Posts Tagged ‘JPMorgan’

Bank Stocks Beware: Bernanke & Fed Support Increasing Capital Requirements

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011
GD Star Rating
loading...

U.S. bank indices fell 2% yesterday after fears that capital requirements would increase as much as 7%.  Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), fell below $11.00, the lowest since last year.  The discussion came about after the Basel Committee on Banking revealed how levered large financial institutions still were, and tried to reconcile levels with future recession risks.  A 7% equity capital raise for most banks would be catastrophic and dilute equity by 50%+, but a 3% raise seems manageable in a functioning economy.  The problem is that the U.S. economy is on life support, and that life support is called Quantitative Easing 2.  Once this support fades on June 30th, how will U.S. banks (at their already low valuations due to real estate risk and put backs) raise new equity capital?  A replay of 2009?  You be the judge.

According to Bloomberg, “The Fed supports a proposal at the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision that calls for a maximum capital surcharge of three percentage points on the largest global banks, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

International central bankers and supervisors meeting in Basel, Switzerland, have decided that banks need to hold more capital to avoid future taxpayer-funded bailouts. Financial stock indexes fell in Europe and the U.S. yesterday as traders interpreted June 3 remarks by Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo as leaving the door open to surcharges of as much as seven percentage points.

“A seven percentage-point surcharge for the largest banks would be a disaster,” said a senior analyst at Barclays Capital Inc. in NY. “It will certainly restrict lending and curb economic growth if true.”

Basel regulators agreed last year to raise the minimum common equity requirement for banks to 4.5 percent from 2 percent, with an added buffer of 2.5 percent for a total of 7 percent of assets weighted for risk.

Basel members are also proposing that so-called global systemically important financial institutions, or global SIFIs, hold an additional capital buffer equivalent to as much as three percentage points, a stance Fed officials haven’t opposed, the person said.

Bank Indexes Fall

The Bloomberg Europe Banks and Financial Services Index fell 1.45 percent yesterday, while the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index declined 1.1 percent. The KBW Bank Index, which tracks shares of Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo. and 21 other companies, fell 2.1 percent.

In a June 3 speech, Tarullo presented a theoretical calculation with the global SIFI buffer as high as seven percentage points.

“The enhanced capital requirement implied by this methodology can range between about 20% to more than 100% over the Basel III requirements, depending on choices made among plausible assumptions,” he said in the text of his remarks at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

In a question-and-answer period with C. Fred Bergsten, the Peterson Institute’s director, Tarullo agreed that the capital requirement, with the global SIFI buffer, could be 8.5 percent to 14 percent under this scenario. A common equity requirement of 10 percent is closer to what investors are assuming.

‘Across the Board’

“I think 3 percent is where everyone expected it to come out,” Simon Gleeson a financial services lawyer at Clifford Chance LLP, said in a telephone interview. “If it is 3 percent across the board then it will be interesting to see what happens to the smallest SIFI and the largest non-SIFI” on a competitive basis, he said.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner, in remarks yesterday before the International Monetary Conference in Atlanta, said there is a “strong case” for a surcharge on the largest banks. Fed Chairman Bernanke is scheduled to discuss the U.S. economic outlook at the conference today.

“In the US, we will require the largest U.S. firms to hold an additional surcharge of common equity,” Geithner said. “We believe that a simple common equity surcharge should be applied internationally.”

Distort Markets

Financial industry executives are concerned that rising capital requirements will hurt the economy, which is already struggling with an unemployment rate stuck at around 9 percent.

Higher capital charges “will have ramifications on what people pay for credit, what banks hold on balance sheets,” JPMorgan Chase & Co. chairman and chief executive officer Jamie Dimon told investors at a June 2 Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. conference in New York.

The Global Financial Markets Association, a trade group whose board includes executives from GS and Morgan Stanley, said the surcharge may apply to 15 to 26 global banks, according to a May 25 memo sent to board members by chief executive officer Tim Ryan.

Dino Kos, managing director at New York research firm Hamiltonian Associates, said the discussion about new capital requirements comes at a time when banks face stiff headwinds. Credit demand is weak, and non-interest income from fees and trading is also under pressure.

Best Result

U.S. banks reported net income of $29 billion in the first quarter, the best result since the second quarter of 2007, before subprime mortgage defaults began to spread through the global financial system, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s Quarterly Banking Profile.

Still, the higher profits resulted from lower loan-loss provisions, the FDIC said. Net operating revenue fell 3.2 percent from a year earlier, only the second time in 27 years of data the industry reported a year-over-year decline in quarterly net operating revenue, the FDIC said.

“You can see why banks are howling,” said Kos, former executive vice president at the New York Fed. Higher capital charges come on top of proposals to tighten liquidity rules and limit interchange fees, while the “Volcker Rule” restricts trading activities. Taken together these imply lower returns on equity, he said.

“How can you justify current compensation levels if returns on equity are much lower than in the past?” Kos said.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • Ping.fm
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • MSN Reporter
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter

Nomura Hires First Female CEO – Junko Nakagawa

Thursday, March 10th, 2011
GD Star Rating
loading...

September 2011: According to BBC News, Nomura made a very bold move this week by appointing its first female CEO.  Junko Nakagawa joined Nomura Securities Co. in 1988, working at its underwriting and finance divisions before leaving the company in 2004.  This could start a trend in upward mobility for women in the investment banking field:

Japan’s largest brokerage house, Nomura, has appointed its first female chief financial officer in an unusual move for a top Japanese company. Junko Nakagawa will take up her position on 1 April. Nomura also announced the promotion of Jesse Bhattal to deputy president of the firm’s wholesale banking division. The move is part of a wider effort by some big Japanese companies to offer roles to foreigners to help them move into overseas markets, analysts said. “We have not named Ms Nakagawa as chief financial officer because she is a woman but because she has the capacity to do this job and assume the responsibilities,” Nomura said. “That said, we think is good to encourage diversity in our business.” The promotion is an unusual move in Japan where senior business positions are generally filled by men. “It is rare for a Japanese financial institution to give this type of promotion to a woman,” said Azuma Ohno at Credit Suisse in Tokyo.“It’s an impressive move.”


  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • Ping.fm
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • MSN Reporter
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter

KKR & Bain to IPO HCA at $30 per Share – Mega IPO, Sponsors to make 2.5x on Deal

Friday, March 4th, 2011
GD Star Rating
loading...

HCA Holdings, the large hospital operator in the world, confirmed that it had set a preliminary price range for its initial public offering of $27 to $30 a share last month.  The company was taken private in 2006 for about $30 billion, with an equity check that was only 15% of its purchase price!  Last year, HCA’s $4.3 billion dividend recapitalization itself made many parties in the deal whole on their initial investment.  The IPO is gravy, icing on the cake.  And to top it all off, this had been done with the hospital operator before: “The company had been under private-equity ownership before, completing a $5.1 billion leveraged buyout in 1989. When it went public again in 1992, it handed its backers, including units of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., a more-than- eightfold gain, BusinessWeek magazine reported at the time.”

According to BusinessWeek, after a tepid turnout in 2010, there has been a modest uptick in buyout-backed offerings this year, with several exceeding expectations. Among the recent I.P.O.’s are Nielsen Holdings, Kinder Morgan and Bank United. HCA is currently pitching its offering to investors.

A private equity consortium, including Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Bain Capital and Merrill Lynch, acquired HCA in 2006, loading the company up with debt. HCA, in its filing, said it planned to use proceeds from its offering to pay off some of its debt.

What a difference 10 months have made for HCA Inc. and its private-equity owners, KKR & Co., Bain Capital LLC and Bank of America Corp.

When the hospital operator, which went private in a record leveraged buyout in 2006, filed in May to go public, U.S. initial offerings were stumbling, with deals in the first four months raising an average of 13 percent less than sought. Rather than press ahead, the owners took on more debt to pay themselves a $2 billion dividend in November, in a transaction known as a dividend recapitalization.

This month, HCA’s owners are betting that stock markets have recovered enough for investors to pick up the shares, even with the additional debt. If they’re right, they may triple their initial investment in what would be the largest private- equity backed initial public offering on record.

“This has been a classic case of buy low, sell high from the beginning,” said J. Andrew Cowherd, managing director in the health-care group of Peter J. Solomon Co., a New York-based investment bank. “Private-equity buyers have timed capital markets perfectly on this deal.”

The offering, if successful, underscores the crucial role played by the capital markets in leveraged buyouts, at times eclipsing the impact of operational changes private-equity firms make at their companies. A surge in demand for stocks and junk- bonds, fueled by asset purchases of the Federal Reserve that sent investors searching for yield, have helped KKR and Bain reap profits from HCA, even as the company remains burdened with $28.2 billion in debt and slowing revenue growth.

Record Deal

KKR, Bain, Bank of America and other owners invested about $5 billion in equity in the $33 billion takeover of HCA, which including debt was the largest leveraged buyout at the time. The backers, who took out $4.3 billion in dividends from HCA last year as the high-yield market soared, stand to get more than $1 billion from the IPO and will retain a stake in HCA valued at about $11 billion.

In acquiring Nashville, Tennessee-based HCA, KKR and Bain chose a company with steady cash flow and a business that’s protected from swings in the economy. Cash flow from operations was $3.16 billion in the year before the 2006 buyout, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. As of Dec. 31, 2010, that number was little changed at $3.09 billion.

The company had been under private-equity ownership before, completing a $5.1 billion leveraged buyout in 1989. When it went public again in 1992, it handed its backers, including units of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., a more-than- eightfold gain, BusinessWeek magazine reported at the time.

Income Streams

Unlike some other buyouts of the boom years that had less predictable income streams, HCA has reported revenue growth of between 5 percent and 6 percent every year it was private, except in 2010, when growth slowed to 2.1 percent. Net income has increased 17 percent since the end of 2006.

NXP Semiconductors NV, another 2006 buyout involving KKR and Bain, had combined losses of $5.8 billion between the takeover and its IPO in August. NXP, which sold just 14 percent of its shares, had to cut the offering price, leaving investors with a 21 percent paper loss as of Dec. 31. The stock has more than doubled since the IPO.

HCA, the biggest for-profit hospital chain in the U.S., attributes gains in income to cost-cutting measures and initiatives to improve services for patients. The company sold some hospitals after the buyout and made “significant investments” in expanding service lines, as well as in information technology, HCA said in a regulatory filing.

‘Aggressive Changes’

“HCA was already one of the better operators when it was taken private so it was hard to see how much cost could be driven out of the business,” Dean Diaz, senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service in New York, said in a telephone interview. “But they are very good at what they do and are above where we would have expected on Ebitda growth.”

Some of the improvements in earnings have come from “aggressive changes in billing and bad debt expense reserves,” Vicki Bryan, an analyst at New York-based corporate-bond research firm Gimme Credit LLC, said in a Feb. 22 report.

Provisions for doubtful accounts dropped 19 percent last year, to $2.65 billion. Capital spending, or money invested in the company, declined to about 4 percent of revenue last year from 7 percent in 2006. The company hasn’t used its cash to bring down the debt load, which is about the same as it was at the time of the takeover.

That debt will contribute to a negative shareholder equity, a measure of what stockholders will be left with if all assets were sold and debts were paid, of $8.6 billion, according to Bryan. Excluding intangible assets, new investors buying the stock would own a negative $51 per share, she said.

‘Funding the LBO’

“Today’s HCA stock buyers are still funding the 2006 LBO, which enriched many of the same equity owners for the second time, plus the massive dividends and management fees paid to those equity investors who will remain very much in control,” Bryan wrote in the report.

While it’s not unusual for companies that exit LBOs to have more debt than assets, it means they will have to use cash flow to reduce debt rather than pay out dividends, limiting returns for shareholders. HCA’s share price doubled in the 14-year period between its 1992 IPO and the 2006 buyout, not including the impact of stock splits.

Ed Fishbough, an HCA spokesman, declined to comment, as did officials for New York-based KKR, Bain in Boston, and Bank of America in Charlotte, North Carolina.

‘Slight Premium’

Even so, investors may pick up the stock after U.S. equity markets rallied to the highest levels since June 2008. So far this year, eight companies backed by private-equity or venture- capital firms have raised $5.9 billion in initial public offerings, five times the amount that such companies raised last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

At the midpoint of the price range of $27 to $30, the IPO would value the company at $14.7 billion. Based on metrics such as earnings and debt, that valuation would give HCA a “slight premium” to rivals such as Community Health Systems Inc. and Tenet Healthcare Corp., according to a Feb. 22 report from CreditSights Inc.

Community Health Systems, currently the biggest publicly traded hospital operator, in December bid $3.3 billion to buy Tenet in Dallas. If the takeover is successful, the combined company with about $22.2 billion in revenue as of Dec. 31, 2010 will still be smaller than HCA.

With as much as $4.28 billion in stock being sold, the HCA offering is poised to break the record set by Kinder Morgan Inc., the buyout-backed company that last month raised $2.9 billion in an IPO.

‘Medicare Schedule’

Shareholders will also have to weigh the impact of government spending cuts and changes to hospital payment schedules prompted by the 2010 U.S. health law and rules from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, which administer the federal programs.

Baltimore-based CMS has been pushing to bundle payments to doctors and hospitals, giving them a set amount for a procedure that has to be split among providers. The agency also plans to penalize providers if patients acquire infections while in treatment or fare badly after stays. Too many readmissions, once regarded as more revenue, may now result in lower payment rates.

The federal health-care law will extend health insurance to 32 million more Americans and may prompt some employers to drop company-sponsored health benefits in favor of sending employees to state insurance exchanges the new law creates. While the newly insured may mean less bad debt for hospitals, fewer private sector-paid benefits may mean lower revenue for for- profits like HCA, because commercial payers and employers tend to pay the highest rates to providers.

Health-Care Impact

“Hospitals are going to have to learn how to be productive and profitable on a Medicare rate schedule,” said R. Lawrence Van Horn, who teaches at the Owen Graduate School of Management at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. Medicare and Medicaid pay less for procedures and treatment than employers and commercial insurers, which are “traditionally the most generous payers,” he said.

HCA said in its filing that it can’t predict the impact of the changes on the company.

For-profit hospitals like HCA depend more on commercial payers and less on government beneficiaries than do nonprofits, which have already seen their revenue reduced by government cutbacks, particularly in Medicaid. Chains like HCA, with their access to capital, may be able to take advantage of weakness among nonprofits to consolidate the industry further, Van Horn said.

Megan Neuburger, an analyst at Fitch Ratings in New York, said the biggest impact of the health-care reform won’t be felt until 2014, and the market recovery will play a more important role for now in determining HCA’s success.

Returning Money

“In the short term, the pace and progress of economic recovery will probably be more influential to the industry’s financial and operating trends than health-care reform,” Neuburger said in an interview.

For KKR and Bain, the timing of the IPO is crucial also because their clients want to see whether buyouts made just before the credit crisis can be profitable, before they commit capital to new funds. KKR is seeking to raise its 11th North American-focused buyout fund this year.

Buyout firms have been able to return some money to investors through dividend recapitalizations, as near-zero interest rates have spurred a demand for junk bonds. Borrowers sold $47 billion of debt last year, or 9 percent of offerings, to pay owners, compared with $11.7 billion in 2008 and 2009, according to Standard & Poor’s Leveraged Commentary and Data.

‘Unprecedented Amount’

Investors in Bain’s 2006 fund have received $1.6 billion in distributions so far, or about 20 percent of the $8 billion deployed. HCA’s dividends recapitalizations accounted for about $302 million of the total Bain paid out to the fund’s clients, according to an investor in the fund. The fund has generated an average annual loss of 6.4 percent, according to another person familiar with the fund.

“Investors committed an unprecedented amount of money over a short time period,” said Jeremie Le Febvre, the Paris-based global head of origination for Triago, which helps private- equity firms raise money. “Investors most likely won’t be as generous a second time, or even have the means to double down on a firm, as reputable as it may be, without first seeing money flowing back into their pockets.”

–With assistance from Lee Spears in New York and Christian Baumgaertel in 東京. Editors: Christian Baumgaertel, Larry Edelman

Here is an article LA put together earlier last year on a possible IPO: http://leverageacademy.com/blog/2010/04/11/hca-could-have-3-billion-ipo-4-years-after-kkr-bain-buyout/.

Check out our intensive investment banking, private equity, and sales & trading courses! The discount code Merger34299 will be activated until April 15, 2011. Questions? Feel free to e-mail thomas.r[at]leverageacademy.com with your inquiries or call our corporate line.


  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • Ping.fm
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • MSN Reporter
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter

Waddell & Reed Guilty for Starting 1,000 Point Drop on May 6th, Barclays Executed Trade

Friday, May 14th, 2010
GD Star Rating
loading...

May 6th will be remembered as the day the DJIA dropped 1,000.  For days, market commentators blamed electronic traders and bulge bracket banks including Citigroup, but today culprit Waddell and Reed was discovered.  Waddell and Reed is one of the oldest mutual fund managers in the United States.  The firm sold 75,000 e-mini future contracts on the S&P500, throwing the market into a tail spin.  Barclays executed the trade in one single trade, instead of breaking it up into 100 or 1,000 different orders.  The negligence on Barclays’ part is mostly to blame, since one can’t blame Waddell for hedging.  We can see today, that Waddell was in the right, as the Euro fell past 1.24.

Waddell’s sell order briefly wiped out $1 trillion from the U.S. equity markets in a 20 minute period.  Over that period, over 840,000 e-mini contract futures were traded by firms including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Jump Trading, Interactive Brokers, and Citadel.  Procter & Gamble fell almost 30% in 10 minutes, as shown above. (Source: ZeroHedge)

According to MarketWatch, “In response to inquiries and published reports, Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc.  today issued the following statement:

On May 6, as on many trading days, Waddell & Reed executed several trading strategies, including index futures contracts, as part of the normal operation of our flexible portfolio funds. Such trades often are executed in response to market activity, and are undertaken to protect fund investors from downside risk. We use futures trading as part of this strategy, broadly known as hedging. This is a longstanding and well monitored practice in certain of our investment portfolios. We believe we were among more than 250 firms that traded the “e-mini” security during the timeframe the market sold off.

Quotes attributed to executives at the CME and the CFTC note that Waddell & Reed has executed trades of this size previously, and indicate that we are a “bona fide hedger” and not someone intending to disrupt the markets. Further, CME noted that they identified no trading activity that contributed to the break in the equity market during this period. Like many market participants, Waddell & Reed was affected negatively by the market activity of May 6.

About the Company

Waddell & Reed, Inc., founded in 1937, is one of the oldest mutual fund complexes in the United States, having introduced the Waddell & Reed Advisors Group of Mutual Funds in 1940. Today, we distribute our investment products through the Waddell & Reed Advisors channel (our network of financial advisors), our Wholesale channel (encompassing broker/dealer, retirement, registered investment advisors as well as the activities of our Legend subsidiary), and our Institutional channel (including defined benefit plans, pension plans and endowments, as well as the activities of ACF and our subadvisory partnership with Mackenzie in Canada).

Through its subsidiaries, Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. provides investment management and financial planning services to clients throughout the United States. Waddell & Reed Investment Management Company serves as investment advisor to the Waddell & Reed Advisors Group of Mutual Funds, Ivy Funds Variable Insurance Portfolios, Inc. and Waddell & Reed InvestEd Portfolios, Inc., while Ivy Investment Management Company serves as investment advisor to Ivy Funds, Inc. and the Ivy Funds portfolios. Waddell & Reed, Inc. serves as principal underwriter and distributor to the Waddell & Reed Advisors Group of Mutual Funds, Ivy Funds Variable Insurance Portfolios, Inc. and Waddell & Reed InvestEd Portfolios, Inc., while Ivy Funds Distributor, Inc. serves as principal underwriter and distributor to Ivy Funds, Inc. and the Ivy Funds portfolios.”

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • Ping.fm
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • MSN Reporter
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter

Barclays Sees Strong Outlook – Diamond (aka the British Dimon)

Sunday, February 21st, 2010
GD Star Rating
loading...

Barclays reports record profit, sees room for growth in U.S.  Lehman was the platform they needed, but growth will be fueled by Asia and emerging markets…

YouTube Preview Image

~I.S.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • Ping.fm
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • MSN Reporter
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter

Comprehensive List of Investment Banks

Sunday, November 8th, 2009
GD Star Rating
loading...

Wall Street

A.G. Edwards Keefe, Bruyette & Woods
ABN Amro KeyCorp
Allen & Company Kidder, Peabody & Co.
Allegiance Capital Corporation KPMG Corporate Finance
AllianceBernstein Kleinwort Benson
Allianz Kuhn, Loeb & Co.
Alpha Omega Capital Partners L.F. Rothschild
Ambrian Ladenburg Thalmann
Babcock & Brown Lazard
Baird Lazard Capital Markets
Bank of America Merrill Lynch Lee, Higginson & Co.
Bank of NY Mellon Leerink Swann
Bank of Nova Scotia Lighthouse Capital Advisors
Bank Leumi USA Lincoln International
Barclays Lloyds TSB Group plc
BB&T Corp. M&T Bank
BCC Capital Partners Macquarie Bank
Bengur Bryan & Co. McColl Partners
Blackstone Group McGladrey Capital Markets
BMO Miller Buckfire
BNP Paribas Moelis & Co.
Boenning & Scattergood Mizuho Financial Group
Breckenridge Group Monte dei Paschi di Siena
Brisbane Capital Montgomery & Co.
Broadpoint Securities Montgomery Securities
Brookwood Associates Morgan Grenfell
Brown Brothers Harriman Morgan Joseph & Co.
Brown Gibbons Lang & Co. Morgan Keegan
Brown, Shipley & Co. Morgan Stanley
C.V. Lemmon & Co. Mosaic Capital
C.E. Unterberg, Towbin N M Rothschild & Sons
Calyon National City Corp.
Caymus Partners Needham & Company
Canaccord Adams Neuberger Berman, LLC
Cantor Fitzgerald Newbury Piret
Caris & Company Newsouth Capital Management inc.
Carnegie, Wylie & Company NIBC
Cascadia Corp. Noble Bank
CIBC Nomura
Citigroup Oppenheimer
Close Brothers Group P&M Corporate Finance
Comerica Park Lane
Commodities Corporation Penn Capital Group
Cowen Group, Inc. Perella Weinberg Partners
Credit Suisse Peter J. Solomon Company
Curtis Financial Group Petrie Parkman & Co.
D.A. Davidson & Co. Piper Jaffray
Deka Bank PNC Financial Services
Deloitte & Touche Corporate Finance Prarie Capital Advisors
Deutsche Bank Provident Capital Advisors
Dominion Partners Provident Healthcare Partners
Dresdner Kleinwort Prudential Securities
Duff & Phelps Putnam Lovell
E. F. Hutton Rabobank
Edgeview Partners Regions Financial Services
Evercore Partners Raymond James
Fifth Third Bancorp. Robert Fleming & Co.
Financo, Inc. Robert W. Baird & Company
First Horizon National Corp. Robertson & Foley
Focus Enterprises Robertson, Stephens
Fortis Bank Royal Bank of Canada
Fox-Pitt, Kelton Royal Bank of Scotland
Friedman Billings Ramsey Rutberg & Co.
G.H. Walker & Co. Ryan Beck & Co.
Gemini Partners Sagent Advisors
Genuity Capital Markets Salman Partners Inc.
Gerard Klauer Mattison Salomon Brothers
Goldman Sachs Sandler O’Neill + Partners
Grace Matthews Saxo Bank
Greenhill & Company Schroders
Greif & Co. Scotia Bank
Growth Capital Partners Shoreline Partners
Grupo Santander Societe Generale
GulfStar Group Soundview Technology Group
GW Equity SPP Capital Partners
H. B. Hollins & Co. Stephens Inc.
Harpeth Capital Stifel Nicolaus
Halsey, Stuart & Co. St. Charles Capital
Hambrecht & Quist SunTrust Banks, Inc.
Hambros Bank Susquehanna International Group, LLP (SIG)
Harris Williams & Company SVB Alliant
Harris, Forbes & Co. T. Rowe Price
Headwaters MB TD Securities
Heritage Capital Group The DAK Group
Herrera Partners ThinkEquity Partners, LLC
Hilco Corporate Finance, LLC ThinkPanmure LLC
Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin Thomas Weisel Partners
HSBC Toronto-Dominion Bank
Hyde Park Capital Advisors Transparent Value
Imperial Capital, LLC Trenwith Securities
ING Group Triangle Capital Partners
Investec TSG Partners, LLC
Investment Technology Group UBS AG
Ironwood Capital Unicredit
J. & W. Seligman & Co. Union Bank of California
Janes Capital Partners Vercore
Janney Montgomery Scott Verdant Partners
Jefferies & Co. Webster Financial Corp.
JMP Securities Wells Fargo
Jordan, Knauff & Company White Weld & Co.
JPMorgan Chase William Blair & Company
Kaupthing Bank WIT Capital
KBC Bank WR Hambrecht+ Co
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • Ping.fm
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • MSN Reporter
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter