Blair Hull Chairman & CEO, Matlock Capital (bought out by Goldman Sachs)

Blair Hull In Worth Magazine

Wall Street’s 25 Smartest Players By Ted C. Fishman

That was 1989. Today, Hull’s company is one of the world’s premier market-making firms, setting the bid-ask price on stocks listed on 28 exchanges in nine countries. In some venues, the Hull Group trades nearly a quarter of the entire daily market volume. That is no small feat, considering that other American market-making firms have consistently tried and failed to set up shop overseas. Hull is an aggressive firm in this country, too; its trades account for 8 percent of the volume in U.S. equity-index options in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index, the Russell 2000, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. And Hull buys and sells as much as 1 percent of all shares moving on the NYSE.

What distinguishes Hull’s firm from other trading giants, such as Goldman Sachs, is that it does an extremely high volume of small trades that pay small amounts each, while a Goldman does fewer trades for more money. We do about 30,000 trades a day, Hull explains, involving on average about 700 shares each. Speed, of course, is essential in executing Hull’s trades efficiently.

Hull has a staff top-heavy with Ph.D.’s drawn from the sciences. Lately, the firm’s massive computer network has been sorting through patterns in stocks according to genetic algorithms. Our view is that if you have a mouse in your hand you’re too late, Hull says. Indeed, his computers trade stocks faster than the human eye can see them scroll on a screen. The system is designed to predict patterns that will unfold in the market over periods as short as two minutes.

In a business that isn’t normally modest about its technological savvy, Hull and his automated trading shop are the envy of Wall Street’s top firms. So much so that, in July, Goldman Sachs paid $531 million for the whole shebang. They told us they bought us because it would have taken them two years to build a similar system, Hull says, and that by then, we’d be two years ahead.

David Tepper’s Fund Made 7 Billion Betting Against US Recession

In this comeback year for investors, David Tepper may have scored one of the biggest paydays of all.

Mr. Tepper’s hedge-fund firm has racked up about $7 billion of profit so far this year—with Mr. Tepper on track to earn more than $2.5 billion for himself, according to people familiar with the matter. That is among the largest one-year takes in recent years.

Behind the wins: a bet worth billions of dollars that America would avoid a repeat of the Great Depression.

Through February and March, Mr. Tepper scooped up beaten-down bank shares as many investors were running for the exits. Day after day, Mr. Tepper bought Bank of America Corp. shares, then trading below $3, and Citigroup Inc. preferred shares, when that stock was under $1. One of his investors insisted more carnage loomed. Friends who shared his bullish beliefs were wary of aping his moves amid speculation that the government was about to nationalize the big banks.

“I felt like I was alone,” Mr. Tepper recalls. On some days, he says, “no one was even bidding.”

The bets paid off. A resurgent market has helped Mr. Tepper’s firm, Appaloosa Management, gain about 120% after the firm’s fees, through early December. Thanks to those gains, Mr. Tepper, who specializes in the stocks and bonds of troubled companies, manages about $12 billion, a sum that makes Appaloosa one of the largest hedge funds in the world.

Mr. Tepper, whose office overlooks the parking lot of a Hilton hotel in Short Hills, N.J., across from an upscale mall, now is taking aim at a new target. He’s purchased about $2 billion of beaten-down commercial mortgage-backed securities. Among his purchases are bonds backed by chunks of the debt of Peter Cooper Village & Stuyvesant Town and 666 Fifth Ave. in New York, two high-profile real-estate deals that have fallen in value over the past two years.

Some experts predict more bad news for commercial real estate—and say that if Mr. Tepper’s move doesn’t pan out, it could jeopardize a chunk of his recent gains. Mr. Tepper says he remains optimistic.

Hedge funds, once darlings of well-heeled investors, suffered dearly in 2008, dropping 19%. Nearly 1,500 funds, or 16% of the total, shuttered last year. This year, hedge funds are clawing back, with gains of 19% through November, on pace for their best annual gains in a decade, according to Hedge Fund Research Inc.

A handful of funds—including Everest Capital’s emerging-market funds and the stock-focused Glenview Capital—have racked up fat gains this year. In sheer dollars, though, none appear to have come close to matching Appaloosa’s winnings.

Mr. Tepper grew up in a middle-class neighborhood in Pittsburgh, the son of an accountant who worked seven days a week and once won a $715,000 lottery payout. In the late 1980s, he helped run junk-bond trading at Goldman Sachs. Mr. Tepper wears jeans and sneakers to work, and can be self-deprecating, playing down his successes. He claims to have popularized on Wall Street the phrase “it is what it is” to explain the need to adjust a portfolio if facts on the ground shift.

After he was repeatedly passed over for a partnership, Mr. Tepper left Goldman to start Appaloosa in 1993. By 2008, he had a track record of annual gains averaging about 30% and a net worth estimated at about $2 billion.

Mr. Tepper lives in a two-story home in New Jersey he bought in 1990 for $1.2 million. He recently purchased an ownership stake in the Pittsburgh Steelers football team, and flies to every home game. In 2004 he gave $55 million to Carnegie Mellon University’s business school, his alma mater, which renamed itself the Tepper School of Business.

The husky, bespectacled trader laughs easily, but employees say he can quickly turn on them when he’s angry. Mr. Tepper keeps a brass replica of a pair of testicles in a prominent spot on his desk, a present from former employees. He rubs the gift for luck during the trading day to get a laugh out of colleagues.

His biggest scores over the years have come from buying large chunks of out-of-favor investments. When Asian markets crumbled in 1997, Mr. Tepper added Korean stocks to a portfolio laden with Russian debt. The moves led to hundreds of millions of dollars in profits when markets rebounded two years later. He scored big on junk bonds in 2003, and his 2007 wager on steel, coal and other resource companies paid off in 2008 when commodity prices soared.

But because he sometimes places more than half of his portfolio in a single trade idea, Mr. Tepper also is prone to brutal, abrupt losses.

That approach cost him more than $1 billion last year. In January 2008, Societe General SA trader Jerome Kerviel was revealed to have lost €5 billion ($7.2 billion), one of the world’s largest trading loss. Mr. Tepper sold large chunks of his holdings, fearing a market tumble. Prices held up, though, hurting Appaloosa. In the spring of last year, he turned bullish on large-company stocks and did some buying, but suffered as markets declined.

Mr. Tepper made a big wager on Delphi in 2006. But in April of last year he and a group of investors withdrew from a deal to inject as much as $2.6 billion in the bankrupt auto-parts supplier, sparking a nasty legal battle that was resolved this summer. Appaloosa lost almost $200 million on its investment in Delphi.

Mr. Tepper’s largest fund dropped 25% for 2008, worse than the industry’s 19% average decline.

“Investing with David is like flying, with hours of boredom followed by bouts of sheer terror,” says Alan Shealy, a client of more than 18 years. “He’s the quintessential opportunist, investing in any asset class, but you have to have a cast-iron stomach.”

Mr. Tepper entered 2009 cautiously, with more than 30% of his firm’s assets in cash, or more than $2 billion. He itched to do some buying. Mr. Tepper explains his investment philosophy with a line from Allan Meltzer, a professor at his alma mater: “Trees grow.” In other words, growth is the natural state of economies, so optimism usually is rewarded.

On Feb. 10 of this year, Mr. Tepper read that the Treasury Department was introducing the so-called Financial Stability Plan. It included a commitment by the government to inject capital into banks by buying their preferred stock, or shares that carry less chance of reward but also less risk than common stock.

At the time, investors worried that the government ultimately would have to nationalize big banks. U.S. officials said they had no intention of such a move, which could wipe out common shareholders, but investors were dubious.

The news from the Treasury Department struck Mr. Tepper as proof that the government would stand behind the banks. He directed his traders to begin buying bank stock and debt.

Few investors were feeling as optimistic. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 382 points on the day Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner introduced the plan, nearly 5%. Bank shares continued to tumble in the days that followed. Bank of America shares fell as low as $2.53 on Feb. 20. By March 5, Citigroup traded as low as 97 cents.

“This is ridiculous, it’s nuts, nuts, nuts!” Mr. Tepper recalls saying to Michael Lukacs, one of his partners, on the firm’s small trading floor. “Why would the government break its word? They’re not going to let these banks go under, people aren’t being logical!”

Mr. Tepper huddled with Mr. Lukacs and Jim Bolin, another top Appaloosa executive. Mr. Tepper insisted that stimulus spending and low interest rates would boost the economy. He said he estimated there was only a 20% chance that the U.S. would nationalize banks such as Citigroup.

Mr. Bolin, who people at the firm say tends to be more conservative than Mr. Tepper, was bullish about banks, but still thought it safer to stick to bank debt than to riskier shares. Mr. Tepper says he listened to the arguments, but said it was time to place a big bet.

Over several weeks, Mr. Tepper’s team bought a variety of bank investments, including debt, preferred shares and common shares. Just months earlier, the government had injected billions of dollars to keep companies such as American International Group Inc. going, much as they were now doing with the banks. But that didn’t prevent shares of those companies from tumbling.

At one point in March, the firm was down about 10% for the year, or about $600 million. Mr. Tepper got on the phone to make more trades, something he often left to subordinates. This time, he wanted to talk directly to Wall Street brokers to test how bad things really were.

The answer: really bad. Mr. Tepper says he was told that he was the only big investor doing much buying.

“Clients were nervous that the game had changed and capitalism wouldn’t be the same. There was real fear,” recalls Timothy Ghriskey, chief investment officer at Solaris Asset Management, a $2 billion investment firm, who says he only bought a small amount of bank shares during this period.

One day in late winter, Mr. Tepper heard from a skeptical client of his own, Mr. Shealy.

“This thing is far from over,” Mr. Shealy recalls saying, referring to the bank problems. Still, Mr. Shealy, who runs an investment firm in Boise, Idaho, stuck with Mr. Tepper. “I figured the positions were fairly liquid, so if he was wrong, he would get out.”

Mr. Tepper hadn’t paid his investors’ nerves much heed since 2000. That year, he bet that the tech-heavy Nasdaq index would fall. But so many investors complained that Mr. Tepper was straying from his roots in debt investing that he canceled his bets. When the Nasdaq collapsed months later, Mr. Tepper fumed.

By late March of 2009, Citigroup shares had tripled, and Mr. Tepper’s other holdings, including junk bonds, were rising. He and his team bought more, spending more than $1 billion, when various banks conducted share sales. Mr. Tepper says his average cost for shares of Citigroup was 79 cents; for Bank of America it was $3.72.

At one point in the summer, Mr. Tepper had recorded about $1 billion of profits in shares of just Citigroup and Bank of America, and his overall gains soared past $4.5 billion, or 70%, since January.

After Mr. Bolin, the Appaloosa executive, urged caution, Mr. Tepper did some selling to lock in gains. But the firm remains a big holder of both Bank of America and Citigroup shares, which now trade at $15.03 and $3.40, respectively.

Mr. Tepper remains upbeat. He says he expects interest rates to stay low, and argues that stocks and bonds are reasonably priced.

This belief is driving another risky bet. At the end of each quarter this year, Mr. Tepper noticed that investors were dumping holdings of troubled bonds backed by commercial properties. He had never dabbled in these investments, but he and his 10-person team did some research and judged them attractive, with some seemingly safe debt trading at yields above 15%.

Mr. Tepper slowly spent more than $1 billion to gain ownership of between 10% and 20% of highly rated slices of commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS. He focused on debt backed by loans of properties including Stuyvesant Town and 666 Fifth Ave. in New York.

His bet: If the economy improves, he’ll earn hefty interest payments on the bonds. But if the properties can’t make their payments, Mr. Tepper believes he owns so much of the debt that he’ll have a big say in how the properties get restructured. That means he could ultimately end up ahead.

He’s taking a big risk, some analysts warn. The value of commercial real estate continues to fall. Owners of debt classes don’t always have much power to influence a commercial real-estate restructuring. And because the debt of these big properties was carved into many pieces, and many investors are involved, any battle for control will be complicated.

Mr. Tepper says the worrywarts have it wrong: “If you think the economy will be fine, as we do, then we’re going to do very well.”

Write to Gregory Zuckerman at gregory.zuckerman@wsj.com

Corrections & Amplifications

David Tepper has purchased bonds backed partly by debt of 666 Fifth Ave. in New York. A previous version of this story described the property as 666 West 57th Street in New York.

Hedge Fund Accounting Software

This article will be about hedge fund accounting software providers. I will add to the article as the time goes and I get more information on this niche of hedge fund software industry.

From the top of my head can name a few companies that develop accounting software for hedge funds and FoHFs:

Cogency Softwre

FundCount

Advent

PennyItWorks

To be continued…

With SAS, Concept Capital Offers New, Hosted Portfolio Analytics and Risk Management Portal to the Hedge Fund Market

CARY, N.C.–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Risk management remains a hot topic for all financial services firms. Introduction of more stringent requirements, especially in the investment management industry, calls for hedge funds to access more powerful analytics to effectively measure portfolio risk, typically a difficult task with significant fixed costs. To meet this market need, Concept Capital, an institutional broker and total solutions provider to the investment management industry, has partnered with SAS, the leader in business analytics software and services. As a result of the collaboration, Concept Capital will offer a full suite of analytics that will provide integrated, multicustodial risk and performance reporting to investment managers, family offices and investors by providing simple yet powerful portfolio analytics and risk intelligence. With SAS risk management software, Concept Capital will significantly expand the capabilities of its flagship product, CONCEPTONE™, to bring a unique product to the marketplace.

“We believe there is a huge opportunity to bring an integrated solution to the market that will combine portfolio analytics and advanced risk management capabilities to the investment management and hedge fund space,” said Michael Rosen, Managing Director at Concept Capital. “This solution will give investors increased confidence in receiving risk reports that will be produced by an independent third party using industry-leading software from SAS.”

Added Dan Connell, Project Manager at Concept Capital, who will be driving the initiative, “With the heightened requirements on risk reporting, security pricing and portfolio transparency that are now pervasive in the industry, it is critical that hedge fund managers have access to the necessary tools. By teaming with SAS, a leader in risk management software, CONCEPTONE will be meeting this demand.”

With SAS, Concept Capital will offer a hosted portfolio analytics and risk management portal to the hedge fund market. The solution includes a client Web portal with access to customized risk reports and interactive analytics that will permit a multitude of views – including value at risk (VaR), factor analysis, customized stress testing, profit and loss (P&L) time-series analysis, performance attribution and measurement, and production of ex-post risk indicators coupled with more traditional portfolio appraisal reports – all on a multicustodial basis.

“With SAS, CONCEPTONE will be able to deliver a high level of auditable risk intelligence to clients that are now a requirement in today’s market,” said David Wallace, Global Financial Services Marketing Manager for SAS. “Hedge fund managers will now be able to move beyond ‘black box’ analytics to have fine-grained control of their risk analysis. Through this partnership with Concept Capital, SAS continues to help reshape the capital markets’ risk practices in achieving a strong and stable recovery.”

SAS risk management software has garnered many accolades this past year. In November, SAS was ranked the top company in Chartis Research’s RiskTech100TM. SAS placed in the Leaders quadrant of the Magic Quadrant for Operational Risk Management Software for Financial Services by Gartner Inc. in September. Also, in July 2009, Chartis ranked SAS as the leader in its Credit Risk Management Systems 2009 report for the third straight year; and for a fifth straight year, SAS was first in Chartis Research’s Operational Risk Management Systems 2009 report in June.

About Concept Capital

Founded in 1995, Concept Capital is a leading institutional broker and total solutions provider for global investment managers. Concept Capital provides a full suite of prime brokerage services, proprietary research, fund administration, real-time risk management and portfolio analytics. Concept Capital also provides an experienced, hands-on institutional trading desk for traditional buy-side customers, hedge funds and registered investment advisors. Concept Capital specializes in providing clients with experienced, in-depth market knowledge combined with advanced proprietary systems, enabling clients to quickly launch their businesses in the most cost-effective manner possible. Concept Capital is headquartered in Garden City, NY, and has offices in New York; Greenwich, CT; Washington; Chicago; and Bernardsville, NJ. Concept Capital is currently a division of SMH Capital Inc., member FINRA, SIPC. Concept Capital is forming an independent broker-dealer and, once approved, will operate as an independent company, of which Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. will be a minority shareholder. www.conceptcapital.com

About SAS

SAS is the leader in business analytics software and services, and the largest independent vendor in the business intelligence market. Through innovative solutions delivered within an integrated framework, SAS helps customers at more than 45,000 sites improve performance and deliver value by making better decisions faster. Since 1976 SAS has been giving customers around the world THE POWER TO KNOW®. SAS and all other SAS Institute Inc. product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of SAS Institute Inc. in the USA and other countries. ® indicates USA registration. Other brand and product names are trademarks of their respective companies. Copyright © 2009 SAS Institute Inc. All rights reserved.

Press Release Contact Details:

SAS Kris Balic, 919-531-0624 Kris.Balic@sas.com Visit the SAS Press Center www.sas.com/presscenter

Fund Administrators’ Role at Hedge Funds Second Only to Prime Brokers, Says TABB Group

Investors are Demanding Funds Switch from In-house to Independent Administrators
Over 50% of Hedge Funds to Require Daily NAV Calculations within 12 Months

NEW YORK & LONDON–(BUSINESS WIRE)– With a post-Madoff world fixed firmly in the rear-view mirror and new regulations on the horizon, a new report from TABB Group describes how the role of fund administrators is now among one of the most important of hedge fund counterparties, perhaps second in importance only to prime brokers.

What investors want today, says TABB in a new research report, is more transparency and greater asset safety, which requires improvements in infrastructure for middle- and back-office operations, enhanced reporting to stakeholders and independent verification of portfolio values. This shift in investors’ priorities is significantly altering the role and responsibilities of fund administrators and, by extension, the processes by which administrators are selected.

According to Paul Rowady, senior analyst, and Adam Sussman, director of research, who co-authored the report, “(Hedge) Fund Administration: The Selection Criteria for a New Market Reality,” administration is no longer centered simply on back-office functions dealing with accounting, valuation and share registration. “Fund administration can now be defined as everything after the trade.”

Facing high switching costs, fund managers tell TABB they are keenly aware of how important it is to make the correct administration selection. With managers in Europe as well as the US becoming more sensitive to investor’s increasing demands, TABB Group estimates that from 2009 to 2010 the frequency of daily NAV (net asset value) calculations will increase to 56% of hedge funds, up from 46% in 2009. Operational integrity, says Sussman, is crucial to a fund’s survival, especially when faced with this increase demand in fund performance. “Hedge funds are seeking the best possible resources, including people, processes and technology, so they can meet and exceed the demands of the industry’s changing landscape.”

Prior to 2008, the fund-administrator selection process was straightforward and largely handled by managers, a check-the-box type of exercise that revolved around fund administrators’ brands and fees. The problem with relying too heavily on brand awareness, says Rowady, is that a brand’s quality was often correlated with size. “But size and brand do not ensure that an administrator deploys the most reliable technology, SAS Level II certified processes, domain expertise and scalability, not only in terms of size but the funds ability to adapt its operation to changing technology, regulations and market conditions.”

TABB details three administrator models in the report: custodian-owned, broker-owned and independent/hybrid independent. Although the independent model strives to minimize conflicts of interest that could influence the administrator’s asset valuation and verification practices, “The hybrid independent model enjoys arm’s-length operating independence combined with the financial backing of a larger entity and this may represent the best model,” says Rowady.

As firms move to validate their processing and servicing partners, TABB Group believes that the traditional method of choosing administrators by brand or reputation will be replaced by a selection process that prioritizes due diligence. “This shift should benefit boutique administrators more than many of the traditional providers,” maintains Rowady.

The authors believe the industry is seeing an end to the era in which funds manage their processing internally with a “trust me” nod to their investors. “We see more investors pushing hedge funds to migrate their processing and valuation responsibilities to qualified third parties, firms that will need to expand their processing capabilities to be more on demand, more responsive and more global.” Selecting an administrator is a complex and resource-intensive process, says Sussman. “The good news is, there are clues that investors and managers can use to make well-informed selections based on their needs and the ability of an administrator, regardless of size, to meet those needs.”

The 21-page report with 6 exhibits covers the changing market landscape for both alternative and traditional fund managers, how this new market reality serves as a driver for the broadening spectrum of administrator service offerings, enhances the importance of fund administrators – and the outlook for the fund administration business – and details how fund administrators are now instrumental to the long-term success of funds. The report describes the strengths and weaknesses of the three primary business models of fund administrators, including a discussion of the optimal model. The report also covers the fund administration landscape, pinpointing as many as many as 70 administrators globally, and details a comprehensive list of selection criteria with focus on the two factors that have replaced brand and size as the most important selection drivers.

The report is available for download by TABB Group Equity Research Alliance clients and all pre-qualified media at https://www.tabbgroup.com/Login.aspx. For an executive summary or to purchase the report, visit http://www.tabbgroup.com or write to info@tabbgroup.com.

Other recent related TABB Group hedge fund research includes “Prime Brokerage 2009: The Hedge Fund Perspective,” which provides the capital markets industry with an in-depth analysis of hedge fund/prime brokerage relationships, and “US Hedge fund 2009: Fees, Redemptions and Managed Accounts,” covering hedge funds’ challenges dealing with fees, redemption policies, including lockups, advanced notification and frequency of redemptions, plus managed accounts, gate provisions and fund launches.

About TABB Group

TABB Group is the financial markets industry’s only research and strategic advisory firm focused exclusively on capital markets, with offices in New York and London. Founded in 2003 and based on the proven interview-based research methodology of “first-person knowledge” developed by founder Larry Tabb, TABB Group analyzes and quantifies the investing value chain from the fiduciary, investment manager and broker, to exchange and custodian, helping senior business leaders gain a truer understanding of financial markets issues. For more information, visit www.tabbgroup.com.
Press Release Contact Details:

martinrabkinink Martin Rabkin, 914-420-5739 mrabkin@martinrabkinink.com

Daiwa Securities SMBC selects Syncova Optima platform for Synthetic Prime Broker margining

1st December 2009, London, Syncova Solutions, the specialist provider of margining and financing solutions to the Prime Broker and Hedge Fund markets, has signed a new client in Daiwa Securities SMBC Europe, the European arm of leading Japanese investment bank Daiwa Securities SMBC Co Ltd. The firm has deployed Syncova’s OPTIMA/Broker platform, with a global license, for its expanding Synthetic Prime Brokerage business line.

Daiwa will use the flexibility of the Syncova OPTIMA/Broker platform, to deliver enhanced risk based margining and full cross asset margining of its client’s Synthetic Prime Brokerage portfolio and integration to in-house product lines. Additionally, Daiwa clients utilising the Syncova OPTIMA/Funds platform will benefit from improved flexibility and transparency.

Richard Smither, Head of Structured Portfolio Trading at Daiwa SMBC Europe said: “In a rapidly evolving market, following market events of 2008, one of the key challenges in expanding our product offering at Daiwa is to be able to offer our wide range of clients not only flexibility but full transparency in terms of margin solutions. Syncova’s Optima/Broker allows us to achieve both of these aims without the need to rework or redevelop any of our systems. It has the added benefit that where one of our clients is also using Optima/Fund, we can interface directly without the need for external reports. ”

Liam Huxley, CEO Syncova Solutions added ‘We are delighted that Daiwa Securities SMBC Europe has selected OPTIMA/Broker. As the only margin platform designed specifically for Prime Brokers it enables them to leverage and benefit from a powerful and flexible cross margin calculation engine that supports all margin models and methodologies. Unifying all product types via a single platform will enable Daiwa to efficiently offer a best of breed comprehensive margining facility to its clients.

Syncova Solutions
Syncova is an established, specialist provider of solutions for the Prime Broker and Hedge Fund markets. Its in-depth experience and knowledge of the business needs and operational requirements of the market have informed the development of a range of innovative solutions that bring real benefits to the Prime Broker and Hedge Fund community.
The OPTIMA range includes OPTIMA/Broker, a market leading Prime Broker Margin Management platform and OPTIMA/Fund which provides a unique tool for Hedge Funds to manage and optimise their leverage and funding costs.
Syncova has a growing global client base and has worked with some of the largest Prime Brokers and Hedge Funds operating across the full spectrum of Alternative Investment and Asset Management. Its Hedge Fund clients on aggregate manage assets in excess of $70 USD billion.
For further information please contact:
Sylvia Mead
Head of Market Communications
Syncova Solutions
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7847 4854
Email: smead@syncova.com

Daiwa Securities SMBC Europe Limited

Daiwa Securities SMBC Europe Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Daiwa Securities SMBC Co. Ltd., currently an investment banking joint venture 60% owned by Daiwa Securities Group Inc. and 40% by Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. On January 1st 2010 it will become fully owned by Daiwa Securities Group Inc and be renamed Daiwa Capital Markets.

Daiwa Securities SMBC Europe Limited offers a wide range of services from its main business areas:

• Equity
• Fixed Income
• Derivatives
• Debt & Equity Capital Markets
• M&A and other Corporate Finance advisory services are provided in Europe by our subsidiary, Close Brothers Corporate Finance

For further information please contact:
Paul Lyon

Director, Daiwa Securities SMBC Europe Limited
Head of Communication & Marketing
Tel: +44 (0)20 7597 8109
Email: paul.lyon@daiwasmbc.co.uk

Press Release Contact Details:

Sylvia Mead Head of Market Communications Syncova Solutions Tel: +44 (0) 20 7847 4854 Email: smead@syncova.com

Blackstone Rejects SEC Request for Fund Data as Fortress and Hoffman Meyer also agree.

BOSTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)– As hedge fund managers look forward to coping with expected tighter regulation and reporting requirements of the Obama Administration, they should be prepared to collect and extract much of the same client and investment data that traditional asset management firms now furnish to the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to Boston-based consultant Jane M. Stabile.

Constant pressure to keep costs low while producing high-quality compliance reports has made large asset managers adept at data sourcing, storage and retrieval. Hedge fund managers would do well to develop similar skills and techniques, which should not be difficult or expensive if done systematically, maintains Stabile, principal of IMP Consulting.

Large firms mine compliance-related data from several sources, including order management systems, custodians, portfolio/accounting systems, and the market. Their annual reviews ensure that they employ to full advantage the information and systems they already have, thereby avoiding duplication of effort and excessive data vendor fees.

Hedge fund managers tend to focus on gain/loss and profitability, but much of the same information they use for assessing funds and making trading decisions can be redeployed to produce the reports that the SEC will likely require under new laws such as the Hedge Fund Transparency Act of 2009. Maintaining complete client records and protecting confidentiality will remain critical requirements as well.

Most of the systems already in place at hedge funds can be upgraded and augmented to meet these new demands satisfactorily, said Stabile in assessing the major points of the U.S. Treasury Department’s recently published report, Financial Regulatory Reform, A New Foundation. Hedge funds will soon have to register with the SEC and begin collecting, mining, and reporting on information in much the same way that larger firms have done for several years.

“One clear and recurring theme of The Treasury’s report is the need for more complete and timely information,” she said. “Hedge funds may not have the IT staff or compliance staff of an asset manager with $100 billion under management, but they can still leverage many of the same technologies used by such firms to keep data quality high and costs low.”

“Few financial services firms use their full IT capacities until the market or the government demands it. Hedge funds are going to need higher levels of performance from their systems as the new regulatory regime takes shape. Fortunately, there’s already a lot of available expertise within the industry to help them do it,” concluded Stabile.

Additional examples of probable new regulatory strictures cited by Stabile include:

Stabile will present her data and systems recommendations for hedge funds in the new regulatory environment at the Infovest21 Seminar: Obama Administration/Hedge Fund Regulation on September 21 in New York. Other speakers are attorneys Benjamin Haskin of Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Lance Friedler of Sadis & Goldberg; and CPA Marty Lax of McGladrey & Pullen.

IMP Consulting exhibited at Technology Solutions for Asset Management (TSAM 2009) in Jersey City, NJ on September 17th. The company’s new white paper on Entity Risk is available on request by emailing info@impconsults.com.

About IMP Consulting

IMP Consulting is a boutique firm of investment industry experts – traders, portfolio managers, compliance officers, and operations and IT professionals – established in 2003 to enable asset management firms to derive maximum performance and full potential from investment systems. IMP’s customized solutions include strategic advice; system selection, implementation, integration, and upgrades; order management and execution management systems audit; compliance; and accounting.

Photos/Multimedia Gallery Available: http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/mmg.cgi?eid=6053168&lang=en

IMP Consulting Principal Jane Stabile: Regulatory Changes Will Require Detailed Reporting, More Efficient IT Systems in Hedge Fund Sector

Advises Hedge Funds to Draw on Techniques Developed by Large Asset Managers for SEC Compliance

BOSTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)– As hedge fund managers look forward to coping with expected tighter regulation and reporting requirements of the Obama Administration, they should be prepared to collect and extract much of the same client and investment data that traditional asset management firms now furnish to the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to Boston-based consultant Jane M. Stabile.

Constant pressure to keep costs low while producing high-quality compliance reports has made large asset managers adept at data sourcing, storage and retrieval. Hedge fund managers would do well to develop similar skills and techniques, which should not be difficult or expensive if done systematically, maintains Stabile, principal of IMP Consulting.

Large firms mine compliance-related data from several sources, including order management systems, custodians, portfolio/accounting systems, and the market. Their annual reviews ensure that they employ to full advantage the information and systems they already have, thereby avoiding duplication of effort and excessive data vendor fees.

Hedge fund managers tend to focus on gain/loss and profitability, but much of the same information they use for assessing funds and making trading decisions can be redeployed to produce the reports that the SEC will likely require under new laws such as the Hedge Fund Transparency Act of 2009. Maintaining complete client records and protecting confidentiality will remain critical requirements as well.

Most of the systems already in place at hedge funds can be upgraded and augmented to meet these new demands satisfactorily, said Stabile in assessing the major points of the U.S. Treasury Department’s recently published report, Financial Regulatory Reform, A New Foundation. Hedge funds will soon have to register with the SEC and begin collecting, mining, and reporting on information in much the same way that larger firms have done for several years.

“One clear and recurring theme of The Treasury’s report is the need for more complete and timely information,” she said. “Hedge funds may not have the IT staff or compliance staff of an asset manager with $100 billion under management, but they can still leverage many of the same technologies used by such firms to keep data quality high and costs low.”

“Few financial services firms use their full IT capacities until the market or the government demands it. Hedge funds are going to need higher levels of performance from their systems as the new regulatory regime takes shape. Fortunately, there’s already a lot of available expertise within the industry to help them do it,” concluded Stabile.

Additional examples of probable new regulatory strictures cited by Stabile include:

Stabile will present her data and systems recommendations for hedge funds in the new regulatory environment at the Infovest21 Seminar: Obama Administration/Hedge Fund Regulation on September 21 in New York. Other speakers are attorneys Benjamin Haskin of Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Lance Friedler of Sadis & Goldberg; and CPA Marty Lax of McGladrey & Pullen.

IMP Consulting exhibited at Technology Solutions for Asset Management (TSAM 2009) in Jersey City, NJ on September 17th. The company’s new white paper on Entity Risk is available on request by emailing info@impconsults.com.

About IMP Consulting

IMP Consulting is a boutique firm of investment industry experts – traders, portfolio managers, compliance officers, and operations and IT professionals – established in 2003 to enable asset management firms to derive maximum performance and full potential from investment systems. IMP’s customized solutions include strategic advice; system selection, implementation, integration, and upgrades; order management and execution management systems audit; compliance; and accounting.

Press Release Contact Details:

Graber Associates Tom Burke, 617-323-5694 tom@graberassociates.net

Starting A Hedge Fund

Lets say you want to start a hedge fund. Its not that complicated though you would need some tools and processes set up to run your operations. Off course the variety of tools and processes would depend on the your knowledge and complexity of your strategies.

Though a vanilla hedge fund would need at least the following to exist:

1) Disclosure document.

2) A securities license. (Free)

3) Registration with the NFA or SEC, depending on what you are going to trade and the size of your startup.

4) Private Placement Memorandum, Operating Agreement, Subscription Agreement. If you have a lawyer do this for you it will cost about $15-20k.

5) A broker. IB isn’t a Prime Broker, just a broker. A Prime Broker would be someone like GS, MS, MER, and such. These guys feed you research, steer clients to your fund, and if you are really good and swing a big stick you get inside information. I’m not kidding about that.

6) Auditor - allegedly they are suppose to have passed some licensing exam specifically focused on investments - not some one-clown shop located in the sticks (yes I am referring to Madoff, how he got away with his auditors is beyond me). Cost: $5-10k / year.

7) Administrator - you can have someone in house to take care of your IT infrastructure and accounting. You also can outsource that to a hedge fund administrator who would do all that for you.

10) Have a Bloomberg terminal.

11) You must be self sufficiently funded.

12)  You must have A LOT of experience in all four markets ( Equity, Bonds, FX and Commodities ), plus futures and options.

* If you want to manage money for clients who live in California you have to be a Registered Investment Advisor in that state, regardless of the amount of money you are managing. You have to know the specific laws of each state you have a client in. It’s good to work with an attorney who can keep you out of those nets.

** I would say an audited track record became a must it today’s realities.

*** All together start up fees are going to run 75k+/-.

Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC)

Curtain Raiser

Like any other set of engineering products, software products are also oriented towards the customer. It is either market driven or it drives the market. Customer Satisfaction was the buzzword of the 80’s. Customer Delight is today’s buzzword and Customer Ecstasy is the buzzword of the new millennium. Products that are not customer or user friendly have no place in the market although they are engineered using the best technology. The interface of the product is as crucial as the internal technology of the product.

Market Research

A market study is made to identify a potential customer’s need. This process is also known as market research. Here, the already existing need and the possible and potential needs that are available in a segment of the society are studied carefully. The market study is done based on a lot of assumptions. Assumptions are the crucial factors in the development or inception of a product’s development. Unrealistic assumptions can cause a nosedive in the entire venture. Though assumptions are abstract, there should be a move to develop tangible assumptions to come up with a successful product.

Research and Development

Once the Market Research is carried out, the customer’s need is given to the Research & Development division (R&D) to conceptualize a cost-effective system that could potentially solve the customer’s needs in a manner that is better than the one adopted by the competitors at present. Once the conceptual system is developed and tested in a hypothetical environment, the development team takes control of it. The development team adopts one of the software development methodologies that is given below, develops the proposed system, and gives it to the customer.

The Sales & Marketing division starts selling the software to the available customers and simultaneously works to develop a niche segment that could potentially buy the software. In addition, the division also passes the feedback from the customers to the developers and the R&D division to make possible value additions to the product.

While developing a software, the company outsources the non-core activities to other companies who specialize in those activities. This accelerates the software development process largely. Some companies work on tie-ups to bring out a highly matured product in a short period.

Popular Software Development Models

The following are some basic popular models that are adopted by many software development firms

A. System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Model
B. Prototyping Model
C. Rapid Application Development Model
D. Component Assembly Model

A. System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Model

This is also known as Classic Life Cycle Model (or) Linear Sequential Model (or) Waterfall Method. This model has the following activities.

1. System/Information Engineering and Modeling

As software is always of a large system (or business), work begins by establishing the requirements for all system elements and then allocating some subset of these requirements to software. This system view is essential when the software must interface with other elements such as hardware, people and other resources. System is the basic and very critical requirement for the existence of software in any entity. So if the system is not in place, the system should be engineered and put in place. In some cases, to extract the maximum output, the system should be re-engineered and spruced up. Once the ideal system is engineered or tuned, the development team studies the software requirement for the system.

2. Software Requirement Analysis

This process is also known as feasibility study. In this phase, the development team visits the customer and studies their system. They investigate the need for possible software automation in the given system. By the end of the feasibility study, the team furnishes a document that holds the different specific recommendations for the candidate system. It also includes the personnel assignments, costs, project schedule, target dates etc…. The requirement gathering process is intensified and focussed specially on software. To understand the nature of the program(s) to be built, the system engineer or “Analyst” must understand the information domain for the software, as well as required function, behavior, performance and interfacing. The essential purpose of this phase is to find the need and to define the problem that needs to be solved .

3. System Analysis and Design

In this phase, the software development process, the software’s overall structure and its nuances are defined. In terms of the client/server technology, the number of tiers needed for the package architecture, the database design, the data structure design etc… are all defined in this phase. A software development model is thus created. Analysis and Design are very crucial in the whole development cycle. Any glitch in the design phase could be very expensive to solve in the later stage of the software development. Much care is taken during this phase. The logical system of the product is developed in this phase.

4. Code Generation

The design must be translated into a machine-readable form. The code generation step performs this task. If the design is performed in a detailed manner, code generation can be accomplished without much complication. Programming tools like compilers, interpreters, debuggers etc… are used to generate the code. Different high level programming languages like C, C++, Pascal, Java are used for coding. With respect to the type of application, the right programming language is chosen.

5. Testing

Once the code is generated, the software program testing begins. Different testing methodologies are available to unravel the bugs that were committed during the previous phases. Different testing tools and methodologies are already available. Some companies build their own testing tools that are tailor made for their own development operations.

6. Maintenance

The software will definitely undergo change once it is delivered to the customer. There can be many reasons for this change to occur. Change could happen because of some unexpected input values into the system. In addition, the changes in the system could directly affect the software operations. The software should be developed to accommodate changes that could happen during the post implementation period.

B. Prototyping Model

This is a cyclic version of the linear model. In this model, once the requirement analysis is done and the design for a prototype is made, the development process gets started. Once the prototype is created, it is given to the customer for evaluation. The customer tests the package and gives his/her feed back to the developer who refines the product according to the customer’s exact expectation. After a finite number of iterations, the final software package is given to the customer. In this methodology, the software is evolved as a result of periodic shuttling of information between the customer and developer. This is the most popular development model in the contemporary IT industry. Most of the successful software products have been developed using this model - as it is very difficult (even for a whiz kid!) to comprehend all the requirements of a customer in one shot. There are many variations of this model skewed with respect to the project management styles of the companies. New versions of a software product evolve as a result of prototyping.

C. Rapid Application Development (RAD) Model

The RAD modelis a linear sequential software development process that emphasizes an extremely short development cycle. The RAD model is a “high speed” adaptation of the linear sequential model in which rapid development is achieved by using a component-based construction approach. Used primarily for information systems applications, the RAD approach encompasses the following phases:

1. Business modeling

The information flow among business functions is modeled in a way that answers the following questions:

What information drives the business process?
What information is generated?
Who generates it?
Where does the information go?
Who processes it?

2. Data modeling

The information flow defined as part of the business modeling phase is refined into a set of data objects that are needed to support the business. The characteristic (called attributes) of each object is identified and the relationships between these objects are defined.

3. Process modeling

The data objects defined in the data-modeling phase are transformed to achieve the information flow necessary to implement a business function. Processing the descriptions are created for adding, modifying, deleting, or retrieving a data object.

4. Application generation

The RAD model assumes the use of the RAD tools like VB, VC++, Delphi etc… rather than creating software using conventional third generation programming languages. The RAD model works to reuse existing program components (when possible) or create reusable components (when necessary). In all cases, automated tools are used to facilitate construction of the software.

5. Testing and turnover

Since the RAD process emphasizes reuse, many of the program components have already been tested. This minimizes the testing and development time.

D. Component Assembly Model

Object technologies provide the technical framework for a component-based process model for software engineering. The object oriented paradigm emphasizes the creation of classes that encapsulate both data and the algorithm that are used to manipulate the data. If properly designed and implemented, object oriented classes are reusable across different applicationsand computer based system architectures. Component Assembly Model leads to software reusability. The integration/assembly of the already existing software components accelerate the development process. Nowadays many component libraries are available on the Internet. If the right components are chosen, the integration aspect is made much simpler.

Conclusion

All these different software development models have their own advantages and disadvantages. Nevertheless, in the contemporary commercial software evelopment world, the fusion of all these methodologies is incorporated. Timing is very crucial in software development. If a delay happens in the development phase, the market could be taken over by the competitor. Also if a ‘bug’ filled product is launched in a short period of time (quicker than the competitors), it may affect the reputation of the company. So, there should be a tradeoff between the development time and the quality of the product. Customers don’t expect a bug free product but they expect a user-friendly product. That results in Customer Ecstasy!