Latest news with #Manhattan-based
Mint
a day ago
- Business
- Mint
The bumpy road of derivatives: Take a close look at Jane Street's potholed path to market riches
Jane Street' is the title of multiple songs and the name of an indie rock band as well. Another Jane Street is currently in the public eye, a Manhattan-based high- frequency trading firm that was banned recently by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), the market regulator. The firm has been allowed back into the market after it deposited over $550 million as a good-faith gesture while the regulator's investigation proceeds alongside. The Jane Street saga has raised multiple questions about India's regulatory framework for the securities market, especially the kid-glove handling of equity derivatives since their formal launch in 2001. There are also concerns over the nature of inter-regulatory monitoring and coordination, and whether it is adequate to stem malpractices in Indian capital markets. Also Read: Devina Mehra: How derivative dreams can turn into nightmares but still lure investors History holds some lessons. There was always the whiff of something rotten in the kingdom of Indian derivatives ever since futures and options were introduced afterbadla, an opaque over-the-counter product, was definitively banned. India's 1991 economic reforms took a wrecking ball to the old micro-structure of capital markets. Prodded by the 1992 securities scam, reformers decided to introduce transparent equity derivative products. But, given the political influence of the stockbroking lobby, it took a while to finally introduce futures and options;badlahad kept popping up in different forms. Unsurprisingly, Sebi decided to introduce individual equity futures alongside index products, contrary to official recommendations and global best practices. This was seen as a concession to the influential community of stockbrokers, who were in search of a speculative—and liquid—product to replacebadla. Also Read: Sebi's Jane Street interim order made India's stock market sit up for good reason There was another deviation from the 1997 L.C. Gupta Committee report, which had made the official recommendations: instead of physical settlements, the regulator chose cash settlements. Sebi's initial excuse was that exchanges lacked the required technology, infrastructure or management capacity to cope with the burden of physical settlements. Consequently, the futures and options market became a casino with no cover charge, or minimum buy-in requirements, fuelling large and unnatural spikes. Faced with the spectre of a market collapse and a crisis, Sebi finally implemented physical settlements in 2018 after a gap of 17 years. Meanwhile, retail investor interest shifted from equity futures to index options, given the opportunities for higher leverage and relatively lower capital requirements. Fintech firms acted as enabling midwives in the process, while the regulators looked away. And now along comes Jane Street and Sebi's interim order. Opinion remains divided over whether Jane Street's derivatives trading strategy was illegal, whether it was 'manipulation' or whether the trading firm was plain unlucky because its heavy volumes stood out in the Indian market's shallow infrastructure. However, on closer inspection, the market structure does seem to embolden rampages by high-frequency traders, perhaps at the cost of clueless retail speculators. Also Read: Jane Street: Gaming an outdated system is not necessarily illegal in India Let's try and connect some of the dots. Sebi's tracking data shows that a bulk of the derivatives trade orders originate from co-located servers, or from institutional traders that pay a higher fee to locate their servers next to the exchange servers, thus allowing them to strike deals within nano-seconds. According to Sebi's 2023-24 annual report: 'Based on modes of trading at exchange platform… 61.6% trading in the equity derivatives segment of NSE was through co-location route, primarily used by proprietary traders… In case of BSE, 60.1% trading in the equity derivatives segment of BSE was through co-location route." Simultaneously, there has been a surge of uninformed retail investors entering the derivatives market, lured by the facility of low capital commitment and easy profits. Sebi whole-time member Ananth Narayan said at a recent conference that 91% of individual traders incurred net losses in equity derivatives during 2024-25, with the total losses crossing ₹1 trillion. Although it may be difficult to prove a direct link, it does beg the uncomfortable question: Were retail investors the counter-parties that Jane Street and other traders needed to rack up their super-profits? Juxtapose those retail losses against Sebi's estimate of Jane Street's profits of ₹36,500 crore over two years. Also Read: Andy Mukherjee: Jane Street's secret sauce for Indian markets should be tested out Sebi took some remedial action in October 2024 and May 2025 to deter retail traders, but the damage had already been done. It is surprising that Sebi chose to ignore repeated red flags raised by multiple market observers over the past two-three years, even when data was pointing to unnatural spikes. And though Jane Street has now been identified, Sebi should also reveal the names of Indian companies indulging in similar manipulation. Sebi must also identify fintech companies that inveigled unschooled retail investors into derivatives trading, thereby providing large traders with easy pickings. This may require Sebi to coordinate regulatory action with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) because many firms helped investors take unsecured loans to satisfy their speculative urges. The Sebi-RBI combo should also coordinate efforts to overhaul the profile of India's derivatives market in favour of large institutional traders, especially by reworking the outdated rule that limits bank finance for institutions. The author is a senior journalist and author of 'Slip, Stitch and Stumble: The Untold Story of India's Financial Sector Reforms' @rajrishisinghal
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
No screens, no screams: Here's how modern moms are ‘restaurant training' their kids to crush their zombie tablet behavior
When it comes to NYC dining, mom Jamie Boxer doesn't kid around. The Brooklynite is one in the expanding pack of parents proudly 'restaurant training' their tykes to eat, drink, be merry and behave in public spaces — strictly sans digital distractions or temper tantrums. 'I love New York City dining. We have some of the best food in the world, and I want my kids to join me in that love,' Boxer, 36, of Williamsburg, told The Post. 'If kids learn how to enjoy an outing without screens at early ages, they'll know how to talk and connect in-person as they get older,' explained Boxer, a speech pathologist and co-content creator of @Table4Tots, a review of Gotham's kid-friendly grub hubs. 'That's the whole point of going out to eat.' The millennial connoisseur of choice chow, a married mom of two under age 6, often brings her brood along when patronizing local hotspots like Lilia, or the swank Eataly eateries. And far past city limits, other foodie mothers and fathers of Beta babies, Alphas and even younger Gen Zers are eating up the restaurant training trend, too. From the U.S. to the UK and beyond, proactive parents are endeavoring to reverse the ills of the dreaded 'iPad Kid' curse. It's a plague to preschoolers and up — youngsters who routinely spend countless hours staring at tablets and phones, without developing social, mental and emotional strengths. Researchers recently deemed the high-tech codependence a 'deleterious' cycle that can trigger behavioral problems in children with excessive screen time privileges. It's a bone of contention that causes parents to spend approximately 96 hours fighting with their kids each year, per a recent survey. More troubling, two-thirds (67%) of the adults polled fear they're missing 'precious moments' with their minis due to screen time addictions. And those fleeting family memories are often made around the breakfast, lunch or dinner table. Mariah Grumet Humbert, a Manhattan-based etiquette trainer, says moms and dads planning to ban iPads at mealtime — especially while dining out — should begin weaning kiddos off of gadgets at home. 'Etiquette isn't about being stuffy or fancy, it's about giving kids tools, not rules,' Humbert, of Old Soul Etiquette, told The Post. 'Play restaurant at home and make it fun.' 'Teach them to set the table so they understand the placement of things, place a napkin on their lap, sit properly at the table,' she continued. 'Talk about the common courtesies of conversation, using inside voices, making eye contact, speaking politely to the waitstaff and waiting to eat until everyone is served.' 'If they mess up, empower them,' urged Humbert, suggesting parents liken manners to magic. 'Gently remind them to use their table superpowers.' Bronx mom Rosdaly Ramirez's three sons, ages 7 to 2, are bite-size etiquette superstars. But they didn't start that way. 'We used to give our kids the phones so they'd sit still, but we realized the distractions were taking away from family time,' admitted Ramirez, 34, of her and hubby Ruben. The duo relied on screens so much that technology became a 'babysitter' to their boys. So, they unplugged their home TV and vetoed electronics at their nearby nosheries. 'Now, we talk and play games like eye-spy because it's interactive; it makes them pay attention to their surroundings and get to know the world around them,' the social worker said. 'The more exposure they have to the world, even at a restaurant, the better prepared they'll be to navigate it with confidence and self-awareness,' she added. Danielle Currie agrees. The Jacksonville, Florida-dwelling married mother of three — a 6-year-old daughter and 4-year-old twins — even gives her tots pre-dinner pep talks about restaurant etiquette before hitting Michelin-level hotspots. 'We'll have a little chat in the car, letting them know the behavior we expect,' said Currie, 32, a bridal boutique owner and critic of the gentle parenting movement — an overly permissive rearing style. 'Our kids behave way differently than kids with gentle parents. They're happy with boundaries.' 'We didn't grow up bringing iPads to dinner,' she added. 'We don't want that for our kids.' The same goes for Ashley McCarley — the Alabama mama would rather her bunch be bored. 'Boredom forces them to get creative, engage in conversation, read the menu and order their own food,' said McCarley, 30, whose restaurant-trained trio, ages 11, 4 and 2, boasts sophisticated palates that prefer steak and crab legs over chicken fingers and fries. 'Creativity birthed out of boredom causes them to make up games that we can play as a family while we wait for our food,' she said, lauding restaurant training as her biggest parenting flex. 'They're learning life skills and spending quality time together versus staring at their individual iPads.' Beyond U.S. borders in Toronto, mom Tory Halpin's pups — ages 5, 4, 2, and 4 months old — don't even know iPads exist. 'We want our kids to exist in a world without virtual entertainment, and we teach them that it's impolite to be on screens at dinner,' said the 33-year-old Canadian parenting influencer — admitting, however, that following her own rules can be challenging. 'It's hard not reaching for my phone at the table, but my husband and I are setting an example,' Halpin laughed. 'If the kids catch us, they say, 'That's not polite.'' Hannah Morgan, from London, began training her daughter Alma early — before she even said her first word. 'We took her to a restaurant at 10 days old,' said the momfluencer, 27. 'The first step in our training was to introduce her to noisy, busy places, with different people and smells, so she becomes comfortable in restaurant environments.' And now that Alma's reached those terrible twos, she's the perfect pint-size patron at the British capital's upscale bistros, from Bardo St. James's to Gordon Ramsay restaurants. 'The best parenting advice I was given was, 'Make your baby slot into your life instead of slotting into theirs,'' said Morgan. 'My baby fits in at any restaurant, and people are always so impressed how well she behaves without [digital] distractions.' Meanwhile, back in Midtown Manhattan, Myka Meier, founder of Beaumont Etiquette, is cheering on the table trend — she's even launched a 'Mini Manners' series for tots under age 6, designed to teach children the do's and don'ts of public dining. 'Restaurant training kids gives parents their social lives back,' the protocol pro, a mom of two, told The Post. 'There's less stress and more fun without screens.' Meier was happy to share her top 10 tips for restaurant training your tribe with Post readers — and here they are. How to restaurant train your kids, according to an expert Define 'restaurant etiquette' to kids as kindness and respect for others in a shared space Praise kids for sitting properly, using napkins rather than their sleeves, at the table. Show kids how to eat neatly on their plates and properly hold utensils, how to make meaningful eye contact during conversations and while ordering Emphasize the importance of saying 'please' and 'thank you' at the table Don't be afraid to bring newborns to restaurants; start training them early Step outside for a quick breather if you're kid is having a tough time For teens, reward their good etiquette by letting them choose the next restaurant or dessert spot Kids are mimicking your behavior, so make sure to mind your restaurant manners. Solve the daily Crossword
New York Post
20-07-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Development black hole remains on West 57th Street
If West 57th Street between Sixth and Seventh avenues exemplifies Manhattan's regenerative energy, the block east between Fifth and Sixth avenues remains a black hole of development ambition. The 900-foot-long block — longer than three and a half midtown north-south blocks — looks gloomier every year as landowners hold out for magic-bullet combos of tenant commitments and construction financing. West of Bergdorf Goodman and the Crown Building stretches a procession of vacant lots, empty storefronts and scaffolding. At least four enormous sites await activity. Developers including Vornado, Lefrak, Soloviev, and at least one unknown outfit have kept their sites barren for years. There is a string of vacant lots, empty storefronts and scaffolding on West 57th Street west of Bergdorf Goodman and the Crown Building. New York Post At least four enormous sites await activity. New York Post The latest blows to the block were the closings of Brasserie 8 and a Half at Soloviev's 9 West and Rue 57 at the western corner. The opening soon of a small Abel Richard handbags boutique at 7 West is more than offset by large retail vacancies on either side of Nobu at 40 W. 57th and at the former locations of Mangia and other shops and cafes. Manhattan-based developer Sedesco, meanwhile, is demolishing a building to enlarge a site it's been assembling for more than 10 years between 37-47 W. 57th St. The supertall, mixed-use project is to be designed by 'starchitect' Rem Koolhaas' OMA studio. It will likely re-energize its surroundings. But no construction plans have yet been filed with the Department of Buildings.
Reuters
16-07-2025
- Business
- Reuters
NFL defeats lawsuit over alleged monopoly on team merchandise
July 15 (Reuters) - The National Football League and its teams have persuaded a U.S. judge to dismiss a lawsuit alleging they violated antitrust law through their control over the distribution of licensed merchandise. Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter Jr on Monday said, opens new tab retailer Casey's Distributing Inc had not provided enough evidence to support the proposed class action, which claimed that the NFL's tight distribution rules left consumers with fewer options and higher prices. Casey's buys NFL merchandise from licensed manufacturers and resells it. The Nebraska-based company in 2022 sued the NFL and its 32 teams, accusing them of illegally monopolizing the licensing of trademarked team products. Casey's claimed it and other online retailers were being denied the opportunity to sell on some platforms such as 'While plaintiffs have been harmed by the actions of the defendants, the law protects competition, not competitors,' Carter wrote. He said there was nothing in Casey's lawsuit that adequately alleged consumers were forced to pay higher prices due to the alleged scheme. The NFL and attorneys for Casey's did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Casey's also named as a defendant the sports merchandise giants Fanatics. Casey's said its products were removed from Walmart after it chose Fanatics as its exclusive seller. Fanatics did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The NFL and Fanatics had denied any wrongdoing. Walmart and Amazon were not defendants. In its lawsuit, opens new tab, Casey's said Amazon's online marketplace is the most important platform for small businesses like Casey's to participate in the market for licensed NFL merchandise. The NFL in asking Carter to dismiss Casey's lawsuit said, opens new tab its online distribution policy was flexible, and that retailers that want to sell on Amazon must first seek approval by NFL Properties, which licenses the intellectual property for the league and its teams. In a court filing, the NFL defended its distribution rules as lawful, saying they focus on brand and consumer protection and do not impose restrictions or rules on price or output. Carter said Casey's will have a chance to refile its lawsuit by the end of the month to try to persuade him to allow the claims to move forward. The case is Casey's Distributing Inc v. National Football Club et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 1:22-cv-03934-ALC. For plaintiffs: John Balestriere of Balestriere Fariello and Justin Nematzadeh of Nematzadeh PLLC For NFL: Bradley Ruskin, David Munkittrick and Jeffrey Warshafsky of Proskauer Rose
Sky News AU
15-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Sky News AU
‘She is finally starting to heal': Deborra-Lee Furness dating again after finalising Hugh Jackman divorce
Deborra-Lee Furness is reportedly back in the dating game after she finally inked a divorce settlement with Hugh Jackman to carve up their estimated $250 million (USD) fortune. Furness, 69, and Jackman, 56, separated in September 2023 after 27 years of marriage in a surprise move that shocked Hollywood insiders. The Wolverine star has since gone public with his new relationship with Sutton Foster, who he first met in 2021 while they were both still married and starring in the musical Music Man. Insiders close to Furness have claimed the actress 'had suspicions' about Jackman and Foster and felt 'vindicated' after paparazzi photos confirmed the relationship earlier this year. The beloved Aussie actress is reportedly courting offers from potential dates but is holding back until she can find a partner who 'meets her high standards'. 'Deb is finally starting to heal and talk about what she wants in her life going forward,' an insider told Woman's Day magazine on Monday. 'She's got an incredible support system that's been there every step of the way, helping her to pick up the pieces of her life. 'They are encouraging her to start dating again.' Manhattan-based Furness filed for divorce from Jackman on May 27, roughly two years after their separation. According to court documents obtained by People magazine, Furness' divorce filing indicated the terms of their divorce were uncontested and would only need a sign-off from a judge. It is understood the settlement process was handled behind closed doors, with Furness reportedly walking away very satisfied with the settlement. Furness originally met Jackman on the set of the miniseries Corelli when he was just starting out in the Aussie entertainment industry, and wed the future movie star in 1996. Within a decade, Jackman had emerged as one of the most bankable stars in Hollywood thanks to his role as Wolverine in the X-Men franchise, while Furness primarily focused on raising the couple's two children. Furness most recently appeared on the big screen with a major supporting role in Force of Nature: The Dry 2 opposite Eric Bana in 2024. In January, Furness told the Herald Sun she was in 'chapter three' of her life and was reviewing film offers after mostly retiring from the screen during her marriage to Jackman. 'I've had a few offers for films back here so I'm still reading some scripts, so if there's something that's great,'' she said. 'I've got some projects in New York. I'm in my chapter three. I'm a creative, I love being creative in a variety of areas and I think I'll be doing more travelling.'
