TIME twitter

Twitter’s Dick Costolo: Wall Street ‘Accelerates Short-term Thinking’

Twitter CEO Costolo and Twitter co-founder Dorsey walk the floor of the New York Stock Exchange during Twitter's IPO in New York
© Lucas Jackson / Reuters—REUTERS Dick Costolo

Former Twitter leader discusses pressures of going public

Twitter going public proved to be a tougher task than former CEO Dick Costolo initially expected.

The exec, who finishes his post atop the popular social media service on Wednesday, said in an interview with The Guardian that the pressures of meeting Wall Street expectations were severe.

“When we took the company public, I had an expectation that the market would evaluate us based on our financial metrics first and foremost,” he told the publication. “I probably would frame the way we were thinking about the future of the company differently, understanding how we were in retrospect evaluated.”

Costolo added: “You always want to keep focused on the long-term vision, yet when you go public you’re on a 90-day cadence and there’s a very public voting machine of the stock price that accelerates that short-term thinking.”

There’s an ongoing search to find the next CEO of Twitter; co-founder Jack Dorsey will lead the company in the interim. Costolo stepped down from the top spot unexpectedly earlier this year.

Costolo spoke with Fortune’s Christopher Tkacyzk in April to about his thoughts on leadership and free speech in the workplace.

MONEY legal

Wall Street Executive Must Pay $18 Million In Sexual Harassment Suit

Speakers At The Hedge Funds Asia Summit Hosted By Bloomberg Link
Bloomberg/Getty Images Benjamin Wey, Chief Executive Officer at New York Global Group.

Benjamin Wey, CEO of New York Global Group, was accused of pressuring a female employee into sex and then firing her once he found out she had a boyfriend.

Wall Street CEO Benjamin Wey must pay $18 million to a former employee for sexual harassment, retaliation, and defamation, a federal court ruled on Monday.

The Associated Press reports that Benjamin Wey, the chief executive officer of investing firm New York Global Group, was accused of using his authority to coerce Hanna Bouveng into having sex on four occasions before firing her six months later. According to Bouveng, the firing occurred when Wey found another man in her $3,600-a-month Tribeca apartment that Wey had helped pay for.

Following Bouveng’s firing, the 25-year old Swedish native claims Wey tried to ruin her reputation by calling her a “street walker” and “loose woman” on his blog. Her lawyers also say Wey traveled to Bouveng’s new job at a cafe in Stockholm, Sweden, in order to intimidate her. “The message was: ‘Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, I am going to find you and I am going to get you,” said Bouveng’s attorney during the trial.

Wey argued he and Bouveng never slept together and that the woman’s party-going lifestyle eventually led to her firing. However, the court found in favor of Bouveng and ordered the CEO to pay $2 million in compensation and $16 million in punitive damages.

Read next: Goldman Sachs Bans Interns from Pulling All-Nighters at the Office

TIME Courts

Woman Gets $18 Million in Sex Harassment Suit Against Wall Street Boss

Benjamin Wey
Frank Franklin II—AP Benjamin Wey, CEO of New York Global Group, bottom left, leaves Manhattan Federal Court June 24, 2015, in New York

She says he fired her six months after she refused any more sexual contact

(NEW YORK) — A young Swedish woman who sued her former Wall Street executive boss over lurid allegations of sexual conquest, betrayal and stalking was awarded $18 million by a federal jury Monday.

Hanna Bouveng, 25, accused Benjamin Wey in an $850 million lawsuit of using his power as owner of New York Global Group to coerce her into four sexual encounters before firing her after discovering she had a boyfriend.

The jury in federal court in Manhattan awarded her $2 million in compensatory damages plus $16 million in punitive damages on sexual harassment, retaliation and defamation claims. It rejected a claim of assault and battery.

Bouveng, who was raised in Vetlanda, Sweden, testified that soon after Wey hired her at New York Global Group, the CEO began a relentless quest to have sex with her. She says he fired her six months later after she refused any more sexual contact and he found a man in her bed in the apartment he helped finance.

Wey, 43, also sought to defame Bouveng by posting articles on his blog accusing her of being a “street walker,” a “loose woman” and an extortionist, her lawyers say.

Wey walked into a Stockholm cafe in April 2014 where she was working a few months after she was fired from Global Group, attorney David Ratner told jurors. “The message was: ‘Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, I am going to find you and I am going to get you,” Ratner said.

The married financier denied ever having sex with Bouveng. He portrayed her as an opportunist who bragged that her grandfather was the billionaire founder of an aluminum company when Wey first met her in the Hamptons in July 2013.

Wey testified that Bouveng knew nothing about finance before he hired and began mentoring her. He claimed she betrayed his generosity by embracing a party-girl lifestyle that left her too exhausted to succeed.

According to its website, New York Global Group is a U.S. and Asia-based advisory, venture capital and private equity investment group with access to about $1 billion in capital.

MONEY mutual funds

Why the Simplest Investing Option Is Still the Best

illustration of house of $100 bill cards
Taylor Callery

Stock-picking fund managers have started the year strong. But indexing still has the edge.

On Wall Street, the knives are out for index funds. In the past few months this low-cost strategy—in which funds buy and hold all stocks in an index like the S&P 500 instead of picking and choosing—has been called a fad, a mania, and mindless. It has been blamed for market volatility. One recent anti-index broadside, a report by Wintergreen Advisers, even pins runaway CEO pay on the funds.

Why are proponents of “active” management so riled up? Maybe it’s because of this: Since 2009 investors have yanked $257 billion out of actively managed stock portfolios while pouring $1.1 trillion into stock index funds.

Sour grapes? Or should you worry that index funds’ popularity is a bubble ready to deflate? Let’s take a look at three popular arguments against indexing.

Argument #1: It’s a Stock Picker’s Market Again!

Diversified stock funds gained 2.6% in the first quarter of 2015, vs. 0.95% for the S&P 500 index. Yet over the past one, three, five, and—keep counting—10 years, less than 25% of blue-chip stock funds beat their index.

Argument #2: Okay, But Wait Until a Bear Market Strikes…

It seems like common sense that active managers should do better in a down market, since index funds must hold all the stocks in a market—in good times and bad. In the 2008 bear, however, most active managers fell at least as much as their bogey, says John Rekenthaler, vice president of research at Morningstar.

Active funds looked stronger during the dotcom crash in 2000. A bubble in one part of the market meant some managers could hide in cheaper small-cap and value-oriented stocks. These days, though, even traditional value stocks look pricey. “Where is the refuge for active managers in this market?” asks Rekenthaler. “I don’t see one.”

Argument #3: If Indexing Gets Too Popular, Active Funds Will Win.

One reason it’s hard to beat the market is that whenever you bet on a stock, there’s another clever trader taking the other side. If everyone indexes, though, maybe there’s less “smart money” in the market to match wits against, making it easier to find opportunities in mispriced stocks. We’re a long way from that day, though. Indexing still accounts for just 15% of the money in various kinds of U.S. funds. Besides, if active funds did start beating the market consistently, you can count on money, both smart and dumb, pouring into those strategies. At that point watch the odds shift back to indexers.

TIME Investing

Shaq Wants to Make IPOs a Slam Dunk For the Average Investor

Orlando Magic add Shaquille O'Neal to team's Hall of Fame
Orlando Sentinel—TNS via Getty Images Shaq says IPOs should be a slam dunk for average investors.

The legendary basketball payer wants to recruit more individuals to invest in them

Shaquille O’Neal wants to recruit more individuals to invest in IPOs at a time when more and more of the deals are turning out to be air balls.

The legendary basketball payer is investing in Loyal3, a brokerage firm that wants to give more individual investors access to initial public offerings, according to The Wall Street Journal. Shaq is also joining the San Francisco company’s advisory board and said he will help promote the company’s mission.

Loyal3 was started three years ago, and is run by Barry Schneider, a former golf company executive. Loyal3’s executive vice president Bill Blais is a long time Wall Streeter, and a former Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley investment banker. Loyal3 doesn’t run do its own deals. It partners with other investment banks to get a small chunk of an IPO, typically 5%, that it then markets to individual investors. Wall Street has typically doled out IPO shares to its best customers, usually large investment funds and rich investors. Instead, Loyal3 sells the shares it receives on a first-come, first-serve basis to investors with as little as $100 to invest, and for no commission. Loyal3 says companies like to have the brokerage in on their deals because individual investors tend to be more loyal investors than large institutions.

Despite the highly sought after nature of IPOs, they tend to be risky investments, and Shaq is running into the IPO game at a time when the quality of many of the most recent deals is clearly looking deflated.

Of the 37 companies that went public in the first quarter of the year, just 10% had operations that were turning a profit, down from 43% in 2013. And the performance of the deals has waned. Shares of the average IPO have risen just 15% this year. That’s better than the market, but far less than 40% return of two years ago, though that is based on full year.

Many noteworthy IPOs have tumbled recently. Shares of Etsy have fallen nearly 50% from where they closed on their first day of trading. Etsy also set aside a chunk of its IPO shares for individual investors, selling 5% of its shares online through Morgan Stanley. Etsy also sought to limit the number of large investors in the deal. Loyal3 was not involved in the offering. Some have blamed the unusual structure of the IPO for why the shares haven’t done so well. Other IPOs this year, like that of cloud company Box, have also been duds.

Loyal3 has been involved in 13 IPOs, including some high profile deals like camera company GoPro [fortune-stock symbol=”GPRO”], shares of which are up nearly 150% from its 2014 IPO. Pet Insurance company Trupanion, another deal Loyal3 has been in on, have not done as well, down 20% from it’s IPO price. It’s not clear how well Loyal3’s deals have done overall. Loyal3 does not include its complete list of IPO deals on its website. The company did not respond in time to comment for this piece.

Read more on IPOs: The IPO used to be a moment of glory. Now it’s a sign of desperation

TIME Hillary Clinton

Why Hillary Clinton Prefers to Talk About Community Banks

Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives for a meeting with parents and child care workers at the Center for New Horizons in Chicago on May 20, 2015.
Scott Olson—Getty Images Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives for a meeting with parents and child care workers at the Center for New Horizons in Chicago on May 20, 2015.

Like many Democrats, Hillary Clinton has talked tough about reining in mega banks. But as her presidential campaign has gotten underway, she’s focused on the homier side of the financial industry: community banks.

At a roundtable in Cedar Falls, Iowa, Clinton spoke on Tuesday less about tightening oversight on Wall Street and more about loosening regulations for banks on Main Street. She argued that red tape and paperwork for small banks across the country are holding back small businesses by making it harder to get much-needed loans.

At times, listeners might have even mistaken Clinton for a moderate Republican.

“Today,” Clinton said, “local banks are being squeezed by regulations that don’t make sense for their size and mission—like endless examinations and paperwork designed for banks that measure their assets in the many billions.”

“And when it gets harder for small banks to do their jobs, it gets harder for small businesses to get their loans,” she said. “Our goal should be helping community banks serve their neighbors and customers the way they always have.”

Community banks tend have less than $1 billion in assets, are usually based in rural or suburban communities and are the kind of place your uncle in Idaho might go for money to open an antique shop. Touting small businesses is a tried-and-true trope for candidates on both sides of the aisle. For office-seekers from Barack Obama to Marco Rubio, the subject is as noncontroversial and all-American as crabgrass.

The difference, then, comes at how politicians want to handle bigger banks. Congress right now is debating how far to exempt banks from certain regulations. Democratic lawmakers generally want to reduce them only for smaller banks; some Republicans want to exempt all banks, an approach Clinton criticized.

Big banks in the United States have become increasingly large and powerful in the seven years since the financial crisis. Of the 6,000-odd banks in the United States, the five largest control nearly half of the country’s banking wealth, according to a December study. In 1990, the five biggest banks controlled just 10% of the industry’s assets.

Small banks complain that federal regulation in the aftermath of the Dodd-Frank legislation is contributing to a decline in their numbers. Annual examinations at a community banks, for instance, require staff to walk regulators through paperwork. Filling out paperwork and paying for compliance lawyers to deal with new Dodd-Frank stipulations are burdensome extra costs, banks say. And new rules can impose high damages on lenders who do make unsafe loans.

“There’s an inherent advantage in scale,” said Mike Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending, pointing out that small banks often have more trouble paying for regulation compliance. “Community banks, being smaller, have less business to spread the cost of regulations over.”

It’s an issue that resonates with Iowa bankers, says John Sorensen, president and CEO of the Iowa Bankers Association. “A lot of the banks we have across Iowa are small businesses with 10 to 30 employees that have been interrupted in their ability to serve their customers through a good part of Dodd-Frank,” he said.

But some say the discussion about scrapping community bank regulations as Clinton suggests is a distraction. Small banks were in steady decline for many years before Dodd-Frank, and they are protected from liability on certain loans that big banks are not. And regulators argue that preventing risky mortgages of the kind that brought on the financial crisis is a good thing.

Much of the push to deregulate community banks comes from bigger institutions who want exemptions from regulation themselves. “If you were able to somehow magically trace who is whipping up frenzy about regulator burden on small banks, you’d find its trade associations at the behest of bigger banks,” said Julia Gordon of the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank that has supplied some top officials in the Clinton campaign.

During the roundtable, Donna Sorensen, chair of the board of Cedar Rapids Bank and Trust and a participant on Tuesday, suggested to Clinton that more U.S. Small Business Administration-supported loans come with no fees. Clinton took notes and nodded in assent.

“If we really wanted to jumpstart more community bank lending, part of what we would do is exactly that—raise the limits to avoid the upfront fee” for businesses that need loans, Clinton said.

Clinton did not say specifically what regulations she would remove if she were elected president, but locals in Independence, Iowa, where Clinton stopped by for a visit after her small business roundtables, asked her to hold true to her sentiments. Terry Tekippe, whose family owns an independent hardware store, walked onto the street as Clinton walked by. “Keep us in focus,” Tekippe said.

“I want to be a small business president, so I am,” Clinton called back as she continued down the street.

TIME Banking

New Survey Confirms Exactly What Everybody Hates About Wall Street

Five Years After Start Of Financial Crisis, Wall Street Continues To Hum
John Moore—Getty Images A street sign for Wall Street hangs outside the New York Stock Exchange on September 16, 2013 in New York City.=

Almost a quarter of bankers said they'd break the rules

Wall Street bankers are feeling a greater willingness to violate laws and ethics to get ahead, according to a new survey that finds no discernible impact from years of record fines and tightened regulations.

One-quarter of respondents said they would violate insider trading laws to make a $10 million return as long as they knew they wouldn’t get caught, according to a survey of 1,200 financial professionals conducted by University of Notre Dame at the behest of the law firm Labaton Sucharow. That was actually a slight uptick from the previous survey, when the percentage stood at 24%.

Respondents weren’t exactly impressed with regulatory oversight either. Nearly half deemed the regulatory agencies ineffective at detecting and prosecuting illicit behavior.

 

MONEY fiduciary

If Humans Can’t Offer Unbiased Financial Advice to the Middle Class, These Robots Will

Wall Street says it can't be a "fiduciary" to everyone who wants financial advice. But the new breed of "robo advisers" is happy to take the job.

Fast-growing internet-based investment services known as robo-advisers have already begun to upend many aspects of the investment business. Here’s one more: Potentially reshaping the long-standing debate in Washington over whether financial advisers need to act in their clients’ best interests.

If you work with a financial adviser you may assume he or she is legally obligated to give you unbiased advice. In fact, that’s not necessarily the case. Many advisers—the ones who are technically called brokers—in fact face a much less stringent legal and ethical standard: They’re required only to offer investments that are “suitable” for you based on factors like age and risk tolerance. That leaves room for brokers to steer clients to suitable but costly products that deliver them high commissions.

The issue is especially troubling, say many investor advocates, because research shows that most consumers don’t understand they may be getting conflicted advice. And the White House recently claimed that over-priced advice was reducing investment returns by 1% annually, ultimately costing savers $17 billion a year.

Now the Labor Department has issued a proposal that, among other things, would expand the so-called fiduciary standard to advice on one of financial advisers’ biggest market segments, Individual Retirement Accounts. A 90-day comment period ends this summer.

Seems like an easy call, right? Not so fast. Wall Street lobbyists contend that forcing all advisers to put clients first would actually hurt investors. Their argument? Because advisers who currently adhere to stricter fiduciary standards tend to work with wealthier clients, forcing all advisers to adopt it would drive those who serve less wealthy savers out of the business. In other words, according to the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a fiduciary standard would mean middle-class investors could end up without access to any advice at all.

(Why, you might ask, would anyone in Washington listen to business rather than consumer groups about what’s best for consumers? Well, that is another story.)

What’s interesting about robo-advisers, which rely on the Internet to deliver automated advice, is that they have potential to change the dynamic. Robo-advisers have been filling this gap, offering investors so-called fiduciary advice with little or no investment minimums at all. For instance, Wealthfront, one of the leading robo-advisers, has a minimum account size of just $5,000. It’s free for the first $10,000 invested and charges just 0.25% on amounts over that. Arch-rival Betterment has no account minimum at all and charges just 0.35% on accounts up to $10,000 when investors agree to direct deposit up to $100 a month.

Of course, these services mostly focus on investing—clients can expect little in the way of individual attention or holistic financial planning. But the truth is that flesh-and-blood advisers seldom deliver much of those things to clients without a lot of assets. What’s more, the dynamic is starting to change. Earlier this month, fund giant Vanguard launched Personal Advisor Services that will offer individual financial planning over the phone and Internet for investors with as little as $50,000. The fee is 0.3%.

The financial services industry says robo-advisers shouldn’t change the argument. Juli McNeely, president of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, argues that relying on robo-advisers to fill the advice gap would still deprive investors of the human touch. “It all boils down to the relationship,” she says. “It provides clients with a lot of comfort.”

But robo-adviser’s growth suggests a different story. Wealthfront and Betterment, with $2.3 billion and $2.1 billion under management, respectively, are still small but have seen assets more than double in the past year.

And Vanguard’s service, meanwhile, which had been in a pilot program for two years before it’s recent launch, already has $17 billion under management.

Vanguard chief executive William McNabb told me last week that, although Vanguard had reservations about the specific legal details of past proposals, his company supports a fiduciary standard in principle. Small investors, he says, are precisely the niche that robo-advisers are “looking to fill.”

 

 

 

 

 

MONEY ETFs

Humdrum ETFs Are Overtaking Racy Hedge Funds

Tortoise and the hare
Milo Winter—Blue Lantern Studio/Corbis

It's part of a gradual change in culture on Wall Street that's encouraging low costs and long-term thinking.

It’s like the investment world’s version of the race between the tortoise and the hare. And the hare is losing its lead.

Hedge funds, investment pools known for their exotic investment strategies and rich fees, have long been considered one of the raciest investments Wall Street has to offer, with $2.94 trillion invested globally as of the first quarter, according to researcher Hedge Fund Research.

Despite their mystique and popularity, though, hedge funds are about to be eclipsed by a far cheaper and less exclusive investment vehicle: exchange-traded funds.

According to ETF researcher ETFGI, exchange-traded funds — index funds that have become favorites of financial planners and mom and pop investors — have climbed to more than $2.93 trillion. ETFs could eclipse hedge funds as early as this summer, according to co-founder Debbie Fuhr.

In some ways the milestone is one that few people outside the money management business might notice or care about. But even if you don’t pay much attention to the pecking order on Wall Street, there’s reason to take notice.

The fact that ETFs have caught up with hedge funds reflects broader trends toward lower costs and a focus on long-term passive investing, both of which benefit small investors.

Exchange-traded funds, which first appeared in the 1990s and hit the $1 trillion mark following the financial crisis, have gained fans in large part because their ultra-low cost and hands-off investing style.

While there are many varieties of ETFs, the basic premise is built on the notion that investors get ahead not by picking individual stocks and securities but by simply owning big parts of the market.

Index mutual funds have been around for a long time. (Mutual funds control $30 trillion in assets globally, dwarfing both ETFs and hedge funds). But ETFs allow investors to trade funds like stocks, and they can be more tax efficient than mutual funds. Both ETFs and traditional index funds are known for ultra-low fees, sometimes less than 0.1% of assets invested. That means investors keep more of what they earn, and pay less to Wall Street.

Hedge funds by contrast exist for elaborate investment strategies. They are investment pools that in some ways resemble mutual funds, but they can’t call themselves that because they aren’t willing to follow SEC rules designed to protect less sophisticated investors.

Because of their special legal status, hedge funds aren’t allowed to accept investors with less than than $1 million in net worth, hence the air of wealth and exclusivity.

But hedge fund managers also enjoy a lot more freedom in how they invest, for instance, sometimes requiring shareholders to lock up money for months at a time or taking big positions in complex derivatives.

Hedge funds aren’t necessarily designed to be risky — they get their name from a strategy designed to offset not magnify market swings. But hedge fund investors do expect managers to deliver something the market cannot. Otherwise why pay the high fees? Hedge funds typically charge “two and twenty.” That is 2% of the amount invested each year, plus 20% of any gains above some benchmark. No that is not a typo.

Of course, hedge funds’ rich fees wouldn’t be a problem if they delivered rich investment returns. The industry has long relied on some fabulously successful examples to make its case. But critics have also suspected that, like the active mutual fund industry in its 1990s’ heyday, this could be a case of survivorship bias, with a few rags-to-riches stories distracting from more common stories of mediocre performance.

Hedge funds’ performance in recent years seems to be bearing that out. (By contrast ETFs, whose returns are typically tied to the stock market, have benefited from one of the longest bull markets in history.)

Why should you care if a bunch of rich guys blow their money chasing ephemeral investment returns? One reason, is you might be among them, even if you don’t know it. Pension funds are among the biggest hedge fund investors.

The good news: They too are embracing indexing, if not specifically through ETFs. Calpers, the giant California pension fund, said last year that it was dumping hedge funds, while also indexing more of its stock holdings.

Unlike ETFs, hedge funds — because they need to justify their rich fees — often suffer from short-term focus. In recent years, one popular strategy has been so-called “activist investing,” where a hedge fund buys a big stake in an underperforming company and demands changes.

While the stock market often rewards those moves in the short-term, many investors worry moves like cutting costs and skimping on research ultimately make those businesses weaker, hurting long-term investors. It’s no surprise then that one of activist investing’s most outspoken critics is BlackRock Inc. As the largest ETF provider, BlackRock represents the interests of millions of small investors.

And finally, there are those fees. The surging popularity of low-cost investments such as ETFs will inevitably focus more attention on fees, putting pressure on active investment managers — and even hedge funds themselves — to slash prices. And in the the end, that benefits everybody.

MONEY wall street

Shhh…E.F. Hutton Is Talking Again

A storied financial brand far removed from its glory days makes a comeback, modeled after...Uber?

Bring back shoulder pads and the mullet. E.F. Hutton, another 1980s throwback, is in the financial services business again. The big question: Is this once iconic brand worth anything?

Hutton is launching the website Gateway to connect investors with independent financial advisers, estate lawyers, accountants, and insurance agents. The firm will vet its roster of financial pros, which individuals can access for free.

But this is really about helping advisers find clients. The advisers will pay Hutton a fee based on revenue they collect from clients that find them on the site. Stanley Hutton Rumbough, the grandson of legendary founder E.F. Hutton, is leading the brand’s revival from within a relatively new entity called E.F. Hutton Financial, which was incorporated in Colorado in 2007 and has no legal relationship with the old E.F. Hutton. The new firm likens itself to car service Uber in that it takes a small cut of the business it generates for advisers.

Hutton was a Wall Street heavyweight 40 years ago and is best known for its advertising slogan: “When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen.” The firm’s ads ran for years and typically featured crowds of people leaning in to hear the advice of a Hutton broker. (That’s one in the video above.) This was a powerful image during the bull market that started in 1982. After the lost decade of the 1970s, investors were getting excited about stocks again. The Hutton ad suggested that only through a broker could you gain an investing edge.

In some ways, the suggestion was ironic—coming just ahead of the massive insider trading scandals of the late 1980s, when dozens of Wall Street players, including Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, were found to have skirted the rules for their own advantage. So much for the broker edge, which in those cases anyway was about illegal stock tips sometimes in exchange for suitcases full of cash.

Hutton became embroiled as well, and in 1985 pleaded guilty to 2,000 counts of mail and wire fraud, and paid more than $10 million in penalties in connection with a check-kiting scheme. The firm would make bank withdrawals and deposits in such a way that it gained illegal access to millions of dollars interest free for days at a time while waiting for the checks to clear.

A further irony lies in reams of new data that show that over the long haul stock pickers tend to underperform simple, low-cost index funds. Over time, the fees that active fund managers charge overwhelm their ability to pick winning stocks. This is now so well understood that the good old-fashioned stockbroker is a dinosaur. Today, industry leaders like Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley employ financial advisers or wealth managers who counsel clients in all aspects of their money life.

Founded in 1904, Hutton ran into capital issues following the 1987 stock market crash and disappeared in 1988 amid a spate of mergers that included Shearson Lehman Bros., American Express, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Citigroup. Former Hutton executive Frank Campanale tried reviving the brand three years ago. Campanale ditched the effort for a job with the established asset manager Lebenthal and Co., but continues to have a financial stake in the Hutton brand.

With a checkered past and four decades removed from glory, you have to wonder how much the Hutton name is worth. Then again, Michael Milken has resurfaced as a philanthropist and neon is back in style. Power up the flux capacitor, Doc. We’re going back the future.

Editor’s note: This article was updated to clarify that: 1) E.F. Hutton Financial is a different company from the original E.F. Hutton brokerage that ran into legal troubles in the 1980s; and 2) Mr. Campanale has retained a financial interest in E.F. Hutton Financial since his departure.

 

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com