Total Pageviews

Alibaba Invests $360 Million in Logistics Deal with Haier

HONG KONG-In a major push into the logistics business, Alibaba Group, the Chinese e-commerce giant, said Monday it would invest around $360 million in Haier Group, one of China’s biggest manufacturers and distributors of household appliances.

The deal calls for the two companies to set up a joint-venture logistics business, bringing together Alibaba’s huge online retailing platform and client network with Haier’s logistics unit, Goodaymart, which has an especially strong presence in China’s smaller inland cities and provinces.

Shares in Haier’s Hong Kong-listed unit, Haier Electronics Group, rose as much as 20 percent in early trading on Monday on news of the deal.

‘‘Alibaba Group is honored to join with Haier Group to create this platform that will equip China’s manufacturing industry with enhanced nationwide and global access,’’ Jack Ma, Alibaba’s founder and executive chairman, said in a statement.

Companies around the world are responding to the rapid growth of Internet retail by seeking ways to deliver goods more quickly to buyers.

Last week, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, proposed using drones to deliver packages to customers in the United States.

Other companies, including United Parcel Service and Google are considering using drones for delivery, too, but are also working on ways to provide so called on-demand delivery.

For Alibaba, which is considering an initial public offering in New York that analysts say could make it one of the world’s most valuable Internet companies, one of the strongest selling points to the tie-up with Haier is a stronger distribution network for the goods that are sold on Tmall.com, its popular business- to-consumer platform.

Alibaba says more than 70,000 international and Chinese brands have already set up digital storefronts on Tmall.com, where transaction volumes in 2012 surpassed 200 billion renminbi, or about $33 billion, and hit a single day global record of 35 billion renminbi on Nov. 11 of this year â€" a day celebrated in China as ‘‘Singles’ Day,’’ which is now a nationwide shopping event.

The deal gives Tmall.com access to Goodaymart’s extensive network in China, which includes nine shipping bases and more than 21 million square feet of warehouse space.

Haier says Goodaymart runs logistics and distribution sites in more than 2,800 counties across China and operates more than 17,000 service points.

Haier, which in September sold a 10 percent stake in itself to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company, a private equity group, is best known for selling white goods, like a washing machine that also washes potatoes.

But it is Haier’s logistics and distribution business, which handles both its own products and those of competitors, that today accounts for most of its sales.

This business line, which Haier Electronics refers to as integrated channel services, reported revenue of 26.6 billion renminbi in the first six months of this year, up 11 percent from a year earlier.

Alibaba’s total investment in Haier is worth 2.82 billion Hong Kong dollars, or $364 million, and consists of several transactions. The Internet company will pay 965 million dollars for new shares, representing a 2 percent stake in Haier Electronics.

Alibaba will also pay 541 million dollars for a 9.9 percent stake in Goodaymart, and 1.32 billion dollars for convertible bonds issued by Goodaymart that will lift its total stake in the logistics business to 24.1 percent once the notes are converted into shares.



Activist Investor Plans to Increase Pressure on Bob Evans

Last week, Bob Evans Farms announced that it had declined to make strategic changes recommended by one of its biggest investors. Now that investor, the hedge fund Sandell Asset Management, plans to turn up the heat on the restaurant operator.

Sandell intends to announce Monday that it will move for change at Bob Evans, potentially including replacing its directors, according to people briefed on the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the fund’s plans.

The hedge fund will begin a so-called consent solicitation, which will let investors vote on changes at Bob Evans outside an annual meeting, the people said. The fund could also seek to amend the restaurateur’s bylaws.

“While we strongly believe that the inherent value of Bob Evans is far in excess of the company’s current share price, we have serious doubts regarding management’s ability to realize this value,” the hedge fund wrote in a letter that it plans to send to other investors. A representative for Sandell declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Bob Evans referred to comments made by the company’s chief executive, Steven A. Davis, on a conference call with analysts last week regarding Sandell’s recommendations, which he deemed unlikely to generate value for investors.

Sandell’s fight against Bob Evans, which runs 561 restaurants and produces packaged foods like sausage, is only one of a growing number of battles being waged in the food industry. Hedge funds are especially keen to shake up restaurant chains whose share performance has lagged as customers have proved reluctant to dine out as much since the recession.

Investors have taken on the parent companies of Applebee’s and the Olive Garden, arguing for moves like a big annual dividend, increased cost-cutting and corporate breakups.

The latest plans by Sandell are not surprising, because the $900 million hedge fund disclosed last month that it had hired a proxy solicitor to advise on shareholder initiatives like a consent solicitation. But they still represent an increasingly aggressive approach by the investor, whose 6.5 percent stake makes it one of the company’s three biggest shareholders. The hedge fund’s efforts most likely took on added urgency after Bob Evans announced last week that it had considered and rejected borrowing against its stores, deeming the maneuver an expensive bit of financial engineering. The company also disclosed that its profits for the quarter that ended in October had dropped 46 percent, to $6.1 million, hurt by rising costs and expansion plans.

Sandell disclosed in late September that it wanted Bob Evans to consider options like splitting itself up, borrowing against its real estate holdings and buying back its stock.

The hedge fund has said that it believes Bob Evans could be worth more than $80 a share, far above its current level of $51.31. It has argued that the company’s stock, which had a market value of $1.4 billion on Friday, trades significantly lower than peers like Cracker Barrel and DineEquity.

Sandell contends that the factors holding back Bob Evans include its significant real estate holdings. The company owns 86 percent of its restaurants and spends millions of dollars on its Farm Fresh campaign to renovate its locations. Separating the restaurant business from the packaged foods arm could lead to greater operational focus at both, leading to a higher stock price.

The hedge fund has said that it has been approached by two real estate investment trusts interested in buying the company’s real estate, and that it thinks Bob Evans should consider a mix of its three suggestions.

But Sandell may also be interested in pushing for a sale of the whole enterprise. It plans to tell investors that it has heard that at least one private equity firm expressed interest in buying Bob Evans, only to be turned down by management.

Executives at Bob Evans, which is based in New Albany, Ohio, have insisted that the company benefits from owning both businesses and from holding on to its real estate. It has already begun a stock-buyback program that is expected to grow to $225 million, while revamping its restaurants and food offerings.

Mr. Davis, specifically, took on Sandell’s suggestions in the conference call with analysts.

“What we have not and will not undertake is financial engineering tactics that place our company’s ability to deliver long-term shareholder value at unnecessary risks,” he said.



Cerberus, Gun Maker’s Owner, to Offer A Way Out to Its Investors

The owner of the Freedom Group, the gun manufacturer whose Bushmaster rifle was used in a deadly Connecticut school shooting nearly a year ago, is planning to give other investors in the company a way to cash out as an attempt to sell it has stalled.

Freedom’s parent, the investment firm Cerberus Capital Management, plans to unveil the proposal on Monday, a person briefed on the matter said on Sunday.

The plan follows a prolonged effort to sell the gun manufacturer in the aftermath of the assault at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where Adam Lanza killed 20 first graders, six adults and then himself on Dec. 14, 2012.

Days after the shootings, the investment firm put Freedom up for sale, acknowledging the furor that had ensnared the firearm industry. It was a rare example of a private equity concern moving because of social outcry instead of making a purely hard-nosed financial decision.

Indeed, Freedom was seen as a strong investment before the shootings. The company began in 2006 as Bushmaster Firearms, then grew as its parent added several other brands, notably Remington Arms. The company has been consistently profitable over the last 12 months, reporting $31.2 million in net income for its third quarter this year.

The shares of other gun manufacturers have recovered from a brief but steep dip following the shooting last year, prompted by fears of tougher gun laws that failed to clear Congress. Shares in Smith & Wesson have risen 28 percent since then, while those in Sturm, Ruger & Company have climbed 50 percent.

But Cerberus and its advisers at the investment bank Lazard have struggled with an auction process that has not yielded any acceptable bids so far, this person said. A number of potential buyers, ranging from leveraged buyout firms to fellow gun makers, have expressed interest. These would-be bidders ran into trouble for different reasons, including an inability to secure adequate financing.

Such were the difficulties that Cerberus’ founder, Stephen A. Feinberg, considered making an offer for Freedom to help spur on the auction, people briefed on the matter have said. Mr. Feinberg, a noted gun enthusiast and hunter, ultimately declined to bid.

Now his firm is making an interim step: Let investors in its funds â€" including those eager to wash their hands of the firearm industry â€" sell their holdings. Among the most vocal of these have been public pension funds like the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, or Calstrs, and New York State’s comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli.

A spokesman for Calstrs acknowledged that the pension fund’s investment chief, Christopher J. Ailman, was scheduled to meet with Cerberus this week, but declined further comment.

To pay for the plan, the private equity firm will bring in a third-party investor that will take a minority stake in Freedom and provide debt financing. The planned investment would value Freedom at about $1 billion.

Though Cerberus will offer its investors an exit, it may still seek to sell Freedom, the person briefed on the matter added. Cashing out investors could offer the firm some flexibility in striking a deal, but does not radically change the auction process.

Cerberus is scheduled to brief creditors on Monday, this person said. They will need to approve the initiative, since it will add additional debt onto the gun maker.

A spokesman for Cerberus declined to comment.

News of the firm’s plans was first reported by The Financial Times.



Cerberus, Gun Maker’s Owner, to Offer A Way Out to Its Investors

The owner of the Freedom Group, the gun manufacturer whose Bushmaster rifle was used in a deadly Connecticut school shooting nearly a year ago, is planning to give other investors in the company a way to cash out as an attempt to sell it has stalled.

Freedom’s parent, the investment firm Cerberus Capital Management, plans to unveil the proposal on Monday, a person briefed on the matter said on Sunday.

The plan follows a prolonged effort to sell the gun manufacturer in the aftermath of the assault at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where Adam Lanza killed 20 first graders, six adults and then himself on Dec. 14, 2012.

Days after the shootings, the investment firm put Freedom up for sale, acknowledging the furor that had ensnared the firearm industry. It was a rare example of a private equity concern moving because of social outcry instead of making a purely hard-nosed financial decision.

Indeed, Freedom was seen as a strong investment before the shootings. The company began in 2006 as Bushmaster Firearms, then grew as its parent added several other brands, notably Remington Arms. The company has been consistently profitable over the last 12 months, reporting $31.2 million in net income for its third quarter this year.

The shares of other gun manufacturers have recovered from a brief but steep dip following the shooting last year, prompted by fears of tougher gun laws that failed to clear Congress. Shares in Smith & Wesson have risen 28 percent since then, while those in Sturm, Ruger & Company have climbed 50 percent.

But Cerberus and its advisers at the investment bank Lazard have struggled with an auction process that has not yielded any acceptable bids so far, this person said. A number of potential buyers, ranging from leveraged buyout firms to fellow gun makers, have expressed interest. These would-be bidders ran into trouble for different reasons, including an inability to secure adequate financing.

Such were the difficulties that Cerberus’ founder, Stephen A. Feinberg, considered making an offer for Freedom to help spur on the auction, people briefed on the matter have said. Mr. Feinberg, a noted gun enthusiast and hunter, ultimately declined to bid.

Now his firm is making an interim step: Let investors in its funds â€" including those eager to wash their hands of the firearm industry â€" sell their holdings. Among the most vocal of these have been public pension funds like the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, or Calstrs, and New York State’s comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli.

A spokesman for Calstrs acknowledged that the pension fund’s investment chief, Christopher J. Ailman, was scheduled to meet with Cerberus this week, but declined further comment.

To pay for the plan, the private equity firm will bring in a third-party investor that will take a minority stake in Freedom and provide debt financing. The planned investment would value Freedom at about $1 billion.

Though Cerberus will offer its investors an exit, it may still seek to sell Freedom, the person briefed on the matter added. Cashing out investors could offer the firm some flexibility in striking a deal, but does not radically change the auction process.

Cerberus is scheduled to brief creditors on Monday, this person said. They will need to approve the initiative, since it will add additional debt onto the gun maker.

A spokesman for Cerberus declined to comment.

News of the firm’s plans was first reported by The Financial Times.



Near a Vote, Volcker Rule Is Weathering New Attacks

Even as five regulatory agencies prepared to vote Tuesday on a regulation that seeks to rein in risk-taking on Wall Street â€" an effort known as the Volcker Rule â€" lawyers and lobbyists were gearing up for another round of attacks against it.

In recent letters and meetings with financial regulators, lobbyists for Wall Street banks and business trade groups issued thinly veiled threats about challenging the Volcker Rule in court, people briefed on the matter said. The groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are hinting that they could use litigation to either undercut or clarify the rule, which is intended to bar banks from trading for their own gain and limit their ability to invest in hedge funds.

The rule, a cornerstone of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act and a barometer for the overall strength of the regulatory overhaul, is aimed at preventing future trading blowups on Wall Street. In July, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew instructed the agencies drafting the Volcker Rule â€" the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Comptroller of the Currency â€" to complete their work by year’s end.

Over the past few months, the agencies overcame internal squabbling to draft identical versions of the rule, according to the people briefed on the matter, who were not authorized to speak publicly, and have scheduled votes for Tuesday. The agencies came together to write a tougher-than-expected final text despite two years of persistent prodding and pushing from Wall Street lobbyists to water down major provisions of an October 2011 draft version.

Wall Street also urged them to slow down, even as banks prepared to comply with the regulation. In a Dec. 4 letter to the heads of the five agencies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and three other business trade groups wrote, “It is more important to get the Volcker Rule right than meet an artificially imposed deadline.”

But the Chamber is unlikely to rush into court. The Federal Reserve will delay the effective date of the rule to July 2015, the people briefed on the matter said, a move that will probably postpone any litigation for several months while bank lawyers study the rule’s nuances.

Still, Wall Street is wasting no time to find end runs. Come Tuesday, hundreds of lawyers will pore over the details of the final draft, searching for loopholes and outlining for banks how they can comply with the law while still taking risks. One big law firm is installing extra printers in its conference rooms to print out multiple copies of the rule.

Some banks like Goldman Sachs have already test-run certain strategies, such as putting together a separate investment vehicle to make loans to companies in the event the regulation limits the ability of bank-owned hedge funds to continue that business.

“Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs will go out and hire the best and brightest lawyers, and they will say, ‘How do we do this?’ ” said Bill Singer, a securities lawyer who represents individuals and brokerage firms in disputes with regulators and advises clients on regulatory compliance. “The mind-set,” he said, is “how do we get around it?”

That said, Wall Street is also throwing resources into compliance. Banks are writing new compliance manuals, training their traders and rewriting computer programs that effectively automate whether a trade is out of bounds under the Volcker Rule.

Even opponents of the rule, who question the benefit of a ban on trading by banks for their own gain â€" a practice known as proprietary trading â€" privately concede that banks will adjust to the vast majority of its requirements. Further smoothing the transition, banks like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley have already complied with large swaths of the rule, shuttering stand-alone proprietary trading desks months or years ago after Dodd-Frank passed Congress.

But because there was a limit to what Wall Street could do without a completed rule, Tuesday’s vote will at least bring some finality to the behind-the-scenes discussions.

“Compliance will be daunting, but hopefully the waiting will have been the hardest part,” said Lisa M. Ledbetter, who said she was one of about 200 lawyers at Jones Day who will review the rule on Tuesday on behalf of the firm’s Wall Street clients. “The devil is in the details.”

With the Volcker Rule, which officials say is about 70 pages long with a preamble of nearly 900 pages introducing and interpreting the rule, the details will be numerous.

The rule is the brainchild of Paul A. Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman and adviser to President Obama who wanted to outlaw proprietary trading by banks that enjoy deposit insurance and other government support. Such a ban, Mr. Volcker reckoned, would curb risk-taking and avert future bailouts of Wall Street.

But there is not a bright line between proprietary trading and the legitimate practices that are allowed under the rule. For example, banks will still be allowed to buy stocks and bonds for their clients â€" a process known as market-making. They can also place trades that are meant to hedge their risks, a practice that is hard to distinguish from proprietary trading.

In recent weeks, according to the people briefed on the matter, the C.F.T.C. and Kara M. Stein, a Democratic commissioner at the S.E.C. who favors a strict Volcker Rule, pushed to close potential loopholes. Gary S. Gensler, the chairman of the C.F.T.C., argued for new language that would prevent banks from amassing large amounts of stock under the guise of market-making.

The final draft adopted many of their suggestions, the people said, requiring banks to meet tougher-than-expected measures for determining whether a trade is proprietary or market-making. Some require daily calculations from the banks. The measures, the people added, also force the banks to evaluate whether they are holding, say, thousands of shares in Facebook, based on “historical demand” from customers. If not, then regulators would deem the position proprietary and improper.

The rule will also require bank chief executives to attest that they are not doing proprietary trading, officials say, another victory for the rule’s supporters.

But it would still be up to the banks to police their compliance with the rule.

Representatives for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley said it was premature to comment on a regulation that has yet to be approved.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Lisa Burgess, said that the trade group had “deep concerns” about the process that led to the Volcker Rule but that it was too soon to say whether the organization would sue the regulators.

In pursuing courtroom battles against Dodd-Frank â€" federal agencies have been sued at least six times over recent rules â€" the Chamber and other trade groups have used a standard formula. They typically hire Eugene Scalia, a seasoned litigator at Gibson Dunn and the son of Justice Antonin Scalia, to lead the litigation. And to underpin the case, they scrutinize whether regulators fully weighed the costs and benefits of a rule.

The Volcker Rule is not expected to have a stand-alone cost-benefit section, the people briefed on the matter said, a decision that the Chamber might emphasize in a lawsuit. But regulators believed there was no need for such a section because they wove in cost considerations throughout the document and were drafting the rule under a federal statute â€" the Bank Holding Company Act â€" that does not require a cost-benefit analysis.

The Chamber might also seize on a provision in the Volcker Rule that would curtail the ability of banks to engage in portfolio hedging, a type of trading that critics say goes beyond normal hedging of positions for either the benefit of clients or mitigating the bank’s own risk. The provision is a response to the “London Whale” trading debacle that resulted in $6.2 billion in losses for JPMorgan Chase.

In a Nov. 25 letter to the regulatory agencies, a trade group with ties to the Chamber said that any provision aimed at restricting portfolio hedging would be improper since it was not included in the draft version of the Volcker Rule. The group argued that “expanding the Volcker Rule, to include portfolio hedging, without public comment, does not allow businesses to either consider the implications or communicate to regulators how capital formation will be affected.”

But Wall Street critics contend the banks and trade groups were put on notice that regulators might put restrictions on portfolio hedging because it was one of the nearly 400 questions regulators asked for comment on when they published the October 2011 draft.

Some bank lawyers also argue that with Wall Street working to meet the terms of much of the Volcker Rule, the most contentious issues in the measure will probably not take as much time to resolve as some suggest.

“Within a year or two, people will have a sense of how the regulators expect the rule to be implemented” said William J. Sweet Jr., a bank regulatory lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

Jessica Silver-Greenberg contributed reporting.



Comcast Hires JPMorgan as Adviser for Possible Time Warner Cable Bid

Comcast has hired JPMorgan Chase to advise it on a possible bid for Time Warner Cable, according to people briefed on the matter.

The hiring pairs the nation’s largest cable operator by subscribers with the country’s biggest bank, as speculation heats up that someone will make a bid for Time Warner Cable, the nation’s second largest cable operator.

Securing JPMorgan as its adviser gives Comcast access to the biggest balance sheet on Wall Street, potentially smoothing the way for a deal that would probably top $40 billion.

It also suggests that Comcast is taking seriously Time Warner Cable’s invitation to consider a combination, an overture Time Warner made last month after heightened speculation it could be the target of an unsolicited bid.

A deal between Comcast and Time Warner Cable would face intense antitrust scrutiny, since it would combine the two largest providers of cable television, both of which are also leaders in providing Internet access.

And any bidder would be paying a hefty price in a deal. Time Warner Cable shares are up 35 percent this year, and 8 percent in the last two weeks alone, as speculation of a deal has intensified.

Yet Comcast has been compelled to evaluate a bid after smaller rivals, led by Charter Communications, have made it clear they believe now is the time for consolidation in the industry.

Charter, backed by John Malone’s Liberty Media, has been the most vocal advocate for a deal, stating its interest outright and approaching banks about financing.

Cox Communications, another smaller cable operator, is also reportedly evaluating a bid for Time Warner Cable.

But people close to Time Warner Cable insist that the company is in no rush to do a deal with anyone, and approached Comcast only as a way to keep all options open if another bid appeared. Time Warner Cable is on the brink of a handover from one chief executive to another, and its stock is riding high, despite a steady loss of cable television subscribers.

JPMorgan and Comcast have worked together before, albeit on different sides of the table. JPMorgan was the lead banker for General Electric, which sold NBC Universal to Comcast in 2009, a deal that was only completed this year.

JPMorgan and Comcast declined to comment. The hiring of JPMorgan was first reported by Reuters.



Whiskers Unlimited? Not on Wall St.

Whiskers Unlimited? Not on Wall St.

Beards are very much in fashion now. Here in Manhattan, you can spot them just about everywhere, from well-trimmed, barely-there goatees to lush, furry profusions of hirsuteness. In certain parts of Brooklyn, it’s almost hard to find a man who doesn’t have a beard, especially now that the weather is colder.

In general, bankers and traders are a conspicuously clean-shaven lot. A noted exception is Lloyd C. Blankfein.

Carl C. Icahn also wears a beard.

Gary W. Parr, of Lazard.

Jon S. Corzine, former chief of MF Global.

The employed among these men are wearing their beards to work, and most of their employers are O.K. with that. You can have facial hair in almost any industry these days, said Allan D. Peterkin, co-author of “The Bearded Gentleman: The Style Guide to Shaving Face,” and also a psychiatrist in Toronto. But there are a few exceptions, he said, and one of them is finance. (Another is politics.)

It may not be true for everyone in finance, especially when you move away from the heart of Wall Street, but, in general, bankers and traders are a conspicuously clean-shaven lot. In fact, I was unable to find a bearded banker to talk to me for this article. I asked several colleagues in DealBook to help me track down one of these rare birds. Invariably, they came up with Lloyd C. Blankfein, the C.E.O. of Goldman Sachs, who caused quite a stir this year when his beard that drew stares in Davos stayed put in New York.

But Mr. Blankfein is a high-level outlier, as are other men named by my colleagues: Gary W. Parr, vice chairman at Lazard; Jon S. Corzine, former chief of MF Global; and the deal-maker Carl C. Icahn.

That Mr. Blankfein has a beard “just shows his alpha status,” Dr. Peterkin said. “He is at the absolute top of his game, and he gets to do what he wants.”

Several weeks ago, I asked a spokesman for Goldman if he could find me a bearded trader or banker at Goldman Sachs who was not Lloyd Blankfein to talk to me for this column, and he was unable to come up with someone.

Not a single lower-level person at Goldman with a beard? I stood outside Goldman headquarters one night last week around closing time, to see if I could spot any beards. At first I thought I saw quite a few, but then I realized they were 5-o’clock shadows. A very few men did appear to sport true beards, and I had questions for them: Did they work for Goldman or were they just passing through? If theirs were beards of long standing, did their whiskers serve as a kind of calling card, and were they commonly known as “that banker guy with the beard”?

But none of these very few men would stop to talk when accosted on the sidewalk to discuss their facial hair.

Beards are powerful: they were directly responsible for the Boston Red Sox winning the World Series this year. And they are virile. Don’t most male financiers want to be powerful and virile?

Could be, but there is a consideration that trumps all that: A person with a beard can be interpreted as hiding something beyond just his chin, Dr. Peterkin said. “Older people tend to view facial hair with more suspicion than young people do,” he added, having grown up in a time when clean-shavenness was more common. Beards also have a creative, hipsterish connotation, and “you don’t want an ironic hipster handling your funds,” he said.

It’s fine to be creative with words, music or fabric, hence the beards in fields like media, the arts and fashion. But creative with numbers on a financial statement? Not appreciated, which may be why Bernie Madoff didn’t have a beard.

Niall Costello, co-owner of Esquires, a salon with locations on Wall Street and in Midtown, says he sees far more beards at the Midtown shop. And that makes sense, given the higher percentage of people in the fashion and advertising industries who have offices there. On Wall Street, the pressure to uphold that clean-cut look remains strong, Mr. Costello said.

In some circles, maintaining a beard can require more effort and expense than being clean-shaven, said Mr. Costello, who himself has nice, well-trimmed whiskers. Chin hair may need to be clipped and tamed more actively than head hair, he said.

But on the right face, the results can be dashing, and Wall Streeters can afford it, right? Perhaps the bankers and traders out there who have long yearned to grow a beard should give it a try â€" provided that it’s not forbidden.

Companies can ban beards as part of their dress code to keep up a certain image, said Jennifer Sandberg, a partner in the Atlanta office of Fisher & Phillips, an employment law firm. And an employee can challenge that ban if he (or she, for that matter) argues that a beard is legally protected because of religion, race, disability or gender.

Employers can also ban beards for safety reasons, but that’s no issue on Wall Street. So I dare you, if you are an extraordinary man of finance, to grow one. It’s a way of saying: “I’m good enough at what I do and I’m honest enough â€" and I look so incredibly handsome this way â€" that I can get away with it.”

A version of this article appears in print on December 8, 2013, on page BU8 of the New York edition with the headline: Whiskers Unlimited? Not on Wall St..

Wall Street Mothers, Stay-Home Fathers

Wall Street Mothers, Stay-Home Fathers

As Husbands Do Domestic Duty, These Women Are Free to Achieve

Sunday at Home in Charlotte Close Video See More Videos » An Easy Decision Close Video See More Videos »

Marielle Jan de Beur in her Wells Fargo office, talking to her husband, who stays home with their children.

More Photos »

Jim Langley with his son Holbrook at the family home in Rye, N.Y.

More Photos »

Marielle Jan de Beur often catches the 6:27 a.m. train to Grand Central Terminal, waiting on the Westchester platform with a swarm of dark-suited men, and then walks 10 blocks to a Park Avenue office fronted by the fountain where Audrey Hepburn cavorted in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” playing a woman scheming to marry a wealthy man.

But when the elevator lets her off at Wells Fargo, she enters another zone, where the gender dynamic that has long underpinned the financial industry is quietly being challenged. Ms. Jan de Beur and some of her colleagues rely on support that growing numbers of women on Wall Street say is enabling them to compete with new intensity: a stay-at-home husband.

In an industry still dominated by men with only a smattering of women in its highest ranks, these bankers make up a small but rapidly expanding group, benefiting from what they call a direct link between their ability to achieve and their husbands’ willingness to handle domestic duties. The number of women in finance with stay-at-home spouses has climbed nearly tenfold since 1980, according to an analysis of census data, and some of the most successful women in the field are among them.

When Ms. Jan de Beur flew to Hong Kong last spring to persuade Asian investors to re-enter the bond market, her husband took their daughter to try on confirmation dresses. Her colleagues Allison Poliniak and Gina Martin Adams share a running commentary on their husbands’ efforts in the kitchen. Nicole Black recently texted her husband, Drew Skinner, as she headed home after a long day of earnings calls. “You want to hit the gym? Go for it,” he replied, agreeing to spend another hour with their two small sons.

“While I was dating Drew and getting married and having kids, I’ve gone from vice president to director to managing director,” Ms. Black said.

These marriages are Wall Street-specific experiments in money, work, family and power. In interviews, dozens of couples provided field notes on their findings.

Many discovered that even with babysitting and household help, the demands of working in finance made a two-career marriage impossible. The arrangement can be socially isolating, they said, leaving both partners out of a child-rearing world still full of “Mommy and Me” classes. The couples told of new questions of marital etiquette, like who makes the big financial decisions or buys the wife’s jewelry when she makes upward of a million dollars a year and the husband earns little or nothing.

It is not clear, however, if these couples are leaders in the march toward gender equality or examples of how little is shifting on Wall Street. The banks say they want to hire and retain more women.

But the solution that turns out to work so well for these women is an inaccessible option for many others, since it requires one spouse to give up a career and the other to earn enough money to support the family. Rather than changing the culture of the banks, which promote policies on flexible hours and work life balance, these women say that to succeed they must give in to its sometimes brutal terms, from 4:45 a.m. wake-ups onward through days of ceaseless competition.

Along the way, the couples have come to question just what is male behavior and female behavior, noting how quickly their preconceived notions dissolve once they depart from assigned roles. The men echo generations of housewives, voicing concern over a loss of earning power and car pool-induced torpor but also pride in their nurturing roles. The women describe themselves as competitive, tough and proud of every dollar they bring in.

“We’re almost like an opposite ’50s couple,” said Mr. Skinner, Nicole Black’s husband. “I’m staying at home, I do the dishes, I do the laundry, I do everything the housewife does. I’m just a dude.”

Not every marriage proceeds as smoothly. One female banker told colleagues that she recently became irritated with her husband, who works part time, telling him, “I wish I had a wife.”

“You can get one when I can get one,” he replied.

Role Reversals

Rye, N.Y., is not an obvious place to mount a stand against established social roles. The town, on the moneyed coast of Long Island Sound, has long been populated by bankers, including John J. Mack, the former chief executive of Morgan Stanley. The clubs at the end of Stuyvesant Avenue have dress codes and sports like lawn bowling, and despite high property taxes, the town has no school buses, a special torture for working parents.

But even Rye has a set of bankers with stay-at-home husbands, among them Ms. Jan de Beur, an executive in Wells Fargo’s research department, and her architect-turned-artist husband, Jim Langley.

When they married 13 years ago, some of Ms. Jan de Beur’s male colleagues scoffed, suggesting that she would become useless in the workplace. Marriage turned out to be one of her better career moves. By the time she became pregnant, her husband was working extremely long hours for an architecture firm that was pressuring him to relocate, and he made less than half of what she did. The solution seemed obvious.

Ten years later, the life they have put together feels comfortable and well ordered: two bright, talkative children, 10 and 7 years old; a white-clapboard house that feels more cozy than imposing; and time in a sunny third-floor studio for Mr. Langley, who keeps books of work by Andrew Wyeth and Winslow Homer on his shelves. He has moments of wonder with his children, like playing kickball during a summer rainfall and making anatomical sculptures from tree branches.

In interviews, Ms. Jan de Beur, driven and precise, praised her husband’s nurturing skills. Mr. Langley sounded proud if a bit taken aback by his wife’s success. “I’m aware of how lucky I am,” he said.

Still, his wife, along with other women in the same situation, suspects that the arrangement is harder on the men. Some of Mr. Langley’s peers say the chatter at backyard gatherings about bonuses can make them wince: If a half-million-dollar salary is considered unimpressive in some Wall Street circles, where does that leave them?

When people ask what he does, Mr. Langley could say artist â€" he gives the buildings and landscapes he paints expressive personalities of their own â€" but he has just begun trying to sell his work. Other fathers in similar situations say they often tell white lies: They are retired, they are consultants, they work at home.

Mr. Langley generally goes with “stay-at-home dad.”

“That’s what I call myself,” he said over lunch at a restaurant in Rye, the other tables filled with groups of women. “I wouldn’t say I like it.”

What response does he get?

“There’s usually a long pause,” he said.

Feeling Excluded

Half a century ago, Betty Friedan wrote “The Feminine Mystique” not far from where some of the female bankers live today. Even though their husbands have had far different experiences and options than Ms. Friedan’s frustrated 1960s housewives, they sometimes express similar sentiments.

Some wonder what has come of their education, confess that they do not know how to make their way back to work after what they had hoped would be a temporary break, or admit that they do not quite understand their wives’ work. Others have turned themselves into eager helpmates, booking their spouses’ massages and mastering complicated cooking techniques.

But many of the wives say their husbands approach parenthood differently than women do. The stay-at-home mothers in Rye often congregate at spinning or yoga classes, but their male counterparts all seem to have a hobby involving a boat: sailing, building wood kayaks and, in Mr. Langley’s case, depicting fishing dinghies and half-finished hulls in his paintings. Despite their wealth, the men seem largely resistant to relying on nannies and babysitters, facing down screaming toddlers and constant meal preparation with go-it-alone stoicism.

Brandee McHale, a managing director of Citigroup’s charitable foundation, says her husband, a former Marine, does not multitask, noting that for him, “Laundry is an activity.” But she also appreciates that he will focus just as intently on tossing a football with their children.

A few women said that they resented the fact that their husbands did not cook or clean up, but that they had trouble telling them so, for fear that they would sound as if they were treating them like employees.

When Kristine Braden, also of Citigroup, was stationed in the Philippines, she knew that her husband was never going to devote himself to hosting parties for her clients or setting a perfect table, the way some wives of male bankers did. (The couple entertained at restaurants or at home together on weekends.) Few of the men are willing to take on corporate spouse duties, like attending or hosting Wall Street dinners with the alpha men who work at the banks.

The husbands often feel excluded from the social infrastructure that women have built up over generations to make stay-at-home life more manageable and fun. (“You want awkward? Try a swim play date,” one father said.) Every man interviewed said that many school notices, invitations and Girl Scout troop updates were still sent to their wives, a river they are constantly trying to divert.

When Ed Fassler, married to Marcie Fassler, a vice president of operations at PNC Financial Services in Pittsburgh, was helping out with a school wrapping paper sale, the mothers gathered to go over the order â€" and excluded him. “My husband wouldn’t be happy if you’re in my house with us,” the organizer told him.

In March, Mr. Langley is renting space to mount a show of his paintings, and his home studio is cluttered with canvases and taped-together snapshots of the local landscape. In a test run in September, he offered two paintings for sale at an art auction in town. It was a community charity event, the buyers friends from the neighborhood. When both pieces sold, the larger fetching $1,400, husband and wife both felt relief.

Maintaining Focus

In search of remedies, four of JP Morgan Chase’s top women decided to fan out across the country last summer to find out why too many women at the nation’s largest bank, and across the industry, still seemed somewhat stuck in their ascent.

For years, JP Morgan and other banks have tried recruitment and retention efforts aimed at women, including “speed mentoring” (Wells Fargo), wine tastings to get to know management (Morgan Stanley), efforts at hiring women who had taken time off to raise children (Goldman Sachs) and clubs for female bankers (Citigroup alone has 60).

When Diane Schumaker-Krieg, Ms. Black’s and Ms. Jan de Beur’s boss, worked at Credit Suisse years ago, the chief executive at the time, Mr. Mack, even flew her and other promising women to his home for a golf tutorial to help them network on the greens.

Still, women make up just 16 percent of bank executives, according to the consulting firm Catalyst, and only a tiny number run the huge revenue-generating businesses like investment banking and trading, barely a change from a generation before.

In their meetings with 2,500 women at seven JP Morgan offices, the four executives â€" including Mary Callahan Erdoes, the chief executive of the bank’s asset management division, and Marianne Lake, the chief financial officer â€" heard the same messages again and again.

Flex time allowing employees to work from home one or more days a week carried stigma, the women felt. Some said they were reluctant to chase promotions that could require moves upending their families. Many female bankers still quit after having children.

One morning last month, around the time Ms. Lake was departing for a similar round of meetings in Asia, Ms. Black arrived at her cluttered desk at Wells Fargo’s office in Charlotte, N.C., and slid on her headset to hear the latest Viacom earnings.

She tapped out a message for institutional investors, dropped in on a morning meeting to brief salespeople and traders, wrote a memo to clients about why she was downgrading Cisco’s debt, and gave a talk to the sales force on a new bond, all before the clock struck 9:30. During that sprint, she was focused entirely on her work.

Ms. Black and others say that is the real gift of a stay-at-home spouse: avoiding domestic distractions and competing better against other bankers, many of them men with stay-at-home wives.

If Ms. Black gets a call on Tuesday afternoon asking her to attend an out-of-town dinner the next night, she can go. Ms. Jan de Beur took two trips a week on average last spring. Candida P. Wolff, the head of global government affairs for Citigroup, often travels about one and a half weeks each month.

Being the breadwinner often means being taken more seriously in the workplace, they have learned. When one former banker was interviewing at a private equity firm, she said her prospective employers wanted to know what her husband did and seemed pleased that he had a low-paying but flexible job and handled more parenting duties. It dawned on her that the presumption men had often benefited from â€" that they would not be diverted by household demands â€" was finally applying to her too.

On the home front, the women cast the deciding votes on major financial decisions. “It’s not like when you and I were growing up and Dad made all the decisions, but I still control the purse strings,” Ms. Black said.

At Wells Fargo’s modernist tower on Park Avenue, Ms. Schumaker-Krieg, the global head of research, economics and strategy for the bank, is making new recommendations on how to retain and advance female employees. She has spent decades persuading women on her team not to quit, even when they are put on bed rest during pregnancy or give birth to a child with special needs. And she would like others in the industry to follow suit.

She acknowledges that part of the problem is the fundamental nature of the business: the ceaseless race to score the big deals and anticipate market moves. Soon she will complete year-end tallies, ranking the research analysts, including Ms. Black and Ms. Jan de Beur, against their competitors and each other.

Some of the women with stay-at-home husbands are her top performers. When she calls those men “the wind beneath our wings,” she sounds both kind and calculating; the more domestic responsibility the men are willing to assume, the more their wives can help the bank make money.

“It’s easy to slide into irrelevance by backing off just a little,” she warned.

Hannah Fairfield contributed research.

A version of this article appears in print on December 8, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Wall Street Mothers, Stay-Home Fathers.