Agency could alter 2015 proposal, which sought to pull back the curtain on opaque trading venues

In what might be her last major speech to members of the broker-dealer community as the Obama administration winds down and gets ready for the closing bell, SEC Chair Mary Joe White addressed a Washington DC gathering of the Securities Traders Association this week and talked about BDs favorite topic: equities market structure.  After taking a few accolades for approving Finra-recommended regulations that require software developers of algorithmic trading tools to be registered and licensed just as securities traders, Ms White  summarized her accomplishments  and forward looking perspectives regarding SEC efforts to address inequities in the equities market structure.

Courtesy of Mondo Visione, below are the opening extracts from Ms. White’s speech:

Thank you, Jim [Toes], for that kind introduction.  I am honored to join you again for your annual market structure conference.

The American equity markets are the strongest in the world, and one of the Commission’s most important responsibilities is to work every day to maintain their fairness, orderliness, and efficiency.  Optimizing market structure is a continuous process, one that requires the Commission to act with both care and intensity, strictly guided by what is best for investors and capital formation for public companies.

I emphasized this guiding principle when I last joined you in 2013,[1] and in 2014 when I laid out a program for enhancing equity market structure.[2]  Fulfilling our responsibility to investors and issuers, of course, demands that the Commission act quickly to address issues that are demonstrably undermining the interests of investors and issuers.  But it also requires the Commission to carefully consider changes to market structure where the impact on those interests is far less clear and the data to support competing perspectives is lacking or conflicting.

Where improvements to equity market structure are clearly called for, the Commission has acted.  The operational integrity of our markets – my top priority – has been significantly enhanced by a number of measures.  The staff is gathering and analyzing more market data than ever before to inform policymaking, and the consolidated audit trail is becoming reality.  And we have detailed proposals out for comment that will give investors more transparency into how the off-exchange markets operate and broker-dealers handle their orders.

At the same time, the Commission has undertaken a deliberate, data-driven process to assess – and, as appropriate, begun to implement – more fundamental changes to equity market structure.  This process requires great care.  The American equity markets today continue to serve well the interests of retail and institutional investors, delivering better executions at lower costs than ever before.  Broad changes to this market structure – especially those executed precipitously or without adequate data – can have serious unintended consequences for investors and issuers as their impact is fully realized, sometimes years down the road.

This two-pronged approach recognizes that market structure can never be perfect and, correspondingly, that the Commission’s work is never – and should never – be done.[3]  Market structure is continually evolving as technology and competition spur innovation.  That fluidity means that the Commission’s review must be both comprehensive and nimble, constantly testing existing assumptions, regulations, and market practices, while remaining poised to act quickly on issues that immediate attention can address.

Today, I want to report on some of our progress on both our targeted enhancements to tackle such issues, and our consideration of more fundamental market structure questions.  While the Commission has been active in a number of areas, I will focus today on operational integrity, market transparency, and algorithmic trading.

In assessing these areas and others, we have been fortunate to have the assistance of our relatively new Equity Market Structure Advisory Committee, or EMSAC.  Especially in addressing some of the more complex issues in market structure today, the EMSAC, which brings deep expertise and a wide range of perspectives, provides a public forum for valuable and timely discussions, both within the Committee itself and as a result of its efforts to reach out to a wide range of others with expertise on key issues.

Strengthening Operational Integrity and Market Stability

Let me begin where I always do, with operational integrity and market stability.  Since I arrived at the Commission, enhancing the reliability and resilience of our markets has been my top priority.  Weaknesses or disruptions in operations can destabilize markets and, in some cases, lead to extreme price volatility and the loss of investor confidence.  The Commission’s work here continues – we can never be complacent – but I am very pleased with the steps we have taken to strengthen the market systems on which investors depend every day.

Regulation SCI

Central to this effort has been Regulation SCI, which the Commission adopted at the end of 2014.[4]  While no measure can eliminate technology disruptions altogether, Regulation SCI is designed to reduce the occurrence of systems issues and to improve resilience and communication when systems problems do occur.  It imposes requirements on key market participants – the exchanges, high‑volume alternative trading systems (ATSs), clearing agencies, the securities information processors (SIPs), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB).

These “SCI entities” were required to start complying with most of the requirements of Regulation SCI last November.[5]  In the first instance, this means maintaining comprehensive policies and procedures to ensure the capacity, integrity, resiliency, availability, and security of key automated systems.  It also means: taking appropriate corrective action when systems issues happen; reporting systems problems and changes directly to the Commission and market participants; and conducting periodic reviews and testing of automated systems.

Approaching the first full year of the regulation’s operation, our examiners have been reviewing compliance with Regulation SCI.  It is apparent from these examinations that many market participants have devoted significant resources to compliance, and there has been good progress in implementation.  But a few areas for additional attention have emerged.  For example, it is clear that processes for patching and updating systems deserve close attention – human errors in these routine tasks can create much more significant issues.  Another example is diversifying primary and backup systems – in seeking to fulfill their recovery obligations under Regulation SCI, market participants should focus on not just the geographic locations of those systems, but also consider their reliance on different electrical, telecommunications, and other infrastructure support.  Our staff is continuing to work with market participants in these areas and others to help ensure that the goals of Regulation SCI are achieved.

Improvements to Critical Market Infrastructure

Regulation SCI has been complemented by a number of initiatives by the exchanges and FINRA to enhance the operational integrity of critical market infrastructure like the SIPs and the open/close process.  At my direction, following the Nasdaq SIP outage in 2013 and NYSE’s trading outage in 2015, SEC staff worked with the exchanges and FINRA to correct the defects that caused these incidents, as well as to identify and address other potential single points of failure.  These cooperative efforts were expanded after the unusual volatility of August 24, 2015, and there has been significant progress.

• First, the resilience of the SIPs is considerably improved.  There are now enhanced disaster recovery sites and systems to establish a “hot/warm” backup process, which provides for a failover from the primary site to the backup site in ten minutes or less.[6]
• Second, as of June, the equity listing exchanges now have mutual backup arrangements for their closing auctions, which will address situations when a disruption might prevent the execution of a closing auction on the primary listing exchange.[7]
• And third, the process for opening auctions, especially in volatile markets, has been and continues to be improved.[8] 

Enhancements to Volatility Moderators

Amidst these and other improvements,[9] reminders persist about the continued importance of the volatility moderators implemented after the “Flash Crash,” especially the “limit-up/limit-down” plan designed to reduce extraordinary volatility in individual securities.  The exchanges and FINRA have already implemented basic enhancements to limit-up/limit-down in the wake of the events of August 24, 2015,[10] and I have asked them to address additional issues that emerged during that event. 

Further Strengthening Market Operations

One such issue is the application of the mechanism to exchange-traded products (ETPs), where we have a broader program underway to help ensure that these increasingly popular products operate robustly in a variety of market conditions.  We saw during the Flash Crash and on August 24 that ETPs can be disproportionately affected when markets become disorderly.  Orderly trading in an ETP requires a smoothly functioning market for the ETP’s holdings so that market makers and authorized participants can reliably value the ETP’s portfolio.  If the underlying market becomes disorderly, or if market makers and authorized participants step away from trading, the arbitrage mechanism can be disrupted and an ETP can trade at prices substantially away from its implied value.

Commission staff, as well as the exchanges and FINRA, are assessing the special characteristics of ETP trading in determining whether particular changes should be made to the limit-up/limit-down mechanism to reflect the sensitivity of ETPs to disorderly market activity.[11]  In addition, I have directed the staff’s ETP Working Group to identify and analyze a broad range of issues relating to the structure, trading, and use of ETPs.  The Working Group is considering, among other things: what portfolio characteristics and market structures support effective arbitrage; the roles and practices of market makers and authorized participants; and the effects of the ongoing exchange pilot programs to incentivize trading in less‑liquid ETPs.

If you haven’t already fallen asleep and would like to read the entire transcript, please click here

The post SEC Chair White Last Major Speech to BDs: Market Structure appeared first on BrokerDealer Blog.

SEC Mary Joe White has a dream, and even if she aspires to leverage the inspirational outlook of  Dr. Martin Luther King, securities industry members are debating whether her dream could prove to be a reality any sooner than the civil rights agenda expressed by Dr. King so many years ago.  In a series of comments during the past several weeks from Chairperson White regarding the SEC’s agenda for the remainder of her tenure as President Obama’s designated SEC Chairperson, Ms. White, who is operating with only 3 of 5 Commissioners until two open vacancies are filled before the Second of Never,  she is vowing one of the top three items on her list includes “better understanding exchange-traded funds aka ETFs before the SEC approves prospectuses.” That makes sense.

One only wonders why that elementary concept had never occurred to any one previously—despite repeated calls from among others, former SEC Commissioner Steve Wallman (1994-1997) who has long questioned the approval process for many of the complex exchange-traded products the SEC has rubber-stamped, including inverse and commodities-related products that even professionals often do not understand.  Since his departure from the SEC, Wallman has proven adept at doing the right things while serving at the helm as Founder/Chairman/CEO of the investment firm Foliofn.com.

Other matters of importance according to White include “the desire on part of SEC to introduce “fiduciary definitions for registered advisers and brokers..” which in plain speaks means : White’s agenda is to figure out how to completely change the culture of the securities brokerage industry by forcing people to be ethical and moral. MarketsMuse sources have indicated White is proposing to have those folks swear an oath that says:

“My first obligation is to protect my clients’ interest above all else and to make sure I never even think of trying to sell them something that might be inappropriate for their goals or possibly even toxic—despite the fact my office manager says I have to sell house product only or I’m out of a job. After I meet that first obligation, my second obligation is to then make enough money to pay for my kids college and have enough left over for that condo in Florida.”

Insiders familiar with White’s agenda have told MarketsMuse that she has acknowledged her seemingly altruistic mission is not without challenge or headwinds given that the “securities industry at large is much like the NRA when it comes to influential prowess.”

Directly and indirectly, Wall Street firms and its executives contribute hundreds of millions of dollars every year to lobby SEC Officials and members of Congress(which the SEC reports to) on behalf of their interests—which presumably includes two big drivers that have driven the investment industry since the days of Joe Kennedy Sr.: (i) selling investment vehicles that look great on paper and in marketing collateral [even if they might or might not prove to be toxic at some point and might or might not be appropriate for a specific individual given that people’s moods change a lot] (ii) how to pay the mortgage on the brokers’ first house, the $200k for each of their kids college tuition bills, the country club memberships that provides venues in which to sell those investment products,  sharpen up the golf game, and of course, pay for the second and third homes, etc etc.

Another item on White’s laundry list is to expand the  exam program for registered brokers and advisers. Currently, 10% of the nearly 12,000 advisers sit and take ‘refresher tests’ that are abridged versions of the Series 7—an exam that has approximately 40% brokers FAIL the first time and 30% fail the second time. Some could argue the test is maybe too difficult, given the national average score is 67 vs. a passing grade of 72. Or, one could argue the barrier to entry to become a registered broker or adviser is simply being a good test taker. Idiots and Muppets can get licensed, as long as they take 8 practice exams the night before the actual exam and memorize the correct answers. So, Chairperson White wants more folks taking more tests; a good thing for the SEC because this is big a revenue-generator for the Agency—which has repeatedly claimed it does not have enough money to even pay for air conditioning in its Washington DC office. Staff members have said this alone is vexing, given that SEC examiners and enforcement agents have become accustomed to keeping windows wide open five months of the year and continuously grapple with files on their desks blowing out of their windows and many of those files pertain to complaints filed by investors and updated paper notes sent by from enforcement agents in the field via courier pigeons.

Courtesy of  an admittedly more illustrious news media outlet than MarketsMuse might be, the following is ‘official coverage from InvestmentNews.com:

To continue reading, please click here

The post SEC Chair Wants To Reign In ETFs appeared first on BrokerDealer Blog.

BrokerDealer.com blog update profiles what could be a watershed moment for the broker-dealer community: BDs can now ‘recommend’ to clients to buy, sell or hold exchange-traded-funds (ETFs) without having to c0mply with long-established Finra and SEC rules with regard to research.

This story is courtesy of MarketsMuse, the financial industry news curator, with extract below:

MarketsMuse ETF update profiles just-passed-by-Congress legislation that offers a sigh of relief for broker-dealers who aspire to frame ETF recommendations within the context of research (which might qualify them for ‘buyside research votes’), but have held back from issuing a buy, sell or hold recommendation for ETFs out of fear of Finra and/or SEC staffers sanctioning them.

All can guess that those lobbyists engaged by ETF issuers and sell-siders  who focus heavily on ETFs will be getting a hefty bonus in consideration for greasing the wheels and halls of Congress and helping brokerdealers creatively usurp Finra rules and regs when it comes to what is and what is not considered “research.” One group of folks not celebrating: top brass and salesman at Morningstar (read further)

The post BrokerDealers Can Now Recommend ETFs Compliance Free appeared first on BrokerDealer Blog.

Brokerdealer.com blog update courtesy of extract from Investment News.

NextShares is a product that some want to eventually replace mutual funds. NextShares combine characteristics of mutual and exchange-traded funds. Like mutual funds, investors purchase shares in the fund at a price equal to the value of their underlying securities, plus a transaction fee. Like ETFs, they trade on exchanges and could benefit from the tax and other cost efficiencies associated with those products.

For years, backers of NextShares have been working to get approval and earlier this week, securities regulators finally granted approval. Now it will have to convince Brokerdealers and financial advisers that it is in their interest to supplant a product responsible for a healthy portion of their current revenue. The backers of NextShares want to cause the extinction of mutual funds, a lucrative product for broker-dealers.

“A lot of the firms we’ve spoken to are not really sure if they want to offer it at this stage,” said Bharat Sawhney of Gartland & Mellina Group, a consultant to broker-dealers on product offerings, strategy and technology platforms. “One of the bigger questions the firms have is if it will cannibalize their existing business.

Investors will need to be informed by broker-dealers of the unique qualities of the funds when they trade, and they will place exchange orders in a way that differs from stocks or ETFs.

In order to commit to NextShare and the changes it would bring, broker-dealers will need to see that consumers — both advisers and their clients — actually want the products, which are also known as exchange-traded managed funds. If they succeed in that regard, it wouldn’t be the first time client demand trumped the preferences of broker-dealers.

If you want a Brokerdealer that will commit to NextShare then now is the time let your Brokerdealer know this is what you want or find a Brokerdealer that will.

The post Brokerdealers Hold Fate of New Active ETFs appeared first on BrokerDealer Blog.

InterMune (ITMN - Snapshot Report) was a star performer in Monday trading session, as the stock skyrocketed more than a third on the day. The massive gain for this biotech firm came after the Swiss drug maker Roche Holding (RHHBY - Analyst Report) agreed to buy InterMune for $8.3 billion.

As per the deal, Roche will pay $74 per share in cash, which represents 38% premium to the ITMN closing price as of August 22 and 63% premium to the price on August 12 when the potential takeover of InterMune was initiated. The deal is expected to close by the year end (read: A Comprehensive Guide to Biotech ETFs).

The acquisition would broaden and strengthen Roche’s portfolio of medicines for respiratory ailments. The most promising new drug is pirfenidone, which is used for the treatment of a progressive and ultimately fatal scarring condition of the lungs. Pirfenidone is already approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in Europe and Canada, and is currently under regulatory scrutiny in the U.S.

About 70,000 to 200,000 Americans suffer from IPF, according to the various sources. The disease has no known cause. Scaring starts in the lungs, and patients eventually lose the ability of breathing. Death often occurs two to five years after diagnosis.

Given this, Pirfenidone would be the first drug in the U.S. for a rare lung disease and could act as a lifesaver. The approval of the drug is expected by November 23. Roche, the world’s largest maker of cancer drugs, expects the takeover to boost earnings from 2016.

Market Impact

InterMune’s acquisition by Roche was well received by investors and the stock added more than $19 per share on the day to close at record high of above the $73 per share mark. The stock crushed its average volume figures, as nearly 51.5 million shares moved hands compared to just 2.8 million on average (read:Healthcare ETFs Leading the Pack This Q2 Earnings).

The news led to a surge in the broad biotech ETF space on the day. First Trust NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index Fund ((FBT - ETF report)) led the way higher gaining 4.2%, followed by gains of 3.2% for SPDR S&P Biotech ETF ((XBI - ETF report)) and 2.9% for PowerShares Dynamic Biotechnology & Genome Portfolio ((PBE - ETF report)). In fact, FBT is the top non-leveraged performing fund of the day.

FBT in Focus

This fund follows the NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index and holds about 20 securities in its basket. Of these firms, ITMN takes the top spot with 5.95% of assets. The ETF is spread across various market caps – 39% in large caps, 34% in small caps and the rest in mid caps with a tilt toward growth stocks at 79%. The fund manages a $1.4 billion in its asset base and charges 60 bps in annual fees. Average daily volume is good as it exchanges 174,000 shares a day (read: Last Week’s ETF Highlights: MLP and Biotech Funds Soar, Volatility Sinks).

XBI in Focus

This fund follows the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index and holds about 80 securities in its basket. It is well spread out across its components with InterMune having 1.54% share and holding the eight position. The ETF puts more focus on small- and micro-cap stocks at 71%, while mid and large caps account for the rest. The product has nearly $1.1 billion in AUM and sees solid volume of 659,000 shares per day. It charges 35 bps in annual fees.

PBE in Focus

This fund provides exposure to 29 firms by tracking the Dynamic Biotech & Genome Intellidex Index. ITMN occupies the ninth position with 4.57% allocation. The ETF is spread across various market caps – 31% in large caps, 25% in mid caps and the rest in small caps. The product has amassed $386.6 million in its asset base while trades in lower volume of 96,000 shares per day. Expense ratio came in at 0.63% (see: all the Healthcare ETFs here).

The post Biotech ETFs go Skyward post InterMune-Roche Deal appeared first on BrokerDealer Blog.

Below video provides true color and frames the firm’s value proposition in a comprehensive manner. Further below is a Q&A with firm principals Michael Wallach and David Beth, both of whom are 25+ year sell-side trading market veterans and are each considered to be industry thought-leaders by both buyside clients and sell-side peers.

Q. I’m familiar with the term “inter-dealer-broker” aka “IDB”, a broker that serves as intermediary between competing sell-side broker/dealers for the purpose of maintaining anonymity; why does WallachBeth refer to the firm as “inter-market broker.”

Wallach: We go far beyond the typical sell-side boundaries, which is the universe that IDB’s limit themselves to.
Our trading relationships extend not only across the spectrum of competing Tier 1 sell-side facilitation desks, but also includes high-touch prop trading and market-making firms, along with a wide range of hedge funds and other buy-side managers, all of whom actively trade the underlying cash instruments, options, futures, fixed income or commodities that map to the products that we specialize in.

Q. The industry at large emphasizes the phrase “best price execution”, yet WallachBeth refers to “execution at the right price” as one of your value propositions. What’s the distinction between the two phrases?

Wallach: “Best ex” is a broadly-interpreted phrase; it means different things to different people. Best ex metrics are merely derived from one-dimensional pricing data displayed on screens.
The fact is that screens, including Level II, rarely display what is actually obtainable at a given point in time, simply because most liquidity providers won’t show their “best hand” on a screen. Independent best ex analytics don’t necessarily tell the real story. There’s no such thing as a truly accurate 360° best ex “view” for those trading volatile products, complex option spreads, or seemingly illiquid ETFs or options.

When we say “right price”, it’s the best obtainable price with the least market impact within the context of the actual market and the real liquidity available, displayed and hidden. That’s our definition of best execution.

Q. The issue of “capital commitment trades” or principal vs. “agency-execution” is a topic of ongoing and spirited debate. Where does WallachBeth sit in this discussion? And, why would I call you instead of calling or directing my order to my prime broker or my custodian’s facilitation desk?
Beth: The “need” for capital commitment trades is typically driven by a sense of urgency on the part customer who wants to quickly liquidate, or acquire a large block of stock, or a complex options position. In a perfect world, a “principal trader” is also extending the best price that can be obtained in that split-second moment in time. But the world isn’t always perfect.

WallachBeth discretely aggregates the Industry’s foremost capital commitment providers, often in less time than a customer might get a quote from a single “principal desk.” In many (but not all) cases, we can prove to be the de facto, single source of a particular product’s total capital-centric liquidity that’s immediately available to transact with.
That said, we also know that certain customers are compelled to direct orders to their custodian or “PB” when there’s an obligation to compensate for research or other “value-added” services received from the PB.

Wallach: We know the pendulum swings both ways. The ‘agency-only’ proposition is obviously compelling to managers who need to distance themselves from any potential conflicts of interest that their counterparty might have when offering a trade price. On the other hand, a principal trader is taking on risk in consideration for providing the customer immediate gratification. Nobody takes on risk without being compensated, and the fee paid for a capital commitment trade is necessarily a premium vs. an agency rate.

The higher rate paid for a principal trade vs. agency execution might be justifiable at the time, or it might seem nominal to some customers. For Alpha-centric managers, our aggregation model and our networking approach to securing the best price can noticeably impact a manager’s overall performance.

Speaking as a long-time principal trader, I’d argue that almost every order can be best executed only after properly canvassing the market for price improvement. The perceived need to execute “on the wire” can, in hindsight, prove to be very costly in more ways than one.

Q. Can WallachBeth administer customized orders or program orders?
Beth: Absolutely. Many of our clients depend on us to execute VWAP, TWAP and similar algo-dependent execution strategies. Our trading system technology connects to all market centers and supports a full-range of order strategies, including sophisticated option-related orders.

Q. Client “A” often requires step-out trades, average trade price reporting, and often, their trades need to be allocated and reported to more than one custodian. Does WallachBeth accommodate this type of reporting?
Beth: We use a very sophisticated technology platform that blends front-end DMA, EMS, and OMS with a full range of back-office modules. This enables us to seamlessly accommodate just about any type of the most demanding customer requirements, from “best ex metrics” to Commission Sharing Agreements, corporate actions and a full menu of regulatory reports.

Q. What type of research or market commentary does WallachBeth provide?
Wallach:When we formed the firm in 2008, our mandate was focused on filling a considerable Industry void by providing conflict-free trading market insight and integrity-rich best execution services for both institutional fund managers and sell-side liquidity providers. Since that time, our platform has grown exponentially and we’ve established a significant presence within multiple product areas.That said, and as our business has evolved, and as the industry at-large continues to be increasingly aware of enhanced fiduciary standards, we heard loud and clear from clients that even with today’s more proactive regulatory landscape, there is a dearth of un-conflicted, granular equity research available to institutional investors.
Our complementing best execution services with a product that delivers objective, unqualified and highly-exhaustive analysis specific to public companies within the Healthcare vertical is not only consistent with our mandate to be a niche provider of in-demand, yet under-served markets, it is an ideal complement to our providing true best execution

Q. When comparing institutional brokers, what makes WallachBeth unique?
Beth: Our culture and our approach to executing orders is much different than any other firm we know of. We have a team-based, customer-service model; our clients have a relationship with our firm, and are not dependent on a particular ‘covering broker.’
When you look at our team member bios’, you’ll find real trading market veterans with unparalleled experience and product knowledge.
In “former lives,” we were trading floor specialists at major stock and option exchanges, OTC market-makers, open-outcry trading pit brokers, upstairs proprietary fund managers, and traders that ran risk arb and facilitation desks at Tier 1 banks. Several of us were also instrumental in developing trading system technologies that are now used throughout the Industry. You simply won’t find that combination or caliber of professional at a typical “broker shop.”

Q. Aside from transaction costs, every buy-side manager is focused on internal infrastructure and operating costs. From the perspective of a buy-side client, how does WallachBeth improve a customer’s “operating efficiency”?
Beth: More than a few of our customers view us as a turnkey, but otherwise captive trading department. We provide more than 3 dozen expert traders, an Olympic-size liquidity pool, all of the ‘bells and whistles” with respect to trading and back office technology, and all without our customer(s) having to incur 1 penny of overhead insofar as office space, equipment, salaries, benefits or bonus.
Wallach: Let’s not forget the “Alpha” element, which is the real benchmark for operating efficiency. By virtue of continuously getting better price executions than what you might have received from a different firm, what might seem like a few pennies better “here and there” can actually make a real difference to overall operating efficiencies for any active manager with more than $10 million AUM. For those with more than $50 mil-$100mil AUM, the savings can, in theory, equate to six, if not seven figures annually.

Q. No doubt the depth and experience of the WallachBeth team is compelling, is there anything else that sets you apart?
Wallach: Anybody that knows us, or anybody that’s observed our trading floor knows that every customer order, however small, however big, or however complex, is treated as if it were our own order, for our own account.
It might sound like a cliché to some, but we truly believe that our revenue is derived from commissions that we earn, and that our profit is the trust that we’ve created.

Additional information about WallachBeth Capital can be found via their website: www.wallachbeth.com

The post For this Best-In-Class BrokerDealer, Its About Best Execution appeared first on BrokerDealer Blog.