Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Acquire Brokerdealer Firm 

200px-Ladenburg-thalmann-logo-1Brokerdealer.com blog update courtesy of South Florida Business Journal’s Nina Lincoff profiles a financial service’s recently acquisition of brokerdealers services.

Brokerdealers are at the center of the securities and derivatives trading process therefore making them a great asset to any financial services firm. Services that brokerdealers offer very important and valuable tools to any financial services firm. Recently, Miami-based Ladenburg Thalmann realized this and made a $45 million venture to acquire the Knoxville, Tennessee-based independent broker-dealer and advisory firm, Securities Service Network.

Miami-based Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services said Monday it had completed its $45M acquisition of a Knoxville, Tenn.-based independent broker-dealer and advisory firm.

With the acquisition of Securities Service Network, Ladenburg Thalmann adds about $13 billion in client assets and about 450 independent financial advisors, according to a news release. For the 12 months ended June 30, SSN generated about $115 million in revenue.

The acquisition, announced in September, consists of a $25 million cash payment and $20 million in four-year notes. The purchase follows a string of purchases by Ladenburg Thalmann, including a November acquisition of a broker-dealer that added $2.5 billion in assets to the company.

Ladenburg Thalmann’s chairman and principal shareholder is billionaire Dr. Phillip Frost, CEO of Miami-based Opko Health. Frost acquired 100,000 shares of Ladenburg Thalmann stock at nearly $4.09 a share, or a total of just over $400,000, the same day the acquisition was announced.

For Lincoff’s original article in South Florida Business Journal, click here.

Like Magic! Russian Hedge Fund’s Money and Boss Disappear

AR6040-001Brokerdealer.com blog update is courtesy of The Wall Street Journal’s Bradley Hope.

As part of the membership to Brokerdealer.com, members have free access to an investor database that offers access to many different types of investors including hedge funds. When picking your next investor, whether it be on a national or international level, be sure to pick an investor who you can trust and won’t lose all of the company’s assets like the Russian hedge fund, Blackfield Capital CJSC recently experienced.

Blackfield Capital CJSC was one of Moscow’s hottest hedge funds, hosting glitzy parties and embarking on ambitious plans to expand to the U.S.

The firm’s founder in 2013 even rented a Manhattan apartment for a record-setting price, according to a real-estate broker, and instructed his U.S. staff to buy a $300,000 sports car.

Now, the founder is missing, allegedly along with all of the firm’s assets, according to former employees, in an international mystery that has captivated Moscow’s investment community.

The firm’s employees didn’t know anything was amiss until mid-October, when three men charged into Blackfield’s offices in an upscale complex along the Moscow River in central Moscow, said people who were there.

The men, who didn’t identify themselves, said they were looking for Blackfield’s 29-year-old founder, , according to the people who were there.

But Mr. Karapetyan wasn’t in the office that day or the next, when senior executives explained to the staff of about 50 that there was no longer any money to pay their salaries, said one former senior executive and ex-employees. The executives disclosed that all the money in the company accounts—some $20 million, including investor cash—was also missing, they said. It couldn’t be determined whether investors were from Russia or other countries.

“Our CEO just…disappeared,” said Sergey Grebenkin, one of the firm’s software developers, in an interview.

Efforts to reach Mr. Karapetyan by phone, email and through associates and friends weren’t successful. Other senior executives didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Karapetyan hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing. It couldn’t be determined whether the firm was still operating.

Interviews with more than a dozen former employees and executives at rival investment firms in Russia, as well as documents from the U.S., Russia and the U.K., provide a look at the firm’s demise.

Blackfield was launched in 2009 with plans to be on the cutting edge of modern markets. The firm focused on algorithmic trading, or the use of statistical analysis to detect patterns in the markets, on the Moscow Stock Exchange. By 2013, Blackfield traded as much as 2% of futures and options contracts on the Moscow exchange some days, according to former employees and rival firms. Several former employees said Mr. Karapetyan told them the firm once managed as much as $300 million.

For Hope’s entire Wall Street Journal article, click here.

FINRA and MSRB Pair Up Re Pay-To-Play Rules

pay-to-play rules

(National Law Review)-FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

The following brokerdealer.com update is courtesy of submission to National Law Review by Greenberg Traurig, LLP

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/finra-and-msrb-propose-new-pay-to-play-restrictions-broker-dealer-solicitors-and#sthash.BIDndxYl.dpuf

FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/finra-and-msrb-propose-new-pay-to-play-restrictions-broker-dealer-solicitors-and#sthash.BIDndxYl.dpuf

FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/finra-and-msrb-propose-new-pay-to-play-restrictions-broker-dealer-solicitors-and#sthash.bT8ZACWj.dpuf

FINRA and MSRB Propose New Pay-to-Play Restrictions on Broker-Dealer Solicitors and Municipal Advisors; Rules Will Trigger SEC Investment Advisor Third-Party Solicitation Ban

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) simultaneously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule proposals that will have broad and substantial impacts on the political giving of broker-dealers, investment advisers and municipal advisors and their ability to engage in business with governmental entities under SEC, FINRA and MSRB rules.

The FINRA proposal seeks to establish so-called pay-to-play restrictions on broker-dealers that engage in certain distribution and solicitation activities on behalf of investment advisers (third-party solicitors) under new FINRA Rule 2030, on Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities, and associated FINRA Rule 4580, on Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities. The MSRB proposal would extend to municipal advisors (including certain third-party solicitors) its existing pay-to-play rule applicable to municipal securities broker-dealers, MSRB Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business.

The FINRA rules, and in part the MSRB rule amendment, are designed to complement the SEC’s existing pay-to-play rule for investment advisers, Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When effective, the FINRA and MSRB rules would trigger compliance requirements under the SEC’s ban on third party solicitations on behalf of investment advisers under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, as provided for under SEC staff’s current no-action posture which has put this provision of the SEC pay-to-play rule in abeyance subject to completion of FINRA and MSRB rulemaking.

While each rule has its own unique provisions, the SEC, FINRA and MSRB pay-to-play rules generally create two-year bans, or “time-outs,” from engaging in investment advisory, underwriting/distribution or municipal advisory activities with state or local governmental entities if the investment adviser, broker-dealer or municipal advisor firm or specific professionals within the firm have made political contributions to elected officials of such governmental entities, subject to permitted de minimis contributions. The rules also prohibit such firms and professionals from soliciting or coordinating political contributions by others to elected officials of governmental entities with which they are undertaking or seeking business, or to state or local political parties within any jurisdiction where such business is being undertaken or sought.

In addition, the SEC rule prohibits investment advisers from paying a third-party to solicit on their behalf a governmental entity for investment advisory business unless such third-party is subject to the SEC, FINRA or MSRB pay-to-play rule. The MSRB rule also includes a public disclosure regime that requires quarterly information filings with the MSRB that are made public on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Finally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also has adopted its own pay-to-play rule for swap dealers entering into swap transactions with governmental special entities, Rule 23.451 on Political Contributions By Certain Swap Dealers. Firms covered by one or more of these pay-to-play rules will need to engage in extensive compliance and recordkeeping activities that take into account the range of activities they undertake and the varying requirements of the applicable SEC, CFTC, FINRA and/or MSRB rules.

The FINRA and MSRB proposals are subject to the SEC’s public comment and approval process, and the restrictions and related requirements would apply only for contributions made after the effective date, which would be a date to be announced no sooner than 6 months after SEC approval.

The FINRA rule proposal may be found here.

The MSRB rule proposal may be found here.

Currently effective pay-to-play rules may be found as follows: SEC Rule 206(4)-5; and CFTC Rule 23.451.

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/finra-and-msrb-propose-new-pay-to-play-restrictions-broker-dealer-solicitors-and#sthash.bT8ZACWj.dpuf

IPO Market Recovers, Gives Some Hope to Silicon Valley, But Not Much

Silicon_valley_titleBrokerdealer.com blog update profiles the recovery of the IPO market and the effects it had on Silicon Valley companies courtesy of Venture Beat’s Chris O’Brien.

Although it was a great year for IPOs, it was not necessarily a good for brokerdealers, as O’Brien explains later on, returns on IPOs in 2014 took a dramatic drop compared to returns on IPOs in 2013. Nonetheless, a strong IPO showing is projected for 2015, which could create big returns for brokerdealers in the New Year. In addition, Silicon Valley has plenty to stress as about as there wasn’t a huge IPO growth made in tech industries, the surge of IPOs came from health and biotech fields.

A tech industry that had spent years waiting for a revived IPO market finally got its wish in 2014.

The overall IPO market reached a level not seen since 2000. And Silicon Valley companies rode that wave as venture-backed IPOs soared, according to year-end data from Renaissance Capital.

Within these ample gold and silver linings, there are a few clouds looming for the tech industry as well.

First, let’s start with the good news. Here are the highlights from Renaissance:

  • The 273 IPOs in 2014 was the most since 406 IPOs in 2000.
  • IPOs were up 23 percent over 2013, even though there were some global scares like the Ukraine crisis and Ebola that in years past might have causes stock markets to freak out.
  • Money raised climbed 55 percent to $85 billion, though Alibaba accounted for $22 billion of that.
  • The number of venture-backed IPOs climbed to 124 this year, up from just seven in the dark economic year of 2008.
  • A solid pipeline and strong US economy should mean another strong IPO showing in 2015.

So, what’s there to worry about amid all this rosy news?

1. Returns were down: The boom in the number of IPOs was not necessarily great for investors. Average IPO returns were only 16 percent, a big drop from the 41 percent return on IPOs in 2013. That could put a chill on IPOs in 2015 if the trend continues.

2. Tech is not king: The surge in IPOs was led by healthcare and biotech IPOs. In particular, the overall numbers were padded by the 100 healthcare IPOs in 2014, a jump from 54 the year before. Slice off that healthcare increase, which mainly included a lot of small-cap companies, and the number of IPO offerings was about the same as 2013.

3. 2014 was very good, not great, for tech: There were 55 tech IPOs in 2014, up from 45 the year before. Those IPOs raised $32 billion, though that includes Alibaba’s $22 billion haul. Back that out, and you still have a nice increase from the $7.9 billion raised in 2013. But tech companies are hardly printing money. And talk of a bubble remains just plain silly.

4. China rules: This year will be remembered for the monster Alibaba IPO offering, followed by China’s JD.com offering that raised $1.8 billion. Those were the only two tech companies to make the list of the year’s 10 largest IPOs. And with China’s Internet population more than double that of the U.S., the center of the tech world could continue its shift to Asia.

None of these things should dampen the tech industry’s celebration of a solid year. But they’re a good reminder that Silicon Valley shouldn’t get overconfident when it comes to IPOs and think just any company with a little momentum can go public. Investors can afford to be selective.

And, really, that’s probably a good thing for all of us.

For O’Brien’s original article in Venture Beat, click here

 

Private Equity Firms Now Face Up To Fee Schemes

double dipBrokerdealer.com blog update courtesy of Mike Spector and Mark Maremont of the Wall Street Journal.

For years, Private Equity firms have doubled-dipped by receiving management fees from their institutional investors, and at the same time, have pocketed hundreds of millions of separate fees from the companies they have acquired on behalf of those same institutional investors. For the first time, these firms are being pressured by investors, and in some cases, federal regulators to stop the practice of double dipping or face further scrutiny.

The investment firms usually collect the fees from companies they buy for providing services such as consulting, serving as directors and helping them make their own acquisitions. Instead of keeping some of the money, the buyout firms, in new funds they are raising, will now pass the fees on in full to investors in the funds.

The payouts being reimbursed, known in the industry as transaction and monitoring fees, have provided many private-equity firms with a steady income stream augmenting their share of investment gains on deals, which remain the key source of profits from their buyout funds. Private-equity firms buy companies using a combination of cash raised from investors and borrowed money with the aim of improving the companies’ value and selling for a profit a few years down the line.

Buyout firms often receive transaction fees from a company after completing a takeover and for other deal activities, and monitoring fees for consulting and other work while holding the investment.

The turnabout by managers including Blackstone Group LP, KKR & Co. and TPG represents a significant concession in the face of persistent clamor for the private-equity industry to do a better job sharing and disclosing their fees.

The decision by private-equity firms to essentially reimburse investors with payments that can amount to tens of millions of dollars or more, sometimes on just one transaction, shows the increased influence wielded by investors such as public pension funds that historically accepted terms buyout firms proffered.

For Spector and Maremont’s entire Wall Street Journal article, click here.