If you have a Dow Jones News Service feed, I recommend looking up this interesting piece: “TALES OF THE TAPE: Back Against Wall, LaBranche Still Kicking.” Sorry I can’t provide a link for those of you who don’t. Dow Jones doesn’t appear to publicly post these wire pieces, which is a little ironic given that the article ends with a boilerplate solicitation for feedback, which would be far more productive with a more public audience.
It’s also unfortunate that that if you query LAB on WSJ.com, you get Specialists to Be Replaced With Tumbleweed, a MarketBeat blog post and also a thought-provoking piece, but one that is two months old. Yet, only wire subscribers can see a fresher take from just two days ago.
Anyway, here are some excerpts that I thought would be of interest to those of you who have written me about specialist participation in the market:
. . . While two of its seven competitors have closed shop and pundits have pronounced the specialist industry to be dying, LaBranche returned to profitability in the fourth quarter and said it was in a better position than it has been in years.
This is probably due to the stewardship of Chairman and Chief Executive Mike LaBranche, the grandson of the 117-year-old firm’s founder, who has vigorously reinvented the company in a bid to keep pace with the changing landscape of exchanges.
The question is whether this will be enough for the company to make a sustainable comeback.
Trading volume on the NYSE has grown rapidly - something that market-makers and specialists usually benefit from. Yet revenues and profits for specialists have been inconsistent in the past five years, as the migration to automated trading at stock exchanges has accelerated, eliminating their opportunities to trade with an informational advantage.
“There’s no denying the fact the market - the trading today is purely electronic,” CEO LaBranche said during an earnings call last week.
“As a result, we are working very hard to develop our algorithms, to basically interact in the market electronically in some of the same ways that human beings were able to do it before and we’ve worked very hard on it and I think that we’ve made some pretty good progress with that too.”
Specialist firms have encountered other setbacks, including a $247 million regulatory settlement and recent rules that make it harder for them to trade profitably while stabilizing short-term market volatility. . . .
CEO LaBranche says today the company derives well under 50% of its revenue from its specialist business and that headcount would probably continue to be lowered there, although the operation would not cease to function.
“I think that there will be a floor for some time and I think it’s good for the New York Stock Exchange or any exchange.”
NYSE Euronext CEO Duncan Niederauer has been keen to find a place for specialists alongside automated trading, largely because its brand is so closely tied to the image of floor trading. He has worked to loosen some of the trading restrictions on specialists in an effort to make it easier to perform their function.
Those comments naturally piqued my curiosity, so I found a transcript of the original conference call, courtesy of Seeking Alpha. Following are excerpts relating to the NYSE trading floor, some of which are redundant with the Dow Jones piece above. I offer them here in the interest of helping readers better understand the issues, as seen by the head of a leading specialist firm.
Daniel Harris – Goldman Sachs: I was wondering if Michael you could comment on the acquisition by a broker recently of Van der Moolen and you know there are some publicly traded peers out there talking about wanting to be more involved potentially in the specialist business. Just get your thoughts around what they’re seeing in the model that maybe is changing and more positive going forward.
Michael LaBranche: I can’t really speak for a large firm why they came in the business but I can give you my insight of what I think why it would make sense. We’re moving towards an integrated market making model. I think a lot of the barriers that exist in the business are, for example the way rule 98, which is the Chinese wall rule, exists today, is not actually in keeping with the times and I think there is some anticipation that there will be more interaction across different products and venues. I think that’s part of the thing that’s driving it.
Regardless of whether or not people think that the cash equities business is a good business or not it’s still an important business and there’s also a link to issuers which also would yield positive benefits for a large broker, being close to companies. For example, we are a specialist in 570 companies of which we work very closely with the management of those companies and we have always done that. It think that may be part of it as well.
There’s other things that are in the works too. Changing some of the tick rules, changing some of the capital requirements, all these things should make the business more palatable. As I’ve said before it’s been a big adjustment to the current market structure. There’s no denying the fact that the trading today is purely electronic. There are situations where human judgment adds significant benefit to the marketplace in deploying capital in unusual trading situations but by and large trading is fully electronic.
As a result we are working very hard to develop our algorithms to basically interact in the market electronically in some of the same ways that human beings were able to do before and we’ve worked very hard on it and I think that we’ve made some pretty good progress with that too. But the reason why I think that Lehman Brothers came into the business is they saw these opportunities.
. . .
Daniel Harris – Goldman Sachs: Okay, great and then just lastly a couple of more quantitative things. First of all, on the employee headcount side, do you feel that you’re at a level now that’s more stable or do you anticipate that that’s going to go further. And then on the participation rate that you guys are seeing in the market these days, can you just comment on that, thanks a lot.
Michael LaBranche: Very quickly on the participation rate, I don’t really have it in front of me but I think it’s stabilized and gone up and I think that the more that we trade electronically the better we do with our participation rate.
Also, in terms of headcount. Our headcount at the specialist division, the LLC, went from a high of 427 people in 2003 down to 97 people today, so you can see that that’s more than a 75% reduction. I’m not sure where our headcount is going to go but I don’t imagine it’s going to go up there and where is our headcount for the overall company has gone down by about 40% during the year of 2007. 428 to 257, a little bit more than 40%, we really reduced our headcount and I can’t tell you where the headcount is going to be but trends are that capital matters, that technology matters, electronic quoting capabilities are what’s important so that you can do a lot more with fewer people and that certainly seems to be the trend and we’re going to keep looking at it that way and we will manage our costs with that in mind.
Richard Repetto – Sandler O’Neill & Partners: Hello? Hey Michael, first I guess the first question, not to put you on the spot, but you made some statements so far about the electronic environment and how everything is going electronic in Europe, essentially electronic, it begs the question, do you think we really need a floor then?
Michael LaBranche: Well, I’ve always been friendly to new things I think. But I think that’s it’s good to have a floor. I think it’s good for people to have a place for people to meet and remember I think that when the markets get unusually volatile, it’s good to have a meeting place for people to be able to negotiate trades. I think the vast majority of trades are done electronically and essentially they’re done in electronic systems so it’s not really on the floor.
The floors down substantially, we as a result have reduced our headcount down there from 330 at the peak down to about 60 today, so you can see that that’s a lot less than it used to be. I think that there will be a floor for some time and I think it’s good for the New York Stock Exchange or any exchange, it’s good for the CME to have a floor as well. I do think that we need to reduce costs there and it can’t be something that costs you too much in costs and certainly moving away from the manual market that we have has given us the ability to reduce our costs significantly.
. . .
Mike Vinciquerra – BMO Capital Markets: And staying on that front, you mentioned better capital utilization a couple times in this call, with all that excess capital, are there opportunities for you to move into either new or complementary businesses or to add some tuck in acquisitions that would help you be stronger either in in options or ETFs or your structured products group in general that we might look forward to?
Michael LaBranche: Well, we are. I mean we are expanding quite rapidly in London, we’re expanding in Hong Kong, we’re looking at opportunities there, there’s big growth in ETFs both in Asia and in Europe so that’s an opportunity for us and we’re going to use our capital in those places that are growing and it’s pretty simple. If you look at this company, it’s a completely different company than it was five years ago, we recognized that things were going to change, we didn’t know how quickly they would change but we knew they would change eventually and we’ve really focused on areas that are not the public sees as our traditional businesses.
I think our company’s stock price suffers from the fact that people turn on CNBC and they see the floor empty everyday and I think that it just gives the impression that we don’t have a business there, but we do have a business there and we have businesses other places and that’s why we’re going to take our capital and use it.
. . .
George Walsh – Gilford Securities: Any updates besides the, you know there’s the pool for the change of the regulatory capital debt reduction but how about some other things regulatory wise like the odd lot rule and how that’s progressing.
Michael LaBranche: The odd lots have been a significant problem for us. They still are a problem, although we hear that they’re trying to eliminate the abuse that’s going on there, we’re still very concerned about using the systems in a [violative] nature so that hurt us a lot and I think we’re going to get it fixed and we’re working on fixing it as well but that would be a good thing for us and that would be a good regulatory change.
There are other things besides the NLA reduction which are going to be beneficial, I believe there’s going to be a new kind of order form being introduced, I think that’s more, if you were to ask maybe the New York Stock Exchange about and I think they’re working very hard to make the floor more competitive and the market share which I think is down to something like 39-40% has stabilized but I certainly think it would be better for us if it was higher. But they are actively seeking to change some of the rules that will help the floor be more competitive.
Marc Sulam – Healy Circle: In response to the last question, do you sort of [insure] there were some other regulatory changes that were going on which would change the rules, I think of the role of the specialist and be beneficial to members or specialists on the floor. What do you think the time frame of those changes could be, that’s the first question.
Michael LaBranche: Marc, I’m hoping months, you know a few months and again that’s really not up to me to be proposing the changes we just kind of look and see what’s going and adapt to it. But hopefully the changes that are going to take place are going to be within a few months, it’s up to the regulators, the SEC to approve those changes naturally.
But as I said also earlier in the call, the world’s changing, the way stocks trade and stocks aren’t going to be traded in the silos anymore, they’re going to be traded as part of a bigger package and I think you’re going to see more integration of different securities interacting in the marketplace and so I think that over time you’ll see that the cash equities business is just one piece of the puzzle and that things are all pretty much integrated so that it’s going to look completely different.
As always, your comments are welcome. Have a great weekend, folks!
