Author Archives: Women in Derivatives

Why Corporate Boards Are Picking Women to Fill Cybersecurity Posts

From Bloomberg by Anders Melin and Jeff Green

Why Corporate Boards Are Picking Women to Fill Cybersecurity Posts – Bloomberg Business

  • While men built tanks, women crunched data, now seen as vital
  • Two thirds of major cybersecurity board spots go to women
  • Earlier this year, American International Group Inc. added Linda Mills to its board, attracted partly by her expertise in cybersecurity. In February, Wells Fargo & Co. selected Suzanne Vautrinot for its board for similar reasons. Before that, Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. picked Janice Babiak.

    All directors, all focused on cybersecurity, all women.

    Over the last five years, as data theft has risen to the top of corporate concerns, 16 of the largest U.S. companies have appointed one or more directors with cybersecurity credentials, 10 of them women, a Bloomberg analysis shows. Given the paucity of women in boardrooms — fewer than one in five in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index — the surge has stunned all involved.

    “All of a sudden we’re valued,” said Jan Hamby, chancellor at the National Defense University’s iCollege. “Instead of just being the pain that’s causing people to have 12-character passwords that they change every hour.”

    The sudden prominence of women like Hamby can be traced back to the 1980s and 90s when they began working on software development and big data because those career paths were new and unclaimed. Linda Hudson, former chief executive officer of defense contractor BAE Systems Plc’s U.S. subsidiary, said many women went through technology while the men in that industry focused on the higher-profile tasks of building tanks and missiles.

    Leveled Playing Field

    “It was a new area where opportunities opened themselves up pretty much to the best qualified,” said Hudson, a cybersecurity-savvy director at Bank of America Corp., Ingersoll-Rand Plc and Southern Co. “That leveled the playing field immensely.”

    There was a similar story in the military. Until the early 90s women were barred from certain combat units so they often took back-office jobs in IT and telecommunications. When Hamby entered the Navy in 1980, she was assigned to its Regional Data Automation Center in Washington where most of her co-workers were women.

    “You see so many senior women with this kind of specialization in the services,” she said. “Part of it is just an artifact of our history of limiting women’s opportunities.”

    Meanwhile, corporate boards today are seeking to broaden membership beyond white men. As Hamby put it, “We are at a time in history where boards are recognizing diversity so they’re trying to kill two birds with one stone.”

    Identity Theft

    The sudden need for cybersecurity, however, is the more important factor. In 2010, fewer than 10 percent of businesses in the S&P 100 identified cyber as a risk in annual reports. Today, more than three quarters do, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

    The touchstone was the 2013 breach at Target Corp., where 40 million credit card numbers were stolen in a heist that led to the ouster of CEO Gregg Steinhafel, said Peter Metzger, vice chairman of DHR International Inc., an executive recruiting firm.

    The exposure of embarrassing personal emails sent by Sony Pictures Entertainment employees, theft of 56 million credit card numbers at Home Depot Inc. and breach into JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s records of 76 million customers and 7 million small businesses have added to the urgency, he said.

    As a result, women like Mills, with their deep experience, became prime candidates for directorships. She is a former Northrop Grumman Corp. executive who ran the defense contractor’s information systems group. Vautrinot is a former major general of the U.S. Air Force where she oversaw cybersecurity, and Babiak, an Ernst & Young LLP alumna who co-founded the firm’s technology security and risk services practice in 1996.

    Amusement Park Management

    Chief information officer jobs are also being filled with more women than other executive roles. About 17 percent of CIOs at companies in the S&P 500 Index are women, compared with 13 percent for chief financial officers, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Less than 5 percent of CEOs in the index are women.

    Sheila Jordan, CIO at Symantec Corp., a software security provider, began her career in technology helping to build Walt Disney Co.’s first customer relationship management system for its amusement parks in the mid-1990s. She said she’s received half a dozen requests this year alone to join boards.

    Matt Aiello, who leads the cybersecurity practice at Heidrick & Struggles, an executive recruiting firm in Washington, has also seen an uptick in interest. He points to Linda Jojo, CIO at United Continental Holdings Inc., who joined the board of Exelon Corp. in September and Deutsche Bank AG’s global co-head of technology and operations Kim Hammonds who’s been a director at Red Hat Inc. since August.

    While all of this appears to be a good-news version of a tale of unintended consequences, it is not entirely so. It turns out that the prestige of cyber and technology means that men are now joining the ranks in much greater percentages while the number of women in those entry-level jobs has plummeted, according to Caroline Simard, senior director of research at the Clayman Institude for Gender Research at Stanford University.

    Rise and Fall

    Teri Takai, the former CIO of the U.S. Department of Defense and Ford Motor Co. executive, has noticed the same thing, saying that during her three decades in IT at the automaker the number of women in entry-level technology jobs rose to about half and later dropped off sharply.

    Melissa Woo, vice provost for information services at the University of Oregon, said it has become difficult to attract all young people into careers in cybersecurity, and women are harder to court than men, partly due to the perception that these jobs require advanced programming skills.

    “Part of the lack of attraction is that it’s seen as seriously geeky — you imagine people crouching in dark rooms with screens,” said Woo. “But the real basis of good cybersecurity is the policy, the training and dealing with people.”

    That said, those who are hoping to bring more women into technology careers say that at least the success of women like Jordan and Takai should play a crucial role by offering models for young women to follow.

    “You can’t be what you can’t see,” Simard of Stanford said. “Having these women in leadership for these companies not only changes the image of who can be successful in this field, but also who should go work inside these companies.”

501c3

Women in Derivatives was granted 501c3 status in September of 2015.  This is very exciting.  All of our financial supporters commencing in July of 2014 may now claim a deduction.  We are extremely happy to obtain this status because it will help us facilitate the success of our mission.

Networking Isn’t Easy for Women, but It Is Crucial

Networking Isn’t Easy for Women, but It Is Crucial

Women executives trail men in connections that can help their careers. New programs try to counter that.

By

Liz Rappaport

Go to lunch with an ask. Don’t be afraid to be transactional. Make yourself go to the cocktail party.

“Networking is like exercise,” says Candace Corlett, president of WSL, a retail strategy consulting firm. “You know you must, but do you? And you know if you do, you’ll feel better.”

Professional relationships create opportunities and outlets for sounding off about career challenges, say senior executive women, who attribute most of their advancement to having connections. But women have fewer ties than men to colleagues and cohorts at work and outside work that can help them, according to data collected in a study of 118 companies by LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Co.

According to the study, 10% of senior women executives said they had the aid of four or more executives helping them advance, compared with 17% of senior men executives. But, more than half of the senior women said it is extremely important to have a higher-level sponsor help set them on a path, compared with 42% of senior men who prioritize such relationships.

Work and home

Making connections is often challenging for women who want to maximize their time at work and get home for dinner, say executives. Others fear looking like they are bragging or inappropriate for seeking favor and guidance from a male superior, even though it is likely that any executive above them will be a man, they say. Now, there are numerous organizations and corporate programs to help women find higher-level executives to advocate for them at work and to establish ties with other women in their fields.

Diane Schumaker-Krieg, Wells Fargo WFC -3.09 % & Co.’s global head of research, economics and strategy, says she has always been more comfortable managing her subordinates than relating to higher-level executives. She was gun-shy, she says, about introducing herself to John Mack, the CEO of her former employer Credit Suisse First Boston at the time of a holiday-time social event in 2001. Her husband, Stanley, persisted.

“If you don’t, I will,” he said, and introduced himself to Mr. Mack as the husband of “one of your biggest producers.” He pointed to Ms. Schumaker-Krieg. “She’s right behind me in the pink suit.”

The encounter led Mr. Mack to call her into his office to discuss how she built up her business selling research on Wall Street to new clients. By February 2002, she was promoted to co-head of the equity-research department, a role that gave her continued contact with Mr. Mack and other senior executives at the Wall Street firm.

“I’m an introvert who works hard to be an extrovert,” says Ms. Schumaker-Krieg. It has taken her years to realize how important it is to network, but she adds that she frequently mentors and sponsors women and men at Wells Fargo.

Visual aid

It is critical to take 10% to 20% of your time at work to network, says Alison Mass, a partner at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. who is co-head of the investment banking group that covers financial companies such as private-equity firms. She is deliberate about networking: She sets up reminder alerts on her computer to stay in touch and keeps a list of her important people at eye-view by her desk.

“It reminds me by looking at their names if I haven’t spoken with them in a while,” says Ms. Mass, adding that keeping in touch needn’t take much effort. Last month she shot off a quick email to colleagues featured in a news article. Her firm frequently hosts events to help women connect. This fall, senior women executives will act as sommeliers while younger Goldman women meet them and taste wine.

Women often think of their network as social contacts, says Debora McLaughlin, a leadership coach and author. Friendships can happen naturally, but it isn’t essential for a network to be built on close, intimate ties, she and other executives say.

“It’s OK to be transactional,” says Sallie Krawcheck, a former bank executive who now runs the Ellevate Network for women, adding that sometimes women need to compare notes with other females. Once when she was running the wealth-management unit of Citigroup Inc. C -3.73 % and was having trouble communicating with then-CEO Vikram Pandit, she says that she realized a certain woman’s point of view would help.

She had lunch with Zoe Cruz, the former co-president of Morgan Stanley who had worked with him in one of his previous roles. Ms. Krawcheck had never met with Ms. Cruz before, she said, though she got great advice that helped her navigate the issues she was facing. Ms. Krawcheck eventually stepped down from Citigroup.

“It doesn’t always have to be a meal or a golf game,” says Ms. Krawcheck, adding that it is helpful to know what you want from the person you are reaching out to. It makes the person across the lunch table feel they’ve been effective and that they used their time wisely. She has seen women’s networking accelerating as more organizations like Ellevate and others emerge to get women together and open doors.

Women get stuck in the middle of their careers sometimes, and they look around to find they are the only female in the room, says Janette Sadik-Khan the former commissioner of New York City’s Department of Transportation when Michael Bloomberg was mayor. She now works with mayors around the country and transportation officials to build up and redesign their cities as a principal at Bloomberg Associates.

Insights, perceptions

Ms. Sadik-Khan helped create a leadership program for women in the middle of their transportation careers with the Women’s Transportation Seminar, an organization devoted to advancing women in the field. The three-day program offers one-on-one coaching, style assessments and exposure to other industry leaders—who provide insights into how they are perceived from people they relate to and can learn from. All of the participants in the first three years of the program, which she oversaw, were subsequently promoted.

“Women don’t ask for help,” says Ms. Sadik-Khan. “Women see it as a sign of weakness.” She meets regularly with women heads of transportation networks in big cities such as Los Angeles, Mexico City, Toronto, Salt Lake City and elsewhere, she says. “The phone will ring late in the evening sometimes. They need a reality check.”

Ms. Rappaport is a news editor for The Wall Street Journal in New York. She can be reached

SEF Regulatory Update

On April 23, the CFTC issued Guidanceto SEFs regarding the calculation of projected operating costs, in light of certain compliance requirements (see Press ReleaseStatement from Commissioner Wetjen).

On April 22, the CFTC issued two no-action letters:

  • No-Action Relief for SEFs/DCMs in connection with operational or clerical submission errors (through June 15, 2016).
  • No-Action Relief for certain SEF confirmation and recordkeeping requirements (through March 31, 2016).

FAQs on the Regulatory Capital Rules by OCC, Fed and FDIC

Summary

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) along with the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (collectively, the agencies) are releasing answers to frequently asked questions (FAQ) regarding the regulatory capital rule. These FAQs are the agencies’ interpretations of the rule based on the facts and circumstances presented. These FAQs are not official rules or regulations. The OCC plans to compile additional FAQs related to the regulatory capital rule, as needed, and will post updated FAQs on the OCC’s Capital Policy home page.

Highlights

The FAQs address the following topics:

  • Definition of capital
  • High-volatility commercial real estate (HVCRE) exposures
  • Other real estate and off-balance-sheet exposures
  • Separate account and equity exposures to investment funds
  • Qualifying central counterparty questions
  • Credit valuation adjustment questions
  • Other miscellaneous questions

Further Information

Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II

The  Financial Conduct Authority released a draft consultation regarding MiFID II implementation.  It requests views on the following topics:

  • The extent to which the FCA should apply MiFID II provisions to insurance-based investment products and pensions.
  • How the FCA should incorporate MiFID II’s investor protection measures for structured deposits into its Handbook.
  • Whether the FCA should ban third party rebating for discretionary investment management firms.
  • Options for the assessment of local authorities requesting to be treated as professional clients.
  • Details on MiFID II’s approach to adviser independence, and how this could be implemented for advice on shares, bonds, derivatives and structured deposits.
  • Whether and how the FCA might apply sales-staff remuneration rules to firms not covered by MiFID II, in light of domestic and European policy developments.
  • How the FCA might apply recording of telephone conversations and electronic communications requirement to firms which fall within MiFID’s Article 3 exemption, which includes independent financial advisers and corporate finance boutiques; and whether to remove the current recording exemptions for discretionary investment managers in our domestic regime.
  • How MiFID II’s requirements on costs and charges disclosure could be implemented practically.
  • Exploring potential MiFID II inducement rules for advisers, discretionary investment managers and other firms.

Financial Times: Boards without women breed scandal

by Sophia Grene and Chris Newlands

Public companies with more women on their boards are less likely to be hit by scandals such as bribery, fraud or shareholder battles, according to research from index provider MSCI, which looked at more than 6,500 company boards globally.

The research found that boards with gender diversity above and beyond regulatory mandates or market norms had fewer instances of governance-related scandals.

“There is a clear pattern between having higher than mandated percentages of women on boards and fewer governance-related controversies,” the report said.

Matt Moscardi, senior analyst at MSCI, said the findings show a board with few or no women should be a red flag to investors “actively looking to limit the possibility of investment capital being subject to fraud or corruption”.

Saker Nusseibeh, chief executive of Hermes Investment Management, said of the findings: “If you are a Neanderthal and need more reasons to try to have women on boards, here is a bloody good one. It clearly shows you reduce the risk on boards if you have more women.”

The MSCI research was careful not to draw any conclusions about women’s abilities and characteristics, and instead suggested the number of women on a board should be seen as “a single data point in a matrix of progressive governance indicators”.

Companies that are more concerned about managing extra-financial risks are more likely to appoint women directors, said Mr Moscardi. This would explain another finding: companies with more than average numbers of female directors score more highly on MSCI’s metric for management of environmental, social and governance risks.

MSCI data pointed to 12 global companies with a market capitalisation of more than $25bn that had greater than average governance controversies over the past three years and fewer women on their boards than the country average.

The list includes Bank of New York Mellon, with one woman among 13 directors, and futures exchange CME, with one woman among 29 directors. In Europe, Crédit Agricole and Nokia feature on the list, while Indian companies Tata Motors and Reliance Industries also appear.

For more information, click here:

Aggregate Impact of Regulations — SEC Commissioner Statement

Statement on the Aggregate Impact of Financial Services Regulations

Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher

March 2, 2015

During a fireside chat at today’s Institute of International Bankers’ 26th Annual Washington Conference, I expressed my concern about the number and aggregate impact of regulations that have been imposed on U.S. financial services firms since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010. These regulations come from an alphabet soup of domestic regulators, including the SEC, and many are related to the edicts of non-accountable international bodies such as the Financial Stability Board. Unfortunately, in promulgating many of these myriad regulations, a robust cost-benefit analysis was not required—and therefore none was performed. Even where a cost-benefit analysis was performed (an exercise for the most part limited to rules adopted by the SEC or CFTC, either independently or jointly with other regulators, given their statutory mandate for cost-benefit analysis), such analysis encompassed only the incremental effects of the rule being considered for adoption. No regulator, as far as I know, has considered the overall regulatory burden on financial services firms when determining whether to impose additional costly regulations. We as regulators are, when it comes to the possibility that our rules are causing death by a thousand cuts, the proverbial ostrich—head firmly entrenched in the sand.

So in an effort to bring some transparency to this critical area, and help the public fully grasp the breadth of recent rulemaking, I and my staff prepared a diagram,[1] which I shared with the attendees at today’s conference. I hope this stark depiction can spark a much-needed debate about the regulatory burden that has been placed on our financial services industry in just the last 4.5 years alone. In particular, I hope that the information informs consideration of future regulatory endeavors, and I would hope that academics, the financial services industry, and other interested parties will undertake similar, more detailed analyses.[2] The stakes here are considerable: regulatory burdens divert capital away from the real economy—this acts as a barrier to entry for new market participants and further entrenches those institutions that are increasingly “too big to fail.”
——————————————————————————–
[1] I am very grateful for the assistance provided by the SEC’s publications office for the graphic design work.
[2] Unfortunately, given my small staff, I will not be able to keep this chart updated going forward, but if there are certain categories of regulations or regulators that were omitted, please let my office know, and we can determine whether to republish an updated version. One of the sources that we referenced is a database of regulations affecting financial services firms maintained and apparently updated regularly by the St. Louis Federal Reserve; this may be a helpful resource for interested parties undertaking additional analysis of the aggregate burden of regulation on financial services firms.

CFTC Roundtable on Cybersecurity and System Safeguards Testing

The CFTC will hold a Roundtable on Cybersecurity and System Safeguards Testing on March 18 from 9 am to 5 pm in Washington DC. The CFTC has issued the below information on the Roundtable:

Staff of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) will hold a public roundtable on Cybersecurity and System Safeguards Testing on Wednesday, March 18, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at CFTC’s Washington, DC, Headquarters at 1155 21st St. NW. Specifically, the roundtable will review system safeguards testing requirements, including potential enhancements to further strengthen the resilience of futures exchanges, clearing organizations, and swap data repositories. The CFTC is also considering how best to leverage enhanced system safeguards testing requirements, including independent testing, to satisfy regulatory requirements for these entities.

Roundtable participants will present perspectives on cybersecurity testing issues from a range of viewpoints, including those of registered entities, market participants, industry associations, organizations that have promulgated best practices and standards for cybersecurity, and other government agencies with relevant expertise.

The Roundtable’s four panels will address the need for testing in the current cybersecurity environment, as well as certain types of system safeguards testing and associated risk assessment practices, including: vulnerability and penetration testing, key controls testing, and business continuity-disaster recovery testing.

The Roundtable will be open to the public, with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons requiring special accommodations to attend the meeting because of a disability should notify Stephanne Player at 202-418-5255. Members of the public may also listen by telephone and should be prepared to provide their first name, last name, and affiliation. Following the Roundtable, a transcript of the proceedings will be posted on www.cftc.gov.

Listening Information:
U.S. Toll Free: 1-866-844-9416
International (Toll Number): 1-203-360-5026
Participant Passcode: CFTC
Roundtable on Cybersecurity and System Safeguards Testing Agenda:
8:15 am Check-in
9:00 am – 9:30 am Opening remarks
9:30 am – 10:45 am Panel One: The need for testing in the current cybersecurity environment
10:45 am -11:00 am Break
11:00 am -12:30 pm Panel Two: Vulnerability and penetration testing
12:30 pm – 1:30 pm Lunch break
1:30 pm – 3:00 pm Panel Three: Key controls testing
3:00 pm – 3:15 pm Break
3:15 pm – 4:45 pm Panel Four: Business continuity and disaster recovery testing
4:45 pm – 5:00 pm Concluding remarks
5:00 pm Roundtable concludes