Total Pageviews

FireEye Prices I.P.O. at $20, Beating Heightened Expectations

FireEye, a provider of cybersecurity software, priced its initial public offering on Thursday at $20 a share, handily beating expectations.

Earlier this week, the company raised its price range to $15 to $17 a share.

Taking advantage of strong demand, the company also increased the number of shares that it sold in the offering by 8 percent, to 15.18 million. Over all, the stock sale raised $303.6 million, valuing the software maker at $2.3 billion.

The nine-year-old start-up is one of the latest technology companies to seek a public listing, part of a revival in a largely dormant sector for I.P.O.’s. As of last week, tech companies accounted for just 17 percent of all new offerings, the lowest percentage of all initial stock sales since 2008.

But analysts and bankers say that investors remain hungry for promising new I.P.O.’s. Earlier on Thursday, the advertising technology company Rocket Fuel priced its stock sale at the high end of an already raised range, collecting $116 million in proceeds.

FireEye is betting that its business â€" an advanced software package that protects against malicious programs â€" will prove attractive to new investors. Among its current backers are Sequoia Capital and Norwest Venture Partners.

The company reported a $35.8 million loss last year, more than double from the prior year. But its revenue jumped 147 percent, to $83.3 million.

FireEye plans to use proceeds from the sale to hire more employees and expand its business.

The offering was led by Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Barclays.



Computer Flaws Get Wry Smile From Humans Displaced

Updated, 8:50 p.m. |

After a technological breakdown froze the Nasdaq stock market for three hours last month, investors across Wall Street wrung their hands.

But Thomas H. Shafer allowed himself a bitter laugh. After all, he had forged a career as a stock exchange specialist â€" buying and selling shares to help the market function properly â€" only to have his profession sharply diminished by technology.

Now that technology was proving yet again to be a source of error. With the rise of computer-driven trading, a number of problems â€" including the “flash crash” of 2010 and the crippling computer error at the Knight Capital Group last year â€" have led investors and regulators to demand tighter safeguards. Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission asked the nation’s stock exchanges to introduce “kill switches” and other technological changes.

The mishaps have also led longtime former specialists like Mr. Shafer to reflect on the days before machines took over the market.

“There were times when the you-know-what hit the fan, and I feel we did a real good job with the human element,” Mr. Shafer, 48, said. “That’s what we were supposed to do â€" slow the process down so calmer heads can prevail.”

Mr. Shafer’s current vantage point on the markets is a world away from Van der Moolen, the specialist firm he left at the end of 2007. Having fled a dying business, he now works to reclaim a dead forest â€" running a start-up company in Maine that makes flooring out of century-old logs collected from the bottom of the Penobscot River.

Even though he works in the remote town of Millinocket, Me., Mr. Shafer still feels compelled to check the market every day. “I’m the only guy in Maine that has a BlackBerry,” he joked.

The move to computers, of course, had benefits for investors large and small, making stock trading cheaper, faster and more efficient. But each technological malfunction provides fuel for critics who argue that today’s market structure can allow digital errors to become disasters.

In the past, such accidents would not make headlines, said Charles P. Dolan, a former specialist who was a colleague of Mr. Shafer.

“I will tell you that 99 percent of those orders, we gave them the opportunity to cancel,” said Mr. Dolan, 49, who is the chief operating officer of AFScott Technology Integrators, an information technology services company in New Jersey and a member of the New Jersey State Investment Council. “That saved them millions of dollars.”

Through the 1990s, a group of firms with now largely forgotten names like Spear, Leeds & Kellogg and LaBranche & Company enjoyed a central position at the New York Stock Exchange. In times of stress, it was up to specialists to lean against the wind, acting as buyers and sellers of last resort.

The profits from this line of work could be bountiful. Specialists at the Big Board oversaw all trading in particular stocks, and they collected spreads of as much as 12.5 cents a share, represented as one-eighth of a dollar. Such princely rewards raised eyebrows.

New regulations, combined with the increased automation of the market, ushered in the extinction of the specialists.

Spreads â€" the price differences that fed specialists’ profits â€" shrank significantly after the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2001 required all stock prices to be quoted in decimals rather than fractions. The smallest possible price increment collapsed to a penny from one-sixteenth of a dollar.

At the same time, competition was increasing. Under pressure from regulators, the Big Board in December 1999 voted to eliminate a rule that prevented certain stocks listed on the exchange from trading elsewhere. And by 2007, the S.E.C. required stock orders to go to whatever exchange offered the lowest price.

Today, only about 20 percent of stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange actually trade there, compared with around 80 percent in 2004, according to data from the Tabb Group, a research and advisory firm.

In place of specialists, so-called designated market makers are now in charge of smoothing volatility at the Big Board, with technology that lets them handle 10 times as many stocks as the specialists once did.

A little more than 100 of these market makers work on the exchange floor, according to a person briefed on the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity. That compares with about 440 specialists a decade ago.

The dominant force in the market is now high-frequency trading. Such firms accounted for more than half of the shares traded in the United States last year, compared with about a fourth in 2006, according to the Tabb Group.

Even former specialists acknowledge that change was probably inevitable. William J. Nelson Jr., a former specialist with Bear Wagner Specialists, described the process as “Paul Bunyan versus the chain saw.”

“We were no longer making markets. We were really just moving the mouse around to run the programs making the markets,” said Mr. Nelson, who co-founded Valuation Metrics, a San Francisco-based firm that helps companies find investors, after leaving Bear Wagner in 2009.

Mr. Nelson, 47, was able to harness advanced technology in his second career, buying the rights to software that his company uses to analyze investment portfolios.

For many, the emotions are still raw. John J. Conklin III, who had the unpleasant task of cutting jobs when he was president of Bank of America’s specialist unit, wrote a barb-filled essay for TheStreet.com in the wake of the flash crash in 2010, saying lawmakers and regulators had “sold their souls” in pursuit of faster trading.

And yet, the beneficiaries of the new system extol its virtues.

“You’ve gone from the jock culture that used to dominate the trading pits to more of a geek culture,” said Manoj Narang, the chief executive of Tradeworx, a high-frequency trading firm in New Jersey. “It’s entirely different individuals, and there’s a lot of sour grapes as a result of that.”

Mr. Shafer now pursues a different life. He has traded his Audi luxury sedan for a Ford pickup truck. Instead of a suit, he now wears an industrial uniform supplied by UniFirst.

Late last month, on a trip to New York, Mr. Shafer returned to his old haunts. He stopped by Bobby Van’s Steakhouse near the stock exchange, exchanging a warm greeting with the manager and occasionally glancing out the window at familiar faces.

A New Jersey native who started on Wall Street as a clerk in 1989, Mr. Shafer rose to become a governor on the stock exchange floor. The sale of his longtime firm, Lyden Dolan Nick & Company, to Van der Moolen in 2002 turned out to be well timed, Mr. Shafer said, as the business went into decline.

After taking an exit package, Mr. Shafer sat on the sidelines of Wall Street as the financial crisis caused job opportunities to dry up. By 2009 â€" the year Van der Moolen went bankrupt â€" Mr. Shafer was on an island in Maine, helping build a cabin on his family’s property there, when he met his current business partner.

His company, Maine Heritage Timber, is not yet profitable, but Mr. Shafer said he recently secured a large order for tables, wall paneling and bar tops from a restaurant in Florida. Though he finds the work more fulfilling than his previous career, it is also more stressful â€" he is now trying to build something that lasts.

“When you traded, it was like playing a basketball game. You threw the ball up, and when the bell rang it was the end of the game,” he said. “This is never over.”



24 Hours Later, Fed’s Surprise Keeps Investors Scratching Their Heads

For investors, it’s back to the drawing board.

Wall Street is now furiously revising expectations about the role the Federal Reserve will play in the economy in the months ahead.

The bout of introspection comes after the Fed dashed the widespread assumption that it would begin slowing down, or “tapering,” its $85 billion-a-month bond buying program â€" a stimulus effort that has become a driving force in financial markets.

Over the summer, a number of speeches by the leaders of regional Fed banks were watched carefully and interpreted as supporting a slowing of bond purchases. Many on Wall Street said that in the future, they would pay less attention to flurries of public statements and reconsider the barometers they were using to predict Fed decisions.

“From May forward, the body English suggested that they were ready to taper,” said Ken Taubes, the chief investment officer at Pioneer Investments. “Now the moral of the story is, ‘Don’t look at what we’re saying.’ ”

Until the Fed’s surprise announcement on Wednesday, investors had spent months preparing for a slowdown in the Fed’s bond purchases by selling off, buying dollars and getting out of countries that relied on low interest rates. On Thursday, investors were buying some of those same assets back, sending up stock indexes 4.6 percent in Indonesia, 3.5 percent in India and 2.3 percent in Pakistan.

In the United States, the signals were more mixed, pointing to uncertainty created by the Fed’s decision. The stock market reversed some of the big gains it made in the final hours of trading on Wednesday.

After climbing 1 percent on Wednesday afternoon, the Dow Jones industrial average slipped Thursday by 40.39 points, or 0.3 percent, to close at 15,636.55. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index dipped 3.18 points, or 0.2 percent, to 1,722.34. The Nasdaq composite index, however, edged up 5.74 points, or 0.2 percent, to 3,789.38.

The yield on Treasury bonds, which dropped sharply on Wednesday, rebounded somewhat, with the rate on the benchmark 10-year bond rising to 2.75 percent from 2.69 percent late Wednesday, pushing the price down 16/32, to 97 27/32.

Many investors realized on Thursday morning that the Fed would not give up on slowing its bond purchases, but instead was only pushing the date out.

Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, said on Wednesday that if measures of inflation and unemployment improved, “we’ll take the first step at some point, possibly later this year, and then continue so long as the data are consistent with that continuing progress.”

Julia Coronado, an economist at BNP Paribas who correctly predicted the Fed’s move on Wednesday, said she still expected the taper to begin as soon as December, given the numerous signs that the recovery is slowly picking up speed.

“The decision wasn’t made in fear â€" they just want to make sure we get more momentum under our belts,” Ms. Coronado said.

But even pushing the next steps out just a few months adds a good dose of uncertainty to the process. Some strategists said that if Mr. Bernanke steps down as Fed chairman at the end of the year, as is widely expected, his successor could have more room to reconsider any slowdown in stimulus.

Moreover, some believe that Mr. Bernanke would be hesitant to make such a big change in policy just a month before leaving the job.

“Frankly, it’s set off an awful lot of questions about what’s going on, who’s in charge and what’s happening,” said Robert F. Baur, the chief global economist at Principal Global Investors. “I’m not sure the market really knows what to think.”

Mr. Bernanke emphasized that part of the reason for the pessimism within the Fed was the return of political fighting in Washington over the federal budget. That is likely to have Wall Street carefully watching the debate in the coming weeks about whether to raise the debt ceiling. But that factor was already on the radar of most economists and accounted for in their forecasts.

The most significant shift in investor thinking is likely to focus on economic data, which Mr. Bernanke said was the primary factor driving the Fed’s decision-making.

In the past, many investors focused on Mr. Bernanke’s comments in June, when he suggested that the Fed would closely watch for unemployment to fall to 7 percent. This week, Mr. Bernanke played down the importance of the headline unemployment figure, saying it was often an imprecise measure of the job market.

Ms. Coronado, for her part, said she would now pay more attention to the total number of jobs the economy added each month rather than the unemployment rate hitting the 7 percent mark. She noted that the Fed had appeared to be optimistic about the labor market earlier this year when more than 200,000 new jobs were being created each month. More recently, the monthly jobs figure has fallen below that threshold.

Many strategists also took note of Mr. Bernanke’s particular emphasis on the low level of inflation, which he said he would like to see increase.

Another major concern for the Fed was the recent jump in interest rates, and with it the rise in mortgage rates, which put a damper on the previously buoyant housing market.

Strategists at Bank of America, who predicted Wednesday’s action, said on Thursday that they did not think the Fed would slow down its bond buying until the housing market could sustain a rise in interest rates. Specifically, Bank of America’s experts said they were waiting for a time when new mortgage applications would continue to rise even with higher mortgage rates.

“The summer reversal in housing activity was a likely signal to the Fed that the macro is still too fragile to withstand even a small tapering,” the Bank of America team wrote in a note to clients.

The latest economic data suggested that the recovery may be staging the sort of acceleration that the Fed wants to see. The number of homes sold in August rose to the highest level in six years, despite predictions that the number would fall, according to figures from the National Association of Realtors.

And an index of manufacturing activity released by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve experienced a sharp jump this month, showing that the pace of growth had more than doubled.

The data was enough to revive speculation about the Fed beginning its tapering sometime this year. But most strategists said that the recent difficulty in predicting the Fed’s actions would probably stop many on Wall Street from quickly jumping to any conclusions.

“There’s going to be a little more uncertainty about what the Fed’s intentions are and what the future holds,” said Mr. Baur. “That uncertainty is going to keep people nervous.”



Prudential Financial Deemed ‘Too Big to Fail’

NEWARK, N.J.--()--Prudential Financial, Inc. (NYSE:PRU) confirmed today that it has been notified by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) that the company has been designated a systemically important financial institution by a final vote.

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Prudential has 30 days to consider its response to FSOC’s determination. We are currently reviewing the rationale for the determination and our options.

Prudential Financial, Inc. (NYSE:PRU), a financial services leader with more than $1 trillion of assets under management as of June 30, 2013, has operations in the United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Prudential’s diverse and talented employees are committed to helping individual and institutional customers grow and protect their wealth through a variety of products and services, including life insurance, annuities, retirement-related services, mutual funds and investment management. In the U.S., Prudential’s iconic Rock symbol has stood for strength, stability, expertise and innovation for more than a century. For more information, please visit http://www.news.prudential.com/.



Rocket Fuel Prices I.P.O. at Top of Revised Range

Rocket Fuel, an advertising technology company that relies on artificial intelligence, priced its initial public offering on Thursday at the top of its expectations, garnering $116 million in proceeds.

The company sold 4 million shares at $29 each, the high end of an already raised range. The stock sale values it at $942.5 million.

Thursday’s offering is the latest in a series of technology I.P.O.’s, a sector that is trying to revive after staying quiet for much of the past year. Analysts and deal makers expect a big number of companies to make their public debuts by year end, led by Twitter and its potentially gigantic stock sale.

Rocket Fuel is one of several companies riding a number of big technology trends, including the much-ballyhooed Big Data phenomenon. But the five-year-old start-up’s trump card is its artificial intelligence software, which the company says uses computer programs to better place clients’ ads with minimal human input.

According to the company’s most recent prospectus, it reported $106.6 million in revenue last year on top of a $10.3 million loss. Using adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, it lost $3 million for the period.

The offering was led by Credit Suisse and Citigroup.



Goldman Settles Lawsuit Over eToys I.P.O.

As JPMorgan Chase works its way through its own legal morass, it can look to Goldman Sachs for an example of how long litigation can haunt a bank.

Goldman is poised to leave behind a long-running lawsuit over the 1999 initial public offering of eToys, an online toy retailer whose rise and fall became a symbol of the dotcom boom and bust. A federal judge on Thursday approved a settlement of the matter, in which the investment bank will pay $7.5 million to eToys creditors.

Though many of the specters of the dotcom frenzy have dissipated â€" Kozmo.com and Pets.com among them â€" eToys has lingered in legal system, including in courts in New York and Delaware.

At issue is the company’s I.P.O., which Goldman priced at $20. Shares in eToys leaped well above that in their first day of trading, closing at $77. Critics of the process, including creditors, have argued that the Goldman-led offering enriched special clients of the firm at the expense of the retailer, which could have used the money to build much-needed infrastructure to keep up with demand.

In their lawsuit, plaintiffs pointed to internal documents suggesting that Goldman staffers gave investor clients access to hot I.P.O.’s in exchange for return business.

Goldman has denied any wrongdoing and told The New York Times’ Joe Nocera earlier this year that the documents do not back up claims of a quid pro quo arrangement with clients.



Buffett Wants to Keep Bernanke Atop Fed

Janet who?

Asked about Janet Yellen, President Obama’s expected choice to lead the Federal Reserve, Warren Buffett said that he didn’t know her at all. In an interview with CNBC on Thursday, the Oracle of Omaha said that his choice to lead the Fed is Ben Bernanke, the current Fed chairman.

“I think if you’ve got .400 hitter in the lineup, you don’t take him out,” said Mr. Buffett. He acknowledge that President Obama is unlikely to ask the Fed chairman for another term, but told CNBC’s Becky Quick that “I don’t have a second choice.”

Also in the interview, Brian Moynihan, the chief of Bank of America, added that his bank was ready to work with all the candidates mentioned.

Looking back at Wall Street’s changes since the financial crisis, Mr. Buffett said that stocks are no longer “ridiculously cheap.”

“We don’t find bargains around but we don’t think things are way overvalued either,” he said. “We’re having a hard time finding things to buy.”



Goldman Settles Lawsuit Over eToys I.P.O.

As JPMorgan Chase works its way through its own legal morass, it can look to Goldman Sachs for an example of how long litigation can haunt a bank.

Goldman is poised to leave behind a long-running lawsuit over the 1999 initial public offering of eToys, an online toy retailer whose rise and fall became a symbol of the dotcom boom and bust. A federal judge on Thursday approved a settlement of the matter, in which the investment bank will pay $7.5 million to eToys creditors.

Though many of the specters of the dotcom frenzy have dissipated â€" Kozmo.com and Pets.com among them â€" eToys has lingered in legal system, including in courts in New York and Delaware.

At issue is the company’s I.P.O., which Goldman priced at $20. Shares in eToys leaped well above that in their first day of trading, closing at $77. Critics of the process, including creditors, have argued that the Goldman-led offering enriched special clients of the firm at the expense of the retailer, which could have used the money to build much-needed infrastructure to keep up with demand.

In their lawsuit, plaintiffs pointed to internal documents suggesting that Goldman staffers gave investor clients access to hot I.P.O.’s in exchange for return business.

Goldman has denied any wrongdoing and told The New York Times’ Joe Nocera earlier this year that the documents do not back up claims of a quid pro quo arrangement with clients.



Buffett Wants to Keep Bernanke Atop Fed

Janet who?

Asked about Janet Yellen, President Obama’s expected choice to lead the Federal Reserve, Warren Buffett said that he didn’t know her at all. In an interview with CNBC on Thursday, the Oracle of Omaha said that his choice to lead the Fed is Ben Bernanke, the current Fed chairman.

“I think if you’ve got .400 hitter in the lineup, you don’t take him out,” said Mr. Buffett. He acknowledge that President Obama is unlikely to ask the Fed chairman for another term, but told CNBC’s Becky Quick that “I don’t have a second choice.”

Also in the interview, Brian Moynihan, the chief of Bank of America, added that his bank was ready to work with all the candidates mentioned.

Looking back at Wall Street’s changes since the financial crisis, Mr. Buffett said that stocks are no longer “ridiculously cheap.”

“We don’t find bargains around but we don’t think things are way overvalued either,” he said. “We’re having a hard time finding things to buy.”



Canada to Set Up New Securities Regulator

OTTAWA â€" Thwarted by a court ruling blocking it from unilaterally establishing a national securities regulator, the government of Canada joined with two provinces to form a “cooperative” agency on Thursday.

Initially the as yet to be named regulator will cover only the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario, the latter being the center of Canada’s capital markets.

Canada is unusual in not having a national securities overseer. The current Conservative government, the Ontario government and many members of the financial community say that the current system, which spreads control among 10 provinces, makes it more difficult to raise capital, increases costs and increases the possibility of fraud.

But in 2011 the Supreme Court of Canada struck down an attempt to set up a national regulator through federal legislation ruling that controlling the industry is a provincial responsibility.

Under the new plan, provinces will be invited to join the new agency, which will be have its headquarters in Toronto. The federal government has also promised to give provinces money, on a transitional basis, to make up for the fees their regulators now collect.

Quebec, along with Alberta, has been the most resistant to yielding authority to a national body.

Alexandre Cloutier the province’s intergovernmental affairs minister, suggested on Thursday that Quebec might challenge the cooperative agency’s legitimacy in court.



Regulators Fault JPMorgan’s Senior Management in ‘Whale’ Case

JPMorgan Chase’s wayward traders caused the big losses that led to the London Whale debacle last year, but two new inquiries indicate that the bank’s most senior executives made things worse.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority, a British regulator, both issued reports on Thursday that laid out their reasoning for fining JPMorgan for the trading missteps.

Providing important new details, the reports home in on the role played by a small group of executives known collectively as “Senior Management.” Without naming anyone, the S.E.C’s report said this group included JPMorgan’s chief executive, who is Jamie Dimon, and its chief financial officer, who at the time was Douglas Braunstein. It also listed the titles of chief risk officer, controller and general auditor.

In early 2012, a large unit of JPMorgan known as the chief investment office had started to suffer growing losses because of enormous wagers made out of its London operations. The losses were on credit derivatives, which allow traders to bet on the perceived creditworthiness of corporations. The trades in the investment office appear to have been recorded to make their losses seem smaller than they really were. Yet the traders kept adding positions. Their activity caused enough of a stir in the markets that the trades began to attract media attention on April 6.

When signs of trouble surfaced, JPMorgan arguably needed leaders who would decisively intervene â€" to find out what was really going on and work out what the true losses were. Ideally, they then needed to communicate to the public an accurate depiction of the troubled investment office in the bank’s next securities filing.

But almost the opposite happened, according to the details in the reports.

As a result, when the bank’s next filing came out on May 10, it did not give shareholders a full picture of what was going on. The filing had to be revised later. Investors expect such filings to provide accurate information, and regulators sanction companies when their filings contain material errors and omissions.

The new regulatory reports are valuable because they reveal how senior management operated in the crucial days before the filing.

The executives started to ask questions about the trading positions after the media reports. The British report says that senior executives asked the investment office for a “full diagnostic” on the positions, by April 9.

A few days later, the bank was outwardly communicating that it wasn’t overly concerned.

On April 13, JPMorgan released its first quarter results and, on a public conference call the same day, Mr. Dimon referred to the coverage of the trades as “a complete tempest in a teapot.”

He may have arrived at that opinion after the investment office sent an estimate of what it expected to make on the credit derivatives in the second quarter. The estimates didn’t point to large losses. The British report says this may have prompted “firm senior management” to send an e-mail to another manager that described the media coverage as “a tempest in [a] teapot driven by sour grape hedge funds and some former baby employees.”

By the end of that April, senior management had another big reason to look more closely at the investment office’s positions.

When a bank is losing money on a trade that hasn’t yet run its course, it hands over risk-free assets to the entity on the other side of trade that has a paper profit on the trade.

“Collateral” is transferred like this to ensure that the entity that is up on the trade can still collect if the losing entity doesn’t pay when the trade closes. In the second half of April, JPMorgan was getting into major collateral disputes with its trading partners over investment office trades. The disputes suggested big differences between the values that the investment office was ascribing to the derivatives positions and the values seen by the entities on the other side of the trades.

The commission’s report says that a member of senior management sent an e-mail on April 20, noting that the collateral disputes were not “a good sign on our valuation process.”

These disputes did motivate senior management to do more to understand what was going on in the investment office. But the executives again fell short, according to the reports.

On April 28, JPMorgan’s own investment bank, which also traded credit derivatives, submitted an analysis to senior management that showed that the investment office appeared to underestimating its losses. Using the investment bank’s approach, the positions would effectively be valued lower by $767 million, the analysis concluded.

After that analysis, and before the filing came out on May 10, senior management assigned a lot more people to look at the situation at the investment office. They included internal auditors and controllers, as well as internal and external lawyers.

As these efforts progressed, senior management discovered other warning signs. On May 8, senior management learned that the investment bank had found errors in the investment office’s spreadsheets, leading to a potential overvaluation of the troubled trades.

Senior management also learned of big problems with the methodology used by a group that valued the at-risk trades, the reports found. Improvements were discussed, and introduced in the first days of May.

Despite all of this, senior management did not give the bank’s audit committee, part of its board of directors, a comprehensive description of the problems it had identified, according to the S.E.C.

“Because the Audit Committee was not apprised of the initiation of the reviews or facts learned as a result of those reviews, it was unable to provide input on the issues before the filing of JPMorgan’s first quarter report,” the S.E.C. said, “and was unable to engage with those doing the work to ensure that it was sufficient from the perspective of the Audit Committee.”

Senior management saw plenty of red flags and, according to the reports, the executives often acted as their own worst enemies. The S.E.C. noted, in particular, their insistence on secrecy. The people in the investment bank working on valuing the credit derivatives were told to keep it to a “relatively tight group.” The controllers were told not to discuss their work “outside the immediate group.” The internal audit team was also instructed to keep strict confidentiality.

“These instructions affected the ability of those conducting the reviews to share, learn from, and build upon each other’s work,” the S.E.C. concluded.



In JPMorgan Settlement, Testing the Lines of Admitting Wrongdoing

The settlements announced Thursday by JPMorgan Chase over the “London Whale” trading included a much-anticipated admission of wrongdoing in its resolution with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But the bank has been unwilling to make such an admission in dealing with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which has notified it of a planned enforcement action for its trading.

If one is willing to admit to violating the law, why agree to settle with one agency but not another?

The answer lies in what JPMorgan actually acknowledged in the S.E.C. case, and how that settlement was carefully structured to limit its potential fallout. But a similar admission in violating the commodities laws, however, could open the bank up to substantial additional liability.

The S.E.C. filed an administrative order against JPMorgan that includes a statement of facts about how it handled information about improper valuations of the derivatives bought by its chief investment office in London. The bank’s admission of those facts reflects a change from the previous S.E.C.’s policy that allowed companies to neither admit nor deny having violated the law. That former policy meant that the settlement could not be used by private parties to advance their own claims.

In the JPMorgan case, the S.E.C. order only claims violations of the books-and-records provision of the federal securities laws. That section requires a company to ensure that its records “accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets” and that it has a system of internal controls in place to properly prepare its financial statements.

Although the order adds some details to the mess surrounding how management handled information about the London Whale trading debacle, JP Morgan had already largely admitted to the books-and-records violations in July 2012 when it withdrew its financial statements and said that its internal controls were inadequate. So what the S.E.C. essentially got is something the bank had already owned up to a year ago.

That admission will be of very limited utility to private parties suing the bank for violating the federal securities laws over its disclosures about the trades. There is no reference in the order to the bank engaging in fraud by misleading investors about the value of its investments, even though its faulty review process led it to make statements that were not entirely correct when questions were raised about the trading positions. Most famously, the bank’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, had once dismissed concerns about the transactions as a “tempest in a teapot,” but the S.E.C. did not address that issue.

A concern with the S.E.C.’s new policy on seeking admissions was that companies would not want to risk the potential consequences of an acknowledgement of a violation because that could be used against it in other litigation. The legal doctrine known as “collateral estoppel” allows a party to use a finding in another case to aid its own claims if it was unable to join that case, which is always true when the S.E.C. brings an enforcement action.

JPMorgan will not have that problem because private plaintiffs cannot sue for a violation of the books-and-records provisions. While they do have standing to seek damages for a violation of the main antifraud provision, Rule 10b-5, there is no hint of an admission about any misstatements or omissions in the administrative order.

So the S.E.C. gets the benefit of an admission of wrongdoing but JPMorgan suffers no appreciable jeopardy to its legal position in private litigation. And by filing the case as an administrative order, there is no need to go before a federal district court judge who might raise questions about the propriety of the settlement. Although JPMorgan has to pay out $920 million to resolve cases with regulators, there is little additional impact from this resolution.

The same can’t be said about the possible enforcement case that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has said it plans to pursue.

As DealBook reported, the issue is whether the bank’s extensive trading manipulated the derivatives markets in violation of the Commodity Futures Act. That law gives private investors a claim for damages against traders who sought to manipulate the value of futures contracts.

The C.F.T.C.’s focus is on the impact of the actual trading on the markets and whether it artificially affected the price of the derivatives JP Morgan’s London office was amassing. The issue is not how the bank handled information about its position or whether it properly valued its investments, something that comes within the S.E.C.’s purview.

If regulators determine that the trading was a result of market manipulation, then investors who were trading during the period when the London Whale transactions occurred could seek damages for any losses they suffered as a result of JPMorgan’s activities (even though it could be argued that the bank was the ultimate loser, since it lost an estimated $6 billion on trades).

Still, JPMorgan’s potential exposure could be significant if it were to admit to market manipulation in the C.F.T.C. case. In that case, plaintiffs could invoke the collateral estoppel doctrine when seeking damages.

The question is whether the C.F.T.C. will push for an admission similar to what the S.E.C. obtained about market manipulation, or whether it will accept a settlement with the traditional approach that would involve neither an admission nor denial of a violation. For JPMorgan, that difference can be crucial in deciding whether to fight charges of market manipulation or put the London Whale episode further behind it by settling with the agency.



Lessons for H.P. From Its Offspring

The old Hewlett-Packard has set a breakup example for the new Hewlett-Packard. Spun off in 1999 with the company’s original testing products and research DNA, Agilent Technologies is considered by Silicon Valley veterans as the “real H.P.” It has outperformed its former parent and is now splitting to create yet more value. H.P. can learn from its progeny.

Some 14 years ago, Agilent was considered the pipsqueak producer of nerdy equipment to help engineers and scientists. H.P., meanwhile, was expanding into the sexier, fast-growing business of selling personal computers and printers.

When Agilent departed, it took a big piece of H.P.’s soul with it, evidenced, in part, by the company archivist choosing to go with Agilent. Building instruments like oscilloscopes is all about precision and quality. Once separated, H.P. lost its way, seeking market share gains in lower-margin machines for the masses instead of specialized, high-end gadgets.

The starkest difference has been in innovation investment. Agilent consistently spends a greater percentage of sales inventing and upgrading. In recent years, it has earmarked about 10 percent of revenue for research and development, or about three times more than H.P. By contrast, a steady march of chief executives has led H.P. into one disastrous acquisition after another.

Agilent’s path has produced the better results. For one thing, it has kept refocusing, completing four major spinoffs or divestitures since 2005. And since the separation from H.P., Agilent investors have seen a 27 percent return on their investment, while investors in its former owner have seen about 30 percent of their value vaporize. Agilent’s decision to pursue a split of the cash-generating electronic measurement group from faster-growing life sciences and diagnostics swiftly added over $700 million of value on Thursday. The two smaller companies should be easier to run and attract new shareholders.

H.P. would benefit even more from carving up. It is far more sprawling, harder to manage and faces bigger existential problems, given the technological shift well under way. Some parts, like its software business, could attract a takeover premium. Though H.P.’s chief executive Meg Whitman keeps resisting the idea, perhaps she can be swayed by some of the company’s old genetic markers.



Veteran UBS Banker to Depart

LONDON - A veteran UBS banker, Simon Warshaw, is leaving the bank after 27 years. The move comes less than a month after the he helped his client Vodafone seal a $130 billion deal, one of the largest in history.

Mr. Warshaw, who joined UBS as a graduate trainee, resigned “to embark on a new chapter in his career,” Andrea Orcel, the chief executive of UBS’s investment banking unit, wrote in an internal e-mail obtained by DealBook.

Mr. Warshaw led the team advising Vodafone, the British telecommunications company, to sell its stake in Verizon Wireless to its longtime partner Verizon Communications. The deal, which has been discussed for years, was finally announced this month, pushing UBS high on the rankings of advisers to mergers and acquisitions.

The banker, whose been focusing on advising clients in the media and telecommunications sector, was named global co-head of investment banking at UBS in 2011. A year later, he stepped back from the role to focus more on working with clients.

Mr. Warshaw “has been a manager, mentor and good friend to many of our bankers throughout his long career,” Mr. Orcel wrote. He plans to continue to work with UBS on certain projects, Mr. Orcel said.

The memo from Andrea Orcel, chief executive of investment banking at UBS:

Dear colleagues,

After 27 years with the firm, Simon Warshaw has decided to leave UBS to embark on a new chapter in his career. Simon has made a major contribution to UBS over this period, having started as a Graduate Trainee with S.G. Warburg in 1986 and becoming Joint Global Head of Investment Banking in 2011. Simon is currently one of our most senior client bankers, and most recently was a core part of the team for the USD 130bn realization by Vodafone of its interest in Verizon Wireless.

Over his many years at the bank, Simon has played a key role in building and developing relationships with some of our key clients, alongside his varied roles in running our Media, UK, European and Global investment banking businesses. He has been a manager, mentor and good friend to many of our bankers throughout his long career.

Simon will maintain a close relationship with the firm and will continue to work with UBS on a number of key clients and projects with which he is already closely involved. Although we are sorry to see Simon leaving, we wish him continued success and look forward to working with him in the future.

Andrea



Man Group and 5 Other Funds Gain Foothold in China

Man Group has confirmed that it is one of six hedge funds to receive the green light to operate in China.

Within the next few months, the London-based hedge fund will be able to raise $50 million from institutions in China to invest around the world, as part of a pilot program in China’s financial city of Shanghai.

It is one of a series of small steps that Chinese officials have taken in recent months to dismantle the barriers that separate their country from global markets. Wall Street and other financial hubs had been watching for these changes for years.

“It’s quite exciting, actually,” said Pierre Lagrange, chairman of Man Group Asia and co-founder of GLG Partners who oversees Man Group’s long- and short-equity strategy.

“I think everyone and their mother wanted to get in, and we’re very happy and proud to have been selected,” Mr. Lagrange said. The fund has been working to get approval in China for several years, he said.

Regulators have also granted Oaktree, Och-Ziff, Citadel and Canyon Partners, all based in the United States, and the British firm Winton Capital permission under a test program called the Qualified Domestic Limited Partner program, according to people familiar with the program. Each fund is expected to be allocated a quota of $50 million on a trial basis, totaling $300 million, these people said. Man Group was the only one of the six to confirm that it had been chosen by the Chinese authorities.

The news of the trial program was first reported by the 21st Century Business Herald, a Chinese newspaper. The hedge funds requested to be able to raise more than the initial $50 million but Shanghai’s regulators are still testing the waters, according to the report.

China’s new leadership is fighting within itself over how to carry out the financial reforms necessary to open up its financial borders. Its top leaders have been pushing to speed up the changes, according to a person involved in the government program who would not speak on the record because of a nondisclosure agreement.

As part of the move, Shanghai is expected announce a free trade zone in the coming months, which would open the door for other financial services firms eager to tap what is expected to be the biggest source of wealth for decades to come.

In 2010, Man acquired GLG Partners for $1.6 billion, creating one of the world’s biggest hedge funds, with more than a 100 people on the ground in Asia. Roughly a quarter of its $52 billion in assets under management are from Asian clients, Mr. Lagrange said.



Nokia’s Former Chief to Collect $25.5 Million From Microsoft Deal

It was Stephen Elop who, as Nokia’s chief executive, deepened the Finnish telecommunications firm’s ties to Microsoft by agreeing to bind itself to the Windows Phone operating system.

Now that Microsoft is buying full control of the Nokia cellphone business for $7.2 billion, Mr. Elop is set for a big payout.

Nokia disclosed on Thursday that its now-former chief is expected to collect about 18.8 million euros, or $25.5 million, as he prepares

As outlined in materials for a shareholder vote on the deal, the payment would be composed of 4.1 million euros worth of salary and management incentives; 100,000 euros in benefits; and stock awards currently valued at about 14.6 million euros. About 70 percent of Mr. Elop’s payment will be covered by Microsoft, with Nokia responsible for the remainder.

It is an expensive goodbye for the executive, who collected $6.2 million to come to Nokia from Microsoft in the first place.

During his three years at the Finnish company, Mr. Elop took the bold, though often criticized, move of committing to Microsoft’s phone software as the companies struggled to gain traction in the smartphone sector. Nokia’s handsets, which previously ran a variety of homegrown operating systems, have steadily lost ground to a wave of phones running Google‘s Android as well as Apple’s iPhone.

During Nokia’s negotiations with Microsoft earlier this year, the Finnish company sidelined Mr. Elop and designated its chairman, Risto Siilasmaa, as its point person in the talks.

Under the terms of the handset transaction, Mr. Elop will leave Nokia and become the head of Microsoft’s handset business once the deal closes. To avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest, he relinquished the title of chief executive and became executive vice president of devices and services.



Activision Blizzard’s Big Stake Buyback Halted by Delaware Court

A Delaware court on Wednesday blocked Activision Blizzard’s plan to buy back most of Vivendi’s stake in the company for $8.2 billion, delaying a long-held desire by the video game maker to regain fuller control.

Activision said in a statement that a judge with Delaware’s Court of Chancery issued a preliminary injunction as part of a shareholder’s lawsuit. The company said that the deal â€" composed of two transactions through which Vivendi will sell most of its 61 percent stake â€" could not move forward without Activision either winning an appeal or holding or a shareholder vote on the matter.

Activision and Vivendi had been hoping to close the deal by the end of the month.

“Activision Blizzard remains committed to the transaction and is exploring the steps it will take to complete the transaction as expeditiously as possible,” the company said in a statement.

The move puts up an unexpected roadblock for what would be one of the bigger deals this year. The shareholder who filed suit against Activision, Douglas Hayes, has argued that the purchase must be approved by the video game publisher’s independent investors.

The injunction also puts a dent in the plans of both companies.

Activision and its chief executive, Robert Kotick, have made no secret of their desire to eventually buy out the company’s biggest stakeholder. It is Mr. Kotick who spearheaded years of acquisitions to create a video game giant, whose top franchises include “Call of Duty” and “World of Warcraft,” and he has long hoped to have more control.

And Vivendi has planned to use some of the proceeds from the sale in an effort to remake itself. The French conglomerate has already announced plans to sell its stake in a Moroccan telecommunications company and, more important, study a move to spin off its SFR telecom division to focus on media.



JPMorgan Chase Agrees to Pay $920 Million in Fines Over Trading Loss

More than a year after a group of traders at JPMorgan Chase caused a multibillion-dollar loss, government authorities on Thursday imposed a $920 million fine on the bank and shifted scrutiny to its senior management.

Extracting the fines and a rare admission of wrongdoing from JPMorgan, the nation’s largest bank, regulators in Washington and London took aim at a pervasive breakdown in controls and leadership at the bank. The deal resolves investigations from four regulators: the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve and the Financial Conduct Authority in London.

The regulators cited “deficiencies” in “oversight of the risks,” assessment of controls and development of “internal financial reporting.” The regulatory orders attributed significant blame to senior management, who failed to elevate concerns about the losses to the bank’s board.

“While grappling with how to fix its internal control breakdowns, JPMorgan’s senior management broke a cardinal rule of corporate governance and deprived its board of critical information,” George S. Canellos, co-director of the S.E.C.’s enforcement division, said in a statement. Under the deal with the S.E.C., the bank acknowledged that it violated federal securities laws.

Regulators were also kept in the dark, authorities said. The bank “failed” to turn over “significant” information to regulatory examiners inspecting the trades.

“Bank management must also ensure open and effective communication with supervisors so that we can effectively do our jobs,” Thomas Curry, the comptroller of the currency, said in a statement. “Anything less is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”

Despite the assault on senior management, not one executive was named in the cases. Still, the actions could dent the reputation of Jamie Dimon, the bank’s chief executive. Mr. Dimon has won widespread acclaim for navigating the bank through the financial crisis in better shape than its rivals.

The cases exposed a weaker side of JPMorgan, long known for that skillful management of risk. The “severe breakdowns” detailed in the orders, authorities say, allowed the group of traders in London to go unchecked even as they amassed the risky position and later covered up their losses.

Two of those traders have since been charged criminally.

“JPMorgan failed to keep watch over its traders as they overvalued a very complex portfolio to hide massive losses,” said Mr. Canellos, the S.E.C. official.

The S.E.C. also cited JPMorgan for misstating its financial results. Last July, the bank restated its first-quarter 2012 earnings downward by $459 million, conceding errors in the traders’ valuations of losses.

JPMorgan agreed to pay $300 million to the comptroller’s office, and about $200 million to the S.E.C. and each of the other agencies.



Morning Agenda: Fed Catches Wall St. by Surprise

CONFUSION AND RELIEF AFTER FED’S SURPRISE MOVE  |  The Federal Reserve stunned Wall Street on Wednesday by announcing that it would postpone any retreat from its monetary stimulus program for at least a month and possibly until next year. Stocks jumped and the 10-year Treasury yield fell after the 2 p.m. statement from the central bank, which flew in the face of the widespread expectation that the Fed would start to withdraw its economic stimulus this month.

Many on Wall Street were left wondering how they got it so wrong, Nathaniel Popper reports in DealBook. Several pointed an accusing finger at the communication strategy of Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, but Mr. Bernanke appeared to put some blame on Wall Street. “The Fed and the market have not been on the same page, and that’s very apparent in what happened at 2:01 p.m.,” said Michael Hanson, senior United States economist at Bank of America.

Mr. Bernanke emphasized on Wednesday that economic conditions were improving, but he said the Fed still feared a turn for the worse, Binyamin Appelbaum reports in The New York Times. The central bank undermined its own efforts when it said in June that it planned to begin a retreat by the end of the year, causing investors to demand higher interest rates on financial products â€" a trend that the Fed said Wednesday was potentially harmful.

“We have been overoptimistic,” Mr. Bernanke said at a news conference Wednesday. The Fed, he said, is “avoiding a tightening until we can be comfortable that the economy is in fact growing the way that we want it to be growing.”

JPMORGAN TO PAY MORE THAN $900 MILLION IN FINES  |  JPMorgan Chase is expected to pay more than $900 million in fines to government authorities in Washington and London and make a rare admission of wrongdoing on Thursday, settling a range of investigations over a $6 billion trading blunder last year, Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Ben Protess report in DealBook. The bank is expected to settle with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve and the Financial Conduct Authority in London, doling out roughly $300 million to the comptroller’s office, and about $200 million to each of the other agencies.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is still negotiating with the bank, according to people briefed on the matter, and the agency is expected to levy additional fines against JPMorgan later this year. The F.B.I. and federal prosecutors in Manhattan are also continuing an investigation.

GOLDMAN’S CHIEF ON SAC CAPITAL  |  After being indicted on insider trading charges, the hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors has survived in part because Wall Street banks have continued to trade with it and finance its operations. On Wednesday, Andrew Ross Sorkin interviewed Goldman Sachs’s chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and asked him about the decision to keep SAC as a client.

“Well, they’ve been indicted, they haven’t been convicted,” Mr. Blankfein said. He said that if Goldman and other banks had withdrawn their support, it would have destroyed the firm. “The government wouldn’t want us to withdraw,” he said, “because if everybody withdrew liquidity you would vaporize a firm.”

ON THE AGENDA  |  Data on existing home sales in August is released at 10 a.m. Microsoft holds a meeting with financial analysts. Rite Aid and ConAgra report earnings before the market opens. Jimmy Dunne, Sandler O’Neill’s senior managing principal, is on CNBC at 7 a.m.

S.E.C. PROPOSES GREATER DISCLOSURE ON PAY  |  “The gap in pay between chief executives and rank-and-file employees has been growing steadily, and now regulators want companies to tell investors just how wide it is,” DealBook’s Alexandra Stevenson writes. The Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a rule on Wednesday that would require publicly traded companies to disclose the ratio of top executive compensation to the median compensation of their employees. Three of the five members of the S.E.C. voted in favor of the proposal.

The response from the five commissioners of the S.E.C. reflects the divisive nature of the issue. One commissioner, Daniel M. Gallagher, called the proposal a “rotten mandate” while another, Luis A. Aguilar, emphasized it as a significant step toward “enhanced accountability.”

Mergers & Acquisitions »

JPMorgan Is Expected to Lead an I.P.O. for Chrysler  |  CNBC’s Kate Kelly reports: “Notwithstanding doubts about whether the Chrysler Group would go forward with a promised public float, the company is late in the stages of preparing its offering documents, said a person familiar with the offer, and JPMorgan Chase is expected to underwrite the I.P.O.”
CNBC

Activision Deal Hits a Snag  |  The Delaware Chancery Court issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily halted the closing of Vivendi’s $8.2 billion deal to sell most of its stake in Activision Blizzard back to the company, Activision said on Wednesday.
REUTERS

BlackBerry Prepares to Cut Jobs  |  The struggling smartphone maker BlackBerry plans to cut up to 40 percent of its employees by the end of the year, The Wall Street Journal reports, citing unidentified people familiar with the matter.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

Ralph Lauren Reshuffles Leadership  |  The fashion company Ralph Lauren “began its biggest leadership change in more than a decade,” The Wall Street Journal writes.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

INVESTMENT BANKING »

Joseph E. Granville, Market Forecaster, Dies at 90  |  “Mr. Granville, who died on Sept. 7 at 90, was perhaps the most famous of a generation of market seers who made their own fortunes in the less risky venue of the newsletter business, in his case The Granville Market Letter, which he began publishing in 1963,” The New York Times writes.
NEW YORK TIMES

Celebrating the Top Women in Banking, but Noting a LackCelebrating the Top Women in Banking, but Noting a Lack  |  American Banker Magazine’s annual ranking of the most powerful women in banking revealed a continued lack of women in top jobs.
DealBook »

Jefferies’ Results Reflect the Hazards of Fixed Income  |  The revenue that the investment bank Jefferies Group generated from trading bonds, currencies and commodities slumped 85 percent in the three months before September, a far bigger drop than its larger rivals across Wall Street are expecting, Antony Currie of Reuters Breakingviews writes.
REUTERS BREAKINGVIEWS

Wells Fargo Cutting Jobs in Mortgage Business  |  Wells Fargo “is eliminating about 1,800 more jobs in its home-loan production business as rising mortgage rates curtail borrowers’ demand for refinancing,” Bloomberg News reports.
BLOOMBERG NEWS

PRIVATE EQUITY »

Billabong Gets $540 Million Lifeline From Private EquityBillabong Gets $540 Million Lifeline From Private Equity  |  The Australian surfwear company said Thursday it had agreed to accept the financing offer from Centerbridge Partners and Oaktree Capital to help it pay down debt and restructure its loss-making operations.
DealBook »

Catterton, a Private Equity Firm, Closes Two Funds at $2.1 BillionCatterton, a Private Equity Firm, Closes Two Funds at $2.1 Billion  |  Catterton Partners, a private equity firm focused on consumer companies, said on Wednesday that it had closed on its latest two funds after having raised $2.1 billion.
DealBook »

HEDGE FUNDS »

Icahn Sounds Off on Corporate Boards  |  “What baffles me is that voting rights really don’t apply to public corporations,” the billionaire investor Carl C. Icahn writes in an essay in The Wall Street Journal. “How did this board-centric system ever come about? Years of lobbying by pro-management groups in state legislatures produced a thicket of laws that protect the impregnability of boards and C.E.O.’s.”

The computer maker Dell â€" the subject of a long fight that Mr. Icahn lost â€" is “just one recent example of a ridiculously dysfunctional system,” the investor writes.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

I.P.O./OFFERINGS »

Chinese Dairy Company Raises $1.3 Billion in I.P.O.  |  Strong demand from investors for shares of China Huishan Dairy gave a boost to Hong Kong’s biggest new share sale since May, raising hopes that the market for I.P.O.’s may be staging a comeback.
DealBook »

A Shouting Match Over a Chinese I.P.O.  |  At a routine meeting of the underwriters of the I.P.O. of China Huishan Dairy, “tempers flared between two bankers from HSBC and Goldman Sachs, said people who were at the meeting and others briefed on the incident,” Reuters reports.
REUTERS

VENTURE CAPITAL »

Gigya Raises $25 Million to Help Companies Gather Data  |  Gigya, which allows companies to gather and manage data about their customers online, plans to announce on Thursday that it raised a $25 million financing round led by Greenspring Associates. That brings the company’s total venture financing raised to $70 million.

“This market that we’re pursuing can support a large, independent, lasting company,” Patrick Salyer, Gigya’s chief executive, said in an interview with DealBook. “We went out to seek this growth round to help us achieve that goal.”
GIGYA

LEGAL/REGULATORY »

Threatening Letters Sent to 140 MF Global VendorsThreatening Letters Sent to 140 MF Global Vendors  |  James W. Giddens, the court-appointed trustee liquidating the bankrupt firm, told vendors they had until Friday to defend payment they had received.
DealBook »

In This Downturn, Emerging Markets Have Breathing Room  |  “These are challenging times, but I don’t think they will be the same as in 2008 or 1998,” the operations director of the IGP Group, Indonesia’s dominant manufacturer of car and truck axles, told The New York Times.
NEW YORK TIMES

Former Banker Pleads Guilty in Olympus Case  |  The Associated Press reports: “A former bank vice president pleaded guilty on Wednesday to a fraud charge, admitting he helped former executives of Olympus carry out a fraud involving several hundred million dollars that deceived investors into thinking the company was stronger financially than it was.”
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Promise to Protect Pensions Tests a Red Line in Greece  |  “With a fresh inspection by Greece’s foreign creditors looming next week and labor unions leading a new wave of strikes, the government here has drawn a red line: it will keep pushing economic reforms but vows to impose no more austerity measures on Greeks already battered from three years of tax increases and pension cuts,” The New York Times writes.
NEW YORK TIMES



Chinese Dairy Company Raises $1.3 Billion in I.P.O.

HONG KONG-Hong Kong’s market for new stock listings may be emerging from a summer slump, after a Chinese dairy company raised more than $1 billion on Thursday in the city’s biggest offering since May.

Strong demand from both large and small investors enabled the company, China Huishan Dairy, to raise 10.1 billion Hong Kong dollars, or $1.3 billion, in its initial public offering, three people with direct knowledge of the deal said. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information was not yet public.

Huishan, one of China’s largest dairy companies, is based in the northeastern city of Shenyang and makes products including fresh milk, infant formula and yogurt. It priced its I.P.O. at 2.67 Hong Kong dollars per share, at the top of the range of 2.28 dollars to 2.67 dollars at which the offering had been marketed, the people said.

The success of the Huishan deal is likely to raise hopes among other companies seeking to tap the market â€" and their bankers â€" after a rough few months for Hong Kong share sales.

The year had started off well, and in May, China Galaxy Securities raised about $1.1 billion, while Sinopec Engineering raised $1.8 billion. But by June, several I.P.O.’s were shelved or sharply reduced after investors became concerned about the effects of a slowing Chinese economy and the Federal Reserve’s plans to begin reducing its bond purchases in the United States.

Huishan’s I.P.O. also appears to have been unaffected by ongoing concerns over food safety in China’s dairy industry. In recent years, many Chinese consumers have been skeptical of locally made infant milk formula after government inspections found that widespread contamination of formula with the industrial chemical melamine had caused kidney-related illnesses, some fatal, in hundreds of thousands of infants and children.

Investors piled into the Huishan deal, including institutions like hedge funds, pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, as well as retail investors. Orders for share subscriptions from retail investors were more than 10 times the number that had been allocated to them, setting off a so-called clawback provision that increased the overall portion of the stock sold to retail investors from 10 percent to 15 percent of the total.

‘‘This is the first sizable Hong Kong I.P.O. since the market correction in May and the summer slowdown,’’ said one of the people with direct knowledge of the deal. ‘‘To be able to get that level of subscription from the retail investor base is a promising outcome, and hopefully it bodes well for future I.P.O.’s between now and the end of the year.’’

So-called cornerstone investors in the I.P.O., who commit to buy and hold shares for six months, accounted for about $214 million worth of the offering. Those investors included Norges Bank, which helps manage Norway’s government pension funds; Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group, another Chinese dairy company; and Baohua Investments, part of the private equity arm of the Cofco Group, a giant agricultural products supplier in China.

Shares in Huishan are set to begin trading in Hong Kong on Sept. 27. The underwriters on the I.P.O. are Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC and UBS.