PE Firms Raiding BrokerDealers in Battle for Young Bankers

young bankersBrokerdealer.com blog update courtesy of the New York Times Deal Book section.

Young bankers fresh out of college are in high demand for private equity firms. Firms what the brightest and best that show great tenacity and enthusiasm for Wall Street. Firms are so aggressive about finding the best candidates that recruiters are interviewing potential employees up to 18 months before the start of the actual job.

They are only in their early to mid-20s, but some young bankers on Wall Street are the most sought-after financiers around, with lucrative pay packages dangling before them.

Junior investment bankers who graduated from college only last year are being madly courted by private equity firms like Apollo Global Management, the Blackstone Group, Bain Capital and theCarlyle Group in a scramble that kicked off last weekend. After back-to-back interviews, many are now fielding offers for jobs that won’t start until the summer of 2016.

This process has become an annual rite by private equity firms, which raise money from investors (like pension funds) to buy entire companies. But it has grown more frenzied since the financial crisis, and it started this year weeks earlier than many in the industry had expected. Fearful of missing the best talent being developed at investment banks, the giants of private equity have turned Wall Street’s white-collar entry-level workers into a hot commodity.

Private-equity firms are pushing earlier than ever to lure Wall Street investment banks’ most promising talent.

“It’s as if these were star athletes,” said Adam Zoia, chief executive of the recruiting firm Glocap Search, who helps private equity firms hire young workers. “The irony is they are professionals six, seven months out of undergrad. It’s hard to imagine you can tell if someone’s a star or not.”

For the young bankers, who are known as analysts, the recruiting race is an important step on a journey to becoming a Wall Street tycoon who can command a seven-figure (or more) pay package. These workers, graduates of elite colleges, often hope to spend two years at investment banks, learning the basics of corporate finance, before leaving for private equity firms, where they can use those skills to make investments. That career path makes them prime candidates for an elite business school, or something even more financially rewarding.

Even though these youthful analysts are starting at big Wall Street firms, the sector’s reputation has lost some of its sheen since the financial crisis. At the same time, Silicon Valley is luring away talent.

But private equity firms can offer higher pay to young bankers. A private equity associate — one who is just three years out of college — can earn as much as $300,000 a year, including salary and bonus. That is roughly double what a second-year banker might earn at Goldman Sachs. “Private equity is the preferable place to be in terms of compensation,” said Jeff P. Visithpanich, a managing director at the compensation consulting firm Johnson Associates.

While data is hard to come by, a December report from Vettery, a start-up recruiting firm, said that private equity was the single most popular destination for Wall Street’s junior workers. Roughly 36 percent of junior bankers with two-year contracts in 2012 have now joined private equity firms, compared with 27.5 percent who stayed in the same division at their bank, Vettery said.

It may seem surprising that these untested financiers are being so heavily courted when the overall unemployment rate of workers between the ages of 20 and 24 in January was more than twice as high as the rate for those 25 and older.

But the process of hiring these workers has grown only more frenzied since the crisis, as financial firms increasingly believe they must work harder to attract ambitious graduates. The banks, from which these workers are being poached, are raising salaries or offering additional days off in an effort to retain them.

To read the complete article from the New York Times, click here.

 

New Fraud Charges After Investment Advisor Tries Paying Old Fraud Charges

Brokerdealer.com blog update is courtesy of InvestmentNews’ Mason Braswell.

Jacob Cooper, investment advisor at  Total Wealth Management

Jacob Cooper, investment advisor at Total Wealth Management

Investment Advisor firm, Total Wealth Management, was ordered to pay SEC fraud fines in April. After paying the fine, the firm is now being charged with using clients’ money to pay the initial fraud fines.

Investment adviser Jacob Cooper and his firm, Total Wealth Management, face a fresh set of fraud charges after they attempted to use client funds to settle an earlier fraud case with the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a new complaint filed Wednesday.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed the charges against Mr. Cooper and his San Diego-based firm after, according to the complaint, they misused investor money for the original settlement and defrauded clients through unexplained “administrative” fees.

The SEC is now seeking to freeze the firm’s assets, appoint a receiver to oversee remaining funds and assess civil penalties.

Total Wealth Management, which Mr. Cooper founded in 2009 and built up through a weekly radio show on investing, allegedly borrowed $150,000 in client funds to help settle an SEC administrative action from April. In that action, the SEC accused him of fraud for pooling around 75% of clients’ $100 million assets into a private fund, which he then invested in unaffiliated funds that paid an undisclosed revenue-sharing fee back to clients.

In addition, the SEC alleged in its most recent complaint that Mr. Cooper was using investor money to pay for legal fees on a related class action brought by clients, who have not been able to withdraw their money or terminate their relationship.

He allegedly charged several Total Wealth investors between $3,500 and $7,500 per account under the guise of “administrative” fees, the agency said.

Then, in a mass email from Total Wealth Management, the firm purportedly told clients: “Many of you were aware of a class action lawsuit brought on by only a few clients causing fee increases for all.”

“The irony is that [the class action] counsel and a very small group of investors have caused a significant amount of those increased fees they have complained about,” the email added.

The SEC disagreed.

“[Mr.] Cooper has an inherent conflict of interest since he is using investor money to defend himself in a lawsuit brought against him by investors,” the complaint stated.

A lawyer for Mr. Cooper, Charles Field of Chapin Fitzgerald Knaier, declined to comment. A number listed for Total Wealth Management was not in working order.

Mr. Cooper has stated that he is in a period of “deep financial stress,” and that he has “no income” and “no job opportunities,” according to the complaint.

He has been writing fantasy novels, however, including one published last July called “Circle of Reign (The Dying Lands Chronicle Book 1).”

Total Wealth Management had about $103 million in assets under management and 773 client accounts, according to its Form ADV from December. The firm found clients through a weekly radio show Mr. Cooper hosted and through free lunches, the SEC said.

For the original article from InvestmentNews, click here

Russian Spies Sneaking Around Wall Street..Oh My..

BrokerDealer.com blog update courtesy of slow day on Wall Street, inspiring CNBC to offer coverage suggesting that Russian spies are breaking into broker-dealers in effort to gather finance industry intelligence (pardon the oxymoron)..

For those spies and others seeking information about brokerdealers throughout Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia and the Middle East, BrokerDealer.com offers a global database of firms in all of these regions..

Here’s the fun video clip from CNBC

SEC Officials Fight The SEC

Brokerdealer.com blog update courtesy of InvestmentNews.Securities-and-Exchange-Commission

Yes, you read the title right, SEC officials are blasting the commission for turning a blind eye to fining brokerdealer firm Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. for further misconduct. As you may remember a brokerdealer.com blog from last week, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. was fined $20 million for improper penny stock trades. The SEC said that the firm failed to prevent suspicious penny stock trading and pump-and-dump schemes. Officials are now claiming that further fines should be given to Oppenheimer due to continued misconduct. 

Two members of the Securities and Exchange Commission blasted the agency’s decision to spare Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. from additional sanctions related to a recent settlement, saying regulators were turning a “blind eye” to the investment bank’s pattern of misconduct.

SEC Commissioners Luis Aguilar and Kara Stein, both Democrats, said they opposed a waiver of a penalty that would have barred Oppenheimer from raising money for private firms and hedge funds after the company admitted last week to improperly selling billions of shares of penny stocks.

“These violations are just the most recent chapter in a long and unfortunate history of regulatory failures, some more significant than others, but cumulatively indicative of a wholly failed compliance culture,” Mr. Aguilar and Ms. Stein wrote in a statement released Wednesday.

Their dissent is the latest example of partisan disputes at the five-member SEC over how the agency polices Wall Street. The fight over waivers stalled an earlier settlement with Bank of America Corp. and portends future difficulties for companies seeking to end enforcement cases, especially if they are repeat offenders.

Ms. Stein previously criticized a penalty waiver that benefited Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and fought to attach more onerous conditions to a reprieve that Bank of America obtained after settling a $16.7 billion mortgage-bond case. SEC Chair Mary Jo White, an independent, and Commissioners Daniel Gallagher and Michael Piwowar, both Republicans, voted in favor of the waiver for Oppenheimer.

The SEC has typically granted waivers to keep from punishing parts of financial companies that weren’t implicated in the wrongdoing at issue.

Oppenheimer spokesman Stefan Prelog said the firm will hire “a fully independent law firm” to review its compliance procedures. The findings and recommendations will be reported to the company’s independent directors, he said.

‘LACKS TEETH’

Mr. Aguilar and Ms. Stein said the SEC’s action “lacks teeth” because it leaves the door open to Oppenheimer hiring a law firm it already uses, which “has every incentive to be accommodating by ignoring or dismissing inadequacies in the firm’s practices.”

Oppenheimer admitted Jan. 27 that it failed to report red flags that its client Gibraltar Global Securities, a Bahamas-based firm, was selling penny-stock shares without being registered in the U.S. The firm acknowledged additional sales of penny stocks for a different customer that resulted in about $588,400 in commissions, according to the SEC. Oppenheimer agreed to pay $20 million to settle the case.

“The company is dedicated to putting these issues behind it through the adoption of a strong compliance infrastructure,” Mr. Prelog said in the statement.

U.S. representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, agreed with Mr. Aguilar and Ms. Stein.

“Investors and the American public are greatly disserved when our regulators throw away valuable enforcement tools and adopt a policy of ‘too-big to bar,’” Ms. Waters said in a statement, adding that said she will work with other Democratic lawmakers on legislation that “sends a strong message to the markets that wrongdoers like Oppenheimer will be sufficiently held accountable for their misdeeds.”

Oppenheimer has settled at least 30 separate cases with regulators since 2005, according to Mr. Aguilar and Ms. Stein’s statement. In 2010, the firm agreed to pay $31 million to investors to settle the New York Attorney General’s claims it misrepresented the safety of auction-rate securities. The firm agreed in 2013 to pay $675,000 to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. to settle claims that it charged unfair prices to customers buying municipal securities.

Finra Rule for BrokerDealers Cause Confusion

Brokerdealer.com blog update courtesy of JDSupra Business Advisor.Finra

The number of independent brokerdealers has continually decreased due to low interest rate. Many of these brokerdealers have joined up with already established financial firms and that’s where things get murky. Finra’s rule 1017 has caused a lot of confusion, this hopefully will help clear it up.

M&A transactions involving regulated broker-dealers often require Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) approval under NASD Rule 1017. Such approval is required for any direct or indirect acquisition by a broker-dealer of another broker-dealer,1 change in control of a broker-dealer or “material change in business operations” of a broker-dealer.

Rule 1017 has gained prominence in light of recent consolidation within the independent broker-dealer industry, which experienced a decrease in broker-dealers registered as members of FINRA from 4,905 in 2008 to 4,105 as of October 2014.2 The consolidation has been driven by low interest rates (which have harmed independent broker-dealers by decreasing revenues from lending on margin) and difficult business conditions following the credit crisis. At the same time, the requirements of Dodd-Frank and other new regulations have imposed additional compliance costs on independent broker-dealers.

The timing and ultimate outcome of the Rule 1017 process are often critical factors in broker-dealer M&A transactions. Participants in broker-dealer M&A transactions may be unable, without FINRA assistance, to determine whether a transaction requires approval under Rule 1017. If Rule 1017 approval is required, uncertainties as to the likely timing for approval may further complicate the transaction.

Scope of Rule 1017 in the Context of M&A Transactions

A FINRA member broker-dealer that undergoes any of the changes described in Rule 1017 is required to file an application for FINRA’s approval under the rule. Some common examples of transactions requiring Rule 1017 approval include:

  • acquisition or disposition of a controlling block of the equity securities of a broker-dealer, or of an equity interest that represents less than a controlling interest but 25 percent or more of the outstanding equity securities of the broker-dealer;
  • acquisition or disposition of an asset management firm that includes a broker-dealer subsidiary or affiliate (such as a hedge fund management firm that uses a broker-dealer subsidiary to trade securities and/or raise capital for its funds and other products); and
  • acquisition or disposition of assets that will materially change the business operations of the acquiring and/or disposing broker-dealer, such as may be encountered in the acquisition of a material amount of revenues attributable to sales of securities (e.g., mutual funds).

FINRA approval is required as a condition to closing each of the foregoing types of transactions and, in many cases, requires a longer period of time than any other closing condition — thus becoming the “critical path” to completing the deal.

For the entire article, click here