Sec - Online Brokerage. Keeping Apace Of Cyberspace(PDF)
The Report provides a number of statistics to put in context the growth and
activities of on-line investors and firms. It also describes the various products and services
currently offered on-line. Finally, the Report describes various trends in the industry,
including: (a) the continued growth of on-line investing and the pressure it has put on
traditional firms to offer on-line services; (b) how the growth of on-line brokerage will impact the services firms offer going forward; and (c ) how firms are developing
technology to provide automated, but personalized, advice on-line. ...
On-Line Brokerage: Keeping Apace of Cyberspace
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION
Recent advances in information technology -- particularly the Internet -- are
revolutionizing commerce. The securities industry, most significantly on-line brokerage, is
at the forefront of this revolution.
Research reports estimate that last year’ $415 billion in online brokerage assets
s
will grow by more than sevenfold to $3 trillion in 2003. The 3.7 million on-line accounts
open in 1997 have almost tripled to reach 9.7 million by the second quarter of this year.
On-line trading volumes have increased dramatically over the last several years.
According to one analyst, volume has increased from under 100,000 trades per day in the
second quarter of 1996 to over half a million in the second quarter of 1999. The
percentage of equity trades conducted on-line has grown to 15.9 percent of all equity
trades in the first quarter of 1999.
On-line brokerage has significantly changed the dynamics of the marketplace,
causing one of the biggest shifts in individual investors' relationships with their brokers
since the invention of the telephone. For the first time ever, investors can -- from the
comfort of their own homes -- access a wealth of financial information on the same terms
as market professionals, including breaking news developments and market data. In
addition, on-line brokerage provides investors with tools to analyze this information, such
as research reports, calculators, and portfolio analyzers. Finally, on-line brokerage enables
investors to act quickly on this information.
The pace of change and the strength of the securities markets generally has enabled
investors to more directly participate in the securities markets. This confluence of events -
- the development of technology affordable to investors and increased investor access --
has raised a number of questions for the industry and the regulators. The questions
addressed in this Report are:
1. What will the brokerage industry look like in the future? Where is it
headed?
The Report provides a number of statistics to put in context the growth and
activities of on-line investors and firms. It also describes the various products and services
currently offered on-line. Finally, the Report describes various trends in the industry,
including: (a) the continued growth of on-line investing and the pressure it has put on
traditional firms to offer on-line services; (b) how the growth of on-line brokerage will
impact the services firms offer going forward; and (c ) how firms are developing
technology to provide automated, but personalized, advice on-line.
2. What challenges do regulators face in applying the suitability doctrine
on-line?
A well-established doctrine, suitability refers to a broker-dealer’ obligation to
s
recommend only those investments that are suitable for a customer. In order to trigger a
suitability obligation, a registered representative must make an investment
recommendation to his or her customer. In the on-line environment, pinpointing what
constitutes a recommendation can be difficult. As data mining technology enables on-line
firms to customize information and provide it to customers, this question becomes even
more pressing.
3. How has technology impacted on-line firms’ performance and
evaluation of their best execution obligations?
The duty of best execution requires a broker-dealer to seek the most advantageous
terms reasonably available under the circumstances for a customer's transaction. Although
this duty evolves with changes in technology and market structure, the Commission has
stated that broker-dealers must carry out regular and rigorous evaluations of execution
quality across markets and consider price improvement opportunities. The combined
events over the last three years of : (a) the growth of on-line brokerage, (b) the move to
quoting in sixteenths,
( c) implementation of the Order Handling Rules, and (d) advances in order routing
technologies have impacted how firms approach fulfilling their best execution obligations.
4. How have on-line investors’ demand for market information impacted
the pricing of real-time data?
The federal securities laws grant the Commission broad authority over information
about securities quotations and transactions. The Commission must ensure that market
participants and the public can obtain this information on terms that are "fair and
reasonable" and "not unreasonably discriminatory." The Internet’ ability to broadly
s
disseminate real-time information to the public and the concomitant rise of on-line
brokerage have substantially increased demand for market data. This demand has raised a
number of questions, including: (a) whether individual investors pay too much for the
information and (b) how much of that data revenue should be devoted to the operations of
self-regulatory organizations.
5. How do firms ensure sufficient capacity to keep up with the systems
demands resulting from on-line trading?
Over the past year, many on-line firms have experienced some type of systems
delay or outage that affected the ability of their customers to place orders. Despite the
2
industry’ efforts to improve capacity, the Commission’ highest number of complaints
s s
about on-line trading comes from customers who cannot access their firms' systems. On-
line firms vary in their approach to measuring systems capacity and in their disclosure to
customers about the risks of systems delays and outages.
6. What type of investor education does the typical on-line customer
need and want?
Investor education is critical to investor protection. The decreased personal
interaction between an on-line firm and its customers presents interesting challenges to
providing investor education. Investors can now access an unprecedented amount of
financial information without the guidance of a broker. Educating on-line investors
requires an understanding of how these investors trade and the appropriate time and place
to provide them with educational information. At the same time, the Internet provides a
valuable resource for the Commission to more widely disseminate investor education
materials.
7. What are the regulatory challenges involving “cyber chats” or on-line
discussion forums?
While on-line discussion forums may educate and provide a sense of community to
investors, they also may provide a venue for fraudulent behavior. Many issuers monitor
on-line discussions about their companies but refrain from addressing rumors about them
in the marketplace for fear that they may create a continuing duty to correct or update.
Instead, issuers oftentimes go to court to unmask the "anonymous" posters of
information.
Broker-dealers have generally refrained from sponsoring on-line discussion forums
on their sites although anectdotal evidence indicates that some firms may consider doing
so.
8. How do firms protect the privacy of their on-line customers’ personal
information?
Customers increasingly are concerned about the privacy of their personal
information. As on-line firms’data mining capabilities develop and the number of financial
conglomerates continues to grow, so do customers’concerns about what these institutions
can and will do with their personal information. Control over customers’personal
information was recently the subject of much discussion in the financial modernization
legislation debate. While the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the Commission and other
regulators to adopt specific privacy rules, it appears the discussion is far from over.
9. How should brokerage firms be able to compensate Internet financial
portals?
3
Websites known as portals are considered the "on ramp" to the Internet, attracting
millions of monthly viewers. Well-known portals include Yahoo! Finance, America
Online, Quicken.com, and Microsoft MoneyCentral. Portals have become broker-dealers'
rivals for the attention of on-line investors. In addition, portals have become important
intermediaries between broker-dealers and their customers. A number of broker-dealers
have entered into cobranding arrangements with portals, either paying a flat up-front fee
or a per order "connection" fee for every order transmitted by an investor who hyperlinks
from a portal to the broker-dealer.
II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Suitability Roundtable participants generally subscribed to the traditional notion
of suitability, but suggested that the obligation did not apply to some, if not all, on-line
activities. Although the participants were not unanimous on this point, the majority of
them wanted clarification or guidance from regulators. Resolving this issue will require
several considerations. First, how should the regulators interpret the concept of
“recommendation” online? Push and pull technologies make this a difficult question to
answer. Regulators need to consider how defining suitability on-line may impact
information flow and customer access. Although some would argue that the Internet
gives investors (and consumers generally) too much information, investors may not want
this information flow restricted, even at the expense of receiving unsuitable advice.
The Report recommends that the Commission:
1. obtain information from the industry on: (a) how data mining products
would work, (b) what information the products would provide to the firms,
and
(c ) whether customers would understand that the firm had provided them
with customized information;
2. alternatively, include as part of future Commission or SRO examinations a
review of what services firms provide to their customers based on
information derived from data mining; and
3. work with the SROs to consider the hypothetical scenarios and relevant
analysis, found in the Appendix to the Suitability Section of the Report, in
providing guidance to the industry regarding on-line suitability obligations.
Best Execution Technology is making best execution an especially critical
concept in today's market structure, and a significant competitive factor. Indeed,
technology provides firms with the opportunity to adopt a new approach to order routing
and to meeting their best execution obligations. In the roundtable discussions, many on-
line brokerage participants contended that speed and certainty of execution are factors that
should receive greater emphasis in their best execution evaluations. Moreover, some
4
participants questioned whether on-line customers actually understood how their brokers'
order routing decisions affected their total execution cost.
The Report recommends that the Commission:
1. encourage the industry to demonstrate the relative importance of factors
such as speed and certainty of execution in today's market environment;
2. consider requiring market centers to make certain uniform information
available on various best execution factors;
3. consider requiring broker-dealers to regularly provide customers with plain
English information about: (a) the execution quality available on different
market centers; (b) the broker-dealer’ order handling practices; and (c)
s
inducements for receiving order flow received by the broker-dealer; and
4. evaluate the potential impact of new order routing technologies on brokers'
best execution obligations, investors, and the markets.
Market Data The Report briefly outlines the pricing structure for retail users of
market data. Roundtable participants generally agreed that the Internet warrants a
reevaluation of the pricing model for delivering real-time market data to individual
investors. However, the participants recognized the industry's need to meet the costs of
creating and maintaining an infrastructure to collect and disseminate market data.
The Report concludes that the Commission should encourage the broadest possible
dissemination of real-time market data to investors, which requires evaluating whether the
current pricing scheme for market data is consistent with the federal securities laws.
Because the Commission currently is involved in such an evaluation, the Report
recommends that the Commission's upcoming market data concept release address the
issues raised in this section.
Systems Capacity In the roundtable discussions, the participants acknowledged
occasional systems failures are inevitable, but indicated that they have committed
significant resources to ensuring that their systems remain operational. The Report
concludes that the Commission should focus on methods to ensure more adequate systems
capacity at all broker-dealers.
The Report recommends that the Commission consider requiring broker-dealers
to:
1. maintain and periodically test contingency plans;
2. maintain records of significant systems outages;
3. conduct regular systems testing and evaluation; and
5
4. include plain English disclosure of the risks of systems delays or outages in
new account documentation.
The Report also encourages the Commission to repropose the broker-dealer
operational capability rule.
Investor Education The Report reviews the current status of investor education
and makes certain recommendations for improvements. The Report recognizes that the
roundtable firm participants taking into account the roundtable participants’preference for
keeping customers on their websites and that it would be useful to educate investors on
their sites. The Report also notes that it would be helpful to understand the behavior of
on-line brokerage customers in determining the most effective means for disseminating
investor education material.
The Report recommends that:
1. firms partner with the Commission in helping to educate investors; and
2. the Commission study on-line investor behavior to determine the best place
and time to educate investors on the Internet.
On-line Discussion Forums The Report describes on-line discussion forums on
the Internet and the challenges these forums pose to issuers, market participants, and
regulators. The roundtable discussions focused on two separate areas: (1) addressing
rumors on on-line discussion forums; and (2) whether broker-dealers should offer this
feature on their websites.
The Report recommends that:
1. the Commission conduct or encourage researchers to conduct a study
analyzing the effect of chat room discussions on company’ stock prices;
s
and
2. broker-dealers operating on-line discussion forums consider adopting
certain best practices to prevent investor confusion.
Privacy The Report describes: (1) the rising concerns over on-line privacy; (2)
how the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act addresses privacy concerns; and (3) surveys on-line
firms’privacy policies. The roundtable discussions focused on how on-line firms address,
if at all, investor privacy.
The Report recommends that the Commission:
1. evaluate on-line firms’information collection practices; and
6
2. consider certain factors in conducting its statutorily required study on
privacy.
Portals The roundtable discussion focused on how broker-dealers want to change
the way they compensate portals for routing investors to them. Specifically, firm
participants indicated that they want to compensate portals based on the number of
accounts opened by viewers who hyperlink to a broker-dealer from a portal. Such a
“success-based” fee is typically how other commercial partners pay portals, but the federal
securities laws prohibits broker-dealers from paying portals that are not registered broker-
dealers in a way that gives them a salesman’ stake in the transaction.
s
Because the federal securities laws generally prohibit entities not registered as
broker-dealers from receiving securities transaction-based compensation, the Report
recommends that the Commission consider whether alternative compensation
arrangements are appropriate for entities not registered as broker-dealers.
III. CONCLUSION
Technology has made this an exciting and challenging time for the industry and the
Commission. As discussed in this Report, the Internet is rapidly making on-line trading
ubiquitous. This Report provides the Commission with a comprehensive examination of
the critical issues to be addressed in the area of technology. Although it may still be
premature for extensive rulemaking in this area, this Report highlights for the Commission
certain key issues facing investors and the industry and recommends how the Commission
can resolve some of these issues.
The Commission staff is already at work exploring ways to help firms fulfill their
duty to ensure effective customer service, best execution, high-quality disclosure, and
responsible advertising, whether on-line or off. Through inspections, surveillance,
enforcement, and investor education, the staff is responding swiftly and decisively to the
challenges posed by the constantly evolving technology.
This Report continues our progress in molding securities regulation to fit the age
of technology.
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. TRENDS IN ON-LINE BROKERAGE ................................................................. 1
A. Current Status...................................................................................................... 1
1. Statistical Snapshot ........................................................................................ 1
a. On-Line Investors..................................................................................... 1
b. On-Line Accounts .................................................................................... 2
c. On-Line Trading Volume ......................................................................... 2
d. On-Line Market Share.............................................................................. 4
e. On-Line Commission Rates ...................................................................... 4
2. Products and Services Currently Offered On-Line .......................................... 5
B. Trends in On-Line Brokerage............................................................................... 6
1. Continued Growth of the On-Line Channel .................................................... 6
2. Convergence of On-Line and Full-Service Brokerage ..................................... 7
a. On-Line Firms .......................................................................................... 7
b. Full-Service Firms Go On-Line................................................................. 8
3. Brokers Providing Customized On-Line Content and
Financial Advice............................................................................................. 9
II. SUITABILITY....................................................................................................... 13
A. Background ....................................................................................................... 13
1. SRO Rules ................................................................................................... 13
2. The Shingle Theory...................................................................................... 15
3. Options and Penny Stocks............................................................................ 15
4. SEC Antifraud Actions................................................................................. 15
B. Suitability Issues in the On-Line Context............................................................ 16
C. Roundtable Participants’Views.......................................................................... 17
D. Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................... 20
1. Conclusions ................................................................................................. 20
2. Recommendations........................................................................................ 20
Suitability Hypotheticals .................................................................................... 21
III. BEST EXECUTION............................................................................................. 24
A. Background ....................................................................................................... 24
B. Best Execution Issues Raised in the On-Line Context......................................... 26
C. Roundtable Participants’Views.......................................................................... 29
D. Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................... 32
1. Conclusions ................................................................................................. 32
2. Recommendations........................................................................................ 33
IV. MARKET DATA ................................................................................................. 35
A. Background ....................................................................................................... 35
1. Current Regulatory Framework.................................................................... 35
2. CTA Network A and NASD Pricing Schedules ............................................ 36
B. Market Data Issues Raised in On-Line Brokerage .............................................. 37
C. Roundtable Participants’Views and Other Findings ........................................... 38
1. Roundtable Participants’Views.................................................................... 38
2. Other Recent Developments......................................................................... 40
8
3. SROs and Market Data Revenue .................................................................. 43
D. Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................... 44
1. Conclusions ................................................................................................. 44
2. Recommendations........................................................................................ 45
V. SYSTEMS CAPACITY ........................................................................................ 47
A. Background ....................................................................................................... 47
1. Current Regulatory Framework.................................................................... 47
2. Measuring Capacity...................................................................................... 50
3. Disclosure to On-Line Customers................................................................. 51
B. Roundtable Participants’Views.......................................................................... 51
C. Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................... 53
1. Conclusions ................................................................................................. 53
2. Recommendations........................................................................................ 54
VI. INVESTOR EDUCATION .................................................................................. 56
A. Background ....................................................................................................... 56
B. Education through Websites............................................................................... 58
1. Commission’ Website ................................................................................. 58
s
2. Industry Association Website ....................................................................... 59
3. Firm Websites .............................................................................................. 60
C. Roundtable Participants’Views.......................................................................... 60
D. Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................... 61
1. Conclusions ................................................................................................. 61
2. Recommendations........................................................................................ 62
VII. ON-LINE DISCUSSION FORUMS ................................................................... 64
A. General Background .......................................................................................... 64
1. Broker-Dealer Sponsored On-Line Discussion Forums................................. 65
a. Background............................................................................................ 65
b. Roundtable Participants’Views .............................................................. 68
2. Issuers ......................................................................................................... 69
a. Background............................................................................................ 69
b. Roundtable Participants’Views .............................................................. 73
B. Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................... 74
1. Conclusions ................................................................................................. 74
2. Recommendations........................................................................................ 75
VIII. PRIVACY ......................................................................................................... 76
A. Background ....................................................................................................... 76
B. Privacy Concerns Raised in an On-Line Environment ......................................... 77
C. Current Legislation Affecting Privacy................................................................. 81
D. On-Line Broker-Dealers’Privacy Policies .......................................................... 82
E. Roundtable Participants’Views.......................................................................... 83
F. Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................... 85
1. Conclusions ................................................................................................. 85
2. Recommendations........................................................................................ 85
IX. PORTALS ......................................................................................................... 87
9
A. Background ....................................................................................................... 87
B. Current Regulatory Requirements ...................................................................... 90
C. Roundtable Participants’Views.......................................................................... 92
1. Portals’Business Model............................................................................... 92
2. Portals’Compensation Arrangements........................................................... 93
D. Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................... 94
1. Conclusions ................................................................................................. 94
2. Recommendations........................................................................................ 95
APPENDICES
1. On-Line Broker-Dealers
2. Ten On-Line Brokers’Policies for Delivering Market Data Via the Internet
3. Enforcement Actions Involving On-Line Discussion Forums
4. Privacy Survey Findings
5. On-Line Trading Complaints Received by the Commission
10
LIST OF EXHIBITS
I. CHARTS
A. TRENDS IN ON-LINE BROKERAGE
1. On-Line Average Daily Trades 2Q97-2Q99.................................................... 3
2. On-Line Share of Equity Trades 1Q97-2Q/99................................................. 3
3. Adjusted On-Line Trading Market Share 2Q99 .............................................. 4
4. On-Line Commission Rates 1Q96-1Q99......................................................... 5
B. PRIVACY
1. Reasons for not Filling Out On-Line Registration Forms............................... 78
2. Most Surfers Still Won’ Opt In ................................................................... 79
t
C. PORTALS
1. Percent of Surfers Bypassing Portals for E-Commerce Sites ......................... 89
II. TABLES
A. MARKET DATA
1. CTA Network A and NASD Market Data Revenues .................................... 44
B. PORTALS
1. Portal Traffic Trends.................................................................................... 88
III. DIAGRAM
A. SYSTEMS CAPACITY
1. Internet Connection Points ........................................................................... 52
I. TRENDS IN ON-LINE BROKERAGE
Electronic brokerage actually predates individual investors’access to the Internet.
In the mid-1980s, a number of broker-dealers offered customers software and direct dial-
up access that permitted them to submit orders via their personal computers.1 In the early
1990s, several broker-dealers gave customers the ability to enter orders through private
computer networks. In 1995, broker-dealers introduced the first systems that allowed
customers to submit orders through the Internet. Approximately 160 broker-dealers now
offer on-line trading.2 In less than five years, on-line brokerage has become an important
channel for conducting retail brokerage transactions.
1
In response to the development of such systems, the Commission issued a release that anticipated
many of the issues facing on-line firms and investors today, such as suitability and access to
market data. Exchange Act Release No. 21,383 (Oct. 9, 1984), 49 Fed. Reg. 40,159 (1984).
[hereinafter Computer Brokerage Release].
2
See Appendix 1 for a list of on-line broker-dealers.
11
A. Current Status
1. Statistical Snapshot
a. On-Line Investors
According to a survey on U.S. equity ownership by the Investment Company
Institute (“ICI”) and the Securities Industry Association (“SIA”), investors who trade
equities on-line tend to be younger and more affluent than those who use traditional full-
service firms.3 On-line investors have a median age of 41, median household income of
$73,800, and median household financial assets of $229,000. They are more often
college-educated than other investors. The typical on-line investor has $127,600 invested
in equities.4 The ICI and SIA estimated that only 11 percent of individuals trading equities in
1998 (or five percent of all equity owners) traded on-line.5 In the 1999 Annual SIA Investor
Survey, 18 percent of investors responded that they used the Internet to buy or sell securities in
1999, up from 10 percent in 1998.6
b. On-Line Accounts
U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray (“Piper Jaffray”) estimates that by the end of the second
quarter of 1999 there were 9.7 million on-line accounts, up from 3.7 million in 1997 and 7.3
million in 1998. Discounting for multiple accounts, Piper Jaffray estimates that there are now
approximately 5.8 million on-line traders.7 Jupiter Communications estimates that $415 billion
in assets were in on-line accounts in 1998. 8
3
ICI and SIA, Equity Ownership in America, Fall 1999 at 29 [hereinafter ICI/SIA Survey].
4
These statistics generally concur with the on-line customer demographics offered by several
roundtable participants.
5
ICI/SIA Survey, supra note 3, at 31.
6
Yankelovich Partners, 1999 Annual SIA Investor Survey: Investors’Attitudes Towards the
Securities Industry Nov. 1999 at 33 [hereinafter 1999 Annual SIA Investor Survey].
7
U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, On-line Financial Services Update (Sept. 1999) at 11. See also Rebecca
Buckman, Firm Pegs Accounts in On-line Trading at 3.7 Million, WALL ST. J., Mar. 25, 1999, at B10
(discusses discrepancy between Forrester Research and Gomez Advisors, which reported 3.7 million
and 7.3 million on-line brokerage accounts, respectively).
8
Jupiter Communications: $3 Trillion in Assets by 2003 in Online Brokerage Accounts, But
Customer Service Still Lacking, Sept. 1, 1999 [hereinafter Jupiter Report].
12
c. On-Line Trading Volume
On-line equity trading volume has grown dramatically over the past several years.
Piper Jaffray reported that there was a daily average of 547,500 on-line trades in the second
quarter of 1999. However, as the following graph shows, the growth in on-line equity trading
volumes slowed significantly in the second quarter of 1999. Subsequently, there have been
indications that, while on-line trading volumes may have witnessed their first sequential decline
in the third quarter,9 growth has once again picked up in the fourth quarter.10
9
See Credit Suisse First Boston (“CS First Boston”), On-line Trading Update: Volumes Weak in
July (Aug. 3, 1999).
10
See Online Brokers Jump as Analyst Points to Higher Trading Volumes (Nov. 12, 1999)
.
13
Chart I-1
(in thousands) On-Line Daily Average Trades 3/97-6/99
600
547.5
505.3
500
400
336.7
300 254.6
224
186.3
200
139.5 149.4
117.9
96.2
100
0
Mar-97
Jun-97
Mar-98
Jun-98
Mar-99
Jun-99
Dec-97
Dec-98
Sep-97
Sep-98
Reprinted with permission from Piper Jaffray
Not only have on-line equity trading volumes risen, but on-line trading is accounting
for an increasing percentage of overall equity trading. CS First Boston reported that in the first
quarter of 1999, almost one in six equity trades (15.91 percent) took place on-line.11 As the
following chart indicates, on-line trading volume has almost tripled in the past two years.
Chart I-2
On-Line Share of Equity Trades
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1Q 1997 2Q 1997 3Q 1997 4Q 1997 1Q 1998 2Q 1998 3Q 1998 4Q 1998 1Q 1999 2Q 1999
(est.)
Reprinted with permission from CS First Boston
11
CS FIRST BOSTON, ON-LINE TRADING QUARTERLY: 1ST QUARTER 1999, June 1999 at 4
[hereinafter CS First Boston On-Line Trading Quarterly].
14
On-line trading accounts for an even higher percentage of overall equity and options
trades by retail investors. Piper Jaffray estimates that on-line firms processed 37 percent of all
retail trades in equities and options in 1998. 12
d. On-Line Market Share
While over 160 firms offer on-line trading, a few players currently dominate the
market. Recent entrants, including Merrill Lynch, PaineWebber, and American Express
certainly will impact the current division of on-line trading market share.13
Chart I-3
ADJUSTED ONLINE TRADING MARKET SHARE - EXCLUDING
ESTIMATED MUTUAL FUND TRADES (Second Quarter 1999)
NDB
Datek
1.4% Schw ab
12.7%
23.8%
E*Trade
16.4%
Suretrade
2.7%
DLJdirect Waterhouse
4.5% Ameritrade Discover 13.4%
Fidelity
11.1% 2.6%
11.5%
Reprinted with permission from U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray
e. On-Line Commission Rates
In the first few years of on-line trading, competition among on-line firms dramatically
reduced commission rates. As the following chart shows, the average commission charged by
12
U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, On-line Financial Services Update (Mar. 1999) at 1.
13
See, e.g., Rebecca Buckman, American Express Plans to Overhaul, Relaunch On-line Brokerage
Operations, WALL ST . J., Oct. 6, 1999, at C7; Joseph Kahn and Patrick McGeehan, Morgan
Stanley to Offer On-line Trading to All its Customers, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 18, 1999, at C1; Ruth
Simon and Charles Gasparino, Full-Service Brokers Complicate On-line World, WALL ST . J.,
Oct. 19, 1999, at C1; Charles Gasparino and Rebecca Buckman, Horning In: Facing Internet
Threat, Merrill to Offer Trading On-line for Low Fees, WALL ST . J., June 1, 1999, at A1; Walter
Hamilton, Rivals’Ranks Grow in On-line Trading Field, L.A. TIMES, Oct. 21, 1999.
15
the top ten on-line firms recently has stabilized at about $15.75 per trade. Some on-line firms
have lowered commission rates even further, particularly for their most active customers.
Chart I-4
Average Commission Charged by Top-10 Online Trading Firms: 1/96-12/98
$60.00
$52.89
$50.20
$50.00 $46.69
$40.00 $34.65
$32.19 $31.66
$30.00
$21.10
$20.00 $15.95 $15.53 $15.75$15.75 $15.75 $15.75
$10.00
$0.00
1996 1997 1998 1999
1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q
Reprinted with permission from CS First Boston
2. Products and Services Currently Offered On-Line
On-line investors can click onto a firm’ website and, frequently at no charge, find
s
market data, historical charts, securities analyses (e.g., analyst reports, industry reports,
earnings estimates, comprehensive charts, news stories), stock and mutual fund screeners, asset
allocators, mutual fund supermarket offerings, interactive calculators, and customizable home
pages.
On-line firms offer trading in equities, mutual funds, listed options, and fixed-income
securities. Many on-line firms also offer access to IPOs, after-hours trading, and pre-opening
trading. Investors can opt to have these services delivered not only to their personal
computers, but via wireless communications as well (e.g., pagers or personal digital assistants).
Moreover, investors can access information on-line that was previously unavailable or
difficult to obtain, such as information about hedge funds,14 proxy voting records,15 a mutual
14
Site Offers Research on Hedge Funds, AM. BANKER, Sept. 22, 1999, at 9 (discussing
www.hedgeworld.com, which intends to be clearing house for data and discussion for hedge
funds).
15
See Patrick S. McGurn, CalPERS Unveils New Governance Web Page, I SSUE ALERT, Feb. 1999,
at 5.
16
fund’ investment record,16 daily price information about certain fixed-income securities,17 and
s
information about corporate issuers.18
B. Trends in On-Line Brokerage
1. Continued Growth of the On-Line Channel
Industry analysts foresee continued growth both in the number of on-line
brokerage accounts and account assets. Forrester Research predicts that by 2003, 9.7
million U.S. households will manage more than $3 trillion in 20.4 million on-line
accounts.19 Jupiter Communications estimates that by 2003, 20.3 million households will
trade on-line and also puts total on-line account assets at more than $3 trillion.20
According to the 1999 SIA Investor Survey, 28 percent of respondents stated that they
were either very or somewhat likely to begin using the Internet to trade securities in the
next 12 months.21
One securities analyst described what he perceives to be the five sources of on-line
market growth today: (1) traditional mutual fund investors investing incremental income in
stocks; (2) employees who previously let employers invest for them now investing for
themselves; (3) new investors in the market favoring on-line firms; (4) investors transferring
their accounts from full-service firms; and (5) investors who open on-line accounts while
maintaining their full-service accounts.
16
Jeffrey M. Laderman, A Mutual Fund that Lets it all Hang Out, BUS. WK., Sept. 27, 1999, at 126
(Open Fund posts on its website every trade that it makes).
17
See, e.g., The Bond Market Association (visited November
15, 1999); Toddi Gurtner, The E-Bond Revolution, BUS. WK., Nov. 15, 1999, at 270.
18
See National Investor Relations Institute (“NIRI”) Releases Follow-Up Survey on the Growing
Use of Communications Technology in the Practice of Investor Relations (visited Nov. 1, 1999)
.
19
Forrester Research, Net Investing Goes Mainstream (visited Nov. 1, 1999)
.
20
Jupiter Report, supra note 8. In this same report, Jupiter Communications predicts that 80 percent
of revenue will come from interest, fees, and non-transaction services by 2003, up from 36 percent in
1998. It expects the number of trades and resulting commission revenues generated per household to
drop by 2003. Id.
21
1999 Annual SIA Investor Survey, supra note 6, at 40.
17
2. Convergence of On-Line and Full-Service Brokerages
The big question is where does on-line brokerage go from here. Does it represent
an evolutionary step or a revolutionary event? Is it merely the natural evolution of
discount brokerage from a telephone-based technology platform to an Internet-based
one?22 Or does it represent a revolution in the way brokerage will be conducted in the
future? Will it be a necessary channel for every broker? Will technology drive the
convergence of the business models of full-service and the more upscale on-line firms?
a. On-Line Firms
Discount brokerage firms pioneered the industry’ move to on-line trading. Initially,
s
these firms did not need to rethink their business model or unbundle their services to provide
on-line executions. As shown in Chart I-4, the on-line industry recently underwent a “virtual
price war” over commission rates. Some firms avoided or eventually removed themselves
from the fray, preferring instead to differentiate themselves by offering more services.
One roundtable participant observed that important quality distinctions exist among on-
line firms in areas such as ease of access, pricing of services, and information resources. An
on-line firm participant stated that the challenge ahead for on-line firms will be to teach
customers how to use the available research tools; otherwise, customers will be overwhelmed
with information.
A roundtable participant representing a market research firm believed that on-line firms
will continue to differentiate themselves by mimicking the process of investment assistance that
investors expect from traditional firms. This participant also believed that on-line firms will
give their customers more access to research, portfolio management tools, and financial
planning.
22
According to some industry participants, there already has been somewhat of a convergence off-
line between discount and full-service firms:
Traditionally, the term discount broker has been used to distinguish broker-dealers who allow customers to enter
unsolicited or non-recommended orders for their accounts from broker-dealers who provide investment
advice and, through, registered representatives assigned to specific customers, solicit the purchase of
specific securities (called full-service brokers). The term discount arises out of the original prototype, in
which the unsolicited broker charged a commission which was substantially discounted from the
typical commission charged by the full-service broker. Since 1980, the prototype has substantially
changed, while the moniker stayed the same. Discount brokers now provide added services, such as
access to research and other information and full service brokers allow substantial discounts in
commission to certain individuals. . . .
Letter from Michael J. Anderson, President, Ameritrade, et al. to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
SEC (dated Dec. 9, 1998).
18
While the most significant recent trend seems to be full-service firms seeking to
establish an on-line presence, some on-line firms are trying to establish an off-line presence.23
To borrow a phrase, these on-line firms are seeking to build a “clicks and mortars” business.24
b. Full-Service Firms Go On-Line
The availability of on-line trading at reduced commission rates has forced full-service
firms to reconsider the viability of their commission-based pricing models. These models
traditionally bundle execution services and investment advice into one transaction fee. Several
full-service are already moving from a commission-based pricing model to an asset
management fee model for broker-assisted and on-line trading and/or competitively-priced on-
line per trade commissions.25
As full-service firms go on-line, however, the most significant challenge they face is a
potential “channel conflict” between their traditional method of distributing financial services --
the registered representative -- and their new distribution method -- the Internet.26 Some full-
service broker-dealers are seeing customers shift from trading through a registered
representative to trading independently on-line.27 In the traditional full-service model, the
customer typically develops a stronger relationship with the registered representative than with
the firm itself. When a registered representative leaves the firm, he usually takes his “book” of
clients with him. In the on-line model, however, the customer develops the stronger
relationship with the firm itself, rather than with any registered representative. While some full-
service firms have moved slowly in establishing an on-line presence because of potential
23
Gaston F.Ceron, E*Trade Could Be Looking for Alliance, DOW JONES NEWSWIRES (Sept. 9,
1999); Blaise Zenega, On-line Shopping Gets Real, RED HERRING, Sept. 1999, at 112 (on-line
and off-line retailers are integrating their sales channels); Christine Stubbs, Getting Physical,
RED HERRING, Sept. 1999, at 116 (reasons that on-line businesses may purchase off-line
businesses); Catherine Yang, No Website is an Island, BUS. WK., E.BIZ, Mar. 22, 1999, at EB38
(discussing how on-line and off-line firms are marketing both in the real world and in
cyberspace).
24
Jonathan Webber, Clicks and Mortar, THE I NDUSTRY STANDARD (July 26, 1999)
.
25
Joseph Kahn, Full-Service Brokerage Seek Foothold On-Line, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 21, 1999, at 2.
26
See Jerry Useem, Internet Defense Strategy: Cannibalize Yourself, FORTUNE, Sept. 6, 1999, at
121 (gives examples of companies that have shifted to new business strategies that destroy the
value of past investments).
27
See, e.g., National Discount Brokers Group, Inc. Management’ Discussion and Analysis of
s
Financial Condition and Results of Operation, May 1999 (company’ commission income
s
increased principally due to a 31 percent increase in customer average daily tickets but was offset
by more customers trading with National Discount Broker’ lower-priced automated systems
s
instead of higher cost registered representatives).
19
channel conflicts, others have established an on-line presence to avoid having their customers
transfer a portion of their assets elsewhere.28
Roundtable participants generally believed that registered representatives would not
disappear as full-service firms go on-line, but acknowledged that their role would evolve. One
full-service brokerage participant remarked that customers will gravitate toward firms that give
them the choice of investing on-line and off-line.
Another full-service brokerage participant contended that information transparency will
create more intelligent customers, changing the registered representatives’advisory role and
consequently the culture of larger broker-dealers. This participant observed that registered
representatives previously had to spend much of their time with ministerial duties, such as
providing stock quotes, faxing account statements, or telephoning the customer about an
earnings report. The participant posited that because the customer can help himself to this
information on-line, registered representatives can devote more time to adding value in the
form of customer advice.
An on-line brokerage participant asserted that while most investors will use the Internet
to retrieve investment information, not everyone will trade on-line. Instead, this participant
believed that full-service firms will have fewer representatives to serve their customers and will
leverage their resources to provide customers with more and better technology-related
services.
Finally, a full-service brokerage participant said that it is risky to continue to view the
world in terms of on-line versus off-line clients. This participant believed that regulators need
to think about regulating customers’ on-line and off-line activity as if it was a seamless
relationship.
3. Brokers Providing Customized On-Line Content and Financial
Advice
A number of broker-dealers have begun to personalize website content to create
dynamically generated website content relevant to each user.29 By personalizing website
28
Charles Gasparino and Rebecca Buckman, Facing Internet Threat, Merrill to Offer On-line for
Low Fees, WALL ST . J., June 1, 1999, at A1 (Merrill Lynch announces plans to offer low cost
trading after registered representatives complained that they were losing customers to on-line
trading); Charles Gasparino and Rebecca Buckman, Some Top Brokers at Merrill are Jumping
Ship as Company Prepares to Enter On-line Waters, WALL ST . J. Sept. 15, 1999, at C2; Rebecca
Buckman, Morgan Stanley’ On-Line Experiment is Test for Traditional Brokerage Firms, WALL
s
ST . J., Sept. 8, 1998, at C1; Randall Smith, Full-Service Brokers Are Put in a Bind, WALL ST . J.,
June 1, 1999, at C1; and John Williamson, Full-Service Brokers Must Use Net or Keep on
Losing Ground, AM. BANKER, Aug. 21, 1998, at 8 (to differentiate themselves on-line, full-
service firms must leverage their on-line capabilities, “including greater mobility and
accessibility of data, providing real-time data or improving efficiency, and channeling and
filtering information for their customer”).
20
