Summary of Significant Accounting Policies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES	3. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES *A. Adoption of New Accounting Standards* In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-03, Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements (“ASU 2011-03”), which revises the criteria for assessing effective control for repurchase agreements and other agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. The determination of whether the transfer of a financial asset subject to a repurchase agreement is a sale is based, in part, on whether the entity maintains effective control over the financial asset. ASU 2011-03 removes from the assessment of effective control: the criterion requiring the transferor to have the ability to repurchase or redeem the financial asset on substantially agreed terms, even in the event of default by the transferee, and the related requirement to demonstrate that the transferor possesses adequate control to fund substantially all the cost of purchasing replacement financial assets. The amendments in ASU 2011-03 will be effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning on or after December 15, 2011, early adoption is prohibited, and the amendments will be applied prospectively to transactions or modifications of existing transactions that occur on or after the effective date. The Company’s adoption of the provisions of ASU 2011-03 effective January 1, 2012 did not have an effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs (“ASU 2011-04”), which amends FASB Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820, Fair Value Measurements. The amended guidance changes the wording used to describe many requirements in U.S. GAAP for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. Additional disclosure requirements include transfers between levels 1 and 2; and for level 3 fair value measurements, a description of the Company’s valuation processes and additional information about unobservable inputs impacting level 3 measurements. Additionally, the amendments clarify the FASB’s intent about the application of existing fair value measurement requirements. The amendments result in a consistent definition of fair value and common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. The guidance provided in ASU 2011-04 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011 and is applied prospectively. The Company’s adoption of the provisions of ASU 2011-04 effective January 1, 2012 did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations. In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220), Presentation of Comprehensive Income, (“ASU 2011-05”) which requires companies to present the components of net income and other comprehensive income either as one continuous statement or as two consecutive statements. ASU 2011-05 eliminates the option to present components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity. The standard does not change the items that must be reported in other comprehensive income, how such items are measured or when they must be reclassified to net income. ASU 2011-05 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-12, Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05 (“ASU 2011-12”). ASU 2011-12 defers the requirement that companies present reclassification adjustments and the effect of those reclassification adjustments for each component of accumulated other comprehensive income in both net income and other comprehensive income on the face of the financial statements. The effective dates for ASU 2011-12 are consistent with the effective dates for ASU 2011-05. Effective January 1, 2012, the Company adopted the provisions of ASU 2011-05 and ASU 2011-12, which resulted in the Company presenting the components of comprehensive income (loss) within the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss). The Company’s adoption of the new guidance did not have an effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08, Intangibles - Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Testing Goodwill for Impairment (“ASU 2011-08”), which permits companies to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is “more likely than not” that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment test described in Topic 350, Intangibles-Goodwill and Other. The more likely than not threshold is defined as having a likelihood of more than 50%. Under this option, a company would no longer be required to calculate the fair value of the reporting unit unless the company determines, based on that qualitative assessment, that it is more likely than not that its fair value is less than its carrying amount. A company has the option to bypass the qualitative assessment for any reporting unit in any period and proceed directly to performing the first step of the two-step goodwill impairment tests. A company may resume performing the qualitative assessment in any subsequent period. The guidance also includes examples of the types of events and circumstances to consider in conducting the qualitative assessment. These examples of events and circumstances supersede (1) the previous examples included in Topic 350 of event and circumstances that a company should consider when testing goodwill for impairment between annual tests and (2) the previous examples of events and circumstances that a company having a reporting unit with a zero or negative carrying amount should consider in determining whether to perform the second step of the impairment test, used to measure the amount of the loss, if any. The guidance provided in ASU 2011-08 is effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company’s adoption of the provisions of ASU 2011-08 effective January 1, 2012 did not have an effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. *B. Fair Value of Financial Instruments* The following methods and assumptions were used by the Company in estimating the fair value of its financial instruments. These determinations were based on available market information and appropriate valuation methodologies. Considerable judgment is required to interpret market data to develop the estimates and, therefore, these estimates may not necessarily be indicative of the amount the Company could realize in a current market exchange. The use of different market assumptions and/or estimation methodologies may have a material effect on the estimated fair value amounts. Refer to note 6 for a discussion of the fair value hierarchy with respect to investments-trading, other investments, at fair value and the derivatives held by the Company. Cash and cash equivalents: Cash is carried at historical cost which is assumed to approximate fair value. The estimated fair value measurements of cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash are generally classified within level 1 of the valuation hierarchy. Investments-trading: These amounts are carried at fair value. The fair value is based on either quoted market prices of an active exchange, independent broker market quotations, market price quotations from third party pricing services, or valuation models when quotations are not available. See note 6 for disclosures about the categorization of the fair value measurements of investments-trading within the three level fair value hierarchy. Other investments, at fair value: These amounts are carried at fair value. The fair value is based on quoted market prices of an active exchange, independent broker market quotations, or valuation models when quotations are not available. In the case of investments in alternative investment funds, fair value is generally based on the reported net asset value of the underlying fund. See note 6 for disclosures concerning the categorization of the fair value measurements of other investments, at fair value within the three level fair value hierarchy. Receivables under resale agreements: Receivables under resale agreements are carried at their contracted resale price, have short-term maturities, and are repriced frequently or bear market interest rates and, accordingly, these contracts are at amounts that approximate fair value. The estimated fair value measurements of receivables under resale agreements are based on observations of actual market activity and are generally classified within level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Trading securities sold, not yet purchased: These amounts are carried at fair value. The fair value is based on quoted market prices of an active exchange, independent market quotations, market price quotations from third party pricing services, or valuation models when quotations are not available. See note 6 for disclosures concerning the categorization of the fair value measurements of trading securities sold, not yet purchased within the three level fair value hierarchy. Securities sold under agreement to repurchase: The liability for securities sold under agreement to repurchase are carried at their contracted repurchase price, have short-term maturities and are repriced frequently with amounts normally due in one month or less and, accordingly, these contracts are at amounts that approximate fair value. The estimated fair value measurements of securities sold under agreement to repurchase are based on observations of actual market activity and are generally classified within level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Debt: These amounts are carried at outstanding principal less unamortized discount. However, a substantial portion of the debt was assumed in the Merger and recorded at fair value as of that date. As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the fair value of the Company’s debt was estimated to be $32.7 million and $43.5 million, respectively. The estimated fair value measurements of the debt are generally based on discounted cash flow models prepared by the Company’s management primarily using discount rates for similar instruments issued to companies with similar credit risks to the Company and are generally classified within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Derivatives: These amounts are carried at fair value. Derivatives may be included as a component of investments-trading, trading securities sold, not yet purchased, and other investments, at fair value. See notes 6 and 7. The fair value is generally based on quoted market prices on an exchange that is deemed to be active for derivative instruments such as foreign currency forward contracts and EuroDollar futures. For derivative instruments, such as “to-be-announced” securities (“TBAs”), the fair value is generally based on market price quotations from third party pricing services. See note 6 for disclosures concerning the categorization of the fair value measurements within the three level fair value hierarchy. *C. Recent Accounting Developments* In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11, Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities (“ASU 2011-11”), which requires companies to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of financial statements to understand the effect of those arrangements on a company’s financial position. The amendments require enhanced disclosures by requiring improved information about financial statements and derivative instruments that are either (1) offset in accordance with current literature, or (2) subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement, irrespective of whether they are offset in accordance with current literature. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. The disclosures required by ASU 2011-11 will be applied retrospectively for all comparative periods presented. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of ASU 2011-11 on its disclosures about offsetting assets and liabilities.

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

3. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

A. Adoption of New Accounting Standards

In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-03, Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements (“ASU 2011-03”), which revises the criteria for assessing effective control for repurchase agreements and other agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. The determination of whether the transfer of a financial asset subject to a repurchase agreement is a sale is based, in part, on whether the entity maintains effective control over the financial asset. ASU 2011-03 removes from the assessment of effective control: the criterion requiring the transferor to have the ability to repurchase or redeem the financial asset on substantially agreed terms, even in the event of default by the transferee, and the related requirement to demonstrate that the transferor possesses adequate control to fund substantially all the cost of purchasing replacement financial assets. The amendments in ASU 2011-03 will be effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning on or after December 15, 2011, early adoption is prohibited, and the amendments will be applied prospectively to transactions or modifications of existing transactions that occur on or after the effective date. The Company’s adoption of the provisions of ASU 2011-03 effective January 1, 2012 did not have an effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs (“ASU 2011-04”), which amends FASB Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820, Fair Value Measurements. The amended guidance changes the wording used to describe many requirements in U.S. GAAP for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. Additional disclosure requirements include transfers between levels 1 and 2; and for level 3 fair value measurements, a description of the Company’s valuation processes and additional information about unobservable inputs impacting level 3 measurements. Additionally, the amendments clarify the FASB’s intent about the application of existing fair value measurement requirements. The amendments result in a consistent definition of fair value and common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. The guidance provided in ASU 2011-04 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011 and is applied prospectively. The Company’s adoption of the provisions of ASU 2011-04 effective January 1, 2012 did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220), Presentation of Comprehensive Income, (“ASU 2011-05”) which requires companies to present the components of net income and other comprehensive income either as one continuous statement or as two consecutive statements. ASU 2011-05 eliminates the option to present components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity. The standard does not change the items that must be reported in other comprehensive income, how such items are measured or when they must be reclassified to net income. ASU 2011-05 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-12, Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05 (“ASU 2011-12”). ASU 2011-12 defers the requirement that companies present reclassification adjustments and the effect of those reclassification adjustments for each component of accumulated other comprehensive income in both net income and other comprehensive income on the face of the financial statements. The effective dates for ASU 2011-12 are consistent with the effective dates for ASU 2011-05. Effective January 1, 2012, the Company adopted the provisions of ASU 2011-05 and ASU 2011-12, which resulted in the Company presenting the components of comprehensive income (loss) within the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss). The Company’s adoption of the new guidance did not have an effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08, Intangibles - Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Testing Goodwill for Impairment (“ASU 2011-08”), which permits companies to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is “more likely than not” that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment test described in Topic 350, Intangibles-Goodwill and Other. The more likely than not threshold is defined as having a likelihood of more than 50%. Under this option, a company would no longer be required to calculate the fair value of the reporting unit unless the company determines, based on that qualitative assessment, that it is more likely than not that its fair value is less than its carrying amount. A company has the option to bypass the qualitative assessment for any reporting unit in any period and proceed directly to performing the first step of the two-step goodwill impairment tests. A company may resume performing the qualitative assessment in any subsequent period. The guidance also includes examples of the types of events and circumstances to consider in conducting the qualitative assessment. These examples of events and circumstances supersede (1) the previous examples included in Topic 350 of event and circumstances that a company should consider when testing goodwill for impairment between annual tests and (2) the previous examples of events and circumstances that a company having a reporting unit with a zero or negative carrying amount should consider in determining whether to perform the second step of the impairment test, used to measure the amount of the loss, if any. The guidance provided in ASU 2011-08 is effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company’s adoption of the provisions of ASU 2011-08 effective January 1, 2012 did not have an effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

B. Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The following methods and assumptions were used by the Company in estimating the fair value of its financial instruments. These determinations were based on available market information and appropriate valuation methodologies. Considerable judgment is required to interpret market data to develop the estimates and, therefore, these estimates may not necessarily be indicative of the amount the Company could realize in a current market exchange. The use of different market assumptions and/or estimation methodologies may have a material effect on the estimated fair value amounts. Refer to note 6 for a discussion of the fair value hierarchy with respect to investments-trading, other investments, at fair value and the derivatives held by the Company.

Cash and cash equivalents: Cash is carried at historical cost which is assumed to approximate fair value. The estimated fair value measurements of cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash are generally classified within level 1 of the valuation hierarchy.

Investments-trading: These amounts are carried at fair value. The fair value is based on either quoted market prices of an active exchange, independent broker market quotations, market price quotations from third party pricing services, or valuation models when quotations are not available. See note 6 for disclosures about the categorization of the fair value measurements of investments-trading within the three level fair value hierarchy.

Other investments, at fair value: These amounts are carried at fair value. The fair value is based on quoted market prices of an active exchange, independent broker market quotations, or valuation models when quotations are not available. In the case of investments in alternative investment funds, fair value is generally based on the reported net asset value of the underlying fund. See note 6 for disclosures concerning the categorization of the fair value measurements of other investments, at fair value within the three level fair value hierarchy.

Receivables under resale agreements: Receivables under resale agreements are carried at their contracted resale price, have short-term maturities, and are repriced frequently or bear market interest rates and, accordingly, these contracts are at amounts that approximate fair value. The estimated fair value measurements of receivables under resale agreements are based on observations of actual market activity and are generally classified within level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Trading securities sold, not yet purchased: These amounts are carried at fair value. The fair value is based on quoted market prices of an active exchange, independent market quotations, market price quotations from third party pricing services, or valuation models when quotations are not available. See note 6 for disclosures concerning the categorization of the fair value measurements of trading securities sold, not yet purchased within the three level fair value hierarchy.

Securities sold under agreement to repurchase: The liability for securities sold under agreement to repurchase are carried at their contracted repurchase price, have short-term maturities and are repriced frequently with amounts normally due in one month or less and, accordingly, these contracts are at amounts that approximate fair value. The estimated fair value measurements of securities sold under agreement to repurchase are based on observations of actual market activity and are generally classified within level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Debt: These amounts are carried at outstanding principal less unamortized discount. However, a substantial portion of the debt was assumed in the Merger and recorded at fair value as of that date. As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the fair value of the Company’s debt was estimated to be $32.7 million and $43.5 million, respectively. The estimated fair value measurements of the debt are generally based on discounted cash flow models prepared by the Company’s management primarily using discount rates for similar instruments issued to companies with similar credit risks to the Company and are generally classified within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

Derivatives: These amounts are carried at fair value. Derivatives may be included as a component of investments-trading, trading securities sold, not yet purchased, and other investments, at fair value. See notes 6 and 7. The fair value is generally based on quoted market prices on an exchange that is deemed to be active for derivative instruments such as foreign currency forward contracts and EuroDollar futures. For derivative instruments, such as “to-be-announced” securities (“TBAs”), the fair value is generally based on market price quotations from third party pricing services. See note 6 for disclosures concerning the categorization of the fair value measurements within the three level fair value hierarchy.

C. Recent Accounting Developments

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11, Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities (“ASU 2011-11”), which requires companies to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of financial statements to understand the effect of those arrangements on a company’s financial position. The amendments require enhanced disclosures by requiring improved information about financial statements and derivative instruments that are either (1) offset in accordance with current literature, or (2) subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement, irrespective of whether they are offset in accordance with current literature. ASU 2011-11 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. The disclosures required by ASU 2011-11 will be applied retrospectively for all comparative periods presented. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of ASU 2011-11 on its disclosures about offsetting assets and liabilities.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for all significant accounting policies of the reporting entity.

+ References+ Details