Total Pageviews

Support Weakens for Dell Founder’s Offer

A special committee of Dell’s directors is likely to put off a vote on the computer company’s proposed $24.4 billion sale to its founder that is scheduled for Thursday morning, amid stronger signs of rejection by shareholders.

Shareholders representing roughly 30 percent of Dell shares were arrayed against the leveraged buyout as of Wednesday evening, a person briefed on the matter said. They include money management firms like BlackRock, the State Street Corporation and the Vanguard Group.

Investors still have about 12 hours to vote, meaning that number could rise even higher. The deal faces a high hurdle to succeed: more than 42 percent of shares must be cast in favor of the deal, with abstentions counting as no votes.

The list of dissident investors extends far beyond Carl C. Icahn and the asset management firm Southeastern Asset Management, who together own about 12.7 percent of Dell stock.

That level of opposition makes it likely that the Dell board committee will postpone the vote by several days, people briefed on the matter said. Other related matters, including the record date by which shareholders must have owned shares to participate in the vote, have not yet been settled, one of these people said.

Even the deal’s endorsement by prominent shareholder advisory companies, like Institutional Shareholder Services, appears to have had less effect than the buyers and the board expected.

An adjournment is likely to prolong the gamesmanship that has taken hold over the fate of the computer maker, which agreed to sell itself to Michael S. Dell and the investment firm Silver Lake for $13.65 a share. By giving itself a few extra days, the committee is hoping to either persuade Mr. Dell and Silver Lake to raise their offer or declare that the current bid is best and final.

Since the transaction was announced, many investors have criticized the price as too cheap. That opposition eventually drew the support of Mr. Icahn, who has loudly decried the proposed bid and the ability of Mr. Dell to turn the company around.

Mr. Icahn and Southeastern have offered many alternatives, the most recent of which would have the company buy back 1.1 billion shares for $14 each and offer shareholders the right to buy stock at $20 each. That values Dell at $15.50 to $18 a share.

On Wednesday, Mr. Icahn needled the Dell directors who refused to endorse his proposal.

“I think most of these boards are completely dysfunctional,” he said. “But I’ve never seen one as bad as this. I really mean it â€" where they actually go out and scare their own shareholders.”

Advisers to both the Dell committee and would-be buyers believe that many investors are betting that additional pressure will force Mr. Dell to raise his group’s bid. He caved once before, agreeing to concessions that raised the leveraged buyout offer to $13.65 a share from $13.60.

But people close to the buyers’ group say no similar bump is likely. They note Dell’s declining earnings, an increasingly dire outlook from analysts on the personal computer industry and the rising cost of debt financing.

By some calculations, a 25-cent increase in the offer could require about $400 million in new equity.

The Dell committee has sounded an alarm about what might happen to the company’s shares if the buyout fails. Calculations by its investors estimate that Dell’s shares could fall below $9 if the deal disappeared.

Dell’s shares closed on Wednesday at $12.88, down more than 1 percent.



What Icahn Has to Say

Carl C. Icahn is not only one of the busiest investors on Wall Street, he is also one of the most quotable.

Mr. Icahn’s wit was on display on Wednesday at the Delivering Alpha conference hosted by CNBC and Institutional Investor in Manhattan. The 77-year-old investor, with a close-shorn beard, discussed his fight over Dell, his brawl over Herbalife and even his domestic life. At one point, he tried out an English accent.

The only time Mr. Icahn restrained this blizzard of language was to alter the phrase “pile of …” to end with “absurdity” rather than a word that cannot be spoken on live television (though that hasn’t stopped him in the past).

Here are some of Mr. Icahn’s memorable lines from Wednesday’s session, by topic:

Dell

Shareholders of Dell are scheduled to vote on Thursday on a $24.4 billion buyout offer from Michael S. Dell, the company’s founder, and the investment firm Silver Lake. Mr. Icahn, a major shareholder, has been vocal in his opposition.

Dell’s board, which supports the buyout, has argued that the company’s business is deteriorating.

“I’ve been through a lot of these fights. I’m a cynic about corporate democracy and boards. I think most of these boards are completely dysfunctional,” Mr. Icahn said. “But I’ve never seen one as bad as this. I really mean it â€" where they actually go out and scare their own shareholders.”

“We definitely do” have a candidate in mind to be chief executive of Dell, Mr. Icahn said. “We’re going to do whatever it takes to get someone.”

“There is no corporate democracy in this country,” he continued. Dell is “a sad, sad commentary on it.”

“I believe this will go to a proxy fight, and I believe I can win a proxy fight,” he said.

His Rivals

Mr. Icahn had choice words for the prominent short-seller James S. Chanos, who also spoke at the conference.

“With all honesty, I think I have a much better record than he has,” Mr. Icahn said.

Ultimately, the point was less about Mr. Chanos than it was about Mr. Icahn’s professed distaste for selling companies short.

“Here’s what Chanos misses,” Mr. Icahn said. “These companies can be turned around if you put the right management in and the right board in.”

Mr. Icahn also took aim at the hedge fund manager William A. Ackman, who runs Pershing Square Capital Management. Mr. Ackman has made a large bet against the nutritional supplements company Herbalife, and Mr. Icahn is on the other side of that bet. The grudge between the two goes back many years.

The interviewer at the conference, Scott Wapner of CNBC, said Mr. Ackman had sent in a statement, which referred to his investment in Canadian Pacific Railway.

“I wanted to be here today, but I’m at a board meeting in Canada,” Mr. Ackman said, according to Mr. Wapner. “I have a railroad to run.”

Mr. Icahn had a riposte: “Well, if he runs the railroad I wouldn’t want to be on it.”

Later, Mr. Ackman delivered a counterattack in another statement read by Mr. Wapner: “Please tell Mr. Icahn that his specially equipped Canadian Pacific railcar is waiting outside for him.”

Herbalife

Mr. Icahn said he had not “sold a share” of Herbalife. “In fact, we bought more.”

The stock has climbed since Mr. Icahn built his position earlier this year. That has been a negative development for Mr. Ackman, who announced his bold bet in December.

“I like Ackman,” Mr. Icahn said. “I’ll tell you why I like him. Anyone that makes me a quarter of a billion I like.”

But is the stock the “mother of all short squeezes,” as Mr. Icahn once declared, referring to a situation in which short-sellers are forced out of their positions?

“I think it’s the daughter of all short squeezes already,” Mr. Icahn said.

Domestic Bliss

You are not about to see Mr. Icahn relaxing on a golf course. He is as active as ever. “What else do I have to do?” he said on Wednesday.

“My wife watches me like a hawk,” he said of Gail Golden, explaining that she is a minor investor in his fund.

“At night, she looks over the numbers, and she’s like, ‘How come you went down today?’” Mr. Icahn said.

“Then, she starts mumbling about shareholders’ rights,” he said. “She’s forcing me to do this.”



What Icahn Has to Say

Carl C. Icahn is not only one of the busiest investors on Wall Street, he is also one of the most quotable.

Mr. Icahn’s wit was on display on Wednesday at the Delivering Alpha conference hosted by CNBC and Institutional Investor in Manhattan. The 77-year-old investor, with a close-shorn beard, discussed his fight over Dell, his brawl over Herbalife and even his domestic life. At one point, he tried out an English accent.

The only time Mr. Icahn restrained this blizzard of language was to alter the phrase “pile of …” to end with “absurdity” rather than a word that cannot be spoken on live television (though that hasn’t stopped him in the past).

Here are some of Mr. Icahn’s memorable lines from Wednesday’s session, by topic:

Dell

Shareholders of Dell are scheduled to vote on Thursday on a $24.4 billion buyout offer from Michael S. Dell, the company’s founder, and the investment firm Silver Lake. Mr. Icahn, a major shareholder, has been vocal in his opposition.

Dell’s board, which supports the buyout, has argued that the company’s business is deteriorating.

“I’ve been through a lot of these fights. I’m a cynic about corporate democracy and boards. I think most of these boards are completely dysfunctional,” Mr. Icahn said. “But I’ve never seen one as bad as this. I really mean it â€" where they actually go out and scare their own shareholders.”

“We definitely do” have a candidate in mind to be chief executive of Dell, Mr. Icahn said. “We’re going to do whatever it takes to get someone.”

“There is no corporate democracy in this country,” he continued. Dell is “a sad, sad commentary on it.”

“I believe this will go to a proxy fight, and I believe I can win a proxy fight,” he said.

His Rivals

Mr. Icahn had choice words for the prominent short-seller James S. Chanos, who also spoke at the conference.

“With all honesty, I think I have a much better record than he has,” Mr. Icahn said.

Ultimately, the point was less about Mr. Chanos than it was about Mr. Icahn’s professed distaste for selling companies short.

“Here’s what Chanos misses,” Mr. Icahn said. “These companies can be turned around if you put the right management in and the right board in.”

Mr. Icahn also took aim at the hedge fund manager William A. Ackman, who runs Pershing Square Capital Management. Mr. Ackman has made a large bet against the nutritional supplements company Herbalife, and Mr. Icahn is on the other side of that bet. The grudge between the two goes back many years.

The interviewer at the conference, Scott Wapner of CNBC, said Mr. Ackman had sent in a statement, which referred to his investment in Canadian Pacific Railway.

“I wanted to be here today, but I’m at a board meeting in Canada,” Mr. Ackman said, according to Mr. Wapner. “I have a railroad to run.”

Mr. Icahn had a riposte: “Well, if he runs the railroad I wouldn’t want to be on it.”

Later, Mr. Ackman delivered a counterattack in another statement read by Mr. Wapner: “Please tell Mr. Icahn that his specially equipped Canadian Pacific railcar is waiting outside for him.”

Herbalife

Mr. Icahn said he had not “sold a share” of Herbalife. “In fact, we bought more.”

The stock has climbed since Mr. Icahn built his position earlier this year. That has been a negative development for Mr. Ackman, who announced his bold bet in December.

“I like Ackman,” Mr. Icahn said. “I’ll tell you why I like him. Anyone that makes me a quarter of a billion I like.”

But is the stock the “mother of all short squeezes,” as Mr. Icahn once declared, referring to a situation in which short-sellers are forced out of their positions?

“I think it’s the daughter of all short squeezes already,” Mr. Icahn said.

Domestic Bliss

You are not about to see Mr. Icahn relaxing on a golf course. He is as active as ever. “What else do I have to do?” he said on Wednesday.

“My wife watches me like a hawk,” he said of Gail Golden, explaining that she is a minor investor in his fund.

“At night, she looks over the numbers, and she’s like, ‘How come you went down today?’” Mr. Icahn said.

“Then, she starts mumbling about shareholders’ rights,” he said. “She’s forcing me to do this.”



Hear That? It’s Your Financial Adviser Tweeting.

Judging by his Facebook page, it would seem that Jeffrey E. Blum experienced a surge of patriotic inspiration around July 4. Mr. Blum, a financial adviser, posted no fewer than 12 updates with good wishes and trivia about the holiday.

But the messages â€" “The 4th of July wasn’t declared a national holiday until 1941,” for example â€" were not written by him. Mr. Blum, 53, who is based in Westlake Village, Calif., was testing a social media program that his firm, Raymond James Financial, views as a potential source of new business.

Raymond James plans to announce on Thursday that it will use software from Hearsay Social, a start-up company based in San Francisco, to help its thousands of financial advisers use Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. The effort is among the more extensive efforts by a financial firm to mine the benefits of social media.

The Hearsay software will be available to Raymond James’s more than 5,400 financial advisers in the United States. It will let them post from a library of prewritten material, as well as compose their own messages, which will be vetted before publication. The program also includes a feature to let advisers “listen” to activity on their social networks.

This is the second major foray into social media for Raymond James, which initiated a similar program in 2011. That effort covered about 2,000 financial advisers and used software from Actiance, a Hearsay rival based in Belmont, Calif., which continues to have a relationship with Raymond James.

“The way advisers communicate with their clients has really transformed,” said Mike White, the chief marketing officer of Raymond James, which is based in St. Petersburg, Fla. “While the core of their business is not dependent on social media, their clients are increasingly expecting everyone they do business with to communicate that way.”

For financial firms, the promises, and perils, of social media have presented challenges. Regulations require firms like Raymond James to monitor and archive their employees’ postings, making a spontaneous social media experience all but out of the question. Some firms have banned certain platforms like Facebook altogether in the workplace.

Hearsay and its rivals have found a niche in helping highly regulated corporations navigate this fast-paced world. Financial advisers with Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, for instance, use software from Socialware, a start-up based in Austin, Tex., to post preapproved messages to Twitter and find prospects on LinkedIn.

Such regulated postings â€" with their tendency to appear stiff and impersonal â€" have drawn mockery online. Even in the new Raymond James program, the corporate scaffolding was easily identifiable when a second financial adviser, David W. Adams, who is based in Nashville, posted some of the same holiday messages as Mr. Blum.

Joshua M. Brown, a financial adviser with Fusion Analytics who is active on Twitter and on his blog, said social media policies using preapproved messages were not worth the trouble.

“The firms that get it are the firms that allow their brokers to be human,” Mr. Brown said.

Still, Raymond James and Hearsay say their system is relatively flexible and easy to use. Financial advisers using the software can post from their mobile devices and personal computers, in addition to their computers at work.

Clara Shih, the chief executive of Hearsay, says her software has advantages that rivals’ lack.

“The canned responses from corporate miss the mark on social media,” Ms. Shih said. “This is really the first time that a major broker-dealer is coming out and saying compliance is not enough.”

Financial advisers say social media helps, but only up to a point. Mr. Blum of Raymond James, who manages about $70 million, said LinkedIn and Facebook could deepen client relationships and help him stay visible.

Having a library of ready content, he said, is useful, whether it’s about the Fourth of July or retirement planning.

“I don’t necessarily see it as a way to actually bring me direct business,” Mr. Blum said. “I see it as a way to broaden my reach.”



In Tourre Trial, S.E.C. Wages Battle Against Its Own Witness

The Securities and Exchange Commission had hoped to use Paolo Pellegrini, a chief architect of one of the most lucrative hedge fund bets in history, to buttress its case against Fabrice Tourre, a former Goldman Sachs trader charged with defrauding investors in a complex mortgage security.

But on Wednesday, Mr. Pellegrini did his best to try and dynamite the government’s case. At one point, he apparently contradicted testimony he had previously given in a deposition with S.E.C. lawyers, leading to a terse exchange on the witness stand.

Mr. Pellegrini’s role in helping Paulson & Company earn $1 billion by betting against home loans through an investment assembled in part by Mr. Tourre made him an ideal witness for the government’s side. The S.E.C. had been hoping to use the hedge fund executive to show that the onetime Goldman employee failed to let investors in the mortgage security know that Paulson & Company was actually betting against them.

That plan was thrown into disarray during several hours of combative testimony on Wednesday, as Mr. Pellegrini â€" who had already proved a difficult presence â€" repeatedly accused the agency of trying to trick and intimidate him.

In perhaps the most striking moment of the trial so far, the witness asserted that he had informed an executive at the bond insurer ACA, one of the purported victims of the failed investment, that his then-employer did in fact intend on betting against the mortgage deal.

That led to the first of several battles between Mr. Pellegrini and Matthew Martens, the S.E.C.’s lead lawyer in the case, over what the hedge fund executive had previously testified under oath. Mr. Martens, his voice tight and arms crossed over his chest, repeatedly read back Mr. Pellegrini’s previous claim that he could not recall telling ACA of Paulson & Company’s intentions.

Mr. Pellegrini, fixing an unblinking stare at his questioner, instead contended that he used those words “under pressure” from the S.E.C. and its “hostile questions.” He subsequently explained that he intentionally took a more careful and vague approach during the deposition because he was concerned that the agency was trying to deceive him.

“You are tricking me into saying so many things,” Mr. Pellegrini declared on the witness stand at one point. At another, he said, “It depends on what you mean by factual knowledge.”

The change of heart could cut against a core assertion of the S.E.C. that Mr. Tourre had failed to tell ACA and another investor that the mortgage security at the heart of the case was constructed in large part by a hedge fund betting against its success. In a court filing from March, the agency quoted Mr. Pellegrini as saying that he had trouble meeting with potential partners if he made it known that he would bet against them. A number of e-mails presented in court on Wednesday suggested that Mr. Pellegrini’s boss, the hedge fund billionaire John Paulson, and one adviser were aware of the troubles that publicizing the bet against mortgages would pose.

An executive at ACA has testified that executives at Goldman and at Paulson had failed to make the true nature of the hedge fund’s interest known.

But Mr. Pellegrini insisted repeatedly in court that he had informed several potential business partners that Paulson & Company intended on betting against securities built on home loans, depicting a firm whose motivations should have been well-known in the investment community. At one point, he suggested that his memory was jogged in part by helpful instruction from the presiding judge in the case, Katherine B. Forrest.

Barely veiled contempt colored many of the exchanges between Mr. Pellegrini and Mr. Martens. When the S.E.C. lawyer asked the witness to find a particular section of a document, Mr. Pellegrini leaned back in his chair, casually sipped from a cup of water, and drily asked, “Do you mind locating it for me?”

During a break in proceedings, Mr. Martens told Judge Forrest that he thought the hedge fund executive’s claims to have been pressured by his office was “garbage.”



JPMorgan in Talks to Settle Energy Manipulation Case for $500 Million

JPMorgan Chase is aiming to settle accusations it devised “manipulative schemes” that transformed “money-losing power plants into powerful profit centers,” according to people briefed on the matter, a deal that is expected to cost the bank, the nation’s largest, about $500 million.

The bank and the regulator of the nation’s energy markets are still negotiating a potential fine, the people said, though the most recent talks have indicated that the bank will pay about $500 million. That figure could shift as the two sides inch closer to a settlement, a potential record for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC.

The accusations against JPMorgan surfaced in a confidential government document, reviewed by The New York Times, that outlined a pattern of illegal trading in trading in California and Michigan electric markets. The document also claimed one of JPMorgan’s most senior executives gave “false and misleading statements” under oath.

Investigators for the regulator sent the document to the bank in March, warning that they intended to recommend that the agency pursue an action against JPMorgan and the executive, Blythe Masters. The bank replied to the accusations in mid-May, the people briefed on the matter said, ultimately leading to settlement talks in recent weeks.

A settlement could be welcome news for the bank as it faces a swirl of regulatory investigations. After suffering a $6 billion trading loss last year, the bank became the subject of several federal investigations. Banking regulators are also weighing new enforcement actions against the bank for the way it collected credit card debt.

It is unclear whether the energy regulator will pursue a separate action against Ms. Masters, known for developing complex financial instruments like derivatives that played a role in the financial crisis.

A spokeswoman for the bank declined to comment. FERC also declined to comment.

For the energy regulator, it would be the latest in a string of actions against big banks. On Tuesday, FERC ordered Barclays to pay a $470 million penalty for suspected manipulation of energy markets in California and other Western states by some of its traders. The bank is fighting the charges.

The prospect of a deal with JPMorgan Chase was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.



Activist Peltz Urges Merger of PepsiCo and Mondelez

The activist investor Nelson Peltz said on Wednesday that he would seek a merger of PepsiCo and Mondelez International, going public with his plans after months of speculation.

Mr. Peltz, whose Trian Fund Management has quietly amassed a stake of more than $2.7 billion in the two companies, urged Pepsi to merge with Mondelez and then spin off its beverage business, creating a new snack food giant that would combine the Frito-Lay brands with Cadbury, Oreo and Nabisco.

Investors appeared receptive to the plan, which Mr. Peltz announced on Wednesday at the Delivering Alpha conference in Manhattan, sponsored by CNBC and Institutional Investor. Pepsi’s stock was up about 0.5 percent in afternoon trading to above $84 a share, while shares of Mondelez, the snack business spun off by Kraft last year, rose more than 2.5 percent to above $30.

Mr. Peltz, who said he had been in discussions with Pepsi’s management, proposed that Pepsi acquire Mondelez in an all-stock transaction worth $35 to $38 a share. Then, he said, he would like to see the company pay a dividend worth 20 percent of the market value before spinning off the beverage business.

“Pepsi is at a crossroads at this point in time,” Mr. Peltz said. “They’ve got a cash business, and they’ve got a growth business.”

The effort is among the most prominent activist campaigns waged by Mr. Peltz, an investor with years of experience in the food and beverage industry. His firm disclosed in April that it owned stakes in Pepsi and Mondelez, fueling speculation about Mr. Peltz’s intentions.

A combined Pepsi-Mondelez would likely be the largest snack food company in the world, a sweet and salty empire with significant reach in emerging markets. Pepsi had a market value of $129.9 billion as of Tuesday’s close; Mondelez was valued at $53.3 billion.

A merger would present a fresh opportunity for Mondelez, whose shares have languished since the separation from Kraft in October. The company, which is based in Deerfield, Ill., has failed to meet its own target for revenue growth.

For Pepsi, which is based in Purchase, N.Y., and derives most of its sales from North America, a deal would offer increased access to emerging markets. But spinning off the beverage business would eliminate an element of diversification that is a hallmark of the company.

Any combination would likely be complicated, given the two companies’ range of products and differing distribution models, analysts have said. In addition, a merger agreement could potentially raise antitrust concerns.

For Mr. Peltz, this is familiar turf. The investor began in 2007 a campaign to improve Kraft, gaining representation on the board. He later supported Kraft’s breakup into grocery and snack food companies.

The talk surrounding Mondelez has attracted other prominent investors. The hedge fund manager William A. Ackman, who runs Pershing Square Capital Management, recently disclosed a stake in the snack food company, as did Ralph V. Whitworth of Relational Investors.



A Lifeline to a Brazilian Billionaire Would Be Risky

A bailout of billionaire Eike Batista would look bad for Brazil. Whiffs of cronyism hang over reports that state development bank BNDES has eased debt terms for the once high-flying tycoon. Taxpayers already have up to $4.7 billion wagered on his collapsing empire. If Brasilia risks more to save a pampered tycoon, it had better be prepared for another round of street protests.

The flamboyant billionaire once called BNDES “the best bank in the world.” Now he may have even more reason to think so. Daily newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo reported that the bank is voluntarily softening the loan conditions for his heavily indebted group of companies. BNDES, Mr. Batista’s largest creditor, has denied any favoritism. Still, it would not be the first time the government has come to the entrepreneur’s aid.

As recently as April, when Mr. Batista’s financial woes were already clear, BNDES agreed to a generous $464 million loan to his mining company which was free of interest or principal payments for 12 months. Even Petrobras, the state-controlled rival of Mr. Batista’s oil explorer OGX, was deployed to lend a helping hand by offering contracts to the EBX group.

It is not hard to see why Brasilia would want Mr. Batista to thrive. His projects dovetailed perfectly with national priorities. For instance, his OGX explorer promised to help turn Brazil into a big oil exporter. One Batista company, OSX, fit with the government’s goal of rebuilding Brazil’s once powerful shipbuilding industry. Yet another, LLX, was to give the nation a modern port - another government goal. And there would be plenty of new jobs in the bargain.

Of course, Mr. Batista’s fall wouldn’t take BNDES down. Exposure to the EBX Group accounts for less than 6 percent of the bank’s regulatory capital, according to a July report from Bank of America. Since much of the bank’s loans are backed by Mr. Batista’s assets, any loss will likely be manageable - perhaps as little as $222 million, which is the uncollateralized portion of the debt, according to a report in newspaper Folha de S. Paulo.

Even so, President Dilma Rousseff can’t afford to create an impression of throwing good money after bad to help a still-wealthy industrialist. Government waste and corruption were at the heart of June’s massive street demonstrations. With Brazilians complaining over rising bus fares and sub-standard public services, few will want to throw the weight of the state behind an already pampered billionaire.

( Guillermo Parra-Bernal contributed reporting.)

Christopher Swann is a columnist at Reuters Breakingviews. For more independent commentary and analysis, visit breakingviews.com.



How to Make Poison Pills Palatable

Eric Posner and Glen Weyl are professors at the University of Chicago, Mr. Posner in the law school and Mr. Weyl in the department of economics.

Last month, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation divided into two entities and inserted shareholder rights plans, or “poison pills,” in their charters to shield them from hostile takeovers.

Shareholder activists are up in arms. The poison pill “is one more tool to entrench management,” one activist told The Financial Times when News Corp. first announced its plan. The problem, however, is not the existence of poison pills but their design: a more carefully designed poison pill would address activists’ concerns while preventing abusive takeovers.

A poison pill deters takeovers typically by giving existing shareholders (including management) the right to buy and vote additional shares at reduced price when a takeover is initiated. It was invented in the 1980s in reaction to a wave of corporate takeovers. Managers disliked takeovers because they frequently lost their jobs in the resulting reorganization, and argued that takeovers disrupted a firm’s operations, caused layoffs, and destroyed shareholder value. Shareholder activists replied that managers used poison pills to entrench their positions at shareholders’ expense.

Because of widespread fears of “barbarians at the gates,” managers ultimately had their way. But given that both sides have advanced reasonable arguments, reform should aim not to eliminate poison pills but to redesign them to address both sets of concerns.

We propose a device that will advance just this goal. In our academic work, we have argued that a voting procedure called “quadratic vote buying” should be used to improve corporate governance. Under this procedure, shareholders pay for their votes, and can cast as many votes as they want at a price equal to the square of the number of votes they cast. The proposal is fairly radical and may take some time to implement. But a more modest version could be applied just to poison pills.

Under our approach, the corporate charter of a firm would provide that when an outside shareholder starts a takeover attempt, existing shareholders would have the right to buy votes for or against the takeover. The price that shareholders must pay is the square of the number of votes they cast, so one vote costs $1, two votes cost $4, and so on. Votes would be aggregated and then resolved by majority rule.

For example, if one shareholder buys four votes in favor of a takeover at cost of $16, and another buys five votes against the takeover at cost of $25, the takeover would be voted down (5-4). The funds would be paid into the corporate treasury, and hence ultimately distributed back to the shareholders albeit on a per-share basis, so if the shareholders each own one share, they receive $20.50 each.

Quadratic vote buying, or Q.V.B., aggregates shareholders’ independent judgments as to the advisability of the merger, taking into account the level of intensity with which they care about the outcome. As a result, the takeover can take place only if it maximizes shareholder value.

Why does this work so well? The answer, as one of us (Glen) has proven in an academic paper, is that Q.V.B. forces the voter to pay a price per vote equal to the number of votes she buys, and therefore gives her an incentive to buy votes in proportion to her marginal benefit from influencing the takeover decision. This is economics jargon but the underlying intuition is easy to understand. Q.V.B., unlike ordinary voting, forces people to pay a lot if they care a lot about the takeover decision, and a little if they care only a little. This enables people with strong views to exert more influence on the outcome than people with weak views, but only if they compensate others at an increasingly high price that is commensurate with their greater influence over the outcome of the vote.

By contrast, if a takeover is put to a regular vote, outsiders can exploit the passivity of most shareholders to obtain a controlling stake and thereby to transfer resources from remaining shareholders to themselves.

Q.V.B. differs in detail rather than in kind from standard poison pills. Under News Corp.’s poison pill, when someone buys 15 percent of the company’s voting shares, existing shareholders have the right to buy stock at half its existing price. Beyond the obvious arbitrariness of a 15 rather than 10 or 20 percent threshold, and half rather than a quarter or two-thirds price, this system has the unfortunate side effect of allowing existing managers to buy shares, and thus votes, more cheaply than the acquirers, and thereby block a takeover that benefits most shareholders.

This is why shareholder activists oppose poison pills. Under Q.V.B., such exploitation would be impossible because the managers would be forced to pay the same quadratic price as anyone else. And yet in the context of poison pills, where voting rules are already adjusted according to the corporate charter in order to fend off takeovers, Q.V.B. seems like a difference in degree rather than kind, and thus ought to be taken seriously by corporate boards.

An even simpler version of could also be used. Under what we have called “square root voting,” or S.R.V., every shareholder may cast a number of votes equal to the square root of the number of shares she owns. S.R.V. is functionally nearly identical to Q.V.B., but avoids the need to redistribute funds, and so is a less radical departure from ordinary corporate governance norms.

Q.V.B. and S.R.V. remove the toxins in poison pills without giving immunity to incompetent management. If management is good for the company, takeovers will be voted down. If not, takeovers will be approved. These devices would be an antidote to many of the woes of corporate governance.



Chanos Makes Bet Against Caterpillar

Shares of Caterpillar tumbled on Wednesday after the prominent short-seller James S. Chanos said he was betting against the company.

Caterpillar, the giant construction equipment maker, has been an investor favorite over the years, a point Mr. Chanos acknowledged. But he said the company was vulnerable to movements in commodity prices and had questionable accounting.

The stock fell more than 2 percent in early afternoon trading on Wednesday, dipping below $86 a share, before rebounding slightly. Mr. Chanos, an investor who bet against Enron before it collapsed, was speaking at the Delivering Alpha conference in Manhattan, sponsored by CNBC and Institutional Investor.

“Caterpillar, while an amazing American success story down through the decades, is going to be facing a series of super commodity headwinds,” said Mr. Chanos, the founder of Kynikos Associates. “There’s probably long-term to medium-term disappointment for the bulls in this stock.”

The company is particularly exposed to commodity price swings in China, where it does a significant amount of business, Mr. Chanos said. Caterpillar is a chief supplier of equipment to the mining industry.

In addition, Mr. Chanos raised questions about Caterpillar’s accounting, focusing on its $7.6 billion acquisition of Bucyrus that closed in 2011. He suggested Caterpillar may have been too aggressive in how it accounted for the transaction.

“Whenever you see a company claim earnings synergies when buying another company and then write down its net assets to below zero, you have to say either that company never earned money or you’re being overly aggressive in your acquisition accounting,” Mr. Chanos said.

“You know that’s one of my favorites,” Mr. Chanos said. “Looking at companies that write down net tangible assets to zero or negative when they buy a company.”

A Caterpillar spokesman declined to comment on Mr. Chanos’s argument.



Heartening Moves Toward Real Progress in Bank Regulation

With their simultaneous display of hubris, remorselessness, incompetence and corruption, the banks have finally ignited a modicum of courage in banking regulators.

The postcrisis bad behavior â€" reckless trading at a JPMorgan Chase unit in London, the rampant mortgage modification and foreclosure abuses, manipulation of the key global interest rate benchmark â€" went just a tad too far. For the first time since the financial crisis, the banks are losing some battles on tougher regulation.

Last week, banking regulators, led by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, but including the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, proposed a rule to raise the capital at the largest, most dangerous banks.

Separately, Gary Gensler, the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who has been waging an underfunded and lonely fight to tighten the markets for those side bets called derivatives, managed to push forward a rule to regulate the complex markets. Banks and his fellow commissioners had resisted, pushing for more delay and more study. Nothing is ever killed in Washington; it’s just studied into a perpetual coma.

These moves are heartening, if only because financial regulation has been so parched in the years since the financial crisis. There are many caveats, and I will get to them. But it’s worth enumerating and celebrating some of the positives because reform advocates have been wandering this desert, searching futilely for honest regulators.

For the bank safety rules, regulators are going to require a higher capital ratio. Basel III, the international agreement on bank rules, put the rate at $3 for every $100 in assets. The new rules would raise it to $5 for the holding company, and $6 at its banking subsidiaries.

The measure is a victory for reality-based thinking in an important respect: how banks measure their assets. Under current accounting rules, assets are disclosed so poorly that banks are allowed to keep mysterious exposures out of view. Banks own pieces of businesses that reside off the balance sheet. They also make commitments using derivatives, creating obligations that are complex and difficult to quantify. The specifics of these vulnerabilities are poorly understood by everyone, including bankers themselves, but we know for sure that they can cause implosions.

Now regulators are making clear that they know what they don’t know. So in addition to traditional measures, they are also going to emphasize the “leverage ratio.” That’s good news, because the leverage ratio doesn’t allow for such accounting sleights-of-hand as adjusting the value of assets for their perceived riskiness. In that game, some investments â€" say, picking purely randomly, top-rated mortgage securities or Greek government debt â€" could be judged less risky than other assets.

The new rules’ effect will be straightforward: banks will have to raise the amount of assets they report and sell more shares or retain more earnings based on that larger number. Analysts from Credit Suisse estimate that the average increase among the biggest banks will be 36 percent.

Banks will resist these measures, crying that they make our banks less competitive globally. And there’s still plenty of time for the regulators to back away, as they so often have. That’s why reformers and some voices in Congress â€" the senators Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio; David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana; and Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, mainly â€" have done much good. By pushing for more extreme overhauls, such as much higher capital requirements or the return of Glass-Steagall, they have both pressured regulators and provided them cover.

There are caveats: the capital measures are probably not high enough. The derivatives compromise allows foreign countries to substitute their own rules if they are “comparable,” raising the fear that banks will circumvent the rules by harboring activities in the most lenient country. And finally, we still have the essential cancer of a “too big to fail” banking system that takes up too great a share of the economy and dominates our political system.

Still, it’s important to recognize incremental victories where we have them. The message from these moves is that the United States is taking the lead in global change, at long last. It may sound like a jingoistic declaration, but the United States is the most important voice on banking regulation. Just as Congressional pressure creates safety for regulators, an American push for stronger regulation might help bring the world around.

And if it doesn’t, American banks will be at a competitive advantage, the exact opposite of what bankers argue. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan, raised the ominous specter that global rules are out of “harmonization” and that United States banks are now held to a higher standard.

“We have one part of the world at two times what the other part of the world is talking about,” he said. “And I don’t think there’s any industry out there that would be comfortable with something like that in a long run.”

To rebut that, I bring in a banking expert: Jamie Dimon. This side of Mr. Dimon’s mouth has repeatedly boasted about what a competitive advantage JPMorgan’s “fortress balance sheet” is, how the bank was a port in the 2008 storm. He’s not the only one; Warren E. Buffett regularly makes the same argument about Berkshire Hathaway. Higher capital allows a company to be aggressive when others are weak.

Yes, American banks will be subject to American regulations. But the United States may well bring the rest of the world along. Small financial centers from Iceland to Ireland to Cyprus and even Switzerland have all seen how vulnerable they are to financial beasts that dwarf their economies.

If they don’t come around, so be it. Let other countries race to the bottom on regulation, setting themselves up for financial crises. By raising capital standards and installing tougher derivatives rules, regulators are helping banks that are too foolish (or rather, the top executives who are too narrowly self-interested in increasing their own compensation in the short term) to recognize their own interests.



Heartening Moves Toward Real Progress in Bank Regulation

With their simultaneous display of hubris, remorselessness, incompetence and corruption, the banks have finally ignited a modicum of courage in banking regulators.

The postcrisis bad behavior â€" reckless trading at a JPMorgan Chase unit in London, the rampant mortgage modification and foreclosure abuses, manipulation of the key global interest rate benchmark â€" went just a tad too far. For the first time since the financial crisis, the banks are losing some battles on tougher regulation.

Last week, banking regulators, led by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, but including the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, proposed a rule to raise the capital at the largest, most dangerous banks.

Separately, Gary Gensler, the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who has been waging an underfunded and lonely fight to tighten the markets for those side bets called derivatives, managed to push forward a rule to regulate the complex markets. Banks and his fellow commissioners had resisted, pushing for more delay and more study. Nothing is ever killed in Washington; it’s just studied into a perpetual coma.

These moves are heartening, if only because financial regulation has been so parched in the years since the financial crisis. There are many caveats, and I will get to them. But it’s worth enumerating and celebrating some of the positives because reform advocates have been wandering this desert, searching futilely for honest regulators.

For the bank safety rules, regulators are going to require a higher capital ratio. Basel III, the international agreement on bank rules, put the rate at $3 for every $100 in assets. The new rules would raise it to $5 for the holding company, and $6 at its banking subsidiaries.

The measure is a victory for reality-based thinking in an important respect: how banks measure their assets. Under current accounting rules, assets are disclosed so poorly that banks are allowed to keep mysterious exposures out of view. Banks own pieces of businesses that reside off the balance sheet. They also make commitments using derivatives, creating obligations that are complex and difficult to quantify. The specifics of these vulnerabilities are poorly understood by everyone, including bankers themselves, but we know for sure that they can cause implosions.

Now regulators are making clear that they know what they don’t know. So in addition to traditional measures, they are also going to emphasize the “leverage ratio.” That’s good news, because the leverage ratio doesn’t allow for such accounting sleights-of-hand as adjusting the value of assets for their perceived riskiness. In that game, some investments â€" say, picking purely randomly, top-rated mortgage securities or Greek government debt â€" could be judged less risky than other assets.

The new rules’ effect will be straightforward: banks will have to raise the amount of assets they report and sell more shares or retain more earnings based on that larger number. Analysts from Credit Suisse estimate that the average increase among the biggest banks will be 36 percent.

Banks will resist these measures, crying that they make our banks less competitive globally. And there’s still plenty of time for the regulators to back away, as they so often have. That’s why reformers and some voices in Congress â€" the senators Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio; David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana; and Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, mainly â€" have done much good. By pushing for more extreme overhauls, such as much higher capital requirements or the return of Glass-Steagall, they have both pressured regulators and provided them cover.

There are caveats: the capital measures are probably not high enough. The derivatives compromise allows foreign countries to substitute their own rules if they are “comparable,” raising the fear that banks will circumvent the rules by harboring activities in the most lenient country. And finally, we still have the essential cancer of a “too big to fail” banking system that takes up too great a share of the economy and dominates our political system.

Still, it’s important to recognize incremental victories where we have them. The message from these moves is that the United States is taking the lead in global change, at long last. It may sound like a jingoistic declaration, but the United States is the most important voice on banking regulation. Just as Congressional pressure creates safety for regulators, an American push for stronger regulation might help bring the world around.

And if it doesn’t, American banks will be at a competitive advantage, the exact opposite of what bankers argue. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan, raised the ominous specter that global rules are out of “harmonization” and that United States banks are now held to a higher standard.

“We have one part of the world at two times what the other part of the world is talking about,” he said. “And I don’t think there’s any industry out there that would be comfortable with something like that in a long run.”

To rebut that, I bring in a banking expert: Jamie Dimon. This side of Mr. Dimon’s mouth has repeatedly boasted about what a competitive advantage JPMorgan’s “fortress balance sheet” is, how the bank was a port in the 2008 storm. He’s not the only one; Warren E. Buffett regularly makes the same argument about Berkshire Hathaway. Higher capital allows a company to be aggressive when others are weak.

Yes, American banks will be subject to American regulations. But the United States may well bring the rest of the world along. Small financial centers from Iceland to Ireland to Cyprus and even Switzerland have all seen how vulnerable they are to financial beasts that dwarf their economies.

If they don’t come around, so be it. Let other countries race to the bottom on regulation, setting themselves up for financial crises. By raising capital standards and installing tougher derivatives rules, regulators are helping banks that are too foolish (or rather, the top executives who are too narrowly self-interested in increasing their own compensation in the short term) to recognize their own interests.



Statute of Limitations Is Longer, Bharara Warns

The top federal prosecutor in Manhattan has a message for financial wrongdoers: Don’t try to run out the clock.

Thanks to the Dodd-Frank Act, which turns three years old this month, prosecutors have more time to bring charges in securities fraud cases. The statute of limitations was increased to six years from five, noted Preet Bharara, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, at a conference in Manhattan on Wednesday.

“People shouldn’t be waiting for time to run out. That’s not a good way to behave,” Mr. Bharara said at the Delivering Alpha conference, which is hosted by CNBC and Institutional Investor. “I don’t even wear a watch.”

Mr. Bharara, who was interviewed by CNBC’s Jim Cramer, suggested that prosecutors have plenty of avenues to pursue financial misdeeds. His office has already secured numerous convictions in a multiyear campaign to root out insider trading on Wall Street.

In recent months, federal prosecutors and the F.B.I. have intensified their investigation of SAC Capital Advisors, the hedge fund owned by Steven A. Cohen.

While Mr. Bharara declined to discuss specific cases, he touched on the importance of bringing charges against institutions. That may seem abstract compared with prosecuting individuals, but Mr. Bharara said there are times when it is called for.

“People need to understand that there are appropriate circumstances in which institutions are blameworthy also,” Mr. Bharara said, adding that institutions “can look the other way or allow malfeasance.”

Mr. Bharara, a keynote speaker at the conference, was returning after a memorable appearance last year, when he said to a financial industry crowd: “I just want to apologize in advance that I don’t have enough subpoenas for all of you.”

The jokes this year were kept to a minimum. But Mr. Bharara â€" who said, “I like to laugh; laughing is good for the soul” â€" did revisit the subpoena theme.

“I had a lot of subpoenas, actually,” he quipped. “But on the way over here I ran into like six corrupt politicians, so…”

A feature of the government’s crackdown on insider trading has been the use of wiretap evidence, with secretly recorded phone calls. That should instill fear in wrongdoers, Mr. Bharara, said, that any method of communication could come back to haunt them.

And yet, Mr. Cramer asked, what about other technologies? Like, say, Snapchat?

“Nobody should feel comfortable,” Mr. Bharara said, “no matter what method of communication they are used to.”



In Audience at Tourre Trial, a Familiar Face

Fabrice Tourre and Brian Stoker share a bond: The Securities and Exchange Commission accused both men of fraud.

Now, as Mr. Tourre’s civil trial opened this week a year after a jury cleared Mr. Stoker, they’re sharing a courtroom.

In an unlikely appearance at the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, Mr. Stoker joined the horde of spectators swarming the trial, lending moral support to Mr. Tourre. Mr. Stoker even paid Mr. Tourre a visit at the defense table, onlookers say, introducing himself during a break in the action.

It is unclear what the two discussed, though one might imagine a kinship forming over, say, a common distaste for the S.E.C. And while he is not advising Mr. Tourre in any formal way, Mr. Stoker could offer a pointer or two on how to beat a government case.

Until the S.E.C. charged Mr. Stoker and Mr. Tourre, they would have been rivals. Mr. Stoker was a midlevel Citigroup executive and Mr. Tourre was a trader at Goldman Sachs.

The S.E.C. cases linked them, however, as two of only a few employees at big Wall Street firms to land in court over the crisis.

The cases, arguably the most prominent actions stemming from the financial crisis, are alike. Both stem from accusations that they misled investors about toxic mortgage securities.

And in both cases, their banks settled the accusations. Goldman paid a $550 million penalty without admitting or denying guilt. Citigroup agreed to a $285 million fine, though a judge has balked at the settlement, calling it “pocket change.”

In the case of Mr. Tourre, the S.E.C. contends that he and Goldman sold investors a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, a deal linked to the performance of mortgage-backed bonds, without disclosing the role a hedge fund played in creating the deal. The hedge fund, run by the billionaire John A. Paulson, was also betting against the deal. When it soured, Mr. Paulson reaped $1 billion at investors’ expense.

In turn, Mr. Tourre’s lawyers argue that synthetic C.D.O.’s. are structured such that someone needs to bet against the deals, a fact well known to the sophisticated investors who lost money. One investor bets the bonds will fail; another bets they will pay out. Goldman, the lawyers will argue, sought input from both sides when creating the deal.

In the opening arguments on Monday, Mr. Tourre’s lawyers also painted him as a scapegoat for a deal that was approved at higher rungs of Goldman.

That argument played well at Mr. Stoker’s trial. After finding him not liable, the foreman of the jury asked, “Why didn’t they go after the higher-ups rather than a fall guy?”



Morning Agenda: Bank of America Profit Surges

Bank of America reported on Wednesday that its second-quarter net income rose 63 percent to $4 billion, or 32 cents a share, compared with $2.5 billion, or 19 cents a share, in the period a year earlier. Revenue increased to $22.7 billion from $22 billion in the period a year earlier. A conference call to discuss the results is being held at 8:30 a.m.

BUYOUT POKER OVER DELL  |  Michael S. Dell is engaged in last-minute maneuvers over the company he founded, with one day remaining before shareholders are scheduled to vote on his proposed $24.4 billion buyout, DealBook’s Michael J. de la Merced reports. “A special committee of Dell’s board is poised to adjourn the vote on Thursday morning because it is concerned that the offer may be defeated by shareholders, people briefed on the matter said on Tuesday.” The directors have signaled that they would rather postpone the meeting, allowing them to elicit a higher bid from Mr. Dell and his partner, the investment firm Silver Lake, or get the buyers to declare their current offer best and final.

Mr. Dell and Silver Lake are working behind the scenes to convince shareholders that they will not raise their offer of $13.65 a share and are prepared to walk away, Mr. de la Merced reports. “The jockeying comes amid more signs that the deal faces stiff investor opposition. BlackRock, which owns a nearly 4.5 percent stake, has voted no, according to one of the people briefed on the matter. And the mutual fund manager T. Rowe Price, which owns a 4 percent stake, said publicly on Monday that it remained opposed to the deal.”

WHEN AN EXECUTIVE TURNS BUYOUT ADVISER  |  “Here’s one way to gain an edge in deal-making: Hire the former chief executive of the company you want to buy to advise you,” Steven M. Davidoff writes in the Deal Professor column. “What may seem to be a real advantage, however, can turn out to be a problem, as demonstrated in recent litigation arising from the $3.7 billion buyout of the industrial machinery maker Gardner Denver.”

“The use of a former top executive raises many of the same questions that occur when a management-led buyout is on the table. Does a former insider’s special knowledge and relationships give the bidder an unfair advantage to the detriment of other potential bidders â€" and to shareholders?”

AT TOURRE TRIAL, WITNESS GETS TESTY  |  Paolo Pellegrini was an architect of Paulson & Company’s audacious bet against subprime home loans in 2007. But in a federal courtroom in Manhattan on Tuesday, he professed not to know what one of the basic acronyms in the industry meant. During questioning by a government lawyer in the trial of Fabrice P. Tourre, Mr. Pellegrini said he was not sure what C.D.O., the type of security he helped construct, which is at the heart of the civil case, stood for, Mr. de la Merced reports. After minutes of verbal sparring, he conceded it might stand for “collateralized debt obligation.” The Securities and Exchange Commission had hoped Mr. Pellegrini would be one of the top witnesses of the trial.

Separately on Tuesday, the agency announced that the 23-year S.E.C. career of Kenneth R. Lench, who oversaw the commission’s case against Goldman Sachs and Mr. Tourre, was ending. He is bound for the private sector after departing at the end of July.

ON THE AGENDA  |  The Delivering Alpha conference is held in Manhattan, hosted by CNBC and Institutional Investor, with speakers including Jacob J. Lew, Preet Bharara, John A. Paulson, Nelson W. Peltz and Carl C. Icahn. Bank of New York Mellon reports earnings on Wednesday morning. American Express and eBay report results after the market closes.

BOND MARKET IS WORKING FINE  |  “There may be less reason to fear the big, bad bond market,” DealBook’s Peter Eavis writes. “In the last few days, the three big American bond-trading firms â€" JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs â€" all reported second-quarter financial results that were helped by healthy bond trading revenue. That’s somewhat remarkable considering the amount of pain in the bond market during the quarter.”

A NEAR MISS FOR CHANOS  | 
Judging by a photo that circulated on Twitter, it appears that the prominent short-seller James S. Chanos narrowly missed being in the path of a flying baseball bat at Tuesday’s All-Star Game.

Mergers & Acquisitions »

Yahoo Reports Decline in Revenue From Display and Search Advertising  |  “During her first year as chief executive of Yahoo, Marissa Mayer made big strides in changing the company’s culture. But reversing Yahoo’s declining revenue is turning out to be a far stiffer challenge,” The New York Times writes. NEW YORK TIMES

2 Hospitals in New York Agree to Merge  |  The New York Times reports: “Two major New York City hospital networks have agreed to merge, creating the largest private hospital system in the city, raising the prospect of higher prices for consumers, and positioning the new system to take advantage of coming changes under the federal health care law.” NEW YORK TIMES

Bally Technologies in $1.3 Billion Deal for Casino Games Maker  |  Bally Technologies has agreed to acquire SHFL Entertainment, which makes products like automatic card shufflers and proprietary table games and electronic gambling machines. DealBook »

Onyx May Receive Bids as Soon as This Week  | 
REUTERS

INVESTMENT BANKING »

Goldman, After Profit Doubles, Expresses Caution on Global GrowthGoldman, After Profit Doubles, Expresses Caution on Global Growth  |  The bank posted net income of $1.93 billion, or $3.70 a share, well ahead of analysts’ expectations. DealBook »

Goldman’s Not the Leader of the Wall Street Pack  |  Profit of $1.9 billion in the second quarter sounds like a return to the good old days at Goldman Sachs. But the firm has not managed to solidly outpace rivals, Antony Currie of Reuters Breakingviews writes. REUTERS BREAKINGVIEWS

Goldman Said to Offer $2.5 Billion of Bonds  |  The offering from Goldman Sachs received robust demand, with nearly $6 billion worth of orders, according to The Wall Street Journal. WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Texan Who Leads Barclays in the Americas  |  Hugh E. McGee III is “such a hard-driving guy,” Gregory Pipkin, a Lehman Brothers energy banking co-head who joined Barclays in 2008, told Bloomberg News. “The only thing we didn’t compete for: I didn’t compete for his wife, and he didn’t compete for my wife.” BLOOMBERG NEWS

What’s Concerning About Record Bank Profits  |  The prosperity of the banking industry reflects “many of the factors that got us into the financial crisis in the first place: an emphasis on trading rather than lending, a high degree of leverage, and implicit subsidies from the taxpayer,” John Cassidy writes in The New Yorker. NEW YORKER

An Identity Crisis at Morgan Stanley  |  “In Wall Street’s map of the world, the bank is in something of a no-man’s land,” Gina Chon and Simone Foxman write in Quartz. QUARTZ

PRIVATE EQUITY »

AXA Private Equity Said to Raise Bid for Elior of France  |  A group led by AXA Private Equity has increased its bid for Elior, valuing the French retailer at about $4.9 billion, according to a French newspaper, Reuters says. REUTERS

HEDGE FUNDS »

Macro Hedge Funds Make a Comeback  |  Some of the world’s best macro traders, who bet on broad patterns in global markets, have foundered in recent years. “This year, though, has seen the impasse broken: the macro hedge fund manager, blue blood of the investing world, is back,” Sam Jones writes in The Financial Times. FINANCIAL TIMES

Estimating Ackman’s Odds of Success at His Next Target  |  The hedge fund manager William A. Ackman would have a pretty good shot at agitating for change at a company like ADT, according to an analysis. A company like FedEx would be a harder target. DealBook »

Blackstone Prepares Hedge Fund Product for Retail Investors  | 
REUTERS

I.P.O./OFFERINGS »

Alibaba’s Profit Tripled in 1st Quarter  |  The Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba generated $669 million of net income in the first quarter, according to Yahoo, which owns a stake in the company. An Alibaba spokesman said the company had no timetable for an initial public offering and had not hired bankers, Bloomberg News reports. BLOOMBERG NEWS

VENTURE CAPITAL »

Technology Executive to Enter New York City Mayor’s Race  |  Jack D. Hidary, a wealthy and well-connected technology executive, “is offering himself up as a Bloomberg for the post-Bloomberg era, with a dose of personal charisma and charm the current mayor lacked when he entered politics in 2001,” The New York Times reports. NEW YORK TIMES

Investors Remain Skittish About Mobile Games  | 
ALLTHINGSD

LEGAL/REGULATORY »

Cordray Confirmed as Head of Consumer Agency  |  Republicans agreed to allow the confirmation of Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, almost two years after his nomination. NEW YORK TIMES

More Scrutiny Coming for Patent System  |  “This summer, the Federal Trade Commission is expected to begin a sweeping investigation of the patent system after the agency’s chairwoman, Edith Ramirez, urged a crackdown,” The New York Times reports. NEW YORK TIMES

Possibly Unfair, but Not Necessarily FraudulentPossibly Unfair, but Not Necessarily Fraudulent  |  Although it is natural to think that having access to information that influences the markets before others is always wrong, the laws on fraud do not go that far, Peter J. Henning writes in the White Collar Watch column. DealBook »

Ex-Broker Charged in Libor Case Responds  |  A lawyer for Terry J. Farr, a former trader who has been charged by Britain’s Serious Fraud Office with conspiracy to defraud, said he had no responsibility for setting Libor. DealBook »

A Warning Over Cyberattacks on Financial Firms  |  A report by staff of the International Organization of Securities Commissions warned that cybercrime had become more sophisticated and more difficult to stop. WALL STREET JOURNAL

Morgan Stanley Must Face Part of Insurer’s Lawsuit  |  A judge ordered Morgan Stanley to face part of a lawsuit from MetLife, which accused the bank of selling mortgage-backed securities that it knew were defective, Reuters reports. REUTERS



Barclays Vows to Fight Energy Trading Fine

LONDON â€" United States regulators have demanded that Barclays pay a record $470 million penalty for suspected manipulation of energy markets in California and other Western states by some traders, but the bank vowed to continue to contest the ruling.

The action, announced late on Tuesday by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the government watchdog that oversees the oil, natural gas and electricity industries, comes after months of wrangling with the bank.

The ruling also comes a year after Barclays was forced to pay about $450 million for its role in the rate-rigging scandal after some of its traders tried to manipulate the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, for their own financial gain.

In its ruling, the commission said Barclays employees made trades from 2006 to 2008 that were intended to alter electricity prices to benefit their own trading positions.

It included several extracts from internal e-mails that outlined the activities of some of the bank’s traders, who openly discussed how they could lower prices in one electricity market by weighing down another. Barclays employees also discussed how to prop up certain indexes by taking short-term losses in other power markets, according to the ruling.

‘‘F.E.R.C. finds that their actions demonstrate an affirmative, coordinated and intentional effort to carry out a manipulative scheme,’’ the commission said in a statement.

The agency said Barclays must pay a $435 million fine and forfeit $35 million in profits gained from the illegal activity. The combined penalty dwarfs the commission’s previous record fine of $135 million against Constellation Energy last year.

Four former Barclays traders will also have to pay a combined $18 million for their roles in the wrongdoing, according to the statement from the commission.

The commission initially brought the case against Barclays in October. The bank said at the time that it would contest the accusations.

Barclays said that it still disagreed with the regulator’s ruling and would continue to fight it. Barclays has 30 days to pay the total penalty or must defend itself against the ruling in Federal District Court.

‘‘We believe that our trading was legitimate and in compliance with applicable law,’’ the bank said in a statement on Tuesday. ‘‘We intend to vigorously defend this matter.’’

Barclays is the latest in a number of banks to try to block the growing power of the commission, which has the power to seek a penalty of up to $1 million for each day in which there is a violation of the rules intended to prevent manipulation of the energy market.

In January, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay a $1.5 million fine and surrender about $170,000 in profit related to charges that it manipulated California’s energy markets in 2010. JPMorgan Chase is also under investigation by the regulator for potential wrongdoing in certain U.S. power markets.

The energy watchdog has gained increasing power since a law was passed in the aftermath of the Enron scandal that created an enforcement branch at the agency with the authority to impose large fines.

The regulator has turned its sights on Wall Street after several large banks created energy trading desks to fill the void left by Enron.



Cadwalader to Hire a Top Adviser on Executive Pay

Months after hiring a prominent deal maker as deputy chairman, the law firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft has lured in another prominent lawyer to help bolster its business.

The firm is expected to announce on Wednesday that it has hired Steven G. Eckhaus, a specialist in executive compensation packages, as a partner. Mr. Eckhaus is joining from the law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman, where he served as the head of that firm’s executive employment practice.

The addition of Mr. Eckhaus, as well as some colleagues from Katten, will give Cadwalader a new presence in the world of executive compensation. “Our corporate and financial services sector clients will undoubtedly benefit from Steve’s unparalleled depth of experience and strategic insight,” W. Christopher White, Cadwalader’s chairman, said in a statement.

The move is the latest by Cadwalader as it continues rebuilding from the layoffs it made during the financial crisis, while seeking to climb into the top ranks of advisers. That campaign began in February with the hiring of James C. Woolery, a former senior deal maker at JPMorgan Chase who was previously a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

Mr. Woolery has said that he plans to help attract top legal talent to Cadwalader, with a special focus on certain corporate law practices like mergers and antitrust. Bringing in Mr. Eckhaus will introduce a lawyer who estimates having negotiated more than $5 billion in employment contracts and other agreements. Among his clients are the head of the New York Stock Exchange and Morgan Stanley‘s president of wealth management.

Top practitioners in the world of executive compensation can be in high demand. Adam Chinn, a star in that world who inspired the phrase “Chinn-up,” left the high-powered firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in 2007 to become a founding partner of the boutique investment bank Centerview Partners.

Cadwalader is betting that a new level of access to top executives could help open the door for Cadwalader’s other practices.

“Steve’s practice is strategic to the model the firm is implementing,” Mr. Woolery said in a statement. “He has a ‘decision maker’ practice. Every C.E.O. is focused on talent.”

For his part, Mr. Eckhaus said: “I have long admired Cadwalader’s reputation as a top tier highly focused firm with depth of expertise in the financial services and corporate sector.”