Accredited Investor Rule Subject To Change Thanks to Crowdfunding and JOBS Act

Brokerdealer.com blog update courtesy of extract from FINalternatives.com

FINALTERNATIVESThe Securities and Exchange Commission is considering changes to its 30-year-old definition of “accredited investor” that could have serious implications for the crowdfunding industry.

Accredited investors are permitted to participate in private securities placements, and since the passage of the JOBS Act in 2012 opened the door to general solicitation for investors, many have been finding those opportunities through crowdfunding platforms.

The current definition of an accredited investor, written in 1982, says it is a person with earned income in excess of $200,000 (or $300,000 with a spouse) in each of the prior two years or one with a net worth over $1 million (alone or with a spouse), excluding the value of his/her primary residence.

Those pushing for change say the income thresholds have not been updated for inflation—that in today’s dollars, $200,000 and $300,000 would be $500,000 and $700,000.

But critics, like Brendan Ross, president of Direct Lending Investments, say such a change would halve the number of accredited households in the U.S., which today make up, by the SEC’s own calculations, 7.4% of all households.

Ross, who manages a short-term, high-yield small business loan fund, told FINalternatives that as regulators “become more educated on the implications of such a change, they will be less likely to move forward.”

“This would negatively impact the investment management industry as the number of accredited investors would sharply decrease. It’s unlikely that the SEC would want to impinge upon the private placement industry, which is the source of most financial innovation. Value investing, small companies, emerging markets, commodity funds, and REITs all started with accredited investors putting money into private placement vehicles, which then evolved into mutual funds.”

 

For the full story, please visit www.finalternatives.com

BrokerDealer Icon “Ace” Greenberg; Frmr Bear Stearns Chief is Dead

Courtesy of AP

Courtesy of AP

BrokerDealer.com blog post courtesy of extract from Bloomberg LP

July 25- Alan C. “Ace” Greenberg, who as chief executive officer of Bear Stearns Cos. transformed a small bond shop into the fifth-largest U.S. securities firm before it collapsed in 2008 in one of the key events of the global credit crisis, has died. He was 86.

He died Friday at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York of complications from cancer, his son, Ted Greenberg, said in an e-mail.

An amateur magician and bridge player, Mr. Greenberg took over New York-based Bear Stearns in 1978, when it was a private partnership with about 1,000 employees and $46 million in capital. He expanded shareholders’ equity to $1.8 billion and headcount reached 6,300 by 1993, when he handed power to James “Jimmy” Cayne, himself a one-time professional bridge player. Mr. Greenberg stayed on with Bear Stearns as an equities trader.

The forced sale of 85-year-old Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase & Co. in March 2008 followed a bank run by clients that left Bear Stearns on the brink of bankruptcy. The firm’s troubles traced to 2007, when two of its hedge funds tied to the real estate market collapsed. In a 2010 book, Mr. Greenberg said the run on Bear Stearns in 2008 stemmed from “a groundless rumor” that it had a liquidity problem at a time when it had $18 billion in cash reserves.

Chairman emeritus

On March 16, 2008, JPMorgan Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon agreed to buy Bear Stearns for $2 per share, later raised to $10. The stock had traded at $172 in January 2007. After the sale, Mr. Greenberg became vice chairman emeritus of JPMorgan.

“It’s hard to imagine a financial services industry without Ace,” Mr. Dimon and the firm’s head of asset management, Mary Erdoes, said Friday in a memo to employees.

Facebook, Inc. $FB Founder Mark Zuckerberg Now Worth $33 Billion as Shares Surge

Mark Zuckerberg is now richer than Google Inc. co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, despite the company’s contentious IPO just 2 years ago with lead investment banker and brokerdealer Morgan Stanley.

According to Bloomberg, the Facebook Inc. chairman has added $2 billion (USD1.6 billion) to his fortune after the world’s largest social network closed at a record $74.98, and a rose further to $75.07 in after-hours trading.

The stock surge has pushed Zuckerberg’s net worth to $33.3 billion, taking him past Brin, 40, and Page, 41.

He has also surpassed Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, 50, on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

The index ranks Zuckerberg at No. 16 now with the Google founders at 17th and 18th respectively. Bezos occupies the 20th spot.

“He’s just getting started,” David Kirkpatrick, author of “The Facebook Effect,” told Bloomberg in a telephone interview. “He’s going to become the richest person on the planet.”

BrokerDealer Legg Mason Acquires Global Equity Specialist Martin Currie

Brokerdealer Legg Mason has acquired Martin Currie Investment Management, a U.K.-based active global equity specialist, according to a press announcement by the firm.

The transaction is scheduled to close during the fourth quarter of 2014. Financial terms were not disclosed.

Martin Currie will become an independent investment affiliate of Legg Mason, along with Brandywine Global, ClearBridge Investments, The Permal Group, QS Investors, Royce & Associates and Western Asset Management.

Martin Currie has $9.8 billion in AUM, which would bring Legg Mason’s total to $713.8 billion.

Also as part of this transaction, Legg Mason Australian Equities, an active Australian equities manager, will become part of Martin Currie. LMAE’s strategies include small cap, property/infrastructure, income and large-cap value. LMAE’s investment teams will continue to manage these strategies.

More details to come.

Original Story Link: http://www.pionline.com/article/20140724/ONLINE/140729919/legg-mason-acquires-martin-currie

Electronic Exchange Venue IEX’s Corporate Communication Exec Speaks Out re: BrokerDealer.com Blog Post

As a professional courtesy, BrokerDealer.com blog is happy to post the following comment sent to us by IEX media representative Gerald Lam in response to our July 7 post, which merely extracted snippets from a July 7 WSJ article profiling the latest announcement from IEX, the electronic trading venue for block equities trading whose “anti-HFT” notoriety has spread far and wide thanks to the book “Flash Boys”

From: Gerald Lam <[email protected]>
Date: July 9, 2014 at 6:26:32 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Contact email from Gerald Lam

I work at IEX, managing media & communications. I read your blog post on us from Monday, July 7 with concern.

Unfortunately, Bradley Hope’s article was misleading. And some of his inaccuracies have bled onto your piece.

For one thing, the “scheme” as you put it, is nothing new. We’ve offered it since the day we launched: October 25th, 2013.

Secondly, your second paragraph is wrong. Broker-dealer orders would not jump to the top of the order book over orders submitted by buy-side investors. Every buy-side investor (retail included) must be represented by a broker-dealer at IEX. There are no broker-dealer orders competing with non-broker-dealer orders here because every order at IEX is submitted by a broker-dealer.

Who does get “jumped”? Orders from other broker-dealers who are not providing both buyer and seller for a particular order at a particular price.

At the same time, investors (i.e. retail, mutual funds) who are represented by the internalizing broker-deal stand to benefit when they’re represented by the internalizing broker-dealer…their orders receive priority on the order book!

The bigger picture here is liquidity fragmentation — namely it’s detrimental impact to the investor experience. Our feature Broker Priority was designed to encourage brokers to internalize in once central, neutral (i.e. not owned by broker-dealers) venue.

I hope this sheds light on where the WSJ article got it wrong. I’m happy to talk through any of these issues.

I’d be grateful if you could address these clarifications in your blog.

Thank you,
gerald