US20120265571A1 - Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department - Google Patents
Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20120265571A1 US20120265571A1 US13/530,977 US201213530977A US2012265571A1 US 20120265571 A1 US20120265571 A1 US 20120265571A1 US 201213530977 A US201213530977 A US 201213530977A US 2012265571 A1 US2012265571 A1 US 2012265571A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- account
- accounts
- resource
- resources
- securities research
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q40/00—Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q40/00—Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
- G06Q40/06—Asset management; Financial planning or analysis
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q40/00—Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
- G06Q40/12—Accounting
Definitions
- the present invention generally concerns techniques for matching resources of a sell-side securities research department to clients (or accounts) of the securities research department.
- sell-side firms provide, among other things, research regarding securities (such as stocks or bonds) to so-called “buy-side firms,” i.e., institutional investors such as mutual funds, hedge funds, pension funds, etc.
- buy-side firms i.e., institutional investors such as mutual funds, hedge funds, pension funds, etc.
- analysts of the sell-side firm largely determined the amount of service a particular client buy-side firm received from the sell-side firm.
- the analysts were typically given some guidance as to which clients were more important relative to others (such as in terms of profitability to the sell-side firm) in the assumption that more service resources would be allocated to those clients, but often the service levels were driven by other considerations, such as the ranking of the analyst. This often resulted in an inefficient allocation of resources by the research department. Accordingly, there exists a need for techniques to optimize the allocations of resources of a securities research department.
- the present invention is directed to a system for allocating limited resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department.
- the system includes an account scoring module and a resource matching module.
- the account scoring module is for generating a score for each account
- the resource matching module is for matching the resources of the department to the accounts based on the scores for each account.
- the system may also include a forecasting module for estimating the financial (or economic) impact to the research department of making various resource allocations.
- the resources of the securities research department to be matched to the accounts are analyst-contact relationships.
- the score is a way to represent the value of the account relative to other accounts based on attributes and the attributes' relative importance in being relevant in determining the account's value to the securities research department.
- the score of an account may be based on a hierarchical tree of categories and attributes.
- the account's score may be based on a weighted percentage average of the account's score in the categories.
- the account's score for each category may be based on a weighted percentage average of the account's ranking for each attribute related to the particular category.
- the attribute rankings may be, for example, percentile rankings.
- the resource matching module may match the resources of the department to the accounts based on the scores for each account.
- the resource matching module may match the resources of the department to the accounts by (i) distributing a number of points to each account based on the score of the account as determined by the account scoring module; (ii) spreading the points of each account across the resources of the firm that are of interest to the particular accounts; and (iii) matching the resources to the accounts based on the number of points allocated to the resource for each account.
- the points of the account allocated to that resource may be distributed to other resources of interest to the account for which there is remaining inventory.
- the present invention is direct to a method for allocating limited resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department.
- the method may include generating a score for each account, and matching the resources of the department (such as analyst-contact relationships, one-to-one meetings, conference attendance, corporate events, etc.) to the accounts based on the scores for each account.
- FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system according to various embodiments of the present invention.
- FIG. 2 is a diagram of a scoring scenario according to various embodiments of the present invention.
- FIGS. 3-4 illustrate process flows of the resource matching module according to various embodiments of the present invention.
- FIGS. 5 and 6 illustrate screen shots generated by the user interface according to various embodiments of the present invention.
- FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system 10 according to various embodiments of the present invention.
- the system 10 may be used for matching scarce or limited resources of a supplier of securities research (e.g., equities and/or debt securities research) to consumers of the research.
- the supplier of the securities research is sometimes referred to as a “sell-side firm” or as the “securities research department.”
- the sell-side firm may be, for example, a brokerage or investment house, or an independent research firm.
- the consumer of the securities research may be an institutional investor, such as a pension fund, a mutual fund, or a hedge fund, or any other type of buy-side firm.
- the consumer of securities research is sometimes referred to herein as a “client” or “account” of the sell-side firm supplying the securities research, or as a “buy-side firm.”
- the system 10 includes a computing device 12 comprising a number of modules.
- the computing device 12 may include an account scoring module 14 , a resource matching module 16 , a forecasting module 13 , and a user interface 17 .
- the modules 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 may be implemented as software code to be executed by a processor (not shown) of the computing device 12 using any suitable computer language, such as, for example, Java, C, C++, or Perl, etc., using, for example, conventional or object-oriented techniques.
- the software code may be stored as a series of instructions or commands on a computer-readable medium, such as a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), a magnetic medium such as a hard drive or a floppy disk, or an optical medium, such as a CD-ROM.
- a computer-readable medium such as a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), a magnetic medium such as a hard drive or a floppy disk, or an optical medium, such as a CD-ROM.
- the computing device 12 may be implemented as one or a number of networked computing devices, such as personal computers, laptops, workstations, servers, etc.
- the account scoring module 14 may generate a score (the “service score”) for accounts of the securities research department based on one or more attributes.
- the service scores may be used, for example, to rank the value of an account to the sell-side firm relative to other accounts that do business with the sell-side firm.
- the scores may consist of the weighted average percentiles that each account scores in each of the attributes that are included in computing the score and the relative weights of each attribute and category (e.g., cluster of attributes). Attributes can be, for example, quantitative or qualitative factors, but each factor is preferably translated to a quantitative form. For example, a qualitative factor may be translated using a scale of 1 to 100 to assess how much the account exhibits the particular factor with 1 being very little and 100 being very much.
- the account attribute data may be stored in an account attribute database 18 .
- the resource matching module 16 may, according to various embodiments, distribute an arbitrary number (such as 100,000, for example) of points (“preference points”) to the accounts based on the service scores of the respective accounts, as determined by the account scoring module 14 .
- Accounts may receive preference points in direct proportion to their share of all service score points given to accounts by the account scoring module 14 , as described in more detail below.
- a percentage of the total preference points for each account may then be allocated to specific resources of the securities research department as a bid or other quantitative indication of interest by the account for that resource.
- the resource matching module 16 may then match the resources of the securities research department to the accounts based on the bids, as described further below.
- the inventory of resources may be stored in a resource capacity database 19 .
- the user interface 17 may allow a user of the system 10 , via input devices 8 (such as a keyboard or mouse) and output devices 9 (such as a display monitor) to, for example, set the weightings of the attributes and categories of the scoring scenario, define the resource inventory (e.g., analyst-contact relationships), project revenues from accounts based on the results of the resource matching module 16 , etc.
- input devices 8 such as a keyboard or mouse
- output devices 9 such as a display monitor
- the forecasting module 13 may allow the user of the system to estimate the economic impact to the research department based on various resource allocation decisions, as described in more detail below.
- FIG. 2 is a diagram of a scoring scenario for the account scoring module 14 according to various embodiments of the present invention.
- the scoring scenario may be represented as a hierarchical tree.
- the scoring scenario 20 may include at least one category 22 .
- the number of categories 22 may be determined by the user of the system, e.g., managers or other persons associated with the department.
- Each category 22 may be weighted as a percentage of how important the category is in determining the value of accounts to the user (i.e., firm).
- the sum of all category weightings preferably equals 100%.
- categories include value platform, client satisfaction, profitability of the account for the sell-side firm, potential of the account, the broker vote, etc.
- the “broker vote” is a voting survey among large institutional investors in which the institutional investors rank the analysts from various research firms in different market sectors.
- Each category 22 may comprise one or more attributes 24 .
- Each attribute 24 may also be weighted as a percentage of how important the attribute is in determining the value of accounts to the user. The sum of all attribute weightings in a category preferably equals 100%.
- the attributes may include revenue to the sell-side firm from the account, market share of the sell-side firm for that account, etc.
- a research department's market share may be determined or estimated by third parties, such as McLagan Partners which tally trading slips.
- the account scoring module 14 may score the accounts in such a way that the lack of information does not help or hurt the account's overall score, for example. To do so, when calculating an account's overall score, the account scoring module 14 preferably uses the attributes and categories where data is available, and normalizes them by dividing each available attribute or category weight by the sum of all available attribute or category weights. For example, assume a category has three attributes with the following percentage weightings:
- Attribute 1 80% Attribute 2 10% Attribute 3 10% If data were only available for Attributes 1 and 2, these attributes would then be weighted as 88.9% for Attribute 1 (computed as 80%/(80%+10%) and 11.1% for Attribute 2 (computed as 10%480%+10%). Similarly, if a scoring scenario had three categories weighted 50%-30%-20%, and data were only available for the 50% and 30% categories, the two categories for which data were available may be weighted as 62.5% and 37.5%, respectively.
- the account scoring module 14 may generate a service score for the accounts based on a weighted average percentile of each account's score for each attribute and category. For example, with reference to the scoring scenario of FIG. 2 , a particular account may be assigned a percentile score for each attribute/category in the scoring scenario. An account's percentile for an attribute/category may be computed as:
- Rank is the account's rank for the particular attribute/category and AccountCount is the number of the account in the ranking. For example, if an account's rank for a particular attribute/category is 34 th out of 500 accounts, the percentile for the account would be seven (7).
- the account scoring module 14 may compute the percentile based on available data or retrieve the percentile for each attribute/category for each account from the account attribute database 18 . According to other embodiments, rather than evenly spreading the percentile rankings of the accounts across the scoring range, the rankings of the accounts may reflect the relative value of the account for that attribute/category.
- the attribute is revenue to the firm and there are one hundred accounts, and the revenue for one particular is account is twice the revenue of any of the other ninety-nine accounts, that account would receive a score of one-hundred and all of the other accounts would have a score of fifty or less, rather than giving the account that is second in revenue a score of ninety-nine despite the fact that its revenue is half the revenue of the top account.
- the resource capacity database 19 may list the resources of the securities research department that need to be allocated to the accounts, as well as the available capacity (e.g., inventory) for each resource. For example, if the resource is analyst-contact relationships, then the database 19 may store the specific analysts of the securities research department that are available for accounts and the total number of relationships that each analyst can maintain at a given time with contacts for the various accounts of the research department (e.g., 50 analyst-contact relationships for an analyst). Each resource element can have its own capacity limit. For example, one analyst may be able to maintain fifty relationships, while another may be able to maintain seventy, etc., depending on the experience and capabilities of the analyst.
- FIG. 3 is a diagram of the process flow of the resource matching module 16 according to various embodiments of the present invention.
- the resource matching module 16 may distribute a predetermined, arbitrary number of preference points (e.g., 100,000 preference points) across each account for bidding on resources of the securities research department of interest to the particular account.
- the resource matching module 16 may distribute the preference points among the various accounts based on the respective service scores of the accounts, as determined by the account scoring module 14 .
- the accounts may receive points in direct proportion to their share of all service score points. For example, the resource matching module 16 may determine the number of preference points to be awarded to a particular account according to the following calculation:
- Preference Points i is the amount of preference points awarded to account i
- Service Score i is the service score for account i
- there are N accounts, and 100,000 preference points are used.
- the preference points for each account are spread across the resources to be matched for the account.
- the resources to be matched are analyst-contact relationships
- each analyst may have a Point Price indicative of the value of a relationship with the particular analyst for each account.
- the preference points for each account may be spread across the analysts according to following calculation:
- a default table of point prices can be used to populate the accounts' initial bids for analyst-contact relationships. Users are preferably able to make changes to the default table values to reflect their knowledge of an account's actual preferences.
- An analysts point price may depend upon the analyst's popularity and the importance of the industry sector covered by the analyst.
- the resource matching module 16 may match the resources to the various accounts.
- the resource matching module 16 may perform the matching process of step 34 according to the process flow of FIG. 4 according to various embodiments of the present invention.
- the resource matching module 16 may search for the highest bid for all of the accounts on all of the resources where there is available inventory (e.g., analyst-contact relationships).
- the resource matching module 16 may fill the highest bid and, at step 54 , subtract the unit corresponding to the filled bid from the available inventory for that resource.
- Account A has a bid of X for an analyst-contact relationship with Analyst Y, and X is the highest bid on all available resources, then Account A's bid for the analyst-contact relationship with Analyst Y would be filled, and the number of available analyst-contact relationships for Analyst Y would be reduced by one.
- the resource matching module 16 may determine if there is available remaining inventory for the resource. That is, the resource matching module 16 may determine if the decrement at step 54 reduced the available inventory for the particular resource to zero. If there is no more available inventory for the resource, the process may advance to step 58 , where the resource matching module 16 , for each account having unfilled bids for the unavailable resource, may spread the preference points for the unfilled bids across remaining outstanding bids of the account where there is available inventory. According to various embodiments, the preference points for the unfilled bids for the unavailable resource may be spread across the outstanding bids of the account in proportion to the account's outstanding preference point bids for resources.
- the resource matching module 16 may determine if there is remaining inventory for any of the resources. If so, the process may return to step 50 , where the process of matching bids to available resources may be repeated until there is no remaining inventory for each of the resources. When no inventory remains, or there are no unfulfilled bids (which is unlikely), the process may end at step 62 .
- the process flow of the resource matching module 16 may advance to step 36 , where the resource matching module 16 may provide an output list of matched resources to each account (i.e., list of filled orders) as well as a list of unfilled requests for resources.
- the user interface 17 may, for example, allow the user of the system 10 to establish the criteria for the scoring scenario.
- the user interface 17 may display a number of screens for the user on a monitor that the user may complete to, for example, define the scoring scenario(s), define the inventory, specify the resources that are important to a particular account, etc.
- the user may interact with the user interface 17 via input and output devices 8 , 9 locally connected to the system 10 or remotely connected to the system via, for example, a data network such as a LAN.
- FIG. 5 is a screen shot 70 that the user interface 17 may provide to the user through which the user may define the scoring scenario according to various embodiments.
- the user may name the scoring scenario.
- the user may specify the categories of the scoring scenario (see FIG. 2 ) and specify the percentage weights for each ategory.
- the user may specify the attributes for each category and the percentage weights for each attribute. In the illustrated example, the sum of the percentage weights for each category equals 100%, as does the sum of the percentage weights for each attribute for each of the categories.
- FIG. 6 is a screen shot 80 that the user interface 17 may provide to the user through which the use may define the inventory levels of the resources to be allocated.
- the resources are analyst-contact relationships
- the user may specify the different analysts and the total number of relationships that each analyst can maintain at a given time.
- the user interface 17 may also provide the user with an opportunity to review the list of assignments and unfilled bids, and make changes to the list for various reasons, such as correcting perceived inequities in the assignments.
- the system 10 may allow the user to create and save various scenarios, such as for different scoring scenarios, inventory capacities and account preferences.
- the forecasting module 13 may be in communication with a forecasting data database 7 and allow a user of the system to estimate the economic impact of various resource allocation decisions. For example, based on data stored in the database 7 regarding the cost of certain analyst-contact relationships, the user may determine the cost of increasing or decreasing the number of relationships allocated to a particular client. Based on knowledge about how such changes would affect the market share of the sell-side firm of the client's total street spend, the benefit of increasing or decreasing the relationships could be evaluated.
Abstract
Systems and methods for allocating limited resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department are disclosed. According to various embodiments, the system includes an account scoring module and a resource matching module. The account scoring module is for generating a score for each account, and the resource matching module is for matching the resources of the department to the accounts based on the scores for each account.
Description
- 1. Field of the Invention
- The present invention generally concerns techniques for matching resources of a sell-side securities research department to clients (or accounts) of the securities research department.
- In the securities research industry, so called “sell-side firms” provide, among other things, research regarding securities (such as stocks or bonds) to so-called “buy-side firms,” i.e., institutional investors such as mutual funds, hedge funds, pension funds, etc. Historically, analysts of the sell-side firm largely determined the amount of service a particular client buy-side firm received from the sell-side firm. The analysts were typically given some guidance as to which clients were more important relative to others (such as in terms of profitability to the sell-side firm) in the assumption that more service resources would be allocated to those clients, but often the service levels were driven by other considerations, such as the ranking of the analyst. This often resulted in an inefficient allocation of resources by the research department. Accordingly, there exists a need for techniques to optimize the allocations of resources of a securities research department.
- In one general aspect, the present invention is directed to a system for allocating limited resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department. According to various embodiments, the system includes an account scoring module and a resource matching module. The account scoring module is for generating a score for each account, and the resource matching module is for matching the resources of the department to the accounts based on the scores for each account. The system may also include a forecasting module for estimating the financial (or economic) impact to the research department of making various resource allocations.
- In various implementations, the resources of the securities research department to be matched to the accounts are analyst-contact relationships. The score is a way to represent the value of the account relative to other accounts based on attributes and the attributes' relative importance in being relevant in determining the account's value to the securities research department. The score of an account may be based on a hierarchical tree of categories and attributes. The account's score may be based on a weighted percentage average of the account's score in the categories. The account's score for each category may be based on a weighted percentage average of the account's ranking for each attribute related to the particular category. The attribute rankings may be, for example, percentile rankings.
- The resource matching module may match the resources of the department to the accounts based on the scores for each account. The inventory (or available capacity) for each resource in input into the system. The resource matching module may match the resources of the department to the accounts by (i) distributing a number of points to each account based on the score of the account as determined by the account scoring module; (ii) spreading the points of each account across the resources of the firm that are of interest to the particular accounts; and (iii) matching the resources to the accounts based on the number of points allocated to the resource for each account. When a particular account has points allocated to a resource for which there is no remaining inventory, the points of the account allocated to that resource may be distributed to other resources of interest to the account for which there is remaining inventory.
- In another general aspect, the present invention is direct to a method for allocating limited resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department. According to various embodiments, the method may include generating a score for each account, and matching the resources of the department (such as analyst-contact relationships, one-to-one meetings, conference attendance, corporate events, etc.) to the accounts based on the scores for each account.
- Various embodiments of the present invention are described herein by way of example with reference to the following figures, wherein:
-
FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system according to various embodiments of the present invention; -
FIG. 2 is a diagram of a scoring scenario according to various embodiments of the present invention; -
FIGS. 3-4 illustrate process flows of the resource matching module according to various embodiments of the present invention; and -
FIGS. 5 and 6 illustrate screen shots generated by the user interface according to various embodiments of the present invention. -
FIG. 1 is a diagram of asystem 10 according to various embodiments of the present invention. Thesystem 10 may be used for matching scarce or limited resources of a supplier of securities research (e.g., equities and/or debt securities research) to consumers of the research. For purposes of the description to follow, the supplier of the securities research is sometimes referred to as a “sell-side firm” or as the “securities research department.” The sell-side firm may be, for example, a brokerage or investment house, or an independent research firm. The consumer of the securities research may be an institutional investor, such as a pension fund, a mutual fund, or a hedge fund, or any other type of buy-side firm. The consumer of securities research is sometimes referred to herein as a “client” or “account” of the sell-side firm supplying the securities research, or as a “buy-side firm.” - According to various embodiments, the
system 10 includes acomputing device 12 comprising a number of modules. For example, as illustrated inFIG. 1 , thecomputing device 12 may include anaccount scoring module 14, aresource matching module 16, aforecasting module 13, and auser interface 17. Themodules computing device 12 using any suitable computer language, such as, for example, Java, C, C++, or Perl, etc., using, for example, conventional or object-oriented techniques. The software code may be stored as a series of instructions or commands on a computer-readable medium, such as a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), a magnetic medium such as a hard drive or a floppy disk, or an optical medium, such as a CD-ROM. Thecomputing device 12 may be implemented as one or a number of networked computing devices, such as personal computers, laptops, workstations, servers, etc. - The
account scoring module 14 may generate a score (the “service score”) for accounts of the securities research department based on one or more attributes. The service scores may be used, for example, to rank the value of an account to the sell-side firm relative to other accounts that do business with the sell-side firm. The scores, according to various embodiments, may consist of the weighted average percentiles that each account scores in each of the attributes that are included in computing the score and the relative weights of each attribute and category (e.g., cluster of attributes). Attributes can be, for example, quantitative or qualitative factors, but each factor is preferably translated to a quantitative form. For example, a qualitative factor may be translated using a scale of 1 to 100 to assess how much the account exhibits the particular factor with 1 being very little and 100 being very much. The account attribute data may be stored in anaccount attribute database 18. - The
resource matching module 16 may, according to various embodiments, distribute an arbitrary number (such as 100,000, for example) of points (“preference points”) to the accounts based on the service scores of the respective accounts, as determined by theaccount scoring module 14. Accounts may receive preference points in direct proportion to their share of all service score points given to accounts by theaccount scoring module 14, as described in more detail below. A percentage of the total preference points for each account may then be allocated to specific resources of the securities research department as a bid or other quantitative indication of interest by the account for that resource. Theresource matching module 16 may then match the resources of the securities research department to the accounts based on the bids, as described further below. The inventory of resources may be stored in aresource capacity database 19. - The
user interface 17, as described in more detail below, may allow a user of thesystem 10, via input devices 8 (such as a keyboard or mouse) and output devices 9 (such as a display monitor) to, for example, set the weightings of the attributes and categories of the scoring scenario, define the resource inventory (e.g., analyst-contact relationships), project revenues from accounts based on the results of theresource matching module 16, etc. - The
forecasting module 13 may allow the user of the system to estimate the economic impact to the research department based on various resource allocation decisions, as described in more detail below. -
FIG. 2 is a diagram of a scoring scenario for theaccount scoring module 14 according to various embodiments of the present invention. As can be seen inFIG. 2 , the scoring scenario may be represented as a hierarchical tree. Thescoring scenario 20 may include at least onecategory 22. The number ofcategories 22 may be determined by the user of the system, e.g., managers or other persons associated with the department. Eachcategory 22 may be weighted as a percentage of how important the category is in determining the value of accounts to the user (i.e., firm). The sum of all category weightings preferably equals 100%. Examples of categories include value platform, client satisfaction, profitability of the account for the sell-side firm, potential of the account, the broker vote, etc. The “broker vote” is a voting survey among large institutional investors in which the institutional investors rank the analysts from various research firms in different market sectors. - Each
category 22 may comprise one or more attributes 24. Eachattribute 24 may also be weighted as a percentage of how important the attribute is in determining the value of accounts to the user. The sum of all attribute weightings in a category preferably equals 100%. For a value platform category, for example, the attributes may include revenue to the sell-side firm from the account, market share of the sell-side firm for that account, etc. A research department's market share may be determined or estimated by third parties, such as McLagan Partners which tally trading slips. - If information for a particular account in an attribute or category is unavailable, the
account scoring module 14 may score the accounts in such a way that the lack of information does not help or hurt the account's overall score, for example. To do so, when calculating an account's overall score, theaccount scoring module 14 preferably uses the attributes and categories where data is available, and normalizes them by dividing each available attribute or category weight by the sum of all available attribute or category weights. For example, assume a category has three attributes with the following percentage weightings: -
Attribute 180 % Attribute 2 10 % Attribute 3 10%
If data were only available forAttributes - The
account scoring module 14, as mentioned above, may generate a service score for the accounts based on a weighted average percentile of each account's score for each attribute and category. For example, with reference to the scoring scenario ofFIG. 2 , a particular account may be assigned a percentile score for each attribute/category in the scoring scenario. An account's percentile for an attribute/category may be computed as: -
- where Rank is the account's rank for the particular attribute/category and AccountCount is the number of the account in the ranking. For example, if an account's rank for a particular attribute/category is 34th out of 500 accounts, the percentile for the account would be seven (7). The
account scoring module 14 may compute the percentile based on available data or retrieve the percentile for each attribute/category for each account from theaccount attribute database 18. According to other embodiments, rather than evenly spreading the percentile rankings of the accounts across the scoring range, the rankings of the accounts may reflect the relative value of the account for that attribute/category. For example, if the attribute is revenue to the firm and there are one hundred accounts, and the revenue for one particular is account is twice the revenue of any of the other ninety-nine accounts, that account would receive a score of one-hundred and all of the other accounts would have a score of fifty or less, rather than giving the account that is second in revenue a score of ninety-nine despite the fact that its revenue is half the revenue of the top account. - The
resource capacity database 19 may list the resources of the securities research department that need to be allocated to the accounts, as well as the available capacity (e.g., inventory) for each resource. For example, if the resource is analyst-contact relationships, then thedatabase 19 may store the specific analysts of the securities research department that are available for accounts and the total number of relationships that each analyst can maintain at a given time with contacts for the various accounts of the research department (e.g., 50 analyst-contact relationships for an analyst). Each resource element can have its own capacity limit. For example, one analyst may be able to maintain fifty relationships, while another may be able to maintain seventy, etc., depending on the experience and capabilities of the analyst. -
FIG. 3 is a diagram of the process flow of theresource matching module 16 according to various embodiments of the present invention. Atstep 30, theresource matching module 16 may distribute a predetermined, arbitrary number of preference points (e.g., 100,000 preference points) across each account for bidding on resources of the securities research department of interest to the particular account. Theresource matching module 16 may distribute the preference points among the various accounts based on the respective service scores of the accounts, as determined by theaccount scoring module 14. The accounts may receive points in direct proportion to their share of all service score points. For example, theresource matching module 16 may determine the number of preference points to be awarded to a particular account according to the following calculation: -
- where Preference Pointsi is the amount of preference points awarded to account i, Service Score i is the service score for account i, there are N accounts, and 100,000 preference points are used.
- Next, at
step 32, the preference points for each account are spread across the resources to be matched for the account. For example, if the resources to be matched are analyst-contact relationships, each analyst may have a Point Price indicative of the value of a relationship with the particular analyst for each account. The preference points for each account may be spread across the analysts according to following calculation: -
- A default table of point prices can be used to populate the accounts' initial bids for analyst-contact relationships. Users are preferably able to make changes to the default table values to reflect their knowledge of an account's actual preferences. An analysts point price may depend upon the analyst's popularity and the importance of the industry sector covered by the analyst.
- Next, at
step 34, theresource matching module 16 may match the resources to the various accounts. Theresource matching module 16 may perform the matching process ofstep 34 according to the process flow ofFIG. 4 according to various embodiments of the present invention. Referring toFIG. 4 , atstep 50, theresource matching module 16 may search for the highest bid for all of the accounts on all of the resources where there is available inventory (e.g., analyst-contact relationships). Atstep 52, theresource matching module 16 may fill the highest bid and, atstep 54, subtract the unit corresponding to the filled bid from the available inventory for that resource. For example, if Account A has a bid of X for an analyst-contact relationship with Analyst Y, and X is the highest bid on all available resources, then Account A's bid for the analyst-contact relationship with Analyst Y would be filled, and the number of available analyst-contact relationships for Analyst Y would be reduced by one. - Next, at
step 56, theresource matching module 16 may determine if there is available remaining inventory for the resource. That is, theresource matching module 16 may determine if the decrement atstep 54 reduced the available inventory for the particular resource to zero. If there is no more available inventory for the resource, the process may advance to step 58, where theresource matching module 16, for each account having unfilled bids for the unavailable resource, may spread the preference points for the unfilled bids across remaining outstanding bids of the account where there is available inventory. According to various embodiments, the preference points for the unfilled bids for the unavailable resource may be spread across the outstanding bids of the account in proportion to the account's outstanding preference point bids for resources. - Next, at
step 60, theresource matching module 16 may determine if there is remaining inventory for any of the resources. If so, the process may return to step 50, where the process of matching bids to available resources may be repeated until there is no remaining inventory for each of the resources. When no inventory remains, or there are no unfulfilled bids (which is unlikely), the process may end atstep 62. - Returning to
FIG. 3 , following the matching of the resources to the accounts atstep 34, the process flow of theresource matching module 16 may advance to step 36, where theresource matching module 16 may provide an output list of matched resources to each account (i.e., list of filled orders) as well as a list of unfilled requests for resources. - Returning to
FIG. 1 , theuser interface 17 may, for example, allow the user of thesystem 10 to establish the criteria for the scoring scenario. Theuser interface 17 may display a number of screens for the user on a monitor that the user may complete to, for example, define the scoring scenario(s), define the inventory, specify the resources that are important to a particular account, etc. The user may interact with theuser interface 17 via input andoutput devices system 10 or remotely connected to the system via, for example, a data network such as a LAN. -
FIG. 5 is a screen shot 70 that theuser interface 17 may provide to the user through which the user may define the scoring scenario according to various embodiments. Infield 72, for example, the user may name the scoring scenario. Infield 74, the user may specify the categories of the scoring scenario (seeFIG. 2 ) and specify the percentage weights for each ategory. In field 76, the user may specify the attributes for each category and the percentage weights for each attribute. In the illustrated example, the sum of the percentage weights for each category equals 100%, as does the sum of the percentage weights for each attribute for each of the categories. -
FIG. 6 is a screen shot 80 that theuser interface 17 may provide to the user through which the use may define the inventory levels of the resources to be allocated. For an application where the resources are analyst-contact relationships, infield 82 the user may specify the different analysts and the total number of relationships that each analyst can maintain at a given time. - In a similar way, the
user interface 17 may also provide the user with an opportunity to review the list of assignments and unfilled bids, and make changes to the list for various reasons, such as correcting perceived inequities in the assignments. Also, thesystem 10 may allow the user to create and save various scenarios, such as for different scoring scenarios, inventory capacities and account preferences. - The
forecasting module 13 may be in communication with aforecasting data database 7 and allow a user of the system to estimate the economic impact of various resource allocation decisions. For example, based on data stored in thedatabase 7 regarding the cost of certain analyst-contact relationships, the user may determine the cost of increasing or decreasing the number of relationships allocated to a particular client. Based on knowledge about how such changes would affect the market share of the sell-side firm of the client's total street spend, the benefit of increasing or decreasing the relationships could be evaluated. - While several embodiments of the invention have been described, it should be apparent, however, that various modifications, alterations and adaptations to those embodiments may occur to persons skilled in the art with the attainment of some or all of the advantages of the present invention. For example, various steps in the processes described herein may be performed in alternative orders. Also, although the various embodiments described above have been described in the context of a securities research department, the system may be used by any entity or firm having limited resources and information about account preferences. It is therefore intended to cover all such modifications, alterations and adaptations without departing from the scope and spirit of the present -invention as defined by the appended claims.
Claims (20)
1-39. (canceled)
40. A system for allocating limited resources of a securities research entity to a plurality of accounts associated with the securities research entity, the system comprising a computing device, wherein the computing device comprises:
at least one processor and an operatively associated computer readable medium, wherein the computer readable medium comprises instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor cause the computing device to:
receive values for a plurality of attributes from an account attribute data store, wherein each of the plurality of attributes describes at least one of the plurality of accounts;
for each of the plurality of accounts, generate a service score based at least in part on values selected from the values for the plurality of attributes, wherein each service score indicates a value of the corresponding account to the securities research entity relative to other accounts selected from the plurality of accounts; and
match the resources of the securities research entity to the plurality of accounts based at least in part on the service score for each account.
41. The system of claim 40 , wherein the computer readable medium further comprises instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to estimate a financial impact of resource allocations.
42. The system of claim 40 , wherein the plurality of attributes are organized into at least one category, and wherein the computer readable medium further comprises instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to generate the service score for each account based on a weighted percentage average of values for a plurality of the one or more attributes related to each category and describing the account.
43. The system of claim 42 , wherein the values for the attributes include percentile rankings.
44. The system of claim 40 , wherein the computer readable medium further comprises instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to implement a user interface for allowing a user to define a scoring scenario by which the service scores of the accounts are determined.
45. The system of claim 40 , wherein the computer readable medium further comprises instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to implement a user interface for allowing the user to define resources and the capacity for each resource.
46. The system of claim 40 , wherein the resources of the securities research entity comprise at least one resource selected from the group consisting of:
at least one analyst-contact relationship;
attendance at a one-to-one meeting with a securities research analyst;
attendance at a securities research conference; and
attendance at a corporate event hosted by the securities research entity.
47. The system of claim 40 , wherein each attribute value for an account comprises a ranking of the account in the attribute relative to other accounts of the securities research entity.
48. The system of claim 40 , wherein matching the resources of the securities research entity to the plurality of accounts based at least in part on the service score for each account comprises:
determining a number of preference points assigned to each account of the plurality of accounts based on the service score of the account;
receiving resource capacity data from the resource capacity database, wherein the resource capacity data indicates a quantity of resources available to be matched;
receiving allocation data indicating an allocation of the preference points assigned to each account across at least one of the resources of the securities research entity;
matching the resources to the plurality of accounts based at least in part on the number of preference points allocated to the resource for each account.
49. The system of claim 48 , wherein matching the resources to the plurality of accounts based at least in part on the number of preference points allocated to the resource for each account comprises, for each resource:
identifying an account having the most preference points allocated to the resource;
matching the resource to an account having the most preference points allocated to the resource; and
conditioned on all resources of the same type as the resource being matched and for all accounts having remaining preference points allocated to resources of the same type as the resource being matched, reallocating the preference points of the accounts to resources of different types.
50. A computer-implemented method for allocating limited resources of a securities research entity to a plurality of accounts of the securities research entity, comprising:
receiving by a computing device from an account attribute data store values for a plurality of attributes, wherein each of the plurality of attributes describes at least one of the plurality of accounts, wherein the computing device comprises at least one processor and operatively associated memory;
for each of the plurality of accounts, generating by the computing device a service score based at least in part on values selected from the values for the plurality of attributes, wherein each service score indicates a value of the corresponding account to the securities research entity relative to other accounts selected from the plurality of accounts; and
matching the resources of the securities research entity to the plurality of accounts based at least in part on the service score for each account.
51. The method of claim 50 , further comprising estimating a financial impact of resource allocations.
52. The method of claim 50 , wherein the plurality of attributes are organized into at least one category, and further comprising generating the service score for each account based on a weighted percentage average of values for a plurality of the one or more attributes related to each category and describing the account.
53. The method of claim 52 , wherein the values for the attributes include percentile rankings.
54. The method of claim 50 , further comprising implementing a user interface for allowing a user to define a scoring scenario by which the service scores of the accounts are determined.
55. The method of claim 54 , wherein the user interface is further for allowing the user to define resources and the capacity for each resource.
56. The method of claim 50 , wherein the resources of the securities research entity comprise at least one resource selected from the group consisting of:
at least one analyst-contact relationship;
attendance at a one-to-one meeting with a securities research analyst;
attendance at a securities research conference; and
attendance at a corporate event hosted by the securities research entity.
57. The method of claim 50 , wherein the matching of the resources to the accounts comprises:
determining by the computing device a number of preference points assigned to each account of the plurality of accounts based on the service score of the account;
receiving resource capacity data by the computing device from the resource capacity database, wherein the resource capacity data indicates a quantity of resources available to be matched;
receiving by the computing device allocation data indicating an allocation of the preference points assigned to each account across at least one of the resources of the securities research entity; and
matching the resources to the plurality of accounts by the computing device based at least in part on the number of preference points allocated to the resource for each account.
58. The method of claim 57 , wherein matching each of the resources to one of the plurality of accounts based on the number of preference points allocated to the resource for each account comprises, for each resource:
identifying an account having the most preference points allocated to the resource;
matching the resource to an account having the most preference points allocated to the resource; and
conditioned on all resources of the same type as the resource being matched and for all accounts having remaining preference points allocated to resources of the same type as the resource being matched, reallocating the preference points of the accounts to resources of different types.
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US13/530,977 US20120265571A1 (en) | 2004-05-28 | 2012-06-22 | Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department |
Applications Claiming Priority (3)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US10/857,400 US7689490B2 (en) | 2004-05-28 | 2004-05-28 | Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department |
US12/706,054 US8209253B2 (en) | 2004-05-28 | 2010-02-16 | Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department |
US13/530,977 US20120265571A1 (en) | 2004-05-28 | 2012-06-22 | Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department |
Related Parent Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US12/706,054 Continuation US8209253B2 (en) | 2004-05-28 | 2010-02-16 | Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20120265571A1 true US20120265571A1 (en) | 2012-10-18 |
Family
ID=35426590
Family Applications (3)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US10/857,400 Active 2028-04-11 US7689490B2 (en) | 2004-05-28 | 2004-05-28 | Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department |
US12/706,054 Active 2024-11-27 US8209253B2 (en) | 2004-05-28 | 2010-02-16 | Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department |
US13/530,977 Abandoned US20120265571A1 (en) | 2004-05-28 | 2012-06-22 | Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department |
Family Applications Before (2)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US10/857,400 Active 2028-04-11 US7689490B2 (en) | 2004-05-28 | 2004-05-28 | Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department |
US12/706,054 Active 2024-11-27 US8209253B2 (en) | 2004-05-28 | 2010-02-16 | Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department |
Country Status (1)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (3) | US7689490B2 (en) |
Families Citing this family (11)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US7689490B2 (en) * | 2004-05-28 | 2010-03-30 | Morgan Stanley | Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department |
US20080034090A1 (en) * | 2005-09-29 | 2008-02-07 | Nortel Networks Limited | Tender-Bid Method and Architecture For Intelligent Network Resource Deployment |
US8874477B2 (en) | 2005-10-04 | 2014-10-28 | Steven Mark Hoffberg | Multifactorial optimization system and method |
US7953652B1 (en) | 2006-06-12 | 2011-05-31 | Morgan Stanley | Profit model for non-execution services |
US8788681B1 (en) * | 2008-08-25 | 2014-07-22 | Symantec Corporation | Method and apparatus for autonomously managing a computer resource using a security certificate |
US8352611B2 (en) * | 2010-06-29 | 2013-01-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | Allocating computer resources in a cloud environment |
US8825539B2 (en) * | 2011-08-26 | 2014-09-02 | Morgan Stanley & Co. Llc | Computer-based systems and methods for computing market-adjusted elasticities for accounts |
US8694413B1 (en) | 2011-09-29 | 2014-04-08 | Morgan Stanley & Co. Llc | Computer-based systems and methods for determining interest levels of consumers in research work product produced by a research department |
US20130132145A1 (en) * | 2011-11-17 | 2013-05-23 | Morgan Stanley & Co. Llc | Computer-based systems and methods for optimizing meeting schedules |
US8566146B1 (en) | 2012-05-10 | 2013-10-22 | Morgan Stanley & Co. Llc | Computer-based systems and method for computing a score for contacts of a financial services firm indicative of resources to be deployed by the financial services firm for the contacts to maximize revenue for the financial services firm |
US20160110810A1 (en) * | 2014-10-16 | 2016-04-21 | Fmr Llc | Research Systems and Methods for Integrating Query Data and Individual User Profile |
Citations (16)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5963911A (en) * | 1994-03-25 | 1999-10-05 | British Telecommunications Public Limited Company | Resource allocation |
US20020029161A1 (en) * | 1998-11-30 | 2002-03-07 | Brodersen Robert A. | Assignment manager |
US20020156714A1 (en) * | 1998-04-24 | 2002-10-24 | Gatto Joseph G. | Security analyst performance tracking and analysis system and method |
US20030110106A1 (en) * | 2001-12-10 | 2003-06-12 | Sanjay Deshpande | System and method for enabling content providers in a financial services organization to self-publish content |
US20030229531A1 (en) * | 2002-06-05 | 2003-12-11 | Heckerman David E. | Modifying advertisement scores based on advertisement response probabilities |
US6681211B1 (en) * | 1998-04-24 | 2004-01-20 | Starmine Corporation | Security analyst estimates performance viewing system and method |
US20040088206A1 (en) * | 2001-03-29 | 2004-05-06 | Thompson Simon G | Work allocation system |
US20040128220A1 (en) * | 2002-11-22 | 2004-07-01 | Sachiko Kuno | Access method of regulatory approving data for networked multilateral alliance |
US20040236648A1 (en) * | 2003-05-22 | 2004-11-25 | Pershing Investments, Llc | Activity-driven, customer profitability calculation system |
US20050021437A1 (en) * | 2003-06-02 | 2005-01-27 | Matthias Bock | Method and system for structuring a trade convention for financial institutions |
US20050080695A1 (en) * | 2003-10-09 | 2005-04-14 | Gatto Joseph G. | System and method for facilitating the selection of security analyst research reports |
US20050125274A1 (en) * | 2003-12-04 | 2005-06-09 | American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. | System and method for resource optimization |
US20050203769A1 (en) * | 2004-03-05 | 2005-09-15 | Weild David Iv | Data structure with market capitalization breakdown |
US20050240456A1 (en) * | 2004-04-27 | 2005-10-27 | Ward Christian J | Independent research analysis, aggregation and delivery system and method |
US7124111B1 (en) * | 1999-09-14 | 2006-10-17 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Service charge adjustment platform |
US7636680B2 (en) * | 2001-10-03 | 2009-12-22 | Starmine Corporation | Methods and systems for measuring performance of a security analyst |
Family Cites Families (71)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US4710763A (en) | 1984-10-19 | 1987-12-01 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | Method for generating and displaying tree structures in a limited display area |
US5128860A (en) | 1989-04-25 | 1992-07-07 | Motorola, Inc. | Manufacturing or service system allocating resources to associated demands by comparing time ordered arrays of data |
US5913201A (en) | 1991-04-30 | 1999-06-15 | Gte Laboratories Incoporated | Method and apparatus for assigning a plurality of work projects |
JPH05342215A (en) | 1992-06-05 | 1993-12-24 | Nec Corp | Substantial examination corresponding alarm generator at applying public offering of stocks |
US6330545B1 (en) | 1993-07-27 | 2001-12-11 | Eastern Consulting Company, Ltd. | Activity information accounting method and system |
US5630070A (en) | 1993-08-16 | 1997-05-13 | International Business Machines Corporation | Optimization of manufacturing resource planning |
US5502637A (en) | 1994-06-15 | 1996-03-26 | Thomson Shared Services, Inc. | Investment research delivery system |
US5864853A (en) | 1994-09-14 | 1999-01-26 | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Portable file system operable under various computer environments |
JPH08278978A (en) | 1995-04-04 | 1996-10-22 | Kokusai Electric Co Ltd | Bond information retrieving methdo and bond information terminal device |
US5822410A (en) | 1996-01-11 | 1998-10-13 | Gte Telecom Services Inc | Churn amelioration system and method therefor |
US6029146A (en) | 1996-08-21 | 2000-02-22 | Crossmar, Inc. | Method and apparatus for trading securities electronically |
US6292830B1 (en) | 1997-08-08 | 2001-09-18 | Iterations Llc | System for optimizing interaction among agents acting on multiple levels |
US5968121A (en) | 1997-08-13 | 1999-10-19 | Microsoft Corporation | Method and apparatus for representing and applying network topological data |
US6324523B1 (en) | 1997-09-30 | 2001-11-27 | Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. | Integrated client relationship management processor |
US5940843A (en) | 1997-10-08 | 1999-08-17 | Multex Systems, Inc. | Information delivery system and method including restriction processing |
CA2223597A1 (en) | 1998-01-06 | 1999-07-06 | Ses Canada Research Inc. | Automated survey kiosk |
US6415269B1 (en) | 1998-05-29 | 2002-07-02 | Bidcatcher, L.P. | Interactive remote auction bidding system |
JP2000003389A (en) | 1998-06-12 | 2000-01-07 | Price Waterhouse | Activity cost calculation system |
JP2000231567A (en) | 1999-02-09 | 2000-08-22 | Price Waterhouse | Action management system, action management terminal and recording medium |
US20020026321A1 (en) | 1999-02-26 | 2002-02-28 | Sadeg M. Faris | Internet-based system and method for fairly and securely enabling timed-constrained competition using globally time-sychronized client subsystems and information servers having microsecond client-event resolution |
US6374227B1 (en) * | 1999-04-15 | 2002-04-16 | I2 Technologies Us, Inc. | System and method for optimizing the allocation of a resource |
US6519571B1 (en) | 1999-05-27 | 2003-02-11 | Accenture Llp | Dynamic customer profile management |
US6470325B1 (en) | 1999-06-18 | 2002-10-22 | Adrian S. Leemhuis | Method and data processing system for managing a mutual fund brokerage |
US7290009B1 (en) * | 1999-08-25 | 2007-10-30 | The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New York | System and method for allocating resources using spot market and derivative market techniques |
US7401040B2 (en) | 1999-11-01 | 2008-07-15 | Accenture Llp | Financial modeling and counseling system |
EP1249102A2 (en) * | 2000-01-14 | 2002-10-16 | Qariba Limited | Resource allocation |
GB2375259B (en) | 2000-01-31 | 2004-04-21 | Emiko Kamano | Questionnaire research system |
US7072858B1 (en) | 2000-02-04 | 2006-07-04 | Xpensewise.Com, Inc. | System and method for dynamic price setting and facilitation of commercial transactions |
US7657479B2 (en) | 2000-03-02 | 2010-02-02 | PriceDoc, Inc. | Method and system for provision and acquisition of medical services and products |
US6671674B1 (en) | 2000-03-16 | 2003-12-30 | Claude T. Anderson | Computer-based auction and sale system |
AUPQ677400A0 (en) * | 2000-04-07 | 2000-05-11 | Clift, John Lawrence | A business method |
US6968317B1 (en) * | 2000-04-28 | 2005-11-22 | Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. | Method and apparatus for new accounts program |
US20020035534A1 (en) | 2000-05-04 | 2002-03-21 | Buist Walter D. | Method and apparatus for auctioning securities |
AU2001261521A1 (en) * | 2000-05-12 | 2001-11-26 | Invisible Hand Networks, Inc. | Method and system for market based resource allocation |
JP2002024648A (en) | 2000-07-12 | 2002-01-25 | Yokogawa Electric Corp | Component procuring system |
AU2001293071A1 (en) | 2000-09-26 | 2002-04-08 | D. E. Shaw And Co., Inc. | Method and system for the electronic negotiation and execution of equity block trades for institutional investors |
JP4644925B2 (en) * | 2000-10-12 | 2011-03-09 | ソニー株式会社 | Information processing apparatus and information processing method |
AU2002230594A1 (en) | 2000-10-25 | 2002-06-03 | Worldstreet Corporation | Electronic commerce system |
US6886164B2 (en) * | 2001-05-08 | 2005-04-26 | Emc Corporation | Selection of a resource in a distributed computer system |
US20020186257A1 (en) | 2001-06-08 | 2002-12-12 | Cadiz Jonathan J. | System and process for providing dynamic communication access and information awareness in an interactive peripheral display |
US20020198815A1 (en) | 2001-06-26 | 2002-12-26 | Robert Greifeld | System and process for providing institutional directed sponsored trading |
JP2003016282A (en) | 2001-07-02 | 2003-01-17 | Make Softwear:Kk | System and method for supporting market transaction |
JP4612246B2 (en) | 2001-08-06 | 2011-01-12 | 三菱電機株式会社 | Human resource auction system and human resource auction server |
US7685029B2 (en) | 2002-01-25 | 2010-03-23 | Invensys Systems Inc. | System and method for real-time activity-based accounting |
JP2003288467A (en) | 2002-03-27 | 2003-10-10 | Japan Tobacco Inc | Sales activity support system and sales activity support method |
JP2003288469A (en) | 2002-03-28 | 2003-10-10 | Kimoto & Co Ltd | Sales management method and graph plotting method |
US7769639B2 (en) * | 2002-04-15 | 2010-08-03 | Arnaud Delenda | Method and system for real-time allocation of a resource among several entities |
JP2003323534A (en) | 2002-05-01 | 2003-11-14 | Honda Motor Co Ltd | Computer system for adjusting assignment of man-hour in business activity according to characteristic of customer |
EP1546954A2 (en) | 2002-05-14 | 2005-06-29 | Bank of New York | Commission management system |
US20030236721A1 (en) | 2002-05-21 | 2003-12-25 | Plumer Edward S. | Dynamic cost accounting |
JP2003345971A (en) | 2002-05-30 | 2003-12-05 | Fujitsu Ltd | Business operation presenting method and business operation presenting program |
JP2004054662A (en) | 2002-07-22 | 2004-02-19 | Kanouta Kensetsu Kogyo:Kk | Work ledger creation device, and program for executing work ledger creation on computer |
US7171471B1 (en) * | 2002-08-15 | 2007-01-30 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Methods and apparatus for directing a resource request |
US7702574B2 (en) | 2002-11-14 | 2010-04-20 | Goldman Sachs & Co. | Independent research consensus earnings estimates and methods of determining such |
US20040111308A1 (en) * | 2002-12-09 | 2004-06-10 | Brighthaul Ltd. | Dynamic resource allocation platform and method for time related resources |
US8271369B2 (en) * | 2003-03-12 | 2012-09-18 | Norman Gilmore | Financial modeling and forecasting system |
US6805277B1 (en) * | 2003-04-16 | 2004-10-19 | Lotes Co., Ltd. | Process for soldering electric connector onto circuit board |
US20050096950A1 (en) * | 2003-10-29 | 2005-05-05 | Caplan Scott M. | Method and apparatus for creating and evaluating strategies |
CA2544727C (en) * | 2003-12-09 | 2012-08-07 | Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Publ) | Method and device for managing resources shared by different operators in a communication system |
US7693763B2 (en) | 2004-02-13 | 2010-04-06 | Nyfix, Inc. | System for providing step out commissions and compensation for research brokers |
US20050246264A1 (en) | 2004-04-30 | 2005-11-03 | Instinet L.L.C. | Method of managing research/advisory service provider payments |
US20050261922A1 (en) | 2004-05-20 | 2005-11-24 | Marchisotto Mary J | Authoring and distributing research analysts' initial reactions to breaking information |
US7565417B2 (en) | 2004-05-20 | 2009-07-21 | Rowady Jr E Paul | Event-driven financial analysis interface and system |
US7734517B2 (en) * | 2004-05-28 | 2010-06-08 | Morgan Stanley | Systems and method for determining the cost of a securities research department to service a client of the department |
US7769654B1 (en) * | 2004-05-28 | 2010-08-03 | Morgan Stanley | Systems and methods for determining fair value prices for equity research |
US7689490B2 (en) * | 2004-05-28 | 2010-03-30 | Morgan Stanley | Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department |
US20060085321A1 (en) | 2004-07-20 | 2006-04-20 | Staib William E | Simulation auction for public offering |
US7752103B2 (en) * | 2004-09-10 | 2010-07-06 | Morgan Stanley | Systems and methods for auctioning access to securities research resources |
US20060149657A1 (en) * | 2004-12-30 | 2006-07-06 | Weild David Iv | Paid-for research method and system |
US7761359B2 (en) * | 2005-05-06 | 2010-07-20 | American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. | System and method for optimizing investments within an organization |
US7953652B1 (en) * | 2006-06-12 | 2011-05-31 | Morgan Stanley | Profit model for non-execution services |
-
2004
- 2004-05-28 US US10/857,400 patent/US7689490B2/en active Active
-
2010
- 2010-02-16 US US12/706,054 patent/US8209253B2/en active Active
-
2012
- 2012-06-22 US US13/530,977 patent/US20120265571A1/en not_active Abandoned
Patent Citations (19)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5963911A (en) * | 1994-03-25 | 1999-10-05 | British Telecommunications Public Limited Company | Resource allocation |
US6681211B1 (en) * | 1998-04-24 | 2004-01-20 | Starmine Corporation | Security analyst estimates performance viewing system and method |
US20020156714A1 (en) * | 1998-04-24 | 2002-10-24 | Gatto Joseph G. | Security analyst performance tracking and analysis system and method |
US6510419B1 (en) * | 1998-04-24 | 2003-01-21 | Starmine Corporation | Security analyst performance tracking and analysis system and method |
US20030065601A1 (en) * | 1998-04-24 | 2003-04-03 | Gatto Joseph G. | Security analyst performance tracking and analysis system and method |
US20020029161A1 (en) * | 1998-11-30 | 2002-03-07 | Brodersen Robert A. | Assignment manager |
US7124111B1 (en) * | 1999-09-14 | 2006-10-17 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Service charge adjustment platform |
US20040088206A1 (en) * | 2001-03-29 | 2004-05-06 | Thompson Simon G | Work allocation system |
US7636680B2 (en) * | 2001-10-03 | 2009-12-22 | Starmine Corporation | Methods and systems for measuring performance of a security analyst |
US20030110106A1 (en) * | 2001-12-10 | 2003-06-12 | Sanjay Deshpande | System and method for enabling content providers in a financial services organization to self-publish content |
US20030229531A1 (en) * | 2002-06-05 | 2003-12-11 | Heckerman David E. | Modifying advertisement scores based on advertisement response probabilities |
US20040128220A1 (en) * | 2002-11-22 | 2004-07-01 | Sachiko Kuno | Access method of regulatory approving data for networked multilateral alliance |
US20040236648A1 (en) * | 2003-05-22 | 2004-11-25 | Pershing Investments, Llc | Activity-driven, customer profitability calculation system |
US20050097028A1 (en) * | 2003-05-22 | 2005-05-05 | Larry Watanabe | Method and system for predicting attrition customers |
US20050021437A1 (en) * | 2003-06-02 | 2005-01-27 | Matthias Bock | Method and system for structuring a trade convention for financial institutions |
US20050080695A1 (en) * | 2003-10-09 | 2005-04-14 | Gatto Joseph G. | System and method for facilitating the selection of security analyst research reports |
US20050125274A1 (en) * | 2003-12-04 | 2005-06-09 | American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. | System and method for resource optimization |
US20050203769A1 (en) * | 2004-03-05 | 2005-09-15 | Weild David Iv | Data structure with market capitalization breakdown |
US20050240456A1 (en) * | 2004-04-27 | 2005-10-27 | Ward Christian J | Independent research analysis, aggregation and delivery system and method |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US20100145757A1 (en) | 2010-06-10 |
US8209253B2 (en) | 2012-06-26 |
US20050267824A1 (en) | 2005-12-01 |
US7689490B2 (en) | 2010-03-30 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US8209253B2 (en) | Matching resources of a securities research department to accounts of the department | |
US20190311436A1 (en) | System and method for generating and communicating a user interface to a user | |
US20190295167A1 (en) | System and method for estimating and optimizing transaction costs | |
US7243081B2 (en) | Method of determining optimal asset allocation utilizing asset cash flow simulation | |
US7509274B2 (en) | Internet-based system for identification, measurement and ranking of investment portfolio management, and operation of a fund supermarket, including “best investor” managed funds | |
US20020138383A1 (en) | Real life implementation of modern portfolio theory (MPT) for financial planning and portfolio management | |
US20020007332A1 (en) | Method and system for evaluation of potential funding sources for financial plans | |
US20140067650A1 (en) | Methods and systems for consumer lending | |
US20030093353A1 (en) | System and method for creating and maintaining investment portfolios | |
GB2306713A (en) | Determining optimal asset allocation by asset cash flow simulation | |
KR101993038B1 (en) | Stratified composite portfolios of investment securities | |
US20150095212A1 (en) | Financial data ranking system | |
AU2001257079B2 (en) | Internet-based system for identification, measurement and ranking of investment portfolio management, and operation of a fund supermarket, including "best investor" managed funds | |
US8392303B2 (en) | Method, system and program product for determining a value of an index | |
JP5137985B2 (en) | A computer-based system for determining the department's costs for servicing clients in the securities research department and for other purposes | |
US20180189875A1 (en) | Electronic calculator for real time optimisation, searching, and extrapolating multiple scenarios of post-retirement cash flow with intertemporal settings, and system and method thereof | |
Greene | Trading costs on United States exchanges: An empirical examination | |
Zech et al. | Adapting Credit Risk Models to Agriculture | |
Marose | Multicriteria Strategic Planning for the Mutual Life Insurance Company | |
Zech et al. | Agricultural Finance Markets in Transition: Adapting Credit Risk Models to Agriculture |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: MORGAN STANLEY, NEW YORK Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:HUREWITZ, BARRY SCOTT;REEL/FRAME:028430/0215 Effective date: 20040816 |
|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN OFFICE ACTION |