Connect with us

Published

on

Cynthia DiBartolo, CEO, Tigress Financial Partners, at the New York Stock Exchange.
Source: NYSE

Robinhood’s highly anticipated IPO last month was led by Wall Street heavy hitters Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.

But the extensive list of underwriters also included boutique minority-owned firms Ramirez & Co. and Siebert Williams Shank.

Of the 17 firms that helped underwrite the offering, four were owned by minorities, women or military veterans, a category known as MWVBEs.

It’s becoming a trend: 13 of the 25 biggest IPOs of U.S. tech companies in the past year included two or more such firms, according to FactSet.

Tech companies and Wall Street banks, long run and controlled predominantly by white men, came under intense pressure in mid-2020 to improve their diversity after the police murder of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter protests that followed. Companies made promises to do better, creating social justice philanthropic programs, commiting to more diverse hiring practices, and adding internships for minority candidates, among other moves.

At the time, the IPO market was still mostly closed from the Covid-19 shutdowns and subsequent economic downturn. It slowly reopened in July and August and then flung open in September, when Snowflake held the largest U.S. software offering on record.

In Snowflake’s IPO, the cloud database vendor included four MWVBEs as underwriters — the same four that Robinhood later used. Unity’s share sale, which came right after Snowflake’s, had two of the firms. Airbnb‘s IPO in December included a dozen.

Despite the progress, Cynthia DiBartolo isn’t ready to celebrate.

Over 35 years after entering the finance industry, and a decade after founding investment firm Tigress Financial Partners, DiBartolo has emerged as a fierce advocate for women and minority participation in deal-making. Even though Robinhood added four firms to its roster of underwriters, DiBartolo said that for a company touting its role in democratizing investing, the opportunity was there to make a real splash.

“While we applaud what they did, I think they could’ve brought in more firms to make it more inclusive and make an bigger statement,” DiBartolo said in an interview. “Long before Robinhood existed, long before anyone heard of that company, diverse firms were fighting to bring equality of opportunity to diverse investors. We didn’t have the balance sheet or fire power of a Robinhood.”

In July, Tigress became the first disabled- and woman-owned floor broker to become a member of the New York Stock Exchange. Previously, her firm was among five MWVBEs that served as underwriters for cloud software vendor Monday.com’s IPO.

Now, DiBartolo is working to make sure that the dozens of firms like hers get a regular seat at the table.

DiBartolo created what she calls a diversity questionnaire, or request for information (RFI), for participation in offerings. The objective, she said, is make it easier for companies selling stock, issuing debt or doing share buybacks to vet minority and women-owned firms. American Airlines, she said, has already sent the RFI to firms in the category for future deals.

‘Everyone has reputational risk’

JPMorgan is taking her work a step further, DiBartolo said. The bank is collecting the data from the questionnaires filled out by MWVBEs to build a database that can automate the due diligence process for its clients. DiBartolo said she’s talking to other Wall Street banks about doing something similar.

A JPMorgan spokesperson confirmed the process is underway.

“JPMorgan’s goal is to expand the opportunity for more minority- and women-led firms to be included in debt and equity capital markets issuances,” the company said in an email. “We are building a searchable database based on a streamlined industry RFI which will allow us to evaluate better the strengths and capabilities each firm has to offer our issuer clients.”

The RFI asks firms to fill out details about their principals, the work they’ve done, their expertise and whether there are any legal or regulatory issues that need to be disclosed.

“Everyone has reputational risk,” DiBartolo said. “You want to know who the firms are, who’s behind them, how much of the workforce is diverse, what’s the regulatory history, and is there any pending litigation. These are all questions you should ask.”

DiBartolo is part of other organizations taking different approaches to diversify deal making. At Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition, an organization fighting for social justice, DiBartolo is chairperson of the steering committee for financial services.

Inside Rainbow PUSH is a 25-year-old group called The Wall Street Project, which advocates for women- and minority-owned businesses in finance. Rebecca Cruz, director of business development at the project, said anytime she reads about a U.S. company that’s raising $100 million or more in an IPO, she sends a letter to the CEO and CFO. In the letter, she encourages the companies to consider including some of the eight minority-owned firms that are members of the organization, providing some detail on what the MWVBEs have accomplished.

Cruz said she follows news clips and press releases about confidential IPO filings so she can reach companies before their prospectuses get published to get the conversations started earlier.

“We’re not pressuring them, we’re saying it’s good for business to include these firms on the transaction,” she said. “The companies that we work with all have proven themselves on Wall Street in transactions. These aren’t fly-by-night firms.”

Many of the firms have been around for decades, managing money for clients, trading, underwriting municipal bond sales and corporate debt deals and, in some cases, doing proprietary research.

While they’re a tiny fraction of the size of the Wall Street giants and are even much smaller than well-known mid-market firms like William Blair, Raymond James and Piper Jaffray, Cruz is out to show companies that it’s not just a good public relations decision to add diversity to their underwriter list. It’s also good business that brings opportunities to reach different classes of investors.

Muriel Siebert, the first woman to ever hold a seat on the New York Stock Exchange.
New York Daily News | Getty Images

Siebert Williams Shank was formed in a 2019 merger of two firms founded in the 1990s, Siebert Cisneros Shank the Williams Capital Group. The firm has been very active over the past 12 months, helping underwrite IPOs for Robinhood, Krispy Kreme, Marqeta, Oatly, Bumble, Affirm, Airbnb and many others.

Sobani Warner is the head of equities at Siebert Williams Shank and was director of equity at Williams starting in 2000. She said that while the firm, in its various parts, has been underwriting equity deals for two decades, there’s been a clear sea-change in the past year and a half as shareholders and activist groups have been demanding stronger action towards diversity.

“The tech companies along with companies in a variety of industries, perhaps all industries, are seeking to play their part in this really positive transition we’re going through,” Warner said in an interview.

Improving economics

Still, firms like Siebert Williams Shank tend to get a tiny combined sliver of the overall IPO. An analysis of fee data from S&P Global Market Intelligence and CNBC published last year showed that between 2016 and the first half of 2020, MWVBEs each made about $167,620 per IPO and secondary offering, compared to $1.4 million per deal for middle-market firms.

Warner said there has been “positive movement” in deal economics recently, though she didn’t provide specifics. More important than the revenue from any specific offering, she said, is the opportunity to show what these firms can offer a company, so the relationship is there when its time for debt financing, strategic advisory help and even share buybacks.

“This is a good way for us to get to know them and for them to understand our capabilities,” Warner said. “The IPO is perhaps the first transaction we do but the expectation is that the IPO will be the first of many.”

Marqeta celebrates IPO at the Nasdaq on June 9th, 2021.
Source: The Nasdaq

Payment-tech company Marqeta, based in Oakland, California, provides one potential example.

When Marqeta was gearing up for its public market debut earlier this year, the company turned to Lise Buyer, an adviser to pre-IPO companies, for help in navigating the expansive universe of potential underwriters.

Seth Weissman, Marqeta’s chief legal officer, said he and finance chief Tripp Faix asked Buyer for the top 10 minority and women-owned firms. From there, they did some research and narrowed the list to six. In the bakeoff among those firms, Marqeta chose two: Siebert Williams Shank and Seelaus, a woman-owned firm based in New Jersey.

“You can actually reach different investors and give people who otherwise might not get a shot at the opportunity to get in on an IPO,” Weissman said. “What you’re counting on is they don’t bring the same set of investors to the table every single time.”

Weissman said that location played a big role in its choice of Siebert Williams Shank, which is co-headquartered in Oakland. Early in the pandemic, Marqeta launched an initiative to help small businesses in Oakland that were hurt by the Covid-19 shutdowns.

For Seelaus, the Marqeta deal is one of eight billion-dollar-plus tech IPOs the firm has been part of in the past year, according to FactSet. Prior to that, it was only involved in two of that size: Lyft and Peloton, both in 2019.

“We have a much bigger seat at the table in the equity capital market, which is really exiting,” said Annie Seelaus, whose father founded the firm in 1984. She joined in 2009 and was named CEO in 2015.

Seelaus said a confluence of events in 2020 started to turn the tide. The push for diversity and inclusion alongside the broader social justice movement was clearly important, she said. Last week, the SEC approved new Nasdaq rules that will require companies listing on the exchange to meet gender and racial diversity requirement for their boards or explain in writing why they haven’t.

Meanwhile, Seelaus, said, the emergence of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) created a whole new market for a different type of IPO.

SPACs raised a record $83.4 billion in 2020 and exceeded that number in the first three months of this year. So far in 2021, they’ve raised $121.2 billion, almost nine times the amount for all of 2019, according to SPAC Research.

In a SPAC, a blank-check company goes public through an IPO and then hunts for a target to buy, eventually turning the acquired business into the operating entity. SPAC IPOs tend to use a different set of underwriters than traditional IPOs and in some cases have handed over much better economics to the alternative firms.

Most notably, in July 2020, Bill Ackman paid a group of six MWVBEs a total of 20% of the underwriting fees for the IPO of Pershing Square Tontine Holdings. He told Yahoo Finance in an interview that the number was 10 to 20 times the normal rate, and said the firms were “going to do the work, you’re going to be part of the team.”

Bill Ackman, founder and CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management.
Adam Jeffery | CNBC

Rainbow PUSH’s Wall Street Project is urging companies to pay MWVBEs at least 5% of the fees, with stock allocation in the 10% to 15% range, said Cruz.

Seelaus wasn’t on the Pershing Square IPO, but her firm has been involved with several others, including the Belong Acquisition Corp. IPO and Freedom Acquisition Corp. 1 offering, both this year. She said one things SPACs are doing better than traditional IPOs is bringing the firms in early in the process.

“We never want to be a box-checking exercise at the last moment,” Seelaus said. “We want to be treated like a real player and have the opportunity to add value to the transaction.”

The trend has still not become ubiquitous.

On the day before Robinhood’s IPO, foreign language learning app Duolingo raised more than $500 million in its share sale. The offering was led by Goldman Sachs and included nine other firms. None were owned by women or minorities.

In an interview after its Nasdaq debut on July 28, Duolingo CEO Luis von Ahn said the roster of underwriters “is not something we concentrated on.”

Von Ahn highlighted the importance of diversity among its workforce and on its board, which is 50% women. But he said the possibility of adding diverse underwriters didn’t come up in discussions.

Correction: A prior version of this story had the incorrect company name in paragraph 13. It’s been updated to say American Airlines.

WATCH: Why Ursula Burns believes the DEI movement is not another false start

Continue Reading

Technology

OpenAI dissolves team focused on long-term AI risks, less than one year after announcing it

Published

on

By

OpenAI dissolves team focused on long-term AI risks, less than one year after announcing it

OpenAI has disbanded its team focused on the long-term risks of artificial intelligence just one year after the company announced the group, a source familiar with the situation confirmed to CNBC on Friday.

The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that some of the team members are being re-assigned to multiple other teams within the company.

The news comes days after both team leaders, OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever and Jan Leike, announced their departures from the Microsoft-backed startup. Leike on Friday wrote that OpenAI’s “safety culture and processes have taken a backseat to shiny products.”

The news was first reported by Wired.

OpenAI’s Superalignment team, announced last year, has focused on “scientific and technical breakthroughs to steer and control AI systems much smarter than us.” At the time, OpenAI said it would commit 20% of its computing power to the initiative over four years.

Sutskever and Leike on Tuesday announced their departures on X, hours apart, but on Friday, Leike shared more details about why he left the startup.

“I joined because I thought OpenAI would be the best place in the world to do this research,” Leike wrote on X. “However, I have been disagreeing with OpenAI leadership about the company’s core priorities for quite some time, until we finally reached a breaking point.”

Leike wrote that he believes much more of the company’s bandwidth should be focused on security, monitoring, preparedness, safety and societal impact.

“These problems are quite hard to get right, and I am concerned we aren’t on a trajectory to get there,” he wrote. “Over the past few months my team has been sailing against the wind. Sometimes we were struggling for compute and it was getting harder and harder to get this crucial research done.”

Leike added that OpenAI must become a “safety-first AGI company.”

“Building smarter-than-human machines is an inherently dangerous endeavor,” he wrote. “OpenAI is shouldering an enormous responsibility on behalf of all of humanity. But over the past years, safety culture and processes have taken a backseat to shiny products.”

Leike did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and OpenAI did not immediately provide a comment.

The high-profile departures come months after OpenAI went through a leadership crisis involving co-founder and CEO Sam Altman.

In November, OpenAI’s board ousted Altman, claiming in a statement that Altman had not been “consistently candid in his communications with the board.”

The issue seemed to grow more complex each following day, with The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets reporting that Sutskever trained his focus on ensuring that artificial intelligence would not harm humans, while others, including Altman, were instead more eager to push ahead with delivering new technology.

Altman’s ouster prompted resignations – or threats of resignations – including an open letter signed by virtually all of OpenAI’s employees, and uproar from investors, including Microsoft. Within a week, Altman was back at the company, and board members Helen Toner, Tasha McCauley and Ilya Sutskever, who had voted to oust Altman, were out. Sutskever stayed on staff at the time but no longer in his capacity as a board member. Adam D’Angelo, who had also voted to oust Altman, remained on the board.

When Altman was asked about Sutskever’s status on a Zoom call with reporters in March, he said there were no updates to share. “I love Ilya… I hope we work together for the rest of our careers, my career, whatever,” Altman said. “Nothing to announce today.”

On Tuesday, Altman shared his thoughts on Sutskever’s departure.

“This is very sad to me; Ilya is easily one of the greatest minds of our generation, a guiding light of our field, and a dear friend,” Altman wrote on X. “His brilliance and vision are well known; his warmth and compassion are less well known but no less important.” Altman said research director Jakub Pachocki, who has been at OpenAI since 2017, will replace Sutskever as chief scientist.

News of Sutskever’s and Leike’s departures, and the dissolution of the superalignment team, come days after OpenAI launched a new AI model and desktop version of ChatGPT, along with an updated user interface, the company’s latest effort to expand the use of its popular chatbot.

The update brings the GPT-4 model to everyone, including OpenAI’s free users, technology chief Mira Murati said Monday in a livestreamed event. She added that the new model, GPT-4o, is “much faster,” with improved capabilities in text, video and audio.

OpenAI said it eventually plans to allow users to video chat with ChatGPT. “This is the first time that we are really making a huge step forward when it comes to the ease of use,” Murati said.

Continue Reading

Technology

BlackRock funds are ‘crushing shareholder rights,’ says activist Boaz Weinstein

Published

on

By

BlackRock funds are ‘crushing shareholder rights,' says activist Boaz Weinstein

Boaz Weinstein, founder and chief investment officer of Saba Capital Management, during the Bloomberg Invest event in New York, US, on Wednesday, June 7, 2023. 

Jeenah Moon | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Boaz Weinstein, the hedge fund investor on the winning side of JPMorgan Chase’s $6.2 billion, “London Whale” trading loss in 2011, is now taking on index fund giant BlackRock

On Friday, Weinstein‘s Saba Capital detailed in a presentation seen by CNBC its plans to push for change at 10 closed-end BlackRock funds that trade at a significant discount to the value of their underlying assets compared to their peers. Saba says the underperformance is a direct result of BlackRock’s management.

The hedge fund wants board control at three BlackRock funds and a minority slate at seven others. It also seeks to oust BlackRock as the manager of six of those ten funds.

“In the last three years, nine of the ten funds that we’re even talking about have lost money for investors,” Weinstein said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” earlier this week.

At the heart of Saba’s “Hey BlackRock” campaign is an argument around governance. Saba says in its presentation that BlackRock runs those closed-end funds the “exact opposite” way it expects companies to run themselves.

BlackRock “is talking out of both sides of its mouth” by doing this, Saba says. That’s cost retail investors $1.4 billion in discounts, by Saba’s math, on top of the management fees it charges.

BlackRock, Saba says in the deck, “considers itself a leader in governance, but is crushing shareholder rights.” At certain BlackRock funds, for example, if an investor doesn’t submit their vote in a shareholder meeting, their shares will automatically go to support BlackRock. Saba is suing to change that.

A BlackRock spokesperson called that assertion “very misleading” and said those funds “simply require that most shareholders vote affirmatively in favor.”

The index fund manager’s rebuttal, “Defend Your Fund,” describes Saba as an activist hedge fund seeking to “enrich itself.”

The problem and the solution

Closed-end funds have a finite number of shares. Investors who want to sell their positions have to find an interested buyer, which means they may not be able to sell at a price that reflects the value of a fund’s holdings.

In open-ended funds, by contrast, an investor can redeem its shares with the manager in exchange for cash. That’s how many index funds are structured, like those that track the S&P 500.

Saba says it has a solution. BlackRock should buy back shares from investors at the price they’re worth, not where they currently trade.

“Investors who want to come out come out, and those who want to stay will stay for a hundred years, if they want,” Weinstein told CNBC earlier this week.

Weinstein, who founded Saba in 2009, made a fortune two years later, when he noticed that a relatively obscure credit derivatives index was behaving abnormally. Saba began buying up the underlying derivatives that, unbeknownst to him, were being sold by JPMorgan’s Bruno Iksil. For a time, Saba took tremendous losses on the position, until Iksil’s bet turned sour on him, costing JPMorgan billions and netting Saba huge profits.

Saba said in its investor deck that the changes at BlackRock could take the form of a tender offer or a restructuring. The presentation noted that BlackRock previously cast its shares in support of a tender at another closed-end fund where an activist was pushing for similar change.

At the worst-performing funds relative to their peer group, Saba is seeking shareholder approval to fire the manager. In total, BlackRock wants new management at six funds, including the BlackRock California Municipal Income Trust (BFZ), the BlackRock Innovation and Growth Term Trust (BIGZ) and the BlackRock Health Sciences Term Trust (BMEZ).

“BlackRock is failing as a manager by delivering subpar performance compared to relevant benchmarks and worst-in-class corporate governance,” the deck says.

If Saba were to win shareholder approval to fire BlackRock as manager at the six funds, the newly constituted boards would then run a review process over at least six months. Saba says that in addition to offering liquidity to investors, its board nominees would push for reduced fees and for other unspecified governance fixes.

A BlackRock spokesperson told CNBC that the firm has historically taken steps to improve returns at closed-end funds when necessary.

“BlackRock’s closed-end funds welcome constructive engagement with thoughtful shareholders who act in good faith with the shared goal of enhancing long-term value for all,” the spokesperson said.

Weinstein said Saba has run similar campaigns at roughly 60 closed-end funds in the past decade but has only taken over a fund’s management twice. The hedge fund sued BlackRock last year to remove that so-called “vote-stripping provision” at certain funds and filed another lawsuit earlier this year.

BlackRock has pitched shareholders via mailings and advertisements. “Your dependable, income-paying investment,” BlackRock has told investors, is under threat from Saba.

Saba plans to host a webinar for shareholders on Monday but says BlackRock has refused to provide the shareholder list for several of the funds. The BlackRock spokesperson said that it has “always acted in accordance with all applicable laws” when providing shareholder information, and that it “never blocked Saba’s access to shareholders.”

“What we want is for shareholders, which we are the largest of but not in any way the majority, to make that $1.4 billion, which can be done at the press of a button,” Weinstein told CNBC earlier this week.

WATCH: CNBC’s full interview with Saba Capital’s Boaz Weinstein

Watch CNBC's full interview with Saba Capital's Boaz Weinstein

Continue Reading

Technology

As Tesla layoffs continue, here are 600 jobs the company cut in California

Published

on

By

As Tesla layoffs continue, here are 600 jobs the company cut in California

As part of Tesla’s massive restructuring, the electric-vehicle maker notified the California Employment Development Department this week that it’s cutting approximately 600 more employees at its manufacturing facilities and engineering offices between Fremont and Palo Alto.

The latest round of layoffs eliminated roles across the board — from entry-level positions to directors — and hit an array of departments, impacting factory workers, software developers and robotics engineers.

The cuts were reported in a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN, Act filing that CNBC obtained through a public records request.

Facing both weakening demand for Tesla electric vehicles and increased competition, the company has been slashing its headcount since at least January. CEO Elon Musk told employees in a memo in April that the company would cut more than 10% of its global workforce, which totaled 140,473 employees at the end of 2023.

Previous filings revealed that Tesla would cut more than 6,300 jobs across California; Austin, Texas; and Buffalo, New York.

Musk said on Tesla’s quarterly earnings call on April 23 that the company had built up a 25% to 30% “inefficiency” over the past several years, implying the layoffs underway could impact tens of thousands more employees than the 10% number would suggest.

According to the WARN filing, the 378 job cuts in Fremont, home to Tesla’s first U.S. manufacturing plant, included people involved in staffing and running vehicle assembly. There were 65 cuts at the company’s Kato Rd. battery development center.

Tesla didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Among the highest-level roles eliminated in Fremont were an environmental health and safety director and a user experience design director.

In Palo Alto, home to the company’s engineering headquarters, 233 more employees, including two directors of technical programs, lost their jobs.

Tesla has also terminated a majority of employees involved in designing and improving apps made for customers and employees, according to two former employees directly familiar with the matter. The WARN filing shows that to be the case, with many cut from the team at Tesla’s Hanover Street location in Palo Alto.

Tesla faces reduced demand for cars it makes in Fremont, including its older Model S and X vehicles and Model 3 sedan. Total deliveries dropped in the first quarter from a year earlier, and Tesla reported its steepest year-over-year revenue decline since 2012.

An onslaught of competition, especially in China, has continued to pressure Tesla’s sales in the second quarter. Xiaomi and Nio have each launched new EV models, which undercut the price of Tesla’s most popular vehicles.

Tesla’s stock price has tumbled about 30% so far this year, while the S&P 500 is up 11%.

Musk has been trying to convince investors not to focus on vehicle sales and instead to back Tesla’s potential to finally deliver self-driving software, a robotaxi, and a “sentient” humanoid robot. Musk and Tesla have long promised customers self-driving software that would turn their existing EVs into robotaxis, but the company’s systems still require constant human supervision.

Other recent job cuts at Tesla included the team responsible for building out the Supercharger, or electric-vehicle fast-charging network, in the U.S.

Tesla disclosed plans in its annual filing for 2023 to grow and optimize its charging infrastructure “to ensure cost effectiveness and customer satisfaction.” Tesla said in the filing that it needed to expand its “network in order to ensure adequate availability to meet customer demands,” after other auto companies announced plans to adopt the North American Charging Standard.

Since cutting most of its Supercharger team, Tesla has reportedly started to rehire at least some members, a move reminiscent of the job cuts Musk made at Twitter after he bought the company and later rebranded it as X. Musk told CNBC’s David Faber last year that he wanted to rehire some of those he let go.

Read the latest WARN filing in California here:

Continue Reading

Trending