NASDAQ buys TOM (update)
While I was still fact checking TOM’s claim over 20% of the option executions find a better price than Euronext Liffe – something bigger is released. Willem Meijer found a better price for TOM itself.
The NASDAQ OMX buys a stake of 25% in TOM with an option to expand its stake to 50,1% (press release). With this take over the alternative exchange is here to stay and gains financial muscle. NASDAQ OMX was already hosting the exchange in the polar circle. Now, the new owners will supply The Order Machine with a standalone infrastructure in London. Meaning low latency connectivity and less expensive connection lines.
Crisis for Euronext Liffe Amsterdam.
Update. One very valuable comment below deserves a better spot on this website. A better view on the matter than I’ve read anywhere else so far.
Oh good grief… learn how to read press releases. This is a great example of TOM living by the old rule: when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.
First of all, why is ‘Hans-Ole Jochumsen, Executive Vice President Global Data Products and Transaction Services Nordics’ appearing on the N-OMX side of the press release and not a CEO/COO/CFO?
The reason is simple. This is not a vote of confidence by N-OMX looking to buy into a growing potential competitor. Basically, this is the existing TOM shareholders looking to reduce the bill for the use of the N-OMX platform.
The existing shareholders save cash, N-OMX rolls out a (new?) instance in a London data center with a small cash outlay and gets shares on the cheap.
Subsequently the marketing peeps turn it into a news item: look we’re so successful, we’re getting bought. No, your shareholders know that their equity is worth less than what it would cost them to buy (rent) the N-OMX platform. And N-OMS on the other hand knows that its platform is worth less than the price TOM shareholders place on their equity.
When you understand this, you also understand why it’s a N-OMX product man and not a corporate somebody that’s putting his name on the press release.
Update – Willem Meijer (TOM) reacts
That was a sharp analysis. Interestingly, CEO Willem Meijer of TOM was willing to react. Not as witty as the anonymous 11:15 comments, but the man has got a business to run. He has got a point, having the infrastructure supplier (NASDAQ OMX) as an investor should help. TOM is secured on all four corners of running an exchange.
TOM was set up as a joint venture between Binckbank and Optiver in 2009. It was always the intention to invite others to join TOM as a strategic shareholder after the initial start.
I see four important elements of success for a platform such as TOM:
- Clientflow
- Liquidity providers (market makers)
- Clearing
- Infrastructure
After 2009 ABN AMRO and IMC joined and strengthened these strategic pillars of TOM.
Our aim is to compete with the incumbent exchanges and make trading in equities and derivatives more efficient and innovative. This can be achieved by investing in technology and at the same time keeping trading costs low. With the recent commitment of Nasdaq OMX, I feel that TOM is very well positioned to create a good alternative for these incumbent exchanges.
For the short term the Netherlands is our first priority. We expect to have a market share between 30% and 40% in option trading in the Netherlands next year. This milestone is achievable with the current commitment of our stakeholders and can increase when other financial institutions will connect to TOM as well. After the rollout in the Netherlands we will focus on other countries in Europe as well. The current partners with their respective knowhow and network, we believe are of great value to TOM and will help us to achieve our ambitions. With the investment of Nasdaq OMX in TOM we have now secured and funded future plans and at the same time added our missing fourth strategic pillar as a partner.
I am available to answer relevant questions on this topic, should anyone need more clarification.
Willem Meijer, CEO of TOM
Oh good grief… learn how to read press releases. This is a great example of TOM living by the old rule: when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.
First of all, why is ‘Hans-Ole Jochumsen, Executive Vice President Global Data Products and Transaction Services Nordics’ appearing on the N-OMX side of the press release and not a CEO/COO/CFO?
The reason is simple. This is not a vote of confidence by N-OMX looking to buy into a growing potential competitor. Basically, this is the existing TOM shareholders looking to reduce the bill for the use of the N-OMX platform.
The existing shareholders save cash, N-OMX rolls out a (new?) instance in a London data center with a small cash outlay and gets shares on the cheap.
Subsequently the marketing peeps turn it into a news item: look we’re so successful, we’re getting bought. No, your shareholders know that their equity is worth less than what it would cost them to buy (rent) the N-OMX platform. And N-OMS on the other hand knows that its platform is worth less than the price TOM shareholders place on their equity.
When you understand this, you also understand why it’s a N-OMX product man and not a corporate somebody that’s putting his name on the press release.
thanks for the insight
@ 11:15 am: where would we be without you and your wisdom?
Optiver is going to rule the world pretty soon.
@3:19 Working at Optiver? 😀
what’s the market cap on TOM?
‘The reason is simple. This is not a vote of confidence by N-OMX looking to buy into a growing potential competitor. Basically, this is the existing TOM shareholders looking to reduce the bill for the use of the N-OMX platform.
The existing shareholders save cash, N-OMX rolls out a (new?) instance in a London data center with a small cash outlay and gets shares on the cheap. ‘
Pls explain and elaborate more?
‘When you understand this, you also understand why it’s a N-OMX product man and not a corporate somebody that’s putting his name on the press release.’
maybe i am having bad day, but i am having hard time following the various players and motives on this, pls explain.
‘where would we be without you and your wisdom?’
what’s your problem?
‘Optiver is going to rule the world pretty soon.’
Yes, Sure, Absolutely.
I’ll let you know when it’s time to wake up.
The story that NASDAQ OMX will arrange their move to London is not related to the stake.
It is old news the centre would be moved. Clients have been informed a long time ago. If the customer (TOM) gives a 25% of their shares to the supplier (N-OMX), it’s not a sign of strength.
@9:50 I managed to miss that bit of news and you are right, this actually shows the deal as even more miserly than it initially seemed.
@20:17 Look at it this way: TOM was using the N-OMX platform anyway and I’m guessing that they either ponied up cash at the start or they we paying a recurring fee. If they were paying a recurring fee, it seems that they got the software without the fee now in exchange for equity. This means TOM is going to be spending less cash on its operations going forward.
So basically, this improves TOM’s chances of reaching break even, something I now guess they were having trouble doing. Now, if the existing shareholders accepted their stake reduction, that seems to show that they were faced with a choice of either putting more cash in the business or accepting that it’s less valuable than they hoped for.
The sad thing is that this means that this means that Euronext’s position is under less of an attack than we all would have hoped for.
On another note, I also love the fact that TOM’s trumpeting their proprietary ‘Smart Execution’ SOR. does anyone know where they bought it or who developed it, since it strikes me as damn unlikely that a company without a development team managed to build a SOR inhouse. (And if they didn’t build it inhouse, how the hell is it proprietary? Was someone brilliant enough to design the SOR so that they could then farm out development to India?)
Judging by http://www.tomtrading.eu/en/BusinessPartners.aspx it looks like Quod Financial is the source of the SOR.
I don’t think Binck and Optiver really set this up with the hopes that the venue would be profitable. The main goal was reducing their transaction costs on Euronext. After all, if TOM would charge higher fees it would probably be more profitable, but it would defeat the purpose of setting it up. Euronext has lowered fees in response. I don’t know what Optiver or Binck pays in a year in exchange fees, but I can imagine that the savings are higher than the running costs of TOM.
‘that seems to show that they were faced with a choice of either putting more cash in the business or accepting that it’s less valuable than they hoped for’
that’s the part i am having little difficulty with. The first part of not putting up more cash is fine, nobody wants to invest in this business environment. But how did you conclude that existing shareholders are accepting that TOM is less valuable than they hoped for?
‘The sad thing is that this means that this means that Euronext’s position is under less of an attack than we all would have hoped for.’
Why?
‘The main goal was reducing their transaction costs on Euronext.’
And what about Optiver internalizing the TOM’s flow on its books? That could be very profitable?
TOM is a MTF; an open platform with many trading members.
The whole point of TOM is to push execution costs in the favour of the dutch MM’s who are members for the AEX stock and index options.
Optiver, IMC and ABN are trying to capture the Amsterdam retail/corporate options market.
In doing this if they end up making an exchange with incredible technology then they can spread to the CAC and take over all NYSE Euronext businesses in EU.
Taking over Eurex businesses will be the challenge in the next decade.
‘TOM is a MTF; an open platform with many trading members.’
what happened to the original plan of internalizing, did optiver back out of it?
‘Taking over Eurex businesses will be the challenge in the next decade.’
calm down Tom Boy.
here is the answer to this question some where up in the comets:
[On another note, I also love the fact that TOM’s trumpeting their proprietary ‘Smart Execution’ SOR. does anyone know where they bought it or who developed it, since it strikes me as damn unlikely that a company without a development team managed to build a SOR inhouse. (And if they didn’t build it inhouse, how the hell is it proprietary? Was someone brilliant enough to design the SOR so that they could then farm out development to India?)]
Binck owns TOM and Binck also owns Syntel (http://www.syntel.nl/en/) so YES they have developed it on house…
who cares
@10:21 Well, even if Syntel built it, the fact that Binck owns Syntel ans has a stake in TOM does not make it proprietary to TOM. And on another note, how did Syntel get the competence to build a SOR? Nothing in their portfolio comes close to the technology you’d need for a SOR.
@21:11 The short story is that it’s a rule of thumb that as a start-up you don’t buy production software for equity.
You need to see TOM as a technology start-up. The yardstick by which you judge the development of a start-up is how quickly they hit their milestones and how quickly its value goes up. You expect a start-up to show a steady increase in equity value, something the outside world can judge by the results of their funding rounds and in general you’ll consider the dilution of existing shareholder stakes a funding round.
Look at what happened. TOM announces that N-OMX is taking an equity stake. What is N-OMX contributing? Well, my guess is that they sold TOM their Inet Genium platform. Why? Look at who’s fronting the N-OMX press releases trumpeting Genium. Hans-Ole Jochumsen. (Disclosure: I most definitely do not know Hans-Ole but the good man’s name definitely reminds me of the Swedish Chef and makes for good copy). Hans-Ole is apparently the product man for Genium and since he’s on the press release, I’m betting he sold TOM on an upgrade to Genium.
In other words, TOM was (I guess still is) running on the previous N-OMX platform. Since it’s been over two years since N-OMX released Genium, my guess is that TOM was being pushed to get on the new software. The problem with new software is that it costs money. Now you would expect a company that’s been trading for three years to be capable of paying for a new software system. This deal says they weren’t. Meaning that TOM went back to its shareholders asking for more cash.
The fact that a company needs shareholder funding for its regular business operations after it has been in business for three years is bad news. It’s even worse when the shareholders refuse to give that cash because that says that they don’t expect to see a sufficient return on that investment. When they accept to dilute their equity (with an option to sell control in the company) to a supplier at this stage, it smacks of desperation. The message is: we cannot keep this company viable as a going concern paying a fair market price for a basic piece of production equipment (the N-OMX software). So in that sense, whatever the deal, it’s likely to be worse than they would have expected before they had to factor in the new software purchase.
Should someone have the time and the data, all you need to do to verify this is to try and extrapolate from Optiver’s and Binck’s annual reports how they valued their TOM stake and compare that to the list pricing for Genium. I’m betting that the calculation will not look good for TOM.
at least the Christmas-gratifications from the stock-exchanges is in!
great how they make us feel appreciated to be their customers…
‘Binck owns TOM and Binck also owns Syntel (http://www.syntel.nl/en/) so YES they have developed it on house…’
And what do you think about this – ‘Judging by http://www.tomtrading.eu/en/BusinessPartners.aspx it looks like Quod Financial is the source of the SOR.’
‘The short story is that it’s a rule of thumb that as a start-up you don’t buy production software for equity’
it’s a rule of thumb, not applicable in all situations?
‘You need to see TOM as a technology start-up’
I thought TOM was an Alternative ‘Exchange’ in the Market Structure to get the Euronext to lower their prices and for Optiver to internalise Binck’s client flow?
‘You expect a start-up to show a steady increase in equity value, something the outside world can judge by the results of their funding rounds and in general you’ll consider the dilution of existing shareholder stakes a funding round.’
I think you have been watching too many Silicon Valley movies, TOM is not a bloody start-up, it’s just a shake up in the Market Structure to dislodge Euronext’s Monopoly, some TOM Boy was even targeting Eurex in the coming year.
‘The fact that a company needs shareholder funding for its regular business operations after it has been in business for three years is bad news.’
Wow, that was a surprise. This was wholly expected by the shareholders and no cash from them is also not surprising given the scope for further Euronext price reduction and Binck’s flow internalizing would be limited?
‘The message is: we cannot keep this company viable as a going concern paying a fair market price for a basic piece of production equipment (the N-OMX software)’
Optiver is a bloody mm and Binck is a bloody broker-dealer/bank, they are not in business of running MTF’s and Alternative Exchanges, they have shaken up current market structure and they have decided enough fun already, now it’s time to pass the baton to a real competitor for Euronext like NDQ
‘So in that sense, whatever the deal, it’s likely to be worse than they would have expected before they had to factor in the new software purchase.’
Have you been to TOM valuation meetings or you just came up with your own figures out of thin air?
‘Should someone have the time and the data, all you need to do to verify this is to try and extrapolate from Optiver’s and Binck’s annual reports how they valued their TOM stake and compare that to the list pricing for Genium’
There would be limited upside for Optiver and Binck to cook their books, that was never the management’s intent. They would have left it at book value, coming up with mtm for TOM seems too much of a stretch even for them. Genium wouldn’t have mtm given its just one part of whole NDQ group?
@2:20 I fear you’re a bit confused. TOM is definitely strategically important for Bink, IMC and Optiver (less so for Fortis Clearing/ABN) but the whole point of the initial news item was that TOM (an independent company with what, 10 to 25 employees on its own payroll) is presenting the N-OMX transaction as proof of its success as a business (i.e. winning a new investor) while it’s not, rather it’s just TOM buying software with equity.
So yes, TOM is a startup, a separate company like ProBrokerage once, with its own business. As such its shares have a book value for its shareholders and the whole point of my comment was that this transaction is likely to prove that the value of the investment has gone down, and not up as you would hope from a startup.
In other words, for TOM bad news, not good.
No one was talking about people cooking books, rather the development of the value of their investment.
My point is: the shareholders have valued their TOM investment in their annual reports. My bet is, if you can extract the ‘price’ of those shares, 25% of the share capital was probably worth more in that valuation than the list price of whatever software and services TOM is getting from N-OMX. So you are comparing line item on a balance sheet with the list price of software and services. This has nothing to do with a ‘value’ for Genium as part of N-OMX.
Moreover, my comparison is with the list price. When you look at the real cost to N-OMX, the calculation is even worse for TOM shareholders.
Also, don’t confuse this with the effects of TOM on the market structure. Sure, they have likely already caused Euronext to change. they might have also improved SOR technology. But if after all that they cannot earn enough money, they are not a going to be a going concern and they will be a failed business, although even failed businesses can contribute to a positive development in the general market.
Sure, I can be confused, no doubts, who is all-knowing anyways?
What does ’11:15′ mean?
‘TOM (an independent company with what, 10 to 25 employees on its own payroll) is presenting the N-OMX transaction as proof of its success as a business’
you don’t believe everything people go around telling you, much of is bias, mis-information and plain old bs?
‘to prove that the value of the investment has gone down, and not up as you would hope from a startup.’
Everybody has the right to ‘hope’, it doesn’t mean that in reality they didn’t know what was coming, there is difference between outside chance and solid expectations.
‘the shareholders have valued their TOM investment in their annual reports.’
any idea on what the numbers are?
‘25% of the share capital was probably worth more in that valuation than the list price of whatever software and services TOM is getting from N-OMX’
not unlike distressed investing, existing shareholders are willing to write it off and pass it onto someone else, nothing new.
‘my comparison is with the list price. When you look at the real cost to N-OMX, the calculation is even worse for TOM shareholders’
Sure, but TOM shareholder’s don’t mind, end of the story, confidence in fiat money, specially in Europe has ended and people have moved onto start bartering around, it’s already very popular in Italy, go to some of their weekend markets.
‘But if after all that they cannot earn enough money, they are not a going to be a going concern and they will be a failed business’
Not if TOM get taken over by NDQ who become the proxy for TOM and a competitor to Euronext, it’s pretty smart for Optiver (mm) and Binck (Broker-Dealer) to get out of the business of Alternative Exchanges?
@16:36 Thank you for agreeing with my whole point by pointing out:
“you don’t believe everything people go around telling you, much of is bias, mis-information and plain old bs?”
My original point was that TOM was bringing this as a business success while it is not.
The 11:15’s just to make clear that I made the original comment.
@11:15, thanks for sharing – valuable insights.
‘Thank you for agreeing with my whole point by pointing out:
“you don’t believe everything people go around telling you, much of is bias, mis-information and plain old bs?”’
how did you conclude that just because people come up with bs, that everything from everyone is bs>? Shouldn’t you be using your lazy head to evaluate the points being made at its own merit rather than blindly following what is said like a religious moron?
‘My original point was that TOM was bringing this as a business success while it is not.’
you could have said that explicitly rather than confusing the whole point with the players and the motives and the valuations and the whole mumbo-jumbo insights you came up with.
‘The 11:15′s just to make clear that I made the original comment’
okay, brilliant, you can put your name next time and claim you brilliant insights when you go for an interview, people would really like to know you are the one making really ‘original’ comments.
IMC Zug is continuing to fire people, a slow but effective process
Merry Christmas!
whom are they firing?
People who are overpaid, overhyped, overstaffed, overvalued that are now under delivering and can be got rid of, be frank with yourself and expect the chop when it comes.
then they should fire the managing director of the office, he is clueless, overpaid and, besides firing good people, he is not delivering anything
so you think, is just that all the good people are only in the name and the clueless MD would be last on the chopping block, you need the grim reaper till the end, right?>
“then they should fire the managing director of the office, he is clueless, overpaid and, besides firing good people, he is not delivering anything”
This is not specific for IMC only. I can name a dozen companies that should heed this advice.
you can include all the companies in that advise, all the low level employees think the management above is lazy, useless and overpaid and if only they would work as hard and listen the brilliant ideas of low level workers, welcome to the capitalism.
yes, but the pay isn’t distributed that unfair as in all companies(except maybe for CEO/CFO, but they run a full corporate). Here we talk 20 multiple for people with 20-40 people under them.
‘all the low level employees think the management above is lazy’
might well be, but in IMC there is no management, it’s low level people pretending to be managers
isn’t the MD of IMC Zug Office part of ‘management’?
What’s wrong with low level people pretending to be managers?
‘but the pay isn’t distributed that unfair as in all companies’
you can go work in those companies, there’s the door on your right hand side, good luck.
‘Here we talk 20 multiple for people with 20-40 people under them’
you are making 100k and your group lead is making 2mil? You sure?
the same who criticize the MD trading in Zug would love to take his position, salary, and especially bonus, be frank and stop blaming a luck guy
If i’m right, today only Binck is connected to TOM. But when will other brokers join?
If a big player like Interactive brokers (with Lynx and Todays brokers) can provide retail orders, the daily option volume will increase sharply.
I agree and everyone has the opportunity to walk out, but probably won’t even make the same elsewhere.
You asking if I’m sure if it’s 100k vs 2M only confirms that the distribution is fckuked up.
‘the same who criticize the MD trading in Zug would love to take his position, salary, and especially bonus, be frank and stop blaming a luck guy’
you are missing the point he is making, he is not blaming the lucky guy or saying he wouldn’t want to trade positions with him, he is saying he shouldn’t be so ‘lucky’, is that too hard for rob and pot to see?
‘I agree and everyone has the opportunity to walk out, but probably won’t even make the same elsewhere.’
then shut the fuck up, work hard and kiss the arse above you.
‘You asking if I’m sure if it’s 100k vs 2M only confirms that the distribution is fckuked up.’
how did you conclude that from my comment? why is me asking the q about 100k vs 2m is confirming that distribution is fcuked up?
Exactly. And yes, I’m sure
exactly what ?
And yes, what are sure of?
testtt
Successffulll
btw, don’t just testtt, post something here too, your god damn manager and hr ain’t going to find out, so chill
‘is that too hard for rob and pot to see?’
they know, but what can they do?
they don’t need to do nothing, this low level employee making 100k thinks his group lead makes 2 mil, he is delusional, he doesn’t know rob and pot are already screwing the MD guy just like the MD is screwing him, lol, what a circus.
screwing the MD guy? are you sure?
First of all, Willem Meijer deserves credit for coming down to the ‘pits’ to comment. This shows his worth to TOM – others would have sulked or ordered an investigation of who was posting what, Willem Meijer engages and goes the extra mile. I want to say that my initial reaction had more to do with the positive reception that the TOM press release had received than with the press release itself. Everybody has the right to spin a story, but it’s the role of the press (like the FD or FT) to call a company out on their spin and the silly thing is that nobody in the traditional media has done that.
Now, back to what mr. Meijer had to say. First of all, we’re still getting the same lemonade. Mr. Meijer is obfuscating and since no one else wants to ask questions, let me.
I raised the following point:
“This is not a vote of confidence by N-OMX looking to buy into a growing potential competitor. Basically, this is the existing TOM shareholders looking to reduce the bill for the use of the N-OMX platform.”
Mr. Meijer responds:
“With the investment of Nasdaq OMX in TOM we have now secured and funded future plans and at the same time added our missing fourth strategic pillar as a partner.”
The response is not an answer. First of all, how was the fourth pillar missing? Was TOM operating without a trading platform before? It wasn’t. (Or let me say: I sure hope it wasn’t) So, the fourth pillar was not missing. Moreover, the response seems to confirm my point: “we have now secured and funded future plans” says mr. Meijer.
To break it down. TOM was a (paying ?) N-OMX customer. N-OMX becomes a shareholder in TOM. TOM says this has now secured and funded future plans. No longer paying software fees = funding future plans. In my book, this remains a sign of weakness.
Mr. Meijer identifies his company’s four elements of success: clientflow (retail), liquidity providers (professional), clearing, and infrastructure. Somehow, this reminds me of the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition sketch so that when the next shareholder comes on board we will hear about the five crucial elements of success.
This brings us to the underlying questions. First of all, why is TOM wasting time? If I am not mistaken, TOM was set up with the idea that it would be the first derivatives MTF. TOM was launched in 2009 to execute this idea. Since then, Turquoise has ventured into derivatives and we have even seen the launch of NDX up in Scandinavia while Chi-x is also looking to start. Does TOM lack resources? Is TOM experiencing technological problems? And if TOM was slowed down by technology, how does letting one of its existing technology providers on board as a shareholder resolve these technology problems? Did NDX and Turquoise face lesser incumbents?
This deal raises another question regarding TOM’s continuity. Why has TOM tied itself to a technology provider? A strategic deal (getting a supplier on board as a shareholder) makes sense when the supplier can provide a unique input. In the case of N-OMX, the INET platform is not bad, but it does not seem unique. Not only are there alternatives on the market now, you know that there will be competitors coming into the market as well. So why tie yourself to N-OMX? And yes, while it would be a bitch to change your trading platform under normal conditions, it ain’t going to be easier when the provider is a (majority) shareholder. So how will this help innovation?
To get back to Jack, let’s not fall for the marketing. This deal is not about adding N-OMX (they were there the whole time). It’s still about saving money and we should call it as it is.
‘screwing the MD guy? are you sure?’
not screwing the MD guy? are you sure?
I am sure
Very sure
’11:15′
you know you can use your name and claim your great understanding of the issues in your resume
‘the silly thing is that nobody in the traditional media has done that’
it’s not silly as you can’t expect to have the traditional media understand all sort of specialties and decision making in trading field
‘First of all, we’re still getting the same lemonade.’
wow, company’s management coming up with bs for the rest of the market, that of course never ever happens.
‘since no one else wants to ask questions, let me’
no one cares and there is nothing more to know, so yes pls, pleasure yourself
‘The response is not an answer.’
look up the word, euphemism
‘the response seems to confirm my point: “we have now secured and funded future plans” ‘
of course TOM needed distressed funding, what do you need confirmation for?
‘In my book, this remains a sign of weakness.’
you are repeating this for 10th time now, you remind me of that guy who keeps posting stupid updates about Tibra vs Optiver case, you two can stop already
‘when the next shareholder comes on board we will hear about the five crucial elements of success’
pillars change when business conditions change? in any case refer back to the word, euphemism
‘If I am not mistaken, TOM was set up with the idea that it would be the first derivatives MTF’
wasn’t it to shake up the market structure by bringing down euronext’s pricing and optiver internalising binck’s client flow? or did you took on the surface of what mgmt was trying to sell you about ‘first derivative MTF’?
‘Did NDX and Turquoise face lesser incumbents?’
NDX and TQX are in business of MTFs, optiver and binck are not, are you thick headed are you?
‘So why tie yourself to N-OMX?’
didn’t you anwser it yourself, the existing shareholder don’t want to invest no more.
‘So how will this help innovation?’
It won’t?
‘To get back to Jack, let’s not fall for the marketing. This deal is not about adding N-OMX (they were there the whole time). It’s still about saving money and we should call it as it is.’
Do you get an orgasm when you keep repeating yourself with same point over n over
‘Very sure’
of what>? how come?
no MD has been fired up to now at IMC, it this not a proof that he does not get screwed?
well he can get screwed if he is getting 200k?
Also, there aren’t as many MDs as worker bees, so technically there be less instances of MD’s getting fired and more chances of them getting fired once they have fired all the worker bees below them, so the worker bee wouldn’t get to see it, happy pappy.
‘well he can get screwed if he is getting 200k?’
nice definition of getting screwed, the normal employees are getting fired
lol, let me rephrase, he can get screwed if he is getting 100k base and no bonus, happy pappy. and be patient he is going to be fired soon, but not untill he is done firing the rest of the staff, and if he doesn’t then just accept that you are not as good as him, sometimes that is just the case.
[…] is all around us this December. Getco buys Knight. NASDAQ buys TOM. Afraid to be alone with Christmas, ICE responds with buying NYSE Euronext. Well, they aren’t […]