current middle-of-the-night frenzy heralds a lasting change for an industry that coined the term “bankers’ hours.”

“It is now making people aware that they can become a global trader,” said J. J. Kinahan, the chief derivatives strategist for TD Ameritrade. “They don’t have to rely on the hours of the New York Stock Exchange” between 9:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time.

Several forces are at play. The convergence of mobile technology and financial information allows investors to trade on news — anywhere, anytime. The markets, meanwhile, have grown so interconnected that what happens with sovereign bonds can quickly affect equities.

Any whiff of trouble in Europe can send markets into a tailspin and easily overwhelm the hard-earned edge a trader might have gained by digging deep into the financials of an individual stock.

“The degree to which asset prices are connected is off the charts,” said Dean Curnutt, the president of Macro Risk Advisors and another early riser.

That is the main reason that Brad Alford, the chief investment officer of Alpha Capital in Atlanta, rolls over in bed, grabs his iPad and glances at the Bloomberg market feeds with one eye, sometimes two, before the sun comes up. Or why Mr. Kass trudges over to his poolside home office in Palm Beach, Fla., to e-mail hedge fund friends about the latest troubled country du jour. “There is a pretty active cabal in those early hours,” he said.

It is also why Al Moniz, a European bond fund manager at Fore Research and Management in New York, has been waking up at 2 a.m. at least several times a month, and expects even more bleary-eyed nights next year.

“It is probably going to get worse,” he said. “I don’t think there is any end in sight.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=674d7777421f78387b765cef72ddfeae

DealBook: European Regulators to Tell NYSE and Deutsche Börse of Merger Concerns

Mark Lennihan/Associated PressDuncan Niederauer, left, chief of NYSE Euronext, with Reto Francioni of Deutsche Börse, on video, at a news conference in February.

European regulators are sending a statement of objections to the Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext over their proposed $9 billion merger, a person with direct knowledge of the action said Tuesday. The move shows that the competition authorities will demand at least remedial action by the two companies.

The statement is being sent by the European Commission to the two companies this week, the person said. That person asked not to be identified because the objections had not been formally announced.

The commission had said in August that it would conduct an in-depth review of the proposed combination, citing ‘‘concerns in a number of areas, in particular in the field of derivatives trading and clearing.’’ That announcement came after the two companies’ shareholders in July gave their blessing to a deal, which would create a giant international market with big presences in stocks and options and a commanding position in European derivatives.

The issuing of a statement of objection is a normal part of the review, in which the authorities detail their antitrust concerns, and does not necessarily mean the deal is endangered. In addition to the derivatives and clearing concerns, it could encompass issues including job cuts and the preservation of financial activities in various cities.

Opponents of the proposed merger are hoping that the commission will demand that the companies sell the London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange, or Liffe, which Euronext acquired in 2002, five years before Euronext was itself acquired by the New York Stock Exchange. Such a move might lead the partners to reconsider the logic behind the tie-up.

NYSE Euronext and Deutsche Börse

Kevin McPartland, head of fixed income research at the TABB Group, said the European regulators were looking at the impact on a regional level, while antitrust authorities in the United States — who saw a combined entity competing globally with rivals in New York and Singapore — had taken a more global view in granting their approval.

If the companies were told to divest Liffe as a condition for approval, he said, ‘‘it would look a lot less appealing.’’ But he added: ‘‘There are enough potential compromises that they could work through most concerns.’’

Amelia Torres, a spokeswoman for the commission, declined to comment, beyond noting that the deadline for a decision was Dec. 13. NYSE Euronext and Deutsche Börse also declined to comment.

Reuters had earlier reported the statement of objections.

Michael de la Merced contributed reporting from New York and Jack Ewing from Frankfurt.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=90f432bd57e98b258ed1254bab34ffac