BGC Group, Inc. - Annual Report: 2011 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

FOR ANNUAL AND TRANSITION REPORTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

OR

For the transition period from                    to                    

Commission File Number 0-28191

BGC Partners, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

(212) 610-2200

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

(Title of Class)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

The aggregate market value of voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based upon the closing price of the Class A common stock on June 30, 2011 as reported on NASDAQ, was approximately $610,190,168.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

Table of Contents

BGC Partners, Inc.

2011 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE ON FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Form 10-K”) contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such statements are based upon current expectations that involve risks and uncertainties. Any statements contained herein that are not statements of historical fact may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. For example, words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue,” “strategy,” “believes,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “expects,” “intends” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements.

Our actual results and the outcome and timing of certain events may differ significantly from the expectations discussed in the forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause or contribute to such a discrepancy include, but are not limited to:

3

Table of Contents

The foregoing risks and uncertainties, as well as those risks discussed under the headings “Item 1A—Risk Factors,” “Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Item 7A—Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Risk” and elsewhere in this Form 10-K, may cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. The information included herein is given as of the filing date of this Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and future events or circumstances could differ significantly from these forward-looking statements. The Company does not undertake to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

4

Table of Contents

WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION

Our Internet website address is www.bgcpartners.com. Through our Internet website, we make available, free of charge, the following reports as soon as reasonably practicable after electronically filing them with, or furnishing them to, the SEC: our annual reports on Form 10-K; our proxy statements for our annual and special stockholder meetings; our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q; our current reports on Form 8-K; Forms 3, 4 and 5 and Schedules 13D and 13G filed on behalf of Cantor, our directors and our executive officers; and amendments to those reports. In addition, our Internet website address is the primary location for press releases regarding our business, including our quarterly and year-end financial results.

5

Table of Contents

PART I

Throughout this document BGC Partners, Inc. is referred to as “BGC” and, together with its subsidiaries, as the “Company,” “BGC Partners,” “we,” “us,” or “our.”

Our Business

We are a leading global brokerage company primarily servicing the wholesale financial markets, specializing in the brokering of a broad range of products, including fixed income securities, interest rate swaps, foreign exchange, equities, equity derivatives, credit derivatives, commercial real estate, property derivatives, commodities, futures and structured products. BGC Partners also provides a full range of services, including trade execution, broker-dealer services, clearing, processing, information, property and facilities management, and other back-office services to a broad range of financial and non-financial institutions. The Company’s integrated platform is designed to provide flexibility to customers with regard to price discovery, execution and processing of transactions, and enables them to use voice, hybrid, or in many markets, fully electronic brokerage services in connection with transactions executed either over the counter (“OTC”) or through an exchange.

Through its eSpeed, BGC Trader™ and BGC Market Data brands, BGC Partners offers financial technology solutions, market data, and analytics related to select financial instruments and markets. Through its Newmark Knight Frank brand, the Company offers commercial real estate tenants, owners, investors and developers a wide range of brokerage services as well as property and facilities management. The Company’s customers include many of the world’s largest banks, broker-dealers, investment banks, trading firms, hedge funds, governments, corporations, property owners, real estate developers and investment firms. BGC has offices in over 35 major markets, including New York and London, as well as in Atlanta, Beijing, Boston, Chicago, Copenhagen, Dubai, Hong Kong, Houston, Istanbul, Johannesburg, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Miami, Moscow, Nyon, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Washington, D.C. and Zurich. In addition, we have more than two dozen other offices.

As of December 31, 2011, we had 2,147 brokers and salespeople across more than 220 desks and products. In 2011, we processed approximately 27.3 million transactions, totaling approximately $194.1 trillion notional on our hybrid and fully electronic platforms.

Our History

Our voice brokerage business originates from one of the oldest and most established inter-dealer franchises in the financial intermediary industry. Cantor started our brokerage operations in 1972. In 1996, Cantor launched the eSpeed system, which revolutionized the way government bonds are traded in the inter-dealer market by providing a fully electronic trading marketplace. eSpeed, Inc. (“eSpeed”) completed an initial public offering in 1999 and began trading on NASDAQ, yet remained one of Cantor’s controlled subsidiaries. Following eSpeed’s initial public offering, Cantor continued to operate its inter-dealer voice brokerage business separately from eSpeed.

Prior to the events of September 11, 2001, our brokerage business was widely recognized as one of the leading full-service wholesale inter-dealer brokers in the world with a rich history of developing innovative technological and financial solutions. After September 11, 2001 and the loss of the majority of our U.S.-based employees, our voice brokerage business operated primarily in Europe.

In August 2004, Cantor announced the reorganization and separation of its inter-dealer voice brokerage business into a subsidiary called “BGC,” in honor of B. Gerald Cantor, a pioneer in screen brokerage services and fixed income market data products. Over the past several years, we have re-established our U.S. presence and

6

Table of Contents

have continued to expand our global presence through the acquisition and integration of established brokerage companies and the hiring of experienced brokers. Through these actions, we have been able to expand our presence in key markets and position our business for sustained growth. These acquisitions include:

Brokerage Industry Overview

Wholesale market participants and institutions, such as major banks, investment banks and broker-dealer firms, continue to look to marketplace firms that are able to meet the bulk of their outside trading needs in a broad range of products across geographies. These wholesale market participants continue to display a willingness to use the services of brokers who are able to provide timely and valuable pricing information, strong execution capabilities, strong service and the liquidity necessary for such market participants to execute their desired transactions.

7

Table of Contents

In the financial markets, derivatives are increasingly being used to manage risk or to take advantage of the anticipated direction of a market by allowing holders to guard against gains or declines in the price of underlying assets without having to buy or sell the underlying assets. Derivatives are often used to mitigate the risks associated with interest rate movements, equity ownership, changes in the value of foreign currency, credit defaults by large corporate and sovereign debtors and changes in the prices of commodity products. Demand from financial institutions, financial services intermediaries and large corporations has increased volumes in the wholesale derivatives market, thereby increasing the business opportunity for inter-dealer brokers such as BGC brokers who service these financial institutions.

The OTC markets have grown faster than exchange-traded markets over the past decade. According to the Bank for International Settlements (the “BIS”), the underlying OTC and exchange-traded derivative markets traditionally served by inter-dealer brokers have experienced compound annual growth rates, which we refer to as “CAGR,” of approximately 19% and 13%, respectively, based on notional amounts outstanding from December 31, 2001 through June 30, 2011.

The following figures come from the BIS: As of June 30, 2011, the notional amount outstanding for all OTC derivatives was $708 trillion, up 601% from $101 trillion in December 2001 and up 21% year over year. The notional amount outstanding for all exchange traded derivatives was $83 trillion on June 30, 2011, up 246% from $24 trillion on December 31, 2001 and up 9% year over year. The notional amount outstanding for all domestic and international debt securities was approximately $100 trillion on June 30, 2011, up over 170% from approximately $37 trillion on December 31, 2001.

In “liquid” financial markets, the presence of a large number of market participants and facilitators of liquidity and the availability of pricing reference data and standardized terms allow market participants to trade financial instruments quickly and with minimal price disturbance. In these markets, there is substantial competition, efficient execution and high trading volume. While most of the liquid markets are found on listed exchanges, several liquid products continue to be traded OTC, including U.S. Treasuries and spot foreign exchange. Often, the primary liquidity provider for such OTC markets is an inter-dealer broker.

To the extent the trading of a financial instrument requires customization, the relevant market tends to be more illiquid. Illiquid markets generally have fewer market participants, less price transparency, higher spreads and lower trading volumes. Complex financial instruments that are traded OTC tend to be illiquid and are traded primarily by more sophisticated buyers and sellers. In financial markets, brokers facilitate trading in less liquid markets by providing price discovery, preserving anonymity in matched principal trades, matching buyers and sellers on a name give-up basis in agency transactions and providing market intelligence to their customers. “Name give-up” transactions refer to those transactions where the inter-dealer broker acts as an agent and the identity of the two counterparties is disclosed once the trade is completed as opposed to “matched principal” trades where anonymity is preserved even after the transaction is completed. In a “matched principal transaction” BGC Partners agrees to simultaneously buy securities or derivatives from one client and to sell them to another client. In both agency and matched principal transactions, customers decide to execute a trade and inter-dealer brokers effectively source the counterparties for those trades. Inter-dealer brokers are particularly helpful in facilitating large or non-standardized transactions due to their in-depth market knowledge and access to potential counterparties.

An illiquid market for a financial instrument may evolve over a period of time into a more liquid one, creating new market opportunities for all participants; however, the evolution of a relatively illiquid market for a financial instrument to a more liquid market is not necessarily inevitable. If a market for a particular financial instrument develops and matures, more buyers and sellers may enter the market, resulting in more transactions (greater liquidity) and increased pricing information. As the market for an illiquid financial instrument evolves into a more liquid market, the characteristics of trading, the preferred mode of execution and the size of commissions that market participants pay and, more specifically, inter-dealer brokers charge, may change. In some instances, pure voice execution may be replaced by “hybrid” execution services. Hybrid models satisfy customer preferences to trade on a voice, hybrid, or, where available, fully electronic basis.

8

Table of Contents

For more liquid OTC markets, such as certain U.S. Treasury, cash foreign exchange, and credit derivative index products, electronic marketplaces have emerged as the primary means of conducting transactions and creating markets. In an electronic marketplace, substantially all of the participants’ actions are facilitated through an electronic medium, such as a private electronic network, or over the Internet, which reduces the need for actual face-to-face or voice-to-voice participant interaction to those functions where people provide the greatest value. For many market participants, the establishment of electronic marketplaces has created access to new opportunities while increasing trading profits, investment returns and market volumes, all while making possible the creation of new financial products and strategies that have further contributed to increased market volumes. These increased trading volumes have in turn driven increased demand for newer, ever-more sophisticated financial technology products.

Most large exchanges worldwide, including most exchanges in the U.S., France, Canada, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K., are now partially or completely electronic. Additionally, even in markets for less commoditized products where customers place orders through a voice-broker who implements a transaction electronically, the customers of inter-dealer brokers may benefit from liquidity, pricing, robust interactive trading, post-trade processing and other technology services. Further, we believe that market participants will seek to outsource customized solutions for the electronic distribution of their products to avoid the difficulty and cost of developing and maintaining their own electronic solutions, and to improve the quality and reliability of these solutions.

While some products may evolve from illiquid markets to liquid markets, new products are continually being developed. Historically, as markets evolve and participants look to separate or isolate risks, certain products will tend to exhibit correlations and pricing relationships leading to the development of new derivative products.

The chart below presents the growth of certain OTC and exchange-traded markets from December 31, 2001 to June 30, 2011.

Notes and Sources for the above chart: The BIS for global debt and all derivatives except for CDS. For CDS, the source is the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA). For US Federal Government and Corporate debt, the source is The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA). For global and domestic debt, International issues comprise all foreign currency issues by residents and non-residents of a given country as well as domestic currency issues launched by non-residents. Additionally, domestic securities specifically targeted to international investors are also considered as international issues in the BIS statistics. Domestic debt securities are defined as those that have been issued by residents in domestic currency and targeted at resident investors.

9

Table of Contents

Over the last decade, most of the above market categories have experienced double-digit growth. Although many of these markets had lower or negative growth following the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing global financial crises, we believe that much of this growth has been, and in many cases over the long term will continue to be, driven by the following trends:

10

Table of Contents

Finally, over the course of 2010 and 2011, regulators and legislators in the U.S. and E.U. worked to create new laws and regulations for the global OTC derivatives markets, including, most recently, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The new rules and proposals for rules have mainly called for additional transparency, position limits and collateral or capital requirements, as well as for central clearing of most standardized derivatives. We believe that uncertainty around the final form such new rules might take may have negatively impacted trading volumes in certain markets in which we broker. We believe that it is too early to comment on specific aspects of the U.S. legislation as rules are still being created, and much too early to comment on laws not yet passed in Europe. However, we generally believe the net impact of the rules and regulations will be positive for our business.

We also provide brokerage services to customers in the commercial real estate industry since our October 14, 2011 acquisition of the outstanding shares of Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc., a leading U.S. commercial real estate brokerage and advisory firm serving corporate and institutional clients, plus a controlling interest in its affiliated companies, encompassing approximately 425 brokers. Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc. operates as Newmark Knight Frank in the United States and is associated with London-based Knight Frank. Headquartered in New York, Newmark Knight Frank has offices in several key U.S. markets. For brokers in this industry, we believe the key drivers of revenue growth include: the overall health of the U.S. economy, which drives demand for various types of commercial leases and purchases; the institutional ownership of commercial real estate as an investible asset class; and the ability to attract and retain talent to our real estate brokerage.

Following the financial crises of 2007 and 2008, the U.S. commercial property market generally saw steep declines in activity in 2009. In 2010, the market began to come back to life, and by the end of 2011 there were signs that the recovery was continuing, although still not to levels seen prior to the crises. For example, according to Newmark Knight Frank Research and CoStar (an independent commercial real estate information and analytics provider), the overall U.S. office real estate market grew in the fourth quarter of 2011. The national average asking rent increased to $28.05 per square foot, up from $27.85 in the third quarter of 2011 and $27.31 reported in the fourth quarter of 2010. The national vacancy rate was 16.2% in the fourth quarter of 2011, an improvement on 16.5% in the third quarter and 16.8% one year ago.

There were 9.8 million square feet of net absorption nationally in the fourth quarter of 2011, marking the seventh consecutive quarter with positive absorption and bringing the year-end net total to 26.0 million square feet, compared to 14.6 million square feet in 2010. Leasing activity in 2011 totaled 238.0 million square feet, compared to 285.5 million square feet in 2010.

There were 1.7 million square feet of new office space delivered to the market in 2011, lower than the 2.8 million-square-foot total reported in 2010 and well off the pre-recession peak of 19.1 million square feet reported in the first quarter of 2008. At the end of the fourth quarter, 16.8 million square feet of new office space remained under construction, compared to 15.2 square feet at the end of 2010.

The U.S. industrial real estate market also continued its recovery in the fourth quarter of 2011. There were 25.7 million square feet of net absorption in the quarter, which marked the sixth consecutive quarter with positive absorption. The year-end net absorption total for 2011 finished at 62.7 million square feet, an encouraging showing following the negative 9.3 million square feet of absorption in 2010 and negative 107.8 million square feet in 2009.

The average asking rent finished the fourth quarter at $4.90 per square foot, up from the $4.87 average reported in the third quarter of 2011 and in the fourth quarter of 2010. The national vacancy rate finished at 12.1%, an improvement on 12.5% in the third quarter of 2011 and 13.2% in the fourth quarter of 2010. Leasing activity totaled 294.5 million square feet in 2011 compared to 428.1 million square feet leased in 2010.

11

Table of Contents

Nationally, 17.1 million square feet of new industrial space were delivered to the market in 2011, more than the 15.9 million square feet delivered in 2010, although less than the 52.4 million square feet delivered in 2009. At the end of the year, 13.4 million square feet of industrial space were under construction nationally, compared to the 2010 year-end total of 15.5 million square feet.

Management Services

Through our Newmark acquisition, we also provide commercial property management services to tenants and landlords in several key U.S. markets. In this business, we provide property and facilities management services to customers who utilize our commercial real estate brokerage services and other property owners. Unlike brokerage, this is a fee-based business, but revenue growth drivers are similar to real estate brokerage. Key drivers of revenue growth in this business include the overall health of the U.S. economy, the outsourcing of commercial real estate services by property owners and occupiers and the ability to attract and retain talented property managers and service providers.

Our Market Opportunity

We believe the markets in which we operate present us with the following opportunities:

Increasing Use of Hedging and Risk Management. Our brokers work with market participants to hedge risks associated with interest rate movements, price movements of markets, equity ownership, fluctuations in the value of foreign currency, credit defaults by large corporate and sovereign debtors and volatility in the real estate and commodity markets. These hedging activities account for a growing proportion of the daily trading volume in derivative products. We believe that broadening familiarity with derivative products and the growing need for hedging and risk management will continue to drive higher trading volumes in products we broker including interest rate derivatives, credit derivatives, foreign exchange, listed futures products and commercial real estate.

Introduction of New Products. As market participants and their customers strive to mitigate risk, new types of securities and derivatives are introduced which are not immediately ready for more liquid and standardized electronic markets. As these require broker-assisted execution, we believe that these new products provide opportunities for our brokers to expand their trading volumes and create product niches. We believe that these products generally have higher commissions than more liquid instruments.

Growth in Algorithmic and Computerized Trading. In recent years, and in certain listed and OTC markets, computerized trading has seen tremendous growth spurred by increasing liquidity and lower operating costs. As our financial services customers increase their use of computerized trading, and as fully electronic trading becomes widespread in more asset classes, volumes should rise on our electronic platforms.

Market Demand for Global Service and Presence. We believe that the continuing globalization of trading and the liberalization of capital markets are propelling growth in trading volumes in products across the globe. In addition, we believe that economic growth in emerging markets such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China is fueling demand for inter-dealer brokered currency and fixed income and commodity hedging for customers across the globe. These factors and others are driving the demand for brokerage services in new markets. We also believe our presence in multiple financial centers across the globe positions us to capitalize on such demand. We also believe our recent expansion into Russia, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, and China further enhances our global market positions and that we have also added a strong national presence in commercial real estate brokerage with the acquisition of Newmark.

Market Demand for Superior Transaction Services and Execution. Our brokers act as important price discovery agents and valuable liquidity providers in both liquid and illiquid markets. The presence of a broker provides customers with market intelligence and aids in the execution process. The flow of information our brokers provide to market participants is critical, enhancing liquidity and resulting in improved prices.

12

Table of Contents

Furthermore, in financial markets, the combination of hybrid execution with straight-through processing has significantly improved confirmation and settlement processes and has resulted in cost savings for customers. Hence, we expect to see continued demand in the wholesale financial markets and commercial real estate markets for brokers due to their ability to provide price discovery, liquidity, improved transaction services, superior execution and strong customer service.

Desire for Anonymity. Leading financial market participants frequently seek to trade anonymously to reduce market impacts. We expect to see an increasing demand for inter-dealer brokers to provide trade anonymity.

Increasing Demand for Market Data. Demand for reliable, real-time market data is growing as new financial products are introduced and trading volumes increase.

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe that the following principal competitive strengths will help us enhance our position as a leading global broker:

We are a Leading Broker with Specific Strengths in Key Markets. We have displayed leadership in a multitude of markets globally, including the markets for interest rate-related products, foreign exchange and credit products, both U.S. and foreign treasury and bond products, real estate, and equities. The Company has been recognized within the industry for our strong presence in all of these products and has been recognized in global and local financial publications both in the U.S. and in our foreign markets. We believe the leadership, position that we have in our markets and our access to our broad customer base help us to locate the best price and to deliver the best execution for our customers.

We Have Strong Core Relationships. We believe that our long-standing relationships with some of the world’s largest financial institutions and other clients enhance our role as a service and liquidity provider. These relationships provide access to significant pools of liquidity, which is a key component of attracting new customers and enhancing our role as a provider of liquidity, price discovery, efficient execution and strong transaction and customer service. These strong relationships also allow us to participate in growth opportunities as these institutions begin to use newer products for risk management and trading. In addition, we believe these relationships allow us to sell our current and new products to our customers and to cross-sell new products to existing customers.

We Have a Full Scale, Hybrid Brokerage Platform. For many of our financial products, our hybrid platform allows our customers to trade on a voice, hybrid, or fully electronic basis, regardless of whether the trade is OTC or exchange-based, and to benefit from the experience and market intelligence of our worldwide brokerage network.

We Have Proprietary Technology. Over the past decade, we have heavily invested in creating and maintaining our financial service infrastructure, technology, and innovations in multiple markets. We believe our technology gives us an advantage over our competitors, who more often depend on third party vendors to support their functionality. Our technology capabilities are closely aligned with our brokerage efforts and are focused on new and emerging screen-based market solutions to support our brokers. Finally, our technology, unlike that of many of our competitors, is generally designed and developed in-house, and is thus tailored to specifically suit the needs of our brokers and clients.

We Provide Quality Software, Market Data and Analytics Products. Our leading position and liquidity in brokerage markets allow us to provide our customers with high quality, market data and analytics products. In addition, our proprietary software leverages our global infrastructure, software and systems, portfolio of intellectual property and electronic trading expertise to provide customers with electronic marketplaces, exchanges and real-time auctions to enhance securities issuance and to customize trading interfaces. We also

13

Table of Contents

provide commercial real estate research, data and consulting services. Our ability to offer these products not only helps support our leadership position in several key markets but also provides us with a stable source of non-brokerage revenues.

We Provide Management Services. Through our October 2011 Newmark acquisition, we acquired the ability to provide commercial property management services to tenants and landlords in several key U.S. markets. We believe that this offers a strong opportunity to provide property and facilities management services to customers who utilize our commercial real estate brokerage services and other property owners as well as to our financial brokerage clients. Unlike brokerage, this is a fee-based business, but revenue growth drivers are similar to real estate brokerage.

We Have Demonstrated the Ability to Identify, Recruit and Retain Key Talent. In October 2004, when Cantor began the restructuring of its inter-dealer brokerage business, we employed approximately 500 brokers and salespeople. As of December 31, 2011, we had 2,147 brokers and sales people across over 220 desks, including our commercial real estate business. In a competitive environment, we have demonstrated our ability to successfully develop, attract and retain leading brokers, including through acquisitions of new businesses, in order to expand and enhance our brokerage staff. We believe that our ability to attract talent across the globe will enable us to grow our business and provide our customers with trading execution that is superior to that provided by many of our competitors.

Our Partnership Structure Creates Long-Term Incentives. Our partnership structure is one of the unique strengths of our business. We believe that it provides long-term incentives and is an effective tool in recruiting, motivating and retaining our key employees. We believe that the ability to participate in the ongoing success of the enterprise acts as a strong motivator for brokers to perform and aligns their interests with stockholders.

We Have a Proven Acquisition Track Record. In October 2011, we acquired all of the outstanding shares of Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc. In August 2010, we acquired the key assets of Mint Partners and Mint Equities. In June 2009, we completed the acquisition of Liquidez. In August 2007, we acquired the emerging markets equities derivatives business of Marex Financial. In December 2006, we acquired AS Menkul, an established broker in Turkey, and, in November 2006, we acquired Aurel Leven, an independent inter-dealer broker in France, active in the equities, equity derivatives and fixed income markets. Finally, in 2005, we acquired Euro Brokers and ETC Pollak, and have integrated these established brokerage companies into our business. These acquisitions allowed us to expand our broker headcount, product offerings, technology capabilities and geographic footprint. We believe that this ability to successfully identify, acquire and integrate high quality brokerage companies will provide us with the opportunity to strengthen and enhance our franchise and to continue the rebuilding of our U.S. business and expand in local markets around the world.

We Have Experienced Senior Management. We are led by a core senior management team, each of whom has many years of experience in the wholesale financial markets. Howard W. Lutnick, who serves as our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, guided the BGC Division, eSpeed, and Cantor through the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, and was instrumental in the initial public offering of eSpeed in 1999. Shaun Lynn, our President, and Sean Windeatt, our Chief Operating Officer, have presided over the addition of more than 1,700 net new brokers and salespeople and the expansion and growth of our business in the United States, Europe and Asia over the past seven years. Our executives are supported by a highly experienced and qualified team of managers. We believe that our experienced management team gives us a competitive advantage in executing our business strategy.

14

Table of Contents

Our Strategy

We seek to enhance our position as a leading global broker by increasing our market share in existing markets and expanding into new markets. We intend to achieve this goal by employing the following strategies:

Leading Positions in Targeted Traditional, Liquid Markets. We intend to strengthen our position as a leading provider of brokerage services, technology infrastructure and market data products in the markets in which we focus. We believe that in these selected markets, we have the scale to continue to be a top participant, and we believe underlying macro fundamentals allow additional room for growth.

Build and Develop Less Liquid Markets. We continue to build and expand in markets for selected emerging asset classes. We believe that our role as a top participant in certain underlying securities will be helpful in building liquidity in the higher growth, higher margin businesses associated with these underlying securities. We intend to leverage our position in traditional markets to build these new businesses.

Expand in Attractive Markets Where Local Presence and Expertise Are Required. We plan to continue to expand into new geographies and build local presence in those markets. We believe that having local presence and expertise in targeted markets will provide us with a competitive advantage over our competitors.

Leverage Existing Developed Infrastructure to Drive Margins. We have made substantial investments in brokers and technology in our targeted markets. We believe that the infrastructure in place is scalable, which provides us an opportunity for margin improvement as brokers increase production, as we increase brokerage headcount, and as marketplaces become increasingly electronic. Due to the relatively fixed cost nature of the back office functions and real estate-related expenses, each additional transaction we broker or sale we make should add incremental profit to our business.

Expand our Broker Workforce Through Acquisitions and Recruitment. Since October 2004, we have expanded our front office workforce by over 1,600 people. As of December 31, 2011, we had 2,147 brokers and salespeople. We have a proven track record of growing our global network of brokers through business acquisitions and recruiting efforts and believe we are well-positioned to continue to do so. We intend to continue to selectively acquire companies and hire experienced brokers and salespeople with the goal of further developing our market position in various products, accelerating our growth and enhancing our profitability.

Leverage our Proprietary Technology to Pursue New Products, Software Solutions, and Offerings. We believe that our ability to develop and build our own technology allows us to be at the forefront of new products and offerings. We also plan to capitalize on our global infrastructure, intellectual property and electronic trading expertise to provide a complete outsourced solution to customers to enable them to access electronic markets.

Further Develop and Expand our Market Data Services and Analytics Products. We intend to further develop our market data services and analytics products by integrating proprietary information generated by our brokerage business into new market data products designed to meet the needs of a greater number of customers. Sophisticated quantitative approaches to risk management as well as customer time sensitivity have created new needs, uses and demands for trading-related data and analytics. We intend to create new value-added services for customers to complement these products, including databases, analytical tools, financial and commercial real estate research and other services to assist end-users.

Leverage our Geographic Reach, Long-Term Client Relationships and Full Range of Products and Service Offerings in the Commercial Real Estate Industry. We plan to leverage our strong client relationships, national locations and single source for a full range of commercial real estate products and services to broaden our real estate services and expand our business. We also plan to leverage our relationships with financial services customers to enhance our commercial real estate brokerage and management services businesses.

15

Table of Contents

Overview of our Products and Services

Brokerage

We are focused on serving four principal brokerage markets:

We believe that the strong long-term growth prospects for these markets, combined with our continued addition of brokers in other markets where we are currently strengthening our position and building scale, provide us with significant opportunities to increase revenues. We also plan to expand into additional product categories and seek to grow our market share in illiquid markets. Due to the complexity of newer and illiquid markets, customers are generally willing to pay a brokerage commission for liquidity and for the ability of experienced brokerage professionals to provide market intelligence and create structuring solutions.

We provide electronic marketplaces in several financial markets through our eSpeed- and BGC Trader- branded trading platform. These electronic marketplaces include government bond markets, spot foreign exchange, foreign exchange options, corporate bonds, and credit default swaps. We believe that eSpeed/BGC Trader is a comprehensive trading platform providing volume, access, speed of execution and ease of use. Our trading platform establishes a direct link between our brokers and customers and occupies valuable real estate on traders’ desktop, which is difficult to replicate. We believe that we can leverage our platform to offer fully electronic trading as additional products transition from voice to electronic execution.

We have leveraged our hybrid platform to provide real-time product and pricing information through our BGC Trader application. We also provide straight-through processing to our customers for an increasing number of products. Our end-to-end solution includes real-time and auction-based transaction processing, credit and risk management tools and back-end processing and billing systems. Customers can access our trading application through our privately managed global high speed data network, over the internet, or third party communication networks.

In the commercial real estate business, we have leveraged our strong market knowledge, price and inventory knowledge, broad customer relationships and transaction and service techniques to generate brokerage commissions and secure repeat business.

Market Data

BGC Market Data is a supplier of real-time, tradable, indicative, end-of-day, and historical fixed income and derivatives data. Our product suite spans fixed income, foreign exchange, foreign exchange options, credit derivatives, and structured products. It is available via direct data feed and the Internet, and through vendors such as Bloomberg, Reuters, CQG, DTN, eSignal, and SunGard. Products include: US Treasuries, BGCantor G3, SwapSight, Interest Rate Swaps, SwapMarker, European Government Bonds, BGCantor Eye, US Treasury Historical Data, End of day Pricing, AutoSpeed 2.0, FX Options, and Credit Default Swaps. At Newmark, we also provide commercial real estate data.

Software Solutions

Through our Software Solutions business, we provide customized screen-based market solutions to both related and unrelated parties. Using Software Solutions, our clients are able to develop a marketplace, trade with their customers, issue debt, trade odd lots, access program trading interfaces and access our network and our

16

Table of Contents

intellectual property. We can add advanced functionality to enable our customers to distribute branded products to their customers through online offerings and auctions, including private and reverse auctions, via our trading platform and global network. Through our Kleos Managed Services business, we provide system co-location service to a number of financial firms which use our infrastructure to run their high velocity and algorithmic trading strategies through access to our markets.

We have signed Software Solutions agreements with a number of U.S. and international enterprises, including the following:

We also use our technology to offer services such as automated spreading through our eSpeed network front-end trading software.

Our Software Solutions business provides the software and technology infrastructure for the transactional and technology related elements of Freedom International Brokerage Company’s (“Freedom”) marketplace as well as certain other services in exchange for specified percentages of transaction revenues from the marketplace. It also provides software development, software maintenance, customer support, infrastructure, and internal technology services to support ELX’s electronic trading platform.

Aqua Business

In October 2007, we spun off our former eSpeed Equities Direct business to form Aqua, a business owned 51% by Cantor and 49% by us. Aqua’s purpose is to provide access to new block trading liquidity in the equities markets. The SEC has granted approval for Aqua to operate an Alternative Trading System in compliance with Regulation ATS.

Real Estate Brokerage

On October 14, 2011, we acquired all of the outstanding shares of Newmark, a leading U.S. commercial real estate brokerage and advisory firm serving corporate and institutional clients, plus a controlling interest in its affiliated companies, encompassing approximately 425 brokers. Newmark has agreements in place to operate on a collaborative and cross-referral basis with independently-owned partner offices in the Unites States and elsewhere in the Americas in return for a fee paid to us and/or certain mutually beneficial co-branding and other business arrangements. Newmark and these independently-owned partner offices generally operate as “Newmark Knight Frank” in the Americas, and are associated with London-based Knight Frank, which operates on a collaborative and cross-referral basis with us in all territories outside of the Americas. We do not hold any ownership stake in these independently-owned partner offices or in Knight Frank.

Headquartered in New York, Newmark Knight Frank has a number of other offices in nine states and the District of Columbia. Newmark Knight Frank offers a diverse range of brokerage services including:

17

Table of Contents

Management Services

Through Newmark, we have the ability to provide commercial property management services to tenants and landlords throughout the U.S. We offer a diverse range of management services to clients, many of whom also use our real estate brokerage services, including:

Newmark Knight Frank encompasses a wide range of property types and uses, including office, industrial and retail properties, data centers, call centers, urban towers, suburban campuses, landmark buildings and more. Facilities management services also include facility audits and reviews, energy management services, janitorial services, mechanical services, bill payment, maintenance project management, moves, ads and change management.

18

Table of Contents

The following table identifies some of the key products and services that we offer.

Certain categories of trades executed on our platform settle for clearing purposes against CF&Co., a BGC affiliate. CF&Co. is a member of FINRA (formerly NASD) and the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, a subsidiary of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. CF&Co., BGC, and other affiliates participate in U.S. Treasuries as well as other markets by posting quotations for their account and by acting as principal on trades with platform users. Such activity is intended, among other things, to assist CF&Co., BGC, and their affiliates in managing their proprietary positions (including, but not limited to, those established as a result of combination trades and errors), facilitating transactions, framing markets, adding liquidity, increasing commissions and attracting order flow.

19

Table of Contents

Customers

We primarily serve the wholesale inter-dealer market, including many of the world’s largest banks that regularly trade in capital markets, brokerage houses, investment firms, hedge funds, and investment banks. Customers using our eSpeed branded products also include professional trading firms, futures commission merchants and other professional market participants and financial institutions. Our BGCantor Market Data products and services are available through many platforms and are available to a wide variety of capital market participants including banks, investment banks, brokerage firms, asset managers, hedge funds, investment analysts and financial advisors. We also license our intellectual property portfolio and Software Solutions to various financial markets participants. In the commercial real estate brokerage and management services businesses, our customers include a full range of real estate owners, tenants, investors and lenders in the markets we serve.

For the year ended December 31, 2011, our top 10 customers, collectively, accounted for approximately 40.3% of our total revenue on a consolidated basis and our largest customer accounted for approximately 5.1% of our total revenue on a consolidated basis.

Sales and Marketing

Our brokers and salespeople are the primary marketing and sales resources to our customers. Thus, our sales and marketing program is aimed at enhancing the ability of our brokers to cross-sell effectively in addition to informing our customers about our product and service offerings. We also employ product teams and business development professionals. We leverage our customer relationships through a variety of direct marketing and sales initiatives and build and enhance our brand image through marketing and communications campaigns targeted at a diverse audience, including traders, potential partners and the investor and press communities. We may also market to our existing and prospective customers through a variety of co-marketing/co-branding initiatives with our partners.

Our brokerage product team is composed of product managers, who are each responsible for a specific part of our brokerage business. The product managers seek to ensure that our brokers, across all regions, have access to technical expertise, support and multiple execution methods in order to grow and market their business. This approach of combining marketing with our product strategy has enabled us to turn innovative ideas into deliverable hybrid solutions, such as “BGC Trader,” our multi-asset hybrid offering to our customers for voice and electronic execution.

Our team of business development professionals is responsible for growing our global footprint through raising awareness of our products and services. The business development team markets our products and services to new and existing customers. As part of this process, they analyze existing levels of business with these entities in order to identify potential areas of growth and also to cross-sell our multiple offerings.

Our eSpeed and BGCantor Market Data branded products and services are promoted to our existing and prospective customers through a combination of sales, marketing and co-marketing campaigns.

Technology

Pre-Trade Technology. Our brokers use a suite of pricing and analytical tools which have been developed both in-house and in cooperation with specialist software suppliers. The pre-trade software suite combines proprietary market data, pricing and calculation libraries, together with those outsourced from what we believe to be the best-of-breed providers in the sector. The tools in turn publish to a normalized, global market data distribution platform allowing prices and rates to be distributed to our proprietary network, data vendor pages, secure websites and trading applications as indicative pricing.

20

Table of Contents

Inter-Dealer Trading Technology. We utilize a sophisticated proprietary electronic trading platform to distribute prices to our customers. Price data are transmitted over our proprietary global private network and also by third-party providers of connectivity to the financial community. Prices are in turn displayed by our proprietary trading desktop application, BGC Trader. BGC Trader is our multi-asset BGC Partners-branded hybrid offering to our customers for voice and electronic execution. This product combines the benefits of our existing hybrid system with a new concept of creative, customer-focused and front-end design. The first asset groups to be incorporated under the BGC Trader banner were foreign exchange options, European corporate bonds, European CDS and iTraXX. We continue to expand the number of products it supports, including other tradable and view-only products in our portfolio. The majority of our global products are supported by this platform in a view only, hybrid/managed, or fully electronic mode. Trades executed by our customers in any mode are eligible for immediate electronic confirmation to straight-through processing hubs. Our proprietary graphical user interface is deployed on thousands of user desktops at hundreds of major banks and institutions.

Fully Electronic Trading Technology. Our eSpeed-branded fully electronic trading system is accessible to our customers through (1) our proprietary front-end trading software, (2) our proprietary application programming interface, which we refer to as “API,” a dedicated software library enabling customers to incorporate our platform directly into their own applications, (3) the Internet, via a browser interface or Java application and (4) software developed in collaboration with Independent Software Vendors and (5) Financial Information eXchange (“FIX”). Our system runs on large-scale hardware located in data centers in the U.S. and the U.K. and is distributed either over our multiple-path global network or via the Internet through links to multiple global Internet service providers.

Our eSpeed-branded electronic marketplaces operate on a technology platform and network that emphasizes scalability, performance, adaptability and reliability. Our technology platform consists of our proprietary, internally developed real-time global network distribution system; our proprietary transaction processing software, which includes interactive matching auction engines, fully integrated credit and risk management systems, pricing engines, analytics and associated middle and back-office operations systems; and customized inventory distribution and auction protocols designed to be used by our customers and partners in their distribution and trading systems and customer interfaces, including Windows, Java, Unix, Linux, our API and Independent Software Vendor access.

Together, these components enable our customers to effect transactions virtually instantaneously, with straight-through processing. Our trading system accepts orders and postings and distributes responses, generally in under 100 milliseconds.

Post-Trade Technology. Our platform automates previously paper and telephone-based transaction processing, confirmation and other functions, substantially improving and reducing the cost of many of our customers’ back offices and enabling straight-through processing. In addition to our own system, confirmation and trade processing is also available through third-party hubs including Swapswire, T-Zero, Reuters RTNS, Logicscope and direct straight-through processing in (FIX) for various banks.

We have electronic connections to most mainstream clearinghouses, including The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), CLS Group, Euroclear, Clearstream, Monte Titoli, LCH.Clearnet, Eurex Clearing, CME Clearing and the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC). As more products become centrally cleared, and as our customers request that we use a particular venue, we expect to expand the number of clearinghouses to which we connect in the near future.

Systems Architecture. Our systems are implemented as a multi-tier hub and spoke architecture comprised of several components, which provide matching, credit management, market data distribution, position reporting, customer display and customer integration. The private network currently operates from four concurrent data centers (two of which are in London, one of which is in Rochelle Park, New Jersey and one of which is in Trumbull, Connecticut) and 12 hub cities throughout the world acting as distribution points for all private

21

Table of Contents

network customers. eSpeed network hubs beyond the core data centers are in Amsterdam, Brussels, Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Madrid, Milan, Paris, Singapore, Tokyo, Toronto, and Zurich. The redundant structure of our system provides multiple backup paths and re-routing of data transmission if one spoke of a hub fails.

In addition to our own network system, we also receive and distribute secure trading information from customers using the services of multiple, major Internet service providers throughout the world. These connections enable us to offer our products and services via the Internet to our global customers.

Software Development

We devote substantial efforts to the development and improvement of our hybrid and electronic marketplaces and licensed software products and services. We work with our customers to identify their specific requirements and make modifications to our software, network distribution systems and technologies that are responsive to those needs. Our efforts focus on internal development, strategic partnering, acquisitions and licensing. As of December 31, 2011, we employed approximately 470 technology professionals.

Our Intellectual Property

We have adopted a comprehensive intellectual property program to protect our proprietary technology. We currently have licenses covering various Cantor patents in the United States, including patents relating to (1) a system and method for auction-based trading of specialized items such as fixed income instruments and (2) a fixed income portfolio index processor. Foreign counterpart applications for some of these U.S. patents have been filed.

We also have agreements to license technology covered by several pending U.S. patent applications relating to various other aspects of electronic trading systems, including both functional and design aspects. We have filed a number of patent applications to further protect our proprietary technology and innovations, and have received patents for some of those applications.

In July 2004, we entered into an agreement with NYBOT, expiring in 2017, which provided among other things for payments from NYBOT in respect of NYBOT’s electronic futures trading through 2017. As a result of the agreement with NYBOT, we are the sole owner of the Cantor Financial Futures Exchange and the Commodity Futures Clearing Corporation of New York. Additionally, we have agreed with NYBOT that NYBOT will provide processing services for futures contracts or options on futures contracts listed on the Cantor Financial Futures Exchange or other exchange designated by us.

Our patent portfolio is growing and consists of numerous patents and patent applications relating to our core business and relating to other businesses. We continue to look for opportunities to license and/or otherwise monetize these and other patents in our portfolio.

We cannot determine at this time the significance of any of the foregoing patents, or patent applications, if issued, to our business. We can give no assurance that any of the foregoing patents will be found by a court to be valid and enforceable, or that any of these patents would not be infringed by a third party competing or seeking to compete with our business. Our business strategy may or may not include licensing such patents for royalties, joint ventures with other marketplaces or exchanges or exclusively using the patents in our marketplaces and other product and service offerings.

Credit Risk

Credit risk arises from potential non-performance by counterparties and customers. BGC Partners has established policies and procedures to manage its exposure to credit risk. BGC Partners maintains a thorough credit approval process to limit exposure to counterparty risk and employs stringent monitoring to control the

22

Table of Contents

counterparty risk from its matched principal and agency businesses. BGC Partners’ account opening and counterparty approval process includes verification of key customer identification, anti-money laundering verification checks and a credit review of financial and operating data. The credit review process includes establishing an internal credit rating and any other information deemed necessary to make an informed credit decision, which may include correspondence, due diligence calls and a visit to the entity’s premises, as necessary.

Credit approval is granted subject to certain trading limits and may be subject to additional conditions, such as the receipt of collateral or other credit support. On-going credit monitoring procedures include reviewing periodic financial statements and publicly available information on the client and collecting data from credit rating agencies, where available, to assess the on-going financial condition of the client. For U.S. Treasury transactions conducted through the eSpeed electronic trading platform, BGC Partners has developed and utilizes an electronic credit monitoring system which measures and controls credit usage, which may include the ability to prohibit execution of trades that would exceed risk limits and permit only risk reducing trades. This system is compliant with SEC Rule 15c3-5, which became effective November 30, 2011. The Rule relates to systems such as eSpeed that provide direct market access to an exchange or Alternative Trading System. The Rule requires firms to set and monitor pre-trade limits for all activities subject to the Rule.

Principal Transaction Risk

Through its subsidiaries, BGC Partners executes matched principal transactions in which it acts as a “middleman” by serving as counterparty to both a buyer and a seller in matching back-to-back trades. These transactions are then settled through a recognized settlement system or third-party clearing organization. Settlement typically occurs within one to three business days after the trade date. Cash settlement of the transaction occurs upon receipt or delivery of the underlying instrument that was traded. BGC Partners generally avoids settlement of principal transactions on a free-of-payment basis or by physical delivery of the underlying instrument. However, free-of-payment transactions may occur on a very limited basis.

The number of matched principal trades BGC Partners executes has continued to grow as compared to prior years. Receivables from broker-dealers and clearing organizations and payables to broker-dealers and clearing organizations on our consolidated statements of financial condition primarily represent the simultaneous purchase and sale of the securities associated with those matched principal transactions that have not settled as of their stated settlement dates. Our experience has been that substantially all of these transactions ultimately settle at the contracted amounts.

Market Risk

Market risk refers to the risk that a change in the level of one or more market prices, rates, indices or other factors will result in losses for a specified position. BGC Partners may allow certain of its desks to enter into unmatched principal transactions in the ordinary course of business and hold long and short inventory positions. These transactions are primarily for the purpose of facilitating clients’ execution needs, adding liquidity to a market or attracting additional order flow. As a result, BGC Partners may have market risk exposure on these transactions. BGC Partners’ exposure varies based on the size of its overall positions, the risk characteristics of the instruments held and the amount of time the positions are held before they are disposed of. BGC Partners has limited ability to track its exposure to market risk and unmatched positions on an intra-day basis; however, it attempts to mitigate its market risk on these positions by strict risk limits, extremely limited holding periods and hedging its exposure. These positions are intended to be held short term to facilitate customer transactions. However, due to a number of factors, including the nature of the position and access to the market on which it trades, BGC Partners may not be able to unwind the position and it may be forced to hold the position for a longer period than anticipated. All positions held longer than intra-day are marked to market.

Our risk management procedures and strict limits are designed to monitor and limit the risk of unintended loss and have been effective in the past. However, there is no assurance that these procedures and limits will be

23

Table of Contents

effective at limiting unanticipated losses in the future. Adverse movements in the securities positions or a downturn or disruption in the markets for these positions could result in a substantial loss. In addition, principal gains and losses resulting from these positions could on occasion have a disproportionate effect, positive or negative, on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations for any particular reporting period.

Operational Risk

Our businesses are highly dependent on our ability to process a large number of transactions across numerous and diverse markets in many currencies on a daily basis. If any of our data processing systems do not operate properly or are disabled or if there are other shortcomings or failures in our internal processes, people or systems, we could suffer impairment to our liquidity, financial loss, a disruption of our businesses, liability to clients, regulatory intervention or reputational damage. These systems may fail to operate properly or become disabled as a result of events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, including a disruption of electrical or communications services or our inability to occupy one or more of our buildings. The inability of our systems to accommodate an increasing volume of transactions could also constrain our ability to expand our businesses.

In addition, despite our contingency plans, our ability to conduct business may be adversely impacted by a disruption in the infrastructure that supports our businesses and the communities in which they are located. This may include a disruption involving electrical, communications, transportation or other services used by us or third parties with whom we conduct business.

Foreign Currency Risk

BGC Partners is exposed to risks associated with changes in foreign exchange rates. Changes in foreign currency rates create volatility in the U.S. dollar equivalent of the Company’s revenues and expenses in particular with regard to British Pounds and Euros. In addition, changes in the remeasurement of BGC Partners’ foreign currency denominated net assets are recorded as part of its results of operations and fluctuate with changes in foreign currency rates. BGC monitors the net exposure in foreign currencies on a daily basis and hedges its exposure as deemed appropriate with highly rated major financial institutions.

Interest Rate Risk

BGC Partners had $331.9 million in fixed-rate debt outstanding as of December 31, 2011. These debt obligations are not currently subject to fluctuations in interest rates, although in the event of refinancing or issuance of new debt, such debt could be subject to changes in interest rates.

Other

Our processes address disaster recovery concerns. We operate most of our technology from dual-primary data centers at our two different London locations. Either site alone is capable of running all of our essential systems. In addition, we have technology running from data centers in New Jersey and Connecticut. Replicated instances of this technology are maintained in our London data centers. All data centers are built and equipped to best-practice standards of physical security with appropriate environmental monitoring and safeguards. Failover for the majority of our systems is automated.

Competition

We encounter competition in all aspects of our businesses and compete primarily with other inter-dealer brokers, including for brokers, salespeople, and suitable acquisition candidates.

Our existing and potential competitors in fully electronic trading are numerous and include other inter-dealer brokerage firms, multi-dealer trading companies, technology companies and market data and information

24

Table of Contents

vendors, securities and futures exchanges, electronic communications networks, crossing systems, software companies, consortia, business-to-business marketplace infrastructure companies and niche market energy and other commodity Internet-based trading systems.

Inter-Dealer Brokers

We primarily compete with four major, diversified inter-dealer brokers. These inter-dealer brokers are ICAP plc, Tullett Prebon plc, GFI Group Inc. and Compagnie Financière Tradition (which is majority owned by Viel & Cie), all of which are currently publicly traded companies. Other inter-dealer broker competitors include a number of smaller, private firms that tend to specialize in specific product areas or geographies.

Demand for services of brokers is directly affected by national and international economic and political conditions, broad trends in business and finance, the level and volatility of interest rates, changes in and uncertainty regarding tax laws and substantial fluctuations in the volume and price levels of securities transactions. Other significant factors affecting competition in the brokerage industry are the quality and ability of professional personnel, the depth and pricing efficiency of the market displayed by a broker, the strength of the technology used to service and execute on those markets and the relative prices of services and products offered by the brokers and by competing markets and trading processes.

Commercial Real Estate Brokers and Management Services

The commercial real estate brokerage industry remains highly fragmented. Many of our competitors are small, local, and/or regional firms. We also compete with large multi-national firms that have similar or more diverse services, including CBRE Group, Inc., Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated, and Cushman & Wakefield. We currently have in place an asset purchase agreement to purchase certain assets of Grubb & Ellis, subject to Bankruptcy Court approval, to be added to our Newmark Knight Frank platform. The Newmark Knight Frank management services business competes across a variety of areas within the commercial real estate services industry, including consulting, project and development management, global corporate management and property and facilities management.

Market Data Vendors

The majority of our large inter-dealer broker competitors also sell proprietary market data, which competes with our market data offerings. In addition to direct sales, we resell market data through large market data and information providers. These companies have established significant presences on the vast majority of trading desks in our industry. Some of these market data and information providers, such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters, have expanded their product mix to include electronic trading and execution of both OTC and listed products in addition to their traditional market data offerings.

Exchanges

Although our business will often use exchanges to execute transactions brokered in both listed and OTC markets, we believe that exchanges have sought and will seek to migrate products traditionally traded in OTC markets by inter-dealer brokers to exchanges. However, we believe that when a product goes from OTC to exchange-traded, the underlying or related OTC market often continues to experience growth in line with the growth of the exchange-traded contract. In addition, as ELX grows its business, we expect it to directly compete with other exchanges in the trading of certain contracts. In addition, IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (“ICE”) operates both regulated exchanges and OTC execution services, and in the latter it competes directly with inter-dealer brokers in energy, commodities, and credit products. ICE entered these OTC markets primarily by acquiring independent OTC brokers, and we believe that it is likely ICE or other exchange operators may seek to compete with us in the future by acquiring other such brokers, by creating futures products designed to mimic OTC products, or through other means.

25

Table of Contents

Software Vendors and Others

Certain exchanges and market data companies, such as London Stock Exchange Group PLC and The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., license their technology for use by other market participants, including inter-dealer brokers and other exchanges. Such technology is potentially competitive insofar as we may attempt to license our technology in a similar manner as we have to ELX, or as we may to any company or organization that wishes to create or improve a trading system or exchange.

Banks and Broker-dealers

Banks and broker dealers have in the past created and/or funded consortia to compete with exchanges and inter-dealer brokers. For example, ICAP’s inter-dealer businesses for fully electronic trading of U.S. Treasuries and spot foreign exchange both began as dealer-owned consortia before being acquired by ICAP. An example of a current and similar consortium is Tradeweb. Currently, several large banks hold stakes in Tradeweb, an internet-based market intermediary. Thomson Reuters Corporation is Tradeweb’s single largest shareholder. Although Tradeweb operates primarily as a dealer to customer platform, one of its offerings includes a voice and electronic inter-dealer platform for mortgage-backed and U.S. Agency securities. Tradeweb’s management has said that it would like to expand into other inter-dealer markets, and as such may compete with BGC in other areas over time.

Overall, we believe that we may also face future competition from market data and technology companies and some securities brokerage firms, some of which are currently our customers, as well as from any future strategic alliances, joint ventures or other partnerships created by one or more of our potential or existing competitors.

Partnership Overview

We believe that our partnership structure is one of the unique strengths of our business. Many of our key brokers have their own capital invested in our business, aligning their interests with our stockholders. Limited partnership interests in BGC Holdings consist of: (i) “founding/working partner units” held by limited partners who are employees; (ii) “limited partnership units” which consist of a variety of units that are generally held by employees such as REUs, RPUs, PSUs and PSIs; and (iii) “Cantor units” which are the exchangeable limited partnership interests held by Cantor entities.

We believe that our partnership structure is an effective tool in recruiting, motivating and retaining key employees. Many brokers are attracted by the opportunity to become partners because the partnership agreement entitles partners to quarterly distributions of income from the partnership. While BGC Holdings limited partnership interests entitle our partners to participate in distributions of income from the operations of our business, upon leaving BGC Holdings (or upon any other redemption or purchase of such limited partnership interests as described below), any such partners are only entitled to receive over time, and provided he or she does not violate certain partner obligations, an amount for his or her BGC Holdings limited partnership interests that reflects such partner’s capital account, excluding any goodwill or going concern value of BGC Partners’ business unless Cantor, in the case of the founding partners, and we, as the general partner of BGC Holdings, otherwise determine. Our partners can receive the right to exchange their BGC Holdings limited partnership interests for shares of BGC Partners common stock (if, in the case of founding partners, Cantor so determines and in the case of working partners and limited partnership unit holders, the BGC Holdings general partner, with Cantor’s consent, determines otherwise) and thereby realize any higher value associated with BGC Partners common stock. See “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence—Amended and Restated BGC Holdings Limited Partnership Agreement—Exchanges.” We believe that, having invested their own capital in us, partners feel a sense of responsibility for the health and performance of our business and have a strong incentive to maximize our revenues.

26

Table of Contents

Relationship Between BGC Partners and Cantor

See “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.”

Regulation

U.S. Regulation

The financial services industry in the United States is subject to extensive regulation under both federal and state laws. As registered broker-dealers and a Futures Commissions Merchant, certain of our subsidiaries are subject to laws and regulations which cover all aspects of financial services, including sales methods, trade practices, use and safekeeping of customers’ funds and securities, minimum capital requirements, recordkeeping, business practices, securities lending and financing of securities purchases and the conduct of associated persons. We and our subsidiaries also are subject to the various anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, certain state securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. We also may be subject to vicarious and controlling person liability for the activities of our subsidiaries and our officers, employees and affiliated persons.

The SEC is the federal agency primarily responsible for the administration of federal securities laws, including adopting rules and regulations applicable to broker-dealers (other than government securities broker-dealers) and enforcing both its rules regarding broker-dealers and the Treasury’s rules regarding government securities broker-dealers. Broker-dealers are also subject to regulation by state securities administrators in those states in which they conduct business or have registered to do business. In addition, Treasury rules relating to trading government securities apply to such activities when engaged in by broker-dealers. The CFTC is the federal agency primarily responsible for the administration of federal commodities future laws, including the adoption of rules applicable to Futures Commissions Merchants and Designated Contract Markets such as ELX.

Much of the regulation of broker-dealers’ operations in the United States has been delegated to self-regulatory organizations. These self-regulatory organizations adopt rules (which are subject to approval by the SEC) that govern the operations of broker-dealers and government securities broker-dealers and conduct periodic inspections and examinations of their operations. In the case of BGC Partners’ U.S. broker-dealer subsidiaries, the principal self-regulatory organization is FINRA. FINRA is a self-regulatory organization that commenced operations in the third quarter of 2007. It was formed from the consolidation of the NASD’s member regulation operations and the regulatory arm of the NYSE Group to act as the self-regulatory organization for all broker-dealers doing business within the United States. Accordingly, BGC Partners’ U.S. subsidiaries will be subject to both scheduled and unscheduled examinations by the SEC and FINRA. In our futures-related activities, our subsidiaries are also subject to the rules of the CFTC, futures exchanges of which they are members and the NFA, a futures self-regulatory organization.

The changing regulatory environment, new laws that may be passed by Congress, and rules that may be promulgated by the SEC, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the CFTC, the NFA, FINRA and other self-regulatory organizations, or changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws and rules, if adopted, may directly affect our mode of operation and profitability, of our competitors and our customers and of the securities markets in a way that could adversely affect our business.

The SEC, self-regulatory organizations and state securities administrators conduct informal and formal investigations of possible improprieties or illegal action by broker-dealers and their “associated persons,” which could be followed by the institution of administrative, civil and/or criminal proceedings against broker-dealers and/or “associated persons.” Among the sanctions that may result if administrative, civil or criminal proceedings were ever instituted against us or our “associated persons,” are injunctions, censure, fines, the issuance of cease-and-desist orders or suspension or expulsion from the industry and, in rare instances, even imprisonment. The principal purpose of regulating and disciplining broker-dealers is to protect customers and the securities markets, rather than to protect broker-dealers, creditors and equity holders. From time to time, our “associated persons” have been and are subject to routine investigations, none of which to date, have had a material adverse effect on our business.

27

Table of Contents

In light of recent events in the U.S. and global financial markets and economy, regulators and legislators in the U.S. and European Union (“EU”) continue to craft new laws and regulations for the global OTC derivatives markets, including the recently passed “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.” The Dodd-Frank act mandates or encourages several reforms, including impartiality considerations, additional transparency requirements, heightened collateral or capital standards, as well as recommendations for the obligatory use of central clearing for most standardized derivatives. The law also requires that standardized derivatives be traded in an open and non-exclusionary manner on a regulated exchange or a swap execution facility (“SEF”). The SEC and Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) are still in the process of finalizing rules for the implementation of these requirements. The actual implementation of said rules may be phased in over a longer period.

We are unable to predict how any of these new laws and proposals will be implemented or in what form, or whether any additional or similar changes to statutes or regulations, including the interpretation or implementation thereof, will occur in the future. Any such action could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We believe that uncertainty and potential delays around the final form such new rules might take may negatively impact trading volumes in certain markets in which we broker. Increased capital requirements may also diminish transaction velocity. While the broad framework of proposed legislation is known, we believe that it is too early for there to be clarity on the specific aspects of the U.S. legislation and EU proposals which may directly impact our businesses as exact rules have not yet been finalized. While we generally believe the net impact of the rules and regulations will be positive for our business, unintended consequences of the legislation may adversely affect us in ways yet to be determined.

U.K. and European Regulation

The Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) is the statutory regulator for the United Kingdom financial services industry. The FSA is an independent non-governmental body that has been given statutory powers by the FSMA 2000, and regulates the financial services industry through its Handbook of Rules and Guidance, which consists of a number of sourcebooks and manuals and is prepared under powers granted by FSMA 2000. The FSA has implemented far-reaching reform rules, designed to enhance firms’ liquidity risk management practices, based on the lessons learned since the start of the credit crisis in 2007. Implications of these rules include better liquidity risk management capability (including the use of stress testing and contingency funding plans (“CFP”)), less reliance on short-term wholesale funding, and higher amounts and quality of liquid asset securities (Government securities), leading to an increased likelihood of surviving a severe liquidity stress event, the overarching principles being self-sufficiency and adequacy of liquid resources.

Currently, we have subsidiaries and branches regulated by the FSA (BGC Brokers L.P., and the U.K. branch of Aurel BGC). The FSA’s 2011 biennial Advanced, Risk-Responsive Operating Frame Work (“ARROW”) risk assessment of our U.K. group’s regulated businesses identified certain weaknesses in our U.K. group’s risk, compliance and control functionality, including governance procedures. In accordance with its normal process, the FSA provided us with an initial written mitigation program regarding the foregoing. In response to this we retained an international accounting firm and U.K. counsel to assist us with a wide program of remediation to address the points raised.

Within the program, we provided an assessment of the appropriateness of the scope and structure of the businesses in our U.K. group. We increased the liquidity and capital levels of certain of our U.K. group’s existing FSA-regulated businesses, and also reviewed and enhanced our policies and procedures relating to assessing risks and our liquidity and capital requirements. We also produced detailed contingency planning steps to determine the stand-alone viability of each of the businesses in our U.K. group as well as a theoretical orderly wind-down scenario for these businesses. Finally, we agreed to a temporary, voluntary limitation on closing acquisitions of new businesses regulated by the FSA and entering into new regulated business lines.

28

Table of Contents

A significant number of outputs from the remediation program were delivered to the FSA in December 2011. The FSA responded positively and on March 1, 2012, the FSA confirmed that it had relaxed the voluntary undertaking of BGC Brokers L.P., a U.K. subsidiary of the Company (“BGC Brokers”). With respect to acquisitions, new business lines or material change in its risk profile, members of the BGC European Group intend to provide prior notice to the FSA so as to determine that it has no objection. At around the same time that the voluntary undertaking was relaxed, the FSA presented us with the second part of the risk mitigation program, although the majority of the items presented have either already been remediated or form part of an existing work plan. The items identified are scheduled to be completed within calendar year 2012.

Our European regulated group (Aurel BGC, BGC Brokers L.P., and other intermediate non-regulated holding entities) is subject to The Financial Groups Directive. As a result of discussions with the FSA, the corporate structure of our European regulated group was reorganized as of December 31, 2011 to bring in various eSpeed and Tower Bridge service entities and intermediate holding entities within the FSA-supervised U.K. Consolidation Group under BGC European Holdings, L.P. The restructuring of the regulated European entities under BGC European Holdings does not affect their day-to-day operations.

The FSA has indicated that through the use of a skilled person’s report, we will seek to test the progress of our work later in the year as the Company continues to remediate the areas indicated by the FSA in its recent reviews and will continue to dedicate time, resources and funds to such efforts. We do not anticipate that the current costs in connection with the FSA remedial work will have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Recent European Regulatory Developments

The Government of the U.K. passed the Bribery Act 2010, which came into force in 2011. It created four new offenses: two general offenses of bribing another person and being bribed, and bribing a foreign public official and a corporate offence of failing to prevent bribery. The corporate offense is a strict liability offense which is subject to the defense that the relevant commercial organization had adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery. The Act has a global reach and applies to all companies, partnerships and individuals based in the U.K., as well as foreign companies and individuals doing business in the U.K. The Act’s extra-territorial application means that it applies to acts or omissions taking place anywhere in the world. This means that it may be more likely for bribery taking place outside the U.K. to attract the attention of the U.K. authorities, as well as the attention of authorities in multiple jurisdictions.

On September 15, 2010, the European Commission released a draft proposal for a set of rules similar to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to cover the EU. Among other things, the Commission proposed that information on OTC derivative contracts should be reported to trade repositories and be accessible to supervisory authorities, that some transaction and price related information should be made available to all market participants than is currently common practice, and that standard OTC derivative contracts be cleared through central counterparties (“CCPs”). The Commission’s final directives, known as MiFID II, were issued on October 20, 2011. After consideration by the European Parliament and the EU Member States, the directives will need to be implemented by multiple supervisory and regulatory bodies and need to be ratified by all 27 EU Member States before being passed into law by individual nations. As such, it is unlikely that the rules will be operational until the end of 2012.

To achieve a high level of harmonization and strong convergence in regular supervisory reporting requirements, the Committee of European Banking Supervisors issued guidelines on prudential reporting with the aim of developing a supervisory reporting framework based on common formats, known as COREP. From December 31, 2012, COREP is expected to become part of European Banking Authorities’ implementing technical standards on reporting. In addition, guidelines on Financial Reporting covering consolidated and sub-consolidated financial reporting for supervisory purposes based on International Financial Reporting Standards are being developed, known as FINREP. These initiatives will impact the nature, timing and extent of regulatory reporting for our European regulated group.

29

Table of Contents

On December 22, 2011 the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”) published guidelines on the systems and controls required to regulate the operation of electronic trading systems. These guidelines will come into effect during 2012 and will cover areas such as IT system compatibility, due diligence checks on members/ participants of automated trading systems and rules to prevent, identify and report potential market abuse. ESMA is also consulting on guidelines relating to the responsibilities of the Compliance function and on the application of suitability regulations. Both of these guidelines are due to be finalized in the second quarter of 2012.

The European Union is currently in the process of revising the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and the Market Abuse Directive (MAD II). Both of these directives are relevant to the Company and MiFID II will have a particularly significant impact in a number of areas, including corporate governance, transaction reporting, pre-and post-trade transparency and investor protection. The timetable for implementation of these revised directives is not yet clear but the new regimes could come into effect as early as 2013. Further, the authorities of certain European countries have instituted a series of changes to tax law, including an excise tax on certain compensation payments that, if applicable to us, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Other Regulation

Our subsidiaries that have foreign operations are subject to regulation by the relevant regulatory authorities and self-regulatory organizations in the countries in which they do business. The following table sets forth certain jurisdictions, other than the United States, in which we do business and the applicable regulatory authority or authorities of each such jurisdiction:

30

Table of Contents

Real Estate Brokerage Licensing and Regulatory Requirements

The brokerage of real estate sales and leasing transactions, property management, construction, conducting real estate valuation, and securing debt for clients, among other business lines, also requires that we comply with regulations affecting the real estate industry and maintain licenses in various jurisdictions in which we operate. As the size and scope of real estate sales transactions have increased significantly over the past several years, market participants face corresponding greater complexity in ensuring they comply with numerous licensing regimes.

We could be required to pay fines, return commissions, have a license suspended or revoked, or be subject to criminal action should we conduct regulated activities without a license or without maintaining the necessary license. Licensing requirements could also impact our ability to engage in certain types of transactions, change the way in which we conduct business or affect the cost of conducting business. We and our licensed associates may be subject to various due diligence, disclosure, standard-of-care, anti-money laundering and other obligations. We could become subject to claims by participants in real estate sales or other services claiming that we did not fulfill our obligations as a service provider or broker. This could include claims with respect to alleged conflicts of interests where we act, or are perceived to be acting, for two or more clients. While management has overseen highly regulated businesses before and expects to maintain required licenses in a satisfactory manner, no assurance can be given that it will always be the case.

Capital Requirements

U.S.

Every U.S.-registered broker-dealer is subject to the Uniform Net Capital Requirements. Registered Futures Commission Merchants (FCM), such as BGC Financial LP (BGCF), are also subject to CFTC capital requirements. These requirements are designed to ensure financial soundness and liquidity by prohibiting a broker or dealer from engaging in business at a time when it does not satisfy minimum net capital requirements.

In the United States, net capital is essentially defined as net worth (assets minus liabilities), plus qualifying subordinated borrowings and less certain mandatory deductions that result from excluding assets that are not readily convertible into cash and from conservatively valuing certain other assets, such as a firm’s positions in securities. Among these deductions are adjustments, commonly referred to as “haircuts,” to the market value of securities positions to reflect the market risk of such positions prior to their liquidation or disposition. The Uniform Net Capital Requirements also imposes a minimum ratio of debt to equity, which may include qualified subordinated borrowings.

Regulations have been adopted by the SEC that prohibit the withdrawal of equity capital of a broker-dealer, restrict the ability of a broker-dealer to distribute or engage in any transaction with a parent company or an affiliate that results in a reduction of equity capital or to provide an unsecured loan or advance against equity capital for the direct or indirect benefit of certain persons related to the broker-dealer (including partners and affiliates) if the broker-dealer’s net capital is, or would be as a result of such withdrawal, distribution, loan or advance, below specified thresholds of excess net capital. In addition, the SEC’s regulations require certain notifications to be provided in advance of such withdrawals, distributions, reductions, loans and advances that exceed, in the aggregate, 30% of excess net capital within any 30 day period. The SEC has the authority to restrict, for up to 20 business days, such withdrawal, distribution or reduction of capital if the SEC concludes that it may be detrimental to the financial integrity of the broker-dealer or may expose its customers or creditors to loss. Notice is required following any such withdrawal, distribution, reduction, loan or advance that exceeds, in the aggregate, 20% of excess net capital within any 30 day period. The SEC’s regulations limiting withdrawals of excess net capital do not preclude the payment to employees of “reasonable compensation.”

Two of our subsidiaries, BGCF and Seminole Financial, are registered with the SEC and are subject to the Uniform Net Capital Requirements. As such, these firms must maintain, in all respects, minimum net capital and comply with the Uniform Net Capital Requirements. Seminole Financial uses the “basic method” of calculating

31

Table of Contents

net capital and must maintain net capital of not less than the greater of $100,000 or 6.66% of certain of its liabilities and other obligations. BGC Financial L.P. uses the “alternative method” of calculating net capital and must maintain net capital of not less than the greater of $250,000 or 2% of its aggregate debit items (primarily receivables from customers and other broker-dealers). As an FCM, BGCF is also subject to the CFTC minimum capital requirement, which is not less than the greater of the SEC requirement, $1,000,000, or 8% of customer and non customer maintenance margin (the amount that must be maintained on deposit at all times for open futures positions). BGCF is also a member of the FICC, which imposes capital requirements on its members.

Compliance with the Uniform Net Capital Requirements may limit the extent and nature of our operations requiring the use of our registered broker-dealer subsidiaries’ capital, and could also restrict or preclude our ability to withdraw capital from our broker-dealer subsidiaries.

Non-U.S.

Our international operations are also subject to capital requirements, which we refer to as “non-U.S. net capital requirements.” BGC Brokers LP and BGC European Holdings LP, which are partnerships based in the United Kingdom, are subject to capital requirements established by the U.K. FSA. The FSA applies stringent provisions with respect to capital applicable to the operation of these brokerage firms, which vary depending upon the nature and extent of their activities. The provisions relating to capital and liquidity requirements enforced by the FSA are undergoing significant changes in response to the current regulatory landscape, and our U.K. businesses are being required to maintain significantly higher regulatory capital than they have in the past.

In addition, the majority of our other foreign subsidiaries are subject to similar regulation by the relevant authorities in the countries in which they do business. Additionally, certain other of our foreign subsidiaries are required to maintain non-U.S. net capital requirements. In Hong Kong, BGC Securities (Hong Kong), LLC and BGC Capital Markets (Hong Kong), Limited are regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission and The Hong Kong Monetary Authority, respectively. Both are subject to non-U.S. net capital requirements. In France, BGC France Holdings; in Australia, BGC Partners (Australia) Pty Limited; in Japan, BGC Shoken Kaisha Limited’s Japanese branch; in Singapore, BGC Partners (Singapore) Limited and BGC Securities (Singapore) Ltda; in Korea, BGC Capital Markets & Foreign Exchange Broker (Korea) Limited; and in Turkey, BGC Partners Menkul Degerler AS, and all have non-U.S. net capital requirements imposed upon them by local regulators. In addition, the LCH (LIFFE/LME) clearing organizations, of which BGC LP is a member, also imposes minimum capital requirements.

BGC Partners had equity capital for its regulated subsidiaries of $329.9 million and $274.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Employees

As of December 31, 2011, we had 4,129 total employees, including 2,147 brokers and salespeople. Approximately 47% of BGC Partners’ brokers are based in the Americas, approximately 36% are based in Europe, Middle East and Africa (including Turkey), and the remaining approximately 17% are based in the Asia-Pacific region. Generally, our employees are not subject to any collective bargaining agreements, except our employees in certain of our European offices, including France, who are covered by national, industry-wide collective bargaining agreements.

Legal Proceedings

See Part I—Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

Our Organizational Structure

We are a holding company and our business is operated through two operating partnerships, BGC U.S., which holds our U.S. businesses, and BGC Global, which holds our non-U.S. businesses.

32

Table of Contents

The limited partnership interests of the Opcos are held by us and BGC Holdings, and the limited partnership interests of BGC Holdings are currently held by Cantor, the founding/working partners and holders of limited partnership units. We hold the BGC Holdings general partnership interest and the BGC Holdings special voting limited partnership interest, which entitle us to remove and appoint the general partner of BGC Holdings, and serve as the general partner of BGC Holdings, which entitles us to control BGC Holdings. BGC Holdings, in turn, holds the BGC U.S. general partnership interest and the BGC U.S. special voting limited partnership interest, which entitle the holder thereof to remove and appoint the general partner of BGC U.S., and the BGC Global general partnership interest and the BGC Global special voting limited partnership interest, which entitle the holder thereof to remove and appoint the general partner of BGC Global, and serves as the general partner of BGC U.S. and BGC Global, all of which entitle BGC Holdings (and thereby us) to control each of BGC U.S. and BGC Global. BGC Holdings holds its BGC Global general partnership interest through a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands, BGC Global Holdings GP Limited.

33

Table of Contents

The following diagram illustrates our ownership structure as of March 1, 2012. The following diagram does not reflect the various subsidiaries of us, BGC U.S., BGC Global, BGC Holdings or Cantor, or the noncontrolling interests in the Company’s consolidated subsidiaries other than Cantor’s limited partnership interest in BGC Holdings.

34

Table of Contents

Stock Ownership

As of March 1, 2012, there were approximately 102,807,053 shares of our Class A common stock outstanding, of which 5,148,219 were held by Cantor and CF Group Management Group, Inc. (“CFGM”), Cantor’s managing general partner. Each share of Class A common stock is generally entitled to one vote on matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders. In addition, as of March 1, 2012, Cantor and CFGM held 34,848,107 shares of our Class B common stock (which represents all of the outstanding shares of our Class B common stock), representing, together with our Class A common stock held by Cantor and CFGM, approximately 78.4% of our voting power. Each share of Class B common stock is generally entitled to the same rights as a share of Class A common stock, except that, on matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders, each share of Class B common stock is entitled to 10 votes. The Class B common stock generally votes together with the Class A common stock on all matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders.

We hold the BGC Holdings general partnership interest and the BGC Holdings special voting limited partnership interest, which entitle us to remove and appoint the general partner of BGC Holdings, and serve as the general partner of BGC Holdings, which entitles us to control BGC Holdings. BGC Holdings, in turn, holds the BGC U.S. general partnership interest and the BGC U.S. special voting limited partnership interest, which entitles the holder thereof to remove and appoint the general partner of BGC U.S., and the BGC Global general partnership interest and the BGC Global special voting limited partnership interest, which entitles the holder thereof to remove and appoint the general partner of BGC Global, and serves as the general partner of each of BGC U.S. and BGC Global, all of which entitle BGC Holdings (and thereby us) to control each of BGC U.S. and BGC Global. BGC Holdings holds its BGC Global general partnership interest through a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands, BGC Global Holdings GP Limited. In addition, as of March 1, 2012, we held directly and indirectly, through wholly-owned subsidiaries, BGC U.S. limited partnership interests and BGC Global limited partnership interests consisting of approximately 137,655,160 units and 137,655,160 units, representing approximately 53.2% and 53.2% of the outstanding BGC U.S. limited partnership interests and BGC Global limited partnership interests, respectively. We are a holding company that holds these interests, serves as the general partner of BGC Holdings, and, through BGC Holdings, acts as the general partner of each of BGC U.S. and BGC Global. As a result of our ownership of the general partnership interest in BGC Holdings and BGC Holdings’ general partnership interest in each of BGC U.S. and BGC Global, we consolidate BGC U.S.’s and BGC Global’s results for financial reporting purposes.

35

Table of Contents

Partners directly and Cantor indirectly hold BGC Holdings limited partnership interests. BGC Holdings, in turn, holds BGC U.S. limited partnership interests and BGC Global limited partnership interests and, as a result, founding partners, limited partnership unit holders and Cantor indirectly have, and working partners have interests in BGC U.S. limited partnership interests and BGC Global limited partnership interests.

Through March 1, 2012, Cantor has distributed an aggregate of 18,836,793 shares of Class A common stock consisting of (i) 17,826,138 shares to certain partners to satisfy certain of Cantor’s deferred stock distribution obligations provided to such partners on April 1, 2008 (the “April 2008 distribution rights shares”) (10,152,056 shares with respect to retained partners and 7,674,082 shares with respect to founding partners), and (ii) 1,010,655 shares to certain partners of Cantor to satisfy certain of Cantor’s deferred stock distribution obligations provided to such partners on February 14, 2012 in connection with Cantor’s payment of previous quarterly partnership distributions (the “February 2012 distribution rights shares”). As of March 1, 2012, Cantor is obligated to distribute an aggregate of 17,755,732 shares of Class A common stock consisting of (A) 15,545,606 April 2008 distribution rights shares and (B) 2,210,126 February 2012 distribution rights shares. Partners of Cantor owning these 17,755,732 shares have elected to defer receipt of their shares and receive a distribution equivalent. In addition, as of March 1, 2012, there were 48,609,668 limited partnership units outstanding and 24,854,062 founding/working partner units. These amounts reflect the fact that certain retained partners have terminated service, with the result that they are not eligible to receive an accelerated distribution of their distribution rights shares.

The BGC Holdings limited partnership interests held by Cantor are exchangeable with us for our Class B common stock (or, at Cantor’s option or if there are no additional authorized but unissued shares of our Class B common stock, our Class A common stock) on a one-for-one basis (subject to customary anti-dilution adjustments). Upon certain circumstances, certain of the outstanding founding/working partner units and limited partnership units may become exchangeable.

In March 2010, the Amended and Restated BGC Holdings, L.P. limited partnership agreement was further amended by its general partner and Cantor to create two new types of limited partnership units, PSUs and PSIs. These new units are expected to be used by us for future compensatory grants, compensation modifications, redemptions of partnership interests and other purposes. In September 2011, the Amended and Restated BGC Holdings, L.P. limited partnership agreement was further amended by its general partner and Cantor to create five new classes of limited partnership units, all of which shall be considered Working Partner Units. Four new units, AREUs, ARPUs, APSUs, and APSIs, are identical in all respects to existing REUs, RPUs, PSUs and PSIs, respectively, for all purposes under the Partnership Agreement, except that (i) until any related distribution conditions specified in the applicable award agreement are met, if ever, only net losses shall be allocable with respect to such units; and (ii) no distributions shall be made until such distribution conditions are met. The other new unit, the PSE, is identical in all respects to existing PSUs for all purposes under the Partnership Agreement, except that (x) PSEs shall require minimum distributions of no less than $0.015 per fiscal quarter; and (y) such distributions may be delayed for up to four quarters in the discretion of the General Partner. The Amendment was entered into principally to create new classes of Partnership units in order to provide flexibility to the Company and the Partnership in using units in connection with compensation arrangements and acquisitions.

We are continuing our global program in 2012 whereby partners redeem their REUs or RPUs in exchange for partnership units and receive exchangeability or cash for certain of their limited partnership units and, in many cases, a modification or extension of their employment arrangements.

36

Table of Contents

RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS

Any investment in shares of our Class A common stock involves risks. The Risk Factors below represent a comprehensive inventory of risks or events which could occur, but we do not ascribe any particular likelihood or probability to them unless specifically indicated. Any of the Risk Factors set forth below, should they occur, could significantly and negatively affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and prospects and/or the trading price of Class A common stock.

Global Economic and Market Conditions

Our businesses and results of operations have been and may continue to be adversely affected by conditions in the global economy and financial markets generally.

Our businesses and results of operations have been and may continue to be adversely affected by conditions in the global economy and financial markets generally. Difficult market and economic conditions and geopolitical uncertainties have in the past adversely affected and may in the future adversely affect our businesses. The brokerage and financial services industries in general are directly affected by national and international economic and political conditions, broad trends in business and finance, the level and volatility of interest rates, changes in and uncertainty regarding tax laws and substantial fluctuations in the volume and price levels of securities transactions. On a consolidated basis, for the twelve months ended December 31, 2011, over 93% of our total revenues were generated by brokerage operations. As a result, our revenues and profitability are likely to decline significantly during periods of low trading volume in the financial markets in which we offer our services.

The financial markets, the global financial services business and the commercial real estate business are, by their nature, risky and volatile and are directly affected by many national and international factors that are beyond our control. Any one of these factors may cause a substantial decline in the U.S. and global financial services markets, resulting in reduced trading volume and profitability for our businesses. These factors include:

Low trading or brokerage volume generally results in reduced revenues. Under these conditions, our profitability is adversely affected since many of our costs are fixed. In addition, although less common, some of our brokerage revenues are determined on the basis of the value of transactions or on spreads. For these reasons, substantial decreases in trading volume or declining prices or spreads could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

37

Table of Contents

Consolidation in the brokerage, exchange and financial services industries could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects because we may not be able to compete successfully.

In recent years, there has been substantial consolidation and convergence among companies in the brokerage, exchange and financial services industries, resulting in increasingly large existing and potential competitors, and increased concentration among markets dominated by some of our largest customers. During 2008 and 2009, as a result of the global financial crisis, this trend accelerated as many of the world’s largest banks and investment banks consolidated. For example, Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns were acquired by J.P. Morgan Chase; Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. declared bankruptcy and its investment banking operations were largely absorbed by Barclays in the U.S. and by Nomura elsewhere; Bank of America Corp. acquired Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Countrywide Financial; and Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia.

These and other financial services firms are our customers. Continued consolidation in the financial services industry and especially among our customers could lead to the exertion of additional pricing pressure by our customers, impacting the commissions we generate from our brokerage services. Further, the recent consolidation among exchange firms, and expansion by these firms into derivative and other non-equity trading markets, will increase competition for customer trades and place additional pricing pressure on commissions and spreads. These developments have increased competition from firms with potentially greater access to capital resources than we have. Finally, consolidation among our competitors other than exchange firms could result in increased resources and product or service offerings for our competitors. If we are not able to compete successfully in the future, our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially adversely affected.

Negative economic conditions and real estate market conditions can have a material adverse effect on our commercial real estate brokerage business and management services business, results of operations and financial condition.

Real estate markets are cyclical. They relate to the condition of the economy or, at least, to the perceptions of investors and users as to the relevant economic outlook. For example, corporations may be hesitant to expand space or enter into long-term commitments if they are concerned about the general economic environment. Corporations that are under financial pressure for any reason, or are attempting to more aggressively manage their expenses, may reduce the size of their workforces, reduce spending on capital expenditures, including with respect to their offices, permit more of their staff to work from home offices and/or seek corresponding reductions in office space and related management services.

Negative economic conditions and declines in the demand for real estate brokerage and related management services in several markets or in significant markets could also have a material adverse effect on our real estate brokerage business as a result of the following factors:

38

Table of Contents

Regulatory/Legal

The financial services industry in which we operate is subject to significant regulation. We are subject to regulatory capital requirements on our regulated businesses, and a significant operating loss or any extraordinary charge against capital could adversely affect our ability to expand or, depending upon the magnitude of the loss or charge, even to maintain the current level of our businesses.

Many aspects of our businesses, like those of other financial intermediary firms, are subject to significant capital requirements. In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and various other regulatory bodies (including the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the National Futures Association (the “NFA”) have stringent provisions with respect to capital applicable to the operation of brokerage firms, which vary depending upon the nature and extent of the broker-dealer’s activities. We currently operate two U.S.-registered broker-dealers. In addition, we hold a 49% limited partnership interest in Aqua Securities, L.P., a U.S. registered broker-dealer. These broker-dealers are subject to SEC, FINRA, CFTC and NFA net capital requirements.

Our international operations are also subject to capital requirements. BGC Brokers L.P. and BGC European Holdings, L.P. are currently subject to capital requirements established by the U.K. Financial Services Authority (the “FSA”), the statutory regulator for the U.K. financial services industry. The FSA applies stringent provisions with respect to capital applicable to the operation of these brokerage firms, which vary depending upon the nature and extent of their activities. The provisions relating to capital and liquidity requirements enforced by the FSA are undergoing significant change in response to the current regulatory landscapes, and our U.K. businesses are being required to maintain significantly higher regulatory capital than they have in the past.

In addition, the majority of our other foreign subsidiaries are subject to similar regulation by the relevant authorities in the countries in which they do business. These regulations often include minimum capital requirements, which are subject to change. Similar requirements are applied to certain of our other subsidiaries that are regulated in other countries, such as Australia, France and Hong Kong.

We expect to continue to maintain levels of capital in excess of regulatory minimums. Should we fail to maintain the required capital, we may be required to reduce some of our operations or suspend our broker-dealer operations during the period that we are not in compliance with capital requirements, and may be subject to suspension or revocation of registration or withdrawal of authorization or other disciplinary action from domestic and international regulators, which would have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, should we fail to maintain the capital required by clearing organizations of which we are a member, our ability to clear through those clearing organizations may be impaired, which may adversely affect our ability to process trades. If the capital rules are changed or expanded, or if there is an unusually large charge against capital, our operations that require the intensive use of capital would be limited. Our ability to withdraw capital from our regulated subsidiaries is subject to restrictions, which, in turn, could limit our ability to pay dividends on our Class A common stock, and distributions on our BGC Holdings, L.P. (“BGC Holdings”) limited partnership interests, repay debt and repurchase shares of our Class A common stock or purchase BGC Holdings limited partnership interests or other equity interests in our subsidiaries, including from Cantor, our executive officers, other employees, partners and others, and pursue strategic acquisitions or other growth opportunities. In addition, we may become subject to capital requirements in other foreign jurisdictions in which we currently operate or in which we may enter. We cannot predict our future capital needs or our ability to obtain additional financing.

Changes in legislation and in the rules and regulations promulgated by the SEC, the CFTC, the U.S. Department of Treasury (the “Treasury”), the FSA and other domestic and international regulators and self-regulatory organizations, as well as changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws and rules, often

39

Table of Contents

directly affect the method of operation and profitability of broker-dealers and could result in restrictions in the way we conduct our business. For example, the U.S. Congress, the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the SEC are continuing to review the nature and scope of their regulation and oversight of the government securities markets and U.S. markets. In Europe, the implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive in Europe (“MIFID”) in November 2007 involved wide-ranging changes to European financial services regulation. Future legislation and/or regulation, for example resulting from the review of MIFID that is currently underway, and uncertainties resulting from the possibility of legislation and/or regulation, could adversely impact our business. Failure to comply with any of these laws, rules or regulations could result in fines, restrictions or limitations on business activity, suspension or expulsion from the industry, any of which could have a material adverse effect upon us. Changes in tax laws, such as the bank payroll taxes introduced in the U.K. and France at the end of the 2009, could have a material adverse effect on our compensation policies or businesses, financial condition and results of operations. Further, new rules and regulations proposed, or which may be proposed, by the U.S. President and his administration could have a significant impact on us.

In addition, financial intermediary firms are subject to numerous conflicts of interests or perceived conflicts, including for example principal trading and trading to make markets. We have adopted various policies, controls and procedures to address or limit actual or perceived conflicts, and we will regularly seek to review and update our policies, controls and procedures. However, these policies, controls and procedures may result in increased costs and additional operational personnel. Failure to adhere to these policies, controls and procedures may result in regulatory sanctions or customer litigation.

Our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be adversely affected by new laws or regulations or by changes in existing laws or regulations or the application thereof.

The financial services industry, in general, is heavily regulated.

Changes in laws and in the rules and regulations promulgated by the SEC, FINRA, the CFTC, the Treasury, the FSA, and other domestic and international regulators and self-regulatory organizations, as well as changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws, rules and regulations, often directly affect the method of operation and profitability of broker-dealers and could result in restrictions or limitations on the way we conduct our businesses. For a number of years, the U.S. Congress, the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the SEC have been reviewing the nature and scope of their regulation and oversight of the government securities markets and U.S. markets generally. In Europe, the implementation of MIFID in November 2007 involved wide-ranging changes to European financial services regulation. Future legislation and/or regulation, and uncertainties resulting from the possibility of such legislation and/or regulation, including changes in tax laws, such as the bank payroll taxes introduced in the U.K. and France at the end of the 2009, could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

For example, in light of recent events in the U.S. and global financial markets and economy, regulators and legislators in the U.S. and European Union (“EU”) continue to craft new laws and regulations for the global over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives markets, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) that became law in July 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act mandates or encourages several reforms regarding derivatives, including new regulations for swaps markets creating impartiality considerations, additional pre- and post-trade transparency requirements, and heightened collateral or capital standards, as well as recommendations for the obligatory use of central clearing for most standardized derivatives. The Act also requires that standardized derivatives be traded in an open and non-exclusionary manner on a regulated exchange or a swap execution facility (“SEF”).

In September 2010, the European Commission released a draft proposal for a similar set of rules to cover the EU. Among other things, the Commission proposed that information on OTC derivative contracts should be reported to trade repositories and be accessible to supervisory authorities, that some transaction and price related

40

Table of Contents

information should be made available to more market participants than is currently common practice, and that standard OTC derivative contracts be cleared through central counterparties. While the Commission’s initial proposals are currently in a consultation phase prior to being presented to the European Parliament and the European Council for consideration, these rules will not be operational at least until the end of 2012.

Although we currently broker a number of centrally cleared products, and believe that we will qualify as a SEF in the U.S. and its equivalent in the EU, there can be no guarantee that the final rules will not negatively impact our volumes or revenues. In the event that the U.S. government, EU or other countries’ authorities ultimately were to mandate central clearing without ensuring fair and open access, or forcing trading via SEFs or exchanges for large portions of the OTC marketplace, and we were unable to provide transaction execution and reporting in an authorized manner, or to do so on a competitive basis, we would be negatively impacted. Further, it is conceivable that the new regulatory landscape will fundamentally alter the historical relationship between OTC wholesale brokers and our clients, which may have an adverse effect on us.

In the U.K., the FSA has implemented far-reaching reform rules, designed to enhance firms’ liquidity risk management practices, based on the lessons learned since the start of the recent credit crisis. Implications of these rules include better liquidity risk management capability (including the use of stress testing and contingency funding plans), less reliance on short-term wholesale funding, and higher amounts and quality of liquid asset securities (government securities), leading to an increased likelihood of surviving a severe liquidity stress event, the overarching principles being self-sufficiency and adequacy of liquid resources.

Further, the authorities of certain EU countries have instituted a series of changes to tax law, including an excise tax on certain compensation payments that, if applicable to us, could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Similarly, the current U.S. administration has proposed a series of changes to U.S. tax law, some of which could apply to us. It is not possible to predict if any of these new provisions will be enacted or, if they are, what form they may take. It is possible that one or more of such provisions could negatively impact our costs and our effective tax rate, which would affect our after-tax earnings. If any of such changes to tax law were implemented and/or deemed to apply to us, they could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, including on our ability to attract and retain executives and brokers.

In addition, the U.K. has passed the Bribery Act of 2010, which came into force on July 1, 2011. It creates four new offenses: two general offenses of bribing another person and being bribed, and bribing a foreign public official and a corporate offense of failing to prevent bribery. The corporate offense is a strict liability offense which is subject to the defense that the relevant commercial organization had adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery. Official guidance on what constitutes adequate measures to combat bribery has also been published.

The Bribery Act has a global reach and applies to all companies, partnerships and individuals based in the U.K., as well as foreign companies and individuals doing business in the U.K. The Act’s extra-territorial application means that it applies to acts or omissions taking place anywhere in the world. This means that it may be more likely for bribery taking place outside the U.K. to attract the attention of the U.K. authorities, as well as the attention of authorities in multiple jurisdictions. Failure to comply with the Act could result in unlimited fines for commercial organizations, debarment from competing for public contracts and/or imprisonment of individuals, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

There is uncertainty regarding the impact of the Bribery Act, as it could restrict the way business is currently conducted, particularly in relation to corporate hospitality, gifts and facilitation payments. The ability to attract and retain clients and business may be constrained, compared with competitors who are not subject to the same restrictions and levels of scrutiny. Ensuring compliance with the Act and introducing adequate measures may also necessitate the adoption of new policies, controls and procedures which could result in increased costs and use of personnel resources.

41

Table of Contents

Proposals for additional legislation further regulating the financial services industry are periodically introduced in the United States, the EU and other counties. Moreover, the agencies regulating the financial services industry also periodically adopt changes to their rules and regulations, particularly as these regulators have increased the focus and intensity of their regulation of the financial services industry.

We are unable to predict how any of these new laws, rules, regulations and proposals will be implemented or in what form, or whether any additional or similar changes to laws or regulations, including the interpretation or implementation thereof, will occur in the future. Any such action could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways and could have an adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We believe that uncertainty and potential delays around the final form such new laws and regulations might take may negatively impact trading volumes in certain markets in which we broker. Increased capital requirements may also diminish transaction velocity. While the broad framework of currently proposed laws and regulations is known, we believe that it is too early for there to be clarity on the specific aspects of the U.S. and EU proposals which may directly impact our businesses as many proposals have not yet been finalized. Additionally, unintended consequences of the laws and regulations may adversely affect us in ways yet to be determined.

We are also affected by the other policies adopted by regulatory authorities and bodies of the U.S., U.K. and other countries. For example, the actions of the U.S. Federal Reserve and international central banking authorities directly impact our cost of funds for lending, capital raising and investment activities and may impact the value of financial instruments we hold. In addition, changes in monetary policy may affect the credit quality of our customers. Changes in domestic and international monetary policy are beyond our control and difficult to predict.

In the provision of our property and facility management services, we face potential liability for the actions of contractors and other litigation risks, as well as the risks of cost overruns on managed projects for which we are responsible for managing costs, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operating and financial condition.

We may, on behalf of our clients, hire and supervise third-party contractors to provide construction, engineering and various other services for properties we are managing or developing on behalf of clients. Depending upon the terms of our contracts with clients, which, for example, may place us in the position of a real estate principal rather than an agent, or responsibilities we assume or are legally deemed to have assumed in the course of a client engagement (whether or not memorialized in a contract), we may be subjected to, or become liable for, claims for construction defects, negligent performance of work or other similar actions by third parties we do not control.

Adverse outcomes of property and facilities management disputes or litigation could negatively impact our business, operating results and/or financial condition, particularly if we have not limited in our contracts the extent of damages to which we may be liable for the consequences of our actions, or if our liabilities exceed the amounts of the insurance coverage procured and maintained by us. Moreover, our clients may seek to hold us accountable for the actions of contractors because of our role as facilities manager, construction manager or project manager even if we have technically disclaimed liability as a legal matter, in which case we may be pressured to participate in a financial settlement for purposes of preserving the client relationship.

Because we employ large numbers of building staff in facilities that we manage, we face risk in potential claims relating to employment, injuries, termination and other employment matters.

As part of our facility, construction or property management businesses, we may enter into agreements with clients where we manage the costs for a project. In these situations, we are responsible for managing the various other contractors required for a project, including general contractors, in order to ensure that the cost of a project does not exceed the contract price and that the project is completed on time. In the event that one of the other contractors on the project does not or cannot perform as a result of bankruptcy or for some other reason, we may be responsible for any cost overruns as well as the consequences for late delivery.

42

Table of Contents

Risks Relating to Regulatory Review

Extensive regulation of our businesses restricts and limits our operations and activities and results in ongoing exposure to the potential for significant costs and penalties, including fines or additional restrictions or limitations on our ability to conduct or grow our businesses.

The financial services industry, including our businesses, is subject to extensive regulation, which is very costly. The requirements imposed by regulators are designed to ensure the integrity of the financial markets and to protect customers and other third parties who deal with us and are not designed to protect our stockholders. These regulations will often serve to restrict or limit our operations and activities, including through capital, customer protection and market conduct requirements.

Firms in the financial services industry, including our businesses, have experienced increased scrutiny in recent years, and penalties and fines sought by regulatory authorities, including the SEC, the CFTC, FINRA, state securities commissions, state attorneys general and the FSA, have increased accordingly. This trend toward a heightened regulatory and enforcement environment can be expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and this environment may create uncertainty.

Our businesses are subject to regulation by governmental and self-regulatory organizations in the jurisdictions in which we operate around the world. Many of these regulators, including U.S. and non-U.S. government agencies and self-regulatory organizations, as well as state securities commissions in the U.S., are empowered to bring enforcement actions and to conduct administrative proceedings and examinations, inspections, and investigations, which may result in costs, fines, penalties, enhanced oversight, additional requirements, restrictions, or limitations, and censure, suspension, or expulsion. Self-regulatory organizations such as FINRA and the NFA, along with statutory bodies such as the SEC, the CFTC and the FSA, require strict compliance with their rules and regulations.

From time to time, we and our “associated persons” have been and are subject to periodic examinations, inspections and investigations that have and may result in significant costs and possible disciplinary actions by the SEC, the CFTC, the FSA, self-regulatory organizations and state securities administrators.

The FSA’s 2011 biennial ARROW risk assessment of our U.K. group’s regulated businesses identified certain weaknesses in our U.K. group’s risk, compliance and control functionality, including governance procedures. In accordance with its normal process, the FSA provided us with an initial written mitigation program regarding the foregoing. In response to this we retained an international accounting firm and U.K. counsel to assist us with a wide program of remediation to address the points raised.

Within the program, we provided an assessment of the appropriateness of the scope and structure of the businesses in our U.K. group. We increased the liquidity and capital levels of certain of our U.K. group’s existing FSA-regulated businesses, and also reviewed and enhanced our policies and procedures relating to assessing risks and our liquidity and capital requirements. We also produced detailed contingency planning steps to determine the stand-alone viability of each of the businesses in our U.K. group, as well as a theoretical orderly wind-down scenario for these businesses. Finally, we agreed to a temporary, voluntary limitation on closing acquisitions of new businesses regulated by the FSA and entering into new regulated business lines.

A significant number of outputs from the remediation program were delivered to the FSA in December 2011. The FSA responded positively and on March 1, 2012, the FSA confirmed that it had relaxed the voluntary undertaking of BGC Brokers. With respect to acquisitions, new business lines or material change in its risk profile, members of the BGC European Group intend to provide prior notice to the FSA so as to determine that it has no objection. At around the same time that the voluntary undertaking was relaxed, the FSA presented us with the second part of the risk mitigation program, although the majority of the items presented have either already been remediated or form part of an existing work plan. The items identified are scheduled to be completed within calendar year 2012.

43

Table of Contents

The FSA has indicated that through the use of a skilled person’s report, we will seek to test the progress of our work later in the year as the Company continues to remediate the areas indicated by the FSA in its recent reviews and will continue to dedicate time, resources and funds to such efforts. We do not anticipate that the current costs in connection with the FSA remedial work will have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

The brokerage and financial services industries in general face substantial regulatory and litigation risks that may result in damages as well as costs, and we may face damage to our professional reputation and legal liability if our services are not regarded as satisfactory or for other reasons, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Many aspects of our businesses involve substantial risks of liability and, in the normal course of business, we have been a party to investigations, administrative proceedings, lawsuits, arbitrations and other actions involving primarily claims for damages. Examinations, inspections, regulatory inquiries and subpoenas or other requests for information or testimony may cause us to incur significant expenses, including fees for legal representation and other professional advisors and costs associated with document production and remediation efforts. Such regulatory or other actions may also be directed at certain executives or individuals who may be critical to our business or to a particular brokerage desk. The risks associated with such matters often may be difficult to assess or quantify, and their existence and magnitude often remain unknown for substantial periods of time. The expansion of our business, including into new areas, imposes additional risks of liability. A settlement of, or judgment related to, any such matters could result in civil or criminal liability, fines, restrictions or limitations on our operations and activities and other sanctions and could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our businesses, results of operation, financial condition and prospects. Any such action could also cause us significant reputational harm, which, in turn, could seriously harm us. In addition, regardless of the outcome of such matters, we may incur significant legal and other costs, including substantial management time, dealing with such matters, even if we are not a party to the litigation or a target of the inquiry.

As a brokerage and financial services firm, we depend to a large extent on our relationships with our customers and our reputation for integrity and high-caliber professional services to attract and retain customers. As a result, if our customers are not satisfied with our services, such dissatisfaction may be more damaging to our businesses than to other types of businesses. Substantial legal liability or significant regulatory action against us could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, or cause significant reputational damage to us, which could seriously harm us.

In addition, financial intermediary firms are subject to numerous conflicts of interests or perceived conflicts, including for example principal trading and trading to make markets. We have adopted various policies, controls and procedures to address or limit actual or perceived conflicts, and we will regularly seek to review and update our policies, controls and procedures. However, these policies, controls and procedures may result in increased costs and additional operational personnel. Failure to adhere to these policies, controls and procedures may result in regulatory sanctions or customer litigation.

44

Table of Contents

Business/Financial Risks:

Our businesses may be affected by numerous factors. While we believe our procedures, processes, controls and operations to be adequate to manage or avoid such uncertainty or risks, no assurance can be given in each or every case.

Liquidity, Funding and Indebtedness

Liquidity is essential to our businesses and insufficient liquidity could have an adverse affect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Liquidity is essential to our businesses. Failures of financial institutions have often been attributable in large part to insufficient liquidity. Liquidity is of particular importance to our trading business, and perceived liquidity issues may affect our customers and counterparties’ willingness to engage in brokerage transactions with us. Our liquidity could be impaired due to circumstances that we may be unable to control, such as a general market disruption or an operational problem that affects our trading customers, third parties or us.

Our ability to raise funding in the long-term or short-term debt capital markets or the equity capital markets, or to access secured lending markets, has in the past been and could in the future be adversely affected by conditions in the U.S. and international economy and markets. For example, global economic and market conditions were disrupted during most of 2008 and 2009 and during that time reached unprecedented levels of disruption and volatility. Should such conditions return, our cost and availability of funding would be adversely affected by illiquid credit markets and wider credit spreads. To the extent we are not able to access the debt capital markets on acceptable terms in the future, we may seek to raise funding and capital through equity issuance or other means. Future turbulence in the U.S. and international economy and markets may adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition and the willingness of certain counterparties and customers to do business with each other or with us.

Our funding base consists of longer-term capital (equity, notes payable, collateralized borrowings), shorter-term liabilities (including our credit facility to the extent drawn) and accruals that are a natural outgrowth of specific assets and/or our business model, such as matched fails and accrued compensation. We have limited need for short-term unsecured funding in our regulated entities for their brokerage business. Contingent liquidity needs are largely limited to potential cash collateral that may be needed to meet clearing bank, clearinghouse and exchange margins and/or to fund fails. Current cash balances significantly exceed our modest amount of unsecured letters of credit, unsecured bank borrowings and the amortization of our collateralized long-term debt. We have also entered into secured loan arrangements, which are repayable in consecutive monthly installments with the final payments due in September 2015. A significant portion of our cash is held in our largest regulated entities and we believe that cash in and available to these entities, inclusive of financing provided by clearing banks, is adequate for potential cash demands of normal operations such as margin or fail financing.

On November 5, 2008, we entered into an agreement with Cantor with respect to clearing services (the “Clearing Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Clearing Agreement, Cantor is entitled to request from us, and we shall post as soon as practicable, cash or other property acceptable to Cantor in the amount reasonably requested by Cantor under the Clearing Agreement. The amounts requested shall reflect Cantor’s reasonable determination of its or its affiliates’ required margin requirements in connection with the Clearing Services and/or potential additional funds which may be required to replace Cantor funds being otherwise utilized to post margin requirements for our benefit. To date, no amounts have been requested by Cantor.

We rely upon Cantor and others to provide clearing services and, in the absence of the Clearing Agreement, we would have to secure an alternative third party clearing arrangement to provide such Clearing Services, which might be at higher rates or on less favorable terms. The Company is currently evaluating alternatives to the above-mentioned clearing arrangement with Cantor, including self-clearing at Fixed Income Clearing

45

Table of Contents

Corporation (“FICC”). However, it is not expected that clearing margin requirements will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s ability to pay dividends, make distributions, repurchase its stock or units or effect strategic acquisitions or other opportunities.

We are leveraged, which could adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations and activities, limit our ability to react to changes in the economy or our industry, expose us to interest rate risk and prevent us from meeting our obligations under our indebtedness.

Our indebtedness, which includes $150.0 million aggregate principal amount of 8.75% Convertible Senior Notes due 2015 (the “8.75% Convertible Notes”), $160.0 million principal amount 4.50% Convertible Senior Notes due 2016 (the “4.50% Convertible Notes” and together with the 8.75% Convertible Notes, the “Convertible Notes”) and amounts drawn under our credit facility, could have important consequences, including:

We are dependent upon the availability of adequate funding and sufficient regulatory capital and clearing margin. Clearing capital is the amount of cash, guarantees or similar collateral that we must provide or deposit with our third-party clearing organizations in support of our obligations under contractual clearing arrangements with these organizations. Historically, these needs have been satisfied from internally generated funds and capital contributions by limited partners of Cantor. We have also relied on Cantor’s support to clear our transactions in U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agency products under the Clearing Agreement entered into in November 2008. Because each of BGC U.S. and BGC Global is expected to distribute, on a quarterly basis, all of its net income to its limited partners, we may not have sufficient internally generated funds and may need to ease this policy or raise additional funds. If for any reason we need to raise additional funds, including in order to meet increased regulatory capital requirements and/or increased clearing margin requirements arising from growth in our brokerage businesses, to complete acquisitions or otherwise, we may not be able to obtain additional financing when needed. If we cannot raise additional funds on acceptable terms, we may not be able to develop or enhance our businesses, take advantage of future growth opportunities or respond to competitive pressure or unanticipated requirements.

We may incur substantially more debt or take other actions which would intensify the risks discussed herein.

We and our subsidiaries may to incur substantial additional debt in the future, some of which may be secured debt. Although the terms of our credit facility contain certain financial covenants, under certain circumstances the amount of indebtedness that could be incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial. In addition, we are not restricted under the terms of the indentures governing our Convertible Notes from incurring additional debt, securing existing or future debt (except to the extent already secured), recapitalizing our debt or taking a number of other actions that are not limited by the terms of our debt instruments that could have the effect of diminishing our ability to make payments on our debt when due.

46

Table of Contents

Risks Relating to the Convertible Notes and the Capped Call Transactions

The 4.50% Convertible Notes and the capped call transactions may affect the market for and trading price of our Class A common stock.

Owners of our 4.50% Convertible Notes may employ, or seek to employ, a convertible arbitrage strategy with respect to the notes. Investors that employ a convertible arbitrage strategy with respect to the 4.50% Convertible Notes typically will implement that strategy by selling short our Class A common stock underlying the notes or by entering into cash-settled over-the-counter derivative transactions with respect to our Class A common stock that provide investors with short economic exposure to our Class A common stock.

In connection with the sale of the 4.50% Convertible Notes, we entered into capped call transactions with affiliates of Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank Securities, which we refer to as the “hedge counterparties,” in connection with the pricing of the notes and the overallotment option to cover the shares of our Class A common stock underlying the notes.

The capped call transactions are expected generally to reduce the potential dilution with respect to our Class A common stock upon conversion of the 4.50% Convertible Notes in the event that the volume-weighted average price per share of our Class A common stock, as measured under the terms of the capped call transactions, is greater than the strike price of the capped call transactions (which corresponds to the initial conversion price of the notes and is subject to anti-dilution adjustments substantially similar to those applicable to the notes). If, however, the volume-weighted average price per share of our Class A common stock, as measured under the terms of the capped call transactions, exceeds the cap price of the capped call transactions, the value of the shares of our Class A common stock that we expect to receive upon the exercise of the capped call transactions will be capped and the dilution mitigation under the capped call transactions will be limited based on such capped value, which means there would be dilution with respect to our Class A common stock to the extent that the then volume-weighted average price per share of our Class A common stock exceeds the cap price of the capped call transactions.

In connection with hedging the capped call transactions, we believe the hedge counterparties may enter into, or may unwind, various derivative transactions with respect to and/or purchase or sell our Class A common stock in secondary market transactions.

Such arbitrage and hedging activities could have the effect of causing or avoiding an increase or decrease in the trading price of our Class A common stock following the sale of the 4.50% Convertible Notes, including during any cash settlement averaging period related to a conversion of the notes and following any conversion of the notes and during the period prior to the maturity date. The effect, if any, of any of these transactions and activities on our Class A common stock will depend in part on market conditions and cannot be ascertained at this time, but any of these activities could adversely affect the market for and trading price of our Class A common stock.

A failure by a hedge counterparty (due to bankruptcy or otherwise) to pay or deliver, as the case may be, to us amounts owed to us under the capped call transactions will not reduce the consideration we are required to deliver to a holder upon its conversion of the 4.50% Convertible Notes and may result in an increase in dilution with respect to our Class A common stock.

We may not have the funds necessary to purchase the Convertible Notes upon a fundamental change as required by the indentures governing the Convertible Notes.

Holders may require us to purchase their Convertible Notes for cash upon a fundamental change as described in the indentures governing the Convertible Notes. A fundamental change may also constitute an event of default and result in the effective acceleration of the maturity of our then-existing indebtedness. There can be no assurance that we would have sufficient financial resources, or would be able to arrange financing, to pay in

47

Table of Contents

cash the fundamental change purchase price in full for the Convertible Notes surrendered by the holders. In addition, the terms of any then-existing credit facilities and financing agreements may limit our ability to pay any fundamental change purchase price. Failure by us to purchase the Convertible Notes when required will result in an event of default with respect to the notes.

The fundamental change provisions may delay or prevent an otherwise beneficial takeover attempt of us.

The fundamental change purchase rights in the indentures governing the Convertible Notes, which will allow noteholders to require us to purchase all or a portion of their notes upon the occurrence of a fundamental change, as defined in such indentures, and the provisions requiring an increase in the conversion rate for conversions in connection with make-whole fundamental changes may in certain circumstances delay or prevent a takeover of us and the removal of our incumbent management that might otherwise be beneficial to holders of our Class A common stock.

Conversion of the Convertible Notes may dilute the ownership interest of existing stockholders, and sales of the underlying shares may depress the market price of our Class A common stock.

The conversion of some or all of the Convertible Notes may dilute the ownership interests of existing Class A stockholders, including as a result of any adjustment to the conversion rate on the notes due to our payment of cash dividends above a specified rate. Any sales in the public market of any shares of our Class A common stock issuable upon conversion could depress the market price of our Class A common stock.

If we elect a cash settlement or a combination settlement of the 4.50% Convertible Notes, it may have adverse consequences.

In lieu of delivery of shares of our Class A common stock in satisfaction of our obligation upon conversion of the 4.50% Convertible Notes, we may settle the notes surrendered for conversion entirely in cash or in a combination of cash and shares of our Class A common stock. This feature of the 4.50% Convertible Notes may result in noteholders’ receiving no shares upon conversion or fewer shares relative to the conversion value of the notes, but could reduce our liquidity if we pay the conversion price in whole or in part in cash.

The accounting method for certain convertible debt securities, such as the 4.50% Convertible Notes, could have a material adverse effect on our reported financial results.

In May 2008, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued accounting guidance for convertible debt that may be settled in cash upon conversion. Under this accounting guidance, an entity must separately account for the liability and equity components of convertible debt instruments, such as the 4.50% Convertible Notes, that may be settled in cash or partially in cash upon conversion in a manner that reflects the issuer’s economic interest cost. The guidance requires the fair value of the conversion option of the 4.50% Convertible Notes be reported as a component of stockholders’ equity and included in additional paid-in capital on our consolidated statements of financial condition. The value of the conversion option of the 4.50% Convertible Notes has been reported as a discount to the notes. We will report lower net income in our financial results because interest will include both the current period’s amortization of the debt discount (non-cash interest) and the instrument’s cash interest.

Competition/Retention

Because competition for the services of brokers is intense, it could affect our ability to attract and retain a sufficient number of highly skilled brokers or other services personnel, in turn adversely impacting our revenues, resulting in a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our ability to provide high-quality brokerage services and maintain long-term relationships with our customers depends, in large part, upon our brokers. As a result, we must attract and retain highly qualified brokerage personnel.

48

Table of Contents

In recent years, we have significantly grown the number of brokers in our businesses through new hires and acquisitions of existing businesses, and we expect to continue to do so in the future. Competition for the services of brokers is intense, especially for brokers with experience in the specialized businesses in which we participate or we may seek to enter. If we are unable to hire or retain highly qualified brokers, including retaining those employed by businesses we acquire in the future, we may not be able to enter new brokerage markets or develop new products or services. If we lose one or more of our brokers in a particular market in which we participate, our revenues may decrease and we may lose market share.

In addition, recruitment and retention of qualified brokers could result in substantial additional costs. We have been and are currently a party to, or otherwise involved in, several lawsuits and arbitrations involving competitor claims in connection with employee hires and/or departures. We may also pursue our rights through litigation when competitors hire our employees who are under contract with us. We believe such proceedings are common in our industry due to its highly competitive nature. An adverse settlement or judgment related to these or similar types of claims could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Regardless of the outcome of these claims, we generally incur significant costs and substantial management time in dealing with them.

If we fail to attract new personnel, or fail to retain and motivate our current personnel, or if we incur increased costs or restrictions associated with attracting and retaining personnel (such as lawsuits, arbitrations, sign-on or guaranteed bonuses or forgivable loans), our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially adversely affected.

We face strong competition from brokerages, broker-dealers, financial services firms, real estate services firms, and exchanges, many of which have greater market presence, marketing capabilities and financial, technological and personnel resources than we have, which could lead to pricing pressures that could adversely impact our revenues and as a result could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

The brokerage and financial services industries are intensely competitive, and are expected to remain so. In our financial brokerage businesses, we primarily compete with four major, diversified inter-dealer brokers and financial intermediaries. These inter-dealer brokers are ICAP plc, Tullett Prebon plc, GFI Group Inc. and Compagnie Financière Tradition (which is majority owned by Viel & Cie), all of which are currently publicly traded companies. Other inter-dealer broker and financial intermediary competitors include a number of smaller, private firms that tend to specialize in specific product areas or geographies.

We also compete with companies that provide alternative products, such as contracts traded on futures exchanges, and trading processes, such as the direct dealer-to-dealer market for government securities and stock exchange markets for corporate equities and other securities. We increasingly compete with exchanges for the execution of trades in certain products, mainly in derivatives such as futures, swaps, options and options on futures. Certain exchanges have made and will likely continue to make attempts to move certain OTC-traded products to exchange-based execution. We also compete with consortia, such as those operated by Tradeweb Markets LLC, which are created or funded from time to time by banks, broker-dealers and other companies involved in financial services, such as Thomson Reuters Corporation, to compete in various markets with exchanges and inter-dealer brokers. In addition, financial data firms such as Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg L.P. operate trading platforms for both OTC and listed products, and may attempt to compete with us for trade execution in the future.

Some of our competitors have greater market presence, marketing capabilities and financial, technological and personnel resources than we have and, as a result, our competitors may be able to:

49

Table of Contents

In addition, new competitors may emerge and our product lines may be threatened by new technologies or market trends that reduce the value of our existing product lines. If we are not able to compete successfully in the future, our revenues could be adversely impacted and as a result our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially adversely affected.

Competition for brokerage transactions also has resulted in substantial commission discounting by brokers that compete with us for our brokerage business. Further discounting could adversely impact our revenues and margins and as a result could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our operations also include the sale of pricing and transactional information produced by our brokerage operations to securities information processors and/or vendors. There is a high degree of competition in pricing and transaction reporting products and services, and such businesses may become more competitive in the future. Competitors and customers of our brokerage businesses have together and individually offered market information services in competition with those offered and expected to be offered by us.

The commercial real estate brokerage industry remains highly fragmented. Many of our competitors are small, local, and/or regional firms. We also compete with large multi-national firms that have similar or more diverse services, including CBRE Group, Inc., Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated, and Cushman & Wakefield, as well as national firms such as Grubb & Ellis, with which we currently have in place an asset purchase agreement subject to Bankruptcy Court approval. The Newmark Knight Frank management services business competes across a variety of areas within the commercial real estate services industry, including consulting, project and development management, global corporate management and property and facilities management.

Our ability to retain our key employees and the ability of certain key employees to devote adequate time to us are critical to the success of our businesses, and failure to do so may adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our people are our most important resource. We must retain the services of our key employees and strategically recruit and hire new talented employees to obtain customer transactions that generate most of our revenues.

Howard W. Lutnick, who serves as our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, is also the Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cantor and President of Cantor Fitzgerald Group Management, Inc. (“CFGM”). Stephen M. Merkel, who serves as our Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, is employed as Executive Managing Director, General Counsel and Secretary of Cantor. In addition, Messrs. Lutnick and Merkel also hold offices at various other affiliates of Cantor. These key employees are not subject to employment agreements with us or any of our subsidiaries although we do have an employment agreement with our President, Shaun Lynn.

50

Table of Contents

Currently Mr. Lutnick spends approximately 50% of his time on our matters, and Mr. Merkel currently spends approximately 50% of his time on our matters, although these percentages may vary depending on business developments at us or Cantor or any of our or Cantor’s affiliates. As a result, these key employees dedicate only a portion of their professional efforts to our business and operations, and there is no contractual obligation for them to spend a specific amount of their time with us and/or Cantor. These key employees may not be able to dedicate adequate time to our business and operations, and we could experience an adverse effect on our operations due to the demands placed on our management team by their other professional obligations. In addition, these key employees’ other responsibilities could cause conflicts of interest with us.

The BGC Holdings limited partnership agreement, which includes non-competition and other arrangements applicable to our key employees who are limited partners of BGC Holdings, may not prevent our key employees, including Messrs. Lutnick and Merkel, who as Cantor partners are not subject to these provisions in the BGC Holdings limited partnership agreement, from resigning or competing against us. See “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.” In addition, our success has largely been dependent on the efforts of Messrs. Lutnick and Lynn and other executive officers and former executive officers. Should Mr. Lutnick leave or otherwise become unavailable to render services to us, control of us would likely pass to Cantor, and indirectly pass to the then-controlling stockholder of CFGM (which is Mr. Lutnick), Cantor’s managing general partner, or to such other managing general partner as CFGM would appoint, and as a result control could remain with Mr. Lutnick. If any of our key employees, including Messrs. Lutnick and Lynn, were to join an existing competitor, form a competing company, offer services to Cantor that compete with our services or otherwise leave us, some of our customers could choose to use the services of that competitor or another competitor instead of our services, which could adversely affect our revenues and as a result could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We are generally subject to various risks inherent in doing business in the international markets, in addition to those unique to the regulated brokerage industry, and any failure to identify and manage those risks could adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We currently provide services and products to customers in many foreign countries and we may seek to further expand our operations. On a consolidated basis, revenues from foreign countries were $1,047.9 million, or 71.5% of total revenues for the year ended December 31, 2011. In many countries, the laws and regulations applicable to the securities and financial services industries are uncertain and evolving, and it may be difficult for us to determine the exact requirements of local laws in every market. Our inability to remain in compliance with local laws and regulations in a particular foreign market could have a significant and negative effect not only on our businesses in that market but also on our reputation generally. If we are unable to manage any of these risks effectively, our businesses could be adversely affected.

There are also certain additional political, economic, legal, operational and other risks inherent in doing business in international markets, particularly in the regulated brokerage industry. These risks include:

51

Table of Contents

Acquisitions/New Opportunities

In addition to hiring brokers for new or existing brokerage desks or businesses, we may pursue strategic alliances, acquisitions or joint ventures, which could present unforeseen integration obstacles or costs and could dilute our stockholders. We may also face competition in our acquisition strategy, as well as potential regulatory restrictions or limitations, which may limit our number of acquisitions and growth opportunities.

We have explored a wide range of strategic alliances, acquisitions or joint ventures with other brokerage firms and with other companies that have interests in businesses in which there are brokerage or other strategic opportunities. We also may make acquisitions outside of the financial services industry such as our recent acquisition of Newmark Knight Frank and our proposed acquisition, subject to the bankruptcy court approval, of certain assets of Grubb & Ellis Company.

In addition, from time to time, we have and we expect to continue to evaluate and potentially pursue possible strategic alliances, acquisitions, joint ventures or broker hires. These acquisitions or new hires may be necessary in order for us to enter into or develop new products and geographic areas.

Strategic alliances, acquisitions, joint ventures and new hires involve a number of risks and present financial, managerial and operational challenges, including:

52

Table of Contents

We expect to face competition for acquisition candidates, which may limit the number of acquisitions and growth opportunities and may lead to higher acquisition prices. There can be no assurance that we will be able to identify, acquire or manage profitably additional businesses or to integrate successfully any acquired businesses without substantial costs, delays or other operational, regulatory or financial difficulties.

In addition, in the U.K., we previously agreed to a voluntary limitation on closing acquisitions of new businesses regulated by the FSA or entering into new regulated business lines, which had a temporary impact on our ability to add business to our U.K. group. The FSA has now confirmed that it has released us from this undertaking, subject to us providing prior notice to the FSA to determine whether the FSA has an objection to our proceeding. No assurances can be given that the FSA or any other regulatory body would not institute a similar limitation in the future.

As a result of these risks and challenges, we may not realize any anticipated benefits from strategic alliances, acquisitions, joint ventures or new hires, and such strategic alliances, acquisitions, joint ventures or new hires may in fact materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, future strategic alliances, acquisitions or joint ventures or the hiring of new brokerage personnel may involve the issuance of additional shares of our Class A common stock, which may dilute existing stockholders or may involve litigation.

If we are unable to identify and exploit new market opportunities, our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially adversely affected.

As more participants enter the markets in which we operate, the resulting competition often leads to lower commissions. This may result in a decrease in revenues in a particular market even if the volume of trades we handle in that market increases. As a result, our strategy is to broker more trades and increase market share in existing markets and to seek out new markets in which we believe we can charge higher commissions. Pursuing this strategy may require significant management attention and broker expense. We may not be able to attract new customers or successfully enter new markets. If we are unable to identify and exploit new market opportunities on a timely and cost-effective basis, our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially adversely affected.

We operate in a rapidly evolving business environment. If we are unable to adapt our businesses effectively to keep pace with these changes, our ability to succeed will be adversely affected, which could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The pace of change in the industries in which we operate is extremely rapid. Operating in such a rapidly changing business environment involves a high degree of risk. Our ability to succeed will depend on our ability to adapt effectively to these changing conditions. If we are unable to keep up with rapid technological changes, we may not be able to compete effectively.

To remain competitive, we must continue to enhance and improve the responsiveness, functionality, accessibility and features of our proprietary software, network distribution systems and technologies. Our business environment is characterized by rapid technological changes, changes in user and customer requirements and preferences, frequent product and service introductions embodying new technologies and the emergence of new industry standards and practices that could render our existing proprietary technology and systems obsolete. Our success will depend, in part, on our ability to:

53

Table of Contents

There can be no assurance that we will be able to respond in a timely manner to changing conditions or customer requirements. The development of proprietary electronic trading technology entails significant technical, financial and business risks. Further, the adoption of new internet, networking or telecommunications technologies may require us to devote substantial resources to modify, adapt and defend our technology. There can be no assurance that we will successfully implement new technologies or adapt our proprietary technology and transaction-processing systems to customer requirements or emerging industry standards, or that we will be able to successfully defend any challenges to any technology we develop. Any failure on our part to anticipate or respond adequately to technological advancements, customer requirements or changing industry standards, or any significant delays in the development, introduction or availability of new products, services or technologies, could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Credit Risk

Defaults by Cantor or another large financial institution could adversely affect us or financial markets generally.

The commercial soundness of many financial institutions may be closely interrelated as a result of credit, trading, clearing or other relationships between the institutions. For example, we rely on Cantor as our clearing agent under the Clearing Agreement for certain securities transactions, primarily U.S. government securities, while we self-clear certain other products. A default by one of our customers could lead to liquidity concerns in our business and further, to the extent that Cantor or another entity that clears for us, has difficulty meeting capital requirements or otherwise meeting its obligations, we may need to provide our own liquidity.

As a result, concerns about, or a default or threatened default by, one institution could lead to significant market-wide liquidity problems, losses or defaults by other institutions. This is sometimes referred to as “systemic risk” and may adversely affect financial intermediaries, such as clearing agencies, clearing houses, banks, securities firms and exchanges, with which we interact on a daily basis, and therefore could adversely affect us. Similarly, our vendors, including insurance companies and other providers, are subject to normal business risks as well as risks related to U.S. and international economic and market conditions. Failure of any of these vendor institutions could also adversely affect us.

Our activities are subject to credit and performance risks, which could result in us incurring significant losses and as a result could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our activities are subject to credit and performance risks. For example, our customers may not deliver securities to one of our operating subsidiaries which has sold those securities to another customer. If the securities due to be delivered have increased in value, there is a risk that we may have to expend our own funds in connection with the purchase of other securities to consummate the transaction. While we will take steps to ensure that our customers and counterparties have high credit standings and that financing transactions are adequately collateralized, the large dollar amounts that may be involved in our broker-dealer and financing transactions could subject us to significant losses if, as a result of customer or counterparty failures to meet commitments, we were to incur significant costs in liquidating or covering our positions in the open market.

We have adopted policies and procedures to identify, monitor and manage credit risk, in both agency and principal transactions, through reporting and control procedures and by monitoring credit standards applicable to our customers and counterparties. These policies and procedures, however, may not be fully effective, particularly against fraud, unauthorized trading and similar incidents. Some of these risk management methods depend upon the evaluation of information regarding markets, customers or other matters that are publicly

54

Table of Contents

available or otherwise accessible by us. That information may not, in all cases, be accurate, complete, up-to-date or properly evaluated. If our policies and procedures are not fully effective or we are not always successful in monitoring or evaluating the risks to which we are, or may be, exposed, our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially adversely affected. In addition, our insurance policies do not provide coverage for these risks.

Transactions executed on a matched principal basis where the instrument has the same or similar characteristics to the counterparty may expose us to correlation risk. In this case, the counterparty’s inability to meet its obligations will also result in the value of the instrument declining. For example, if we were to enter into a transaction to sell to a customer a bond or structured note where the issuer or credit support provider was such customer’s affiliate, the value of the instrument would decline in value in tandem with the default. This correlation has the effect of magnifying the credit loss.

We are subject to financing risk in these circumstances because, if a transaction does not settle on a timely basis, the resulting unmatched position may need to be financed, either directly by us or through one of the clearing organizations, at our expense. These charges may be recoverable from the failing counterparty, but sometimes they are not. In addition, in instances where the unmatched position or failure to deliver is prolonged or widespread due to rapid or widespread declines in liquidity for an instrument, there may also be regulatory capital charges required to be taken by us, which, depending on their size and duration, could limit our business flexibility or even force the curtailment of those portions of our businesses requiring higher levels of capital. Credit or settlement losses of this nature could adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Declines in the financial markets have also led to the exposure of several cases of financial fraud. If we were to have trading activity on an agency or principal basis with an entity engaged in defrauding investor or counterparties, we could bear the risk that the counterparty would not have the financial resources to meet their obligations, resulting in a credit loss. Similarly, we may engage in financial transactions with third parties that have been victims of financial fraud which may not have the financial resources to meet their obligations to us.

In agency transactions, we charge a commission for connecting buyers and sellers and assisting in the negotiation of the price and other material terms of the transaction. After all material terms of a transaction are agreed upon, we identify the buyer and seller to each other and leave them to settle the trade directly. We are exposed to credit risk for commissions, as we bill customers for our agency brokerage services. Our customers may default on their obligations to us due to disputes, bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failure or other reasons. Any losses arising from such defaults could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In emerging market countries, we primarily conduct business on an agency and matched principal basis, where the risk of counterparty default, inconvertibility events and sovereign default is greater than in more developed countries.

We enter into transactions in cash and derivative instruments primarily on an agency and matched principal basis with counterparties domiciled in countries in Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia. Transactions with these counterparties are generally in instruments or contracts of sovereign or corporate issuers located in the same country as the counterparty. This exposes us to a higher degree of sovereign or convertibility risk than in more developed countries.

In addition, these risks may entail correlated risks. A correlated risk arises when the counterparty’s inability to meet its obligations also corresponds to a decline in the value of the instrument traded. In the case of a sovereign convertibility event or outright default, the counterparty to the trade may be unable to pay or transfer payment of an instrument purchased out of the country when the value of the instrument has declined due to the default or convertibility event.

55

Table of Contents

The current global financial crisis heightens the risk of sovereign or convertibility events in emerging markets similar to the events that occurred in previous financial downturns. Our risk management function monitors the creditworthiness of emerging countries and counterparties on an ongoing basis and, when the risk of inconvertibility or sovereign default is deemed to be too great, correlated transactions or all transactions may be restricted or suspended. However, there can be no assurance that these procedures will be effective in controlling these risks.

Revenue Concentration

Our businesses are geographically concentrated and could be significantly affected by any adverse change in the regions in which we operate.

Historically, our operations have been substantially located in the U.K. and the U.S. While we are expanding our business to new geographies, we are still highly concentrated in these geographies. Because we derived approximately 41.5% and approximately 28.5%, respectively, of our total revenues on a consolidated basis for the year ended December 31, 2011 from our operations in the U.K. and the U.S., respectively, our businesses are exposed to adverse regulatory and competitive changes, economic downturns and changes in political conditions in these countries. Moreover, due to the concentration of our businesses in these geographies, our businesses are less diversified and, accordingly, are subject to greater regional risks than some of our competitors.

Our businesses are substantially concentrated on rates products and could be significantly affected by any downturn or negative fluctuations in the rates product market.

We offer our services in five broad product categories: rates, credit, foreign exchange, real estate and equity and other asset classes. However, our brokerage revenues are substantially derived from our rates products, which accounted for approximately 42.2% of our total brokerage revenues on a consolidated basis for the year ended December 31, 2011. While we focus on expanding and diversifying our product offerings, we are currently exposed to any adverse change or condition affecting the rates product market. Accordingly, the concentration of our businesses on rates products subjects our results to a greater market risk than if we had more diversified product offerings.

Our revenues and profitability could be reduced or otherwise adversely affected by pricing plans relating to commissions and fees on our trading platform.

We negotiate from time to time with certain customers (including many of our largest customers) to enter into customized volume discount pricing plans. While the pricing plans are designed to encourage customers to be more active on our electronic trading platform, they reduce the amount of commissions payable to us by certain of our most active customers for certain products, which could reduce our revenues and constrain our profitability. From time to time, these pricing plans come up for renewal. Failure of a number of our larger customers to enter into renewed agreements, or agreements on terms as favorable as existing agreements, could have a material adverse effect on volumes on our electronic trading platform, the commissions payable to us, our revenues and our profitability.

Reduced spreads in securities pricing, levels of trading activity and trading through market makers and/or specialists could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Computer-generated buy/sell programs and other technological advances and regulatory changes in the marketplace may continue to tighten securities spreads. In addition, new and enhanced alternative trading systems, such as electronic communications networks, have emerged as alternatives for individual and institutional investors, as well as broker-dealers. As such systems do not direct trades through market makers, their use could result in reduced revenues for us or for our customers. In addition, reduced trading levels could lead to lower revenues which could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

56

Table of Contents

Customer Concentration

Due to our current customer concentration, a loss of one or more of our significant customers could harm our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

For the year ended December 31, 2011, and on a consolidated basis our top 10 customers, collectively, accounted for approximately 40.3% of our total revenues. We have limited long-term contracts with these customers. If we were to lose one or more of these significant customers for any reason, including the recent consolidation in the financial services industry, and not be compensated for such loss by doing additional business with other customers or by adding new customers, our revenues would decline significantly and our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects would suffer.

Market Risk

We have market risk exposure from unmatched principal transactions entered into by some of our desks, which could result in losses and have a disproportionate effect on our revenues, financial condition, and results of operations for any particular reporting period. In addition, financial fraud or unauthorized trading activity could also impact our revenues, financial condition or results of operations.

On a limited basis, our desks enter into unmatched principal transactions in the ordinary course of business to facilitate transactions, add liquidity, improve customer satisfaction, increase revenue opportunities and attract additional order flow or in certain instances as the result of an error and, in a limited number of instances and subject to risk management limits, for the purpose of proprietary trading. As a result, we have market risk exposure on these unmatched principal transactions. Our exposure varies based on the size of the overall positions, the terms and liquidity of the instruments brokered and the amount of time the positions are held before we dispose of the position. This exposure could be more significant in the event that any unauthorized trading activity, financial fraud or similar incidents were to occur.

All trades executed on the eSpeed platform settle for clearing purposes against Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. (“CF&Co.”) and affiliates of Cantor. CF&Co. is a member of FINRA and the FICC. We, CF&Co. and other of Cantor’s and our affiliates participate in U.S. Treasuries as well as other markets by posting quotations for their account and by acting as principal on trades with platform users. Such activity is intended, among other things, to assist us, CF&Co. and Cantor and our affiliates in managing their proprietary positions (including, but not limited to, those established as a result of combination trades and errors), facilitating transactions, framing markets, adding liquidity, increasing commissions and attracting order flow.

From a risk management perspective, we monitor risk on an end-of-day basis, and desk managers generally monitor such exposure on a continuous basis. Any unmatched positions are intended to be disposed of in the short term. However, due to a number of factors, including the nature of the position and access to the markets on which we trade, we may not be able to match the position or effectively hedge its exposure and often may be forced to hold a position overnight that has not been hedged. To the extent these unmatched positions are not disposed of intra-day, we mark these positions to market. Adverse movements in the securities underlying these positions or a downturn or disruption in the markets for these positions could result in a loss. In the event of any unauthorized trading activity or financial fraud that is not detected by management, it is possible that these unmatched positions could be outstanding for a long period. Any principal gains and losses resulting from these positions could on occasion have a disproportionate effect, positive or negative, on our revenues, financial condition and results of operations for any particular reporting period.

57

Table of Contents

Intellectual Property

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights or may be prevented from using intellectual property necessary for our businesses.

Our success is dependent, in part, upon our intellectual property and proprietary technology. We generally rely primarily on trade secret, contract, patent, copyright, and trademark law in the U.S. and other jurisdictions as well as confidentiality procedures and contractual provisions to establish and protect our rights to proprietary technologies, methods and products, and our brand. For example, we regularly file patent applications to protect inventions arising from our research and development, and we are currently pursuing patent applications around the world. We also enter into confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees and consultants and confidentiality agreements with other third parties, and we control access to our proprietary technology.

It is possible that third parties may copy or otherwise obtain and use our proprietary technologies without authorization or otherwise infringe on our rights despite our precautions. Unauthorized use of our intellectual property could make it more expensive to do business and harm our operating results. We cannot ensure that our intellectual property rights are sufficient to protect our competitive advantages or that any particular patent, copyright, or trademark is valid and enforceable, and all patents ultimately expire. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries may not protect our proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws in the U.S., or at all. Any significant impairment of our intellectual property rights could harm our businesses or our ability to compete. For example, reductions in the legal protection for software intellectual property rights could adversely affect revenue. Also, protecting our intellectual property rights is costly and time consuming.

Many companies in the computer and financial services industries own large numbers of patents, copyrights, and trademarks and sometimes file lawsuits based on allegations of infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights. In addition, over the past several years there has been a proliferation of “business method patents” applicable to these industries. There has also been a substantial increase in the number of such patent applications filed. Under current law, U.S. patent applications remain secret for 18 months or, in some cases, until a patent is issued. Because of technological changes in these industries, current extensive patent coverage, and the rapid rate of issuance of new patents, it is possible certain components of our products and business methods may unknowingly infringe existing patents or intellectual property rights of others. Although we have taken steps to protect ourselves, there can be no assurance that we will be aware of all patents, copyrights or trademarks containing claims that may pose a risk of infringement by our products and services. Generally, it is not economically practicable to determine in advance whether our products or services may infringe the present or future rights of others.

Accordingly, we may face claims of infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights that could interfere with our ability to use intellectual property or technology that is material to our businesses. For example, we have been subject to new and ongoing claims by Trading Technologies International, Inc. In addition, restrictions on the distribution of some of the market data generated by our brokerage desks could limit the comprehensiveness and quality of the data we are able to distribute or sell. The number of such third-party claims may grow. Our technologies may not be able to withstand such third-party claims or rights against their use.

In the future, we may have to rely on litigation to enforce our intellectual property rights, protect our trade secrets, determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others or defend against claims of infringement or invalidity. Any such claims or litigation, whether successful or unsuccessful, could result in substantial costs, the diversion of resources, and the attention of management, any of which could negatively affect our businesses. Responding to these claims could also require us to enter into royalty or licensing agreements with the third parties claiming infringement, stop selling or redesign affected products, or pay damages on our own behalf or to satisfy indemnification commitments with our customers. Such royalty or licensing agreements, if available, may not be available on terms acceptable to us, and may cause operating margins to decline.

58

Table of Contents

If our software licenses from third parties are terminated or adversely changed or amended or if any of these third parties were to cease doing business, our ability to operate our businesses may be materially adversely affected.

We license databases and other software from third parties, much of which is integral to our systems and our businesses. The licenses are terminable if we breach our obligations under the license agreements. If any material relationships were terminated or adversely changed or amended, or if any of these third parties were to cease doing business, we may be forced to spend significant time and money to replace the licensed software, and our ability to operate our businesses may be materially adversely affected. Although we take steps to locate replacements, there can be no assurance that the necessary replacements will be available on reasonable terms, if at all. There can be no assurance that we will have an ongoing license to use all intellectual property which our systems require, the failure of which could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

IT/Systems Risk

Our networks and those of our third-party service providers may be vulnerable to security risks, which could make our customers hesitant to use our electronic marketplaces.

The secure transmission of confidential information over public networks is a critical element of our operations. Our networks, those of our third-party service vendors, including Cantor and associated clearing corporations, and those of our customers may be vulnerable to unauthorized access, computer viruses, cyber attacks and other security problems. These networks are provisioned using redundant connections, service providers and routes to provide a high level of redundancy and availability and also to allow partitioning and containment of potential security threats. However, there can be no assurance that such measures will be effective against all future threats. People who circumvent security measures could wrongfully use our information or cause interruptions or malfunctions in our operations, which could make our customers hesitant to use our electronic marketplaces. We may be required to expend significant resources to protect against the threat of security breaches or to alleviate problems, including reputational harm and litigation, caused by any breaches.

If we experience computer systems failures or capacity constraints, our ability to conduct our business operations could be harmed.

We support and maintain many of our computer systems and networks internally. Our failure to monitor or maintain these systems and networks or, if necessary, to find a replacement for this technology in a timely and cost-effective manner would have a material adverse effect on our ability to conduct our business operations. Although all of our business critical systems have been designed and implemented with fault tolerant and/or redundant clustered hardware and diversely routed network connectivity, our redundant systems or disaster recovery plans may prove to be inadequate. Although we have four geographically disparate main data centers, they could be subject to failure due to environmental factors, power outage and other factors. Accordingly, we may be subject to system failures and outages which might impact our revenues and relationships with customers. In addition, we will be subject to risk in the event that systems of our partners, customers or vendors are subject to failures and outages.

We rely on third parties for various computer and communications systems, such as telephone companies, online service providers, data processors, clearance organizations and software and hardware vendors. Our systems, or those of our third-party providers, may fail or operate slowly, causing one or more of the following:

59

Table of Contents

There can be no assurance that we will not experience additional systems failures in the future from power or telecommunications failures, acts of God or war, terrorist attacks, human error, natural disasters, fire, power loss, sabotage, cyber attacks, hardware or software malfunctions or defects, computer viruses, intentional acts of vandalism and similar events. Any system failure that causes an interruption in service or decreases the responsiveness of our service, including failures caused by customer error or misuse of our systems, could damage our reputation, business and brand name.

Malicious attacks or related failures of our operational systems or infrastructure, or those of third parties, could impair our liquidity, disrupt our businesses, result in the disclosure of confidential information, damage our reputation and cause losses.

Our businesses require us to process and monitor, on a daily basis, a very large number of transactions, many of which are highly complex, across numerous and diverse markets in many currencies. Developing and maintaining our operational systems and infrastructure is challenging, particularly as a result of rapidly evolving legal and regulatory requirements and technological shifts. Our financial, accounting, data processing or other operating systems and facilities may fail to operate properly or become disabled as a result of events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, such as a cyber attack or other unforeseen malicious or catastrophic events, which may adversely affect our ability to process these transactions or provide services.

In addition, our operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information on our computer systems and networks. Although we take protective measures such as software programs, firewalls and similar technology to maintain the confidentiality, integrity and availability of BGC’s and our clients’ information, and endeavor to modify these protective measures as circumstances warrant, the nature of the threats continues to evolve. As a result, our computer systems, software and networks may be vulnerable to unauthorized access, loss or destruction of data (including confidential client information), account takeovers, unavailability of service, computer viruses or other malicious code, cyber attacks and other events that could have an adverse security impact. Despite the defensive measures we have taken, these threats may come from external actors such as governments, organized crime and hackers, third parties such as outsource or infrastructure-support providers and application developers, or may originate internally from within BGC. Given the high volume of transactions, certain errors may be repeated or compounded before they are discovered and rectified.

We also face the risk of operational disruption, failure, termination or capacity constraints of any of the third parties that facilitate our business activities, including exchanges, clearing agents, clearing houses or other financial intermediaries. Such parties could also be the source of an attack on or breach of our operational systems, data or infrastructure.

If one or more of these events or malicious attacks occurs, it could potentially jeopardize the confidential, proprietary and other information processed and stored in, and transmitted through, our computer systems and networks, or otherwise cause interruptions or malfunctions in BGC’s, as well as our clients’ or other third parties’, operations, which could result in reputational damage, financial losses, regulatory penalties and/or client dissatisfaction or loss.

60

Table of Contents

Internal Controls

If we fail to implement and maintain an effective internal control environment, our businesses and stock price could suffer, and we may need to restate our financial statements.

We are subject to the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) and the applicable SEC rules and regulations that require an annual management report on our internal controls over financial reporting. Such a report includes, among other matters, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting and an attestation report by our independent registered public accounting firm addressing this assessment.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2009, our management identified a material weakness in our internal controls related to four unauthorized trades and failure to submit confirmations in one of our foreign offices. We determined that we lacked certain controls with respect to the activities of the broker and that the operational and risk management controls in place to monitor the broker’s activities were not properly performed in this instance and therefore were not effective with respect to this event. Performance of secondary controls resulted in the identification of these trades, which management believes were an isolated occurrence.

During the quarter ended September 30, 2009, our management implemented control enhancements to remediate this material weakness in internal controls. These control enhancements included: improving management oversight controls to enable increased awareness of unauthorized or unmatched activity; increased controls around monitoring and recording of client instructions and settlements; enhanced procedures for pre-settlement matching of trades; automated trade confirmation processes; implementing a process to ensure that all trade date reconciliation procedures are being properly performed and reviewed; and improved management reporting regarding compliance, risk monitoring and P&L activity. Although this material weakness was remediated as of December 31, 2009, there can be no assurance that a similar incident could not occur.

Internal control over financial reporting, no matter how well designed, has inherent limitations. Therefore, internal controls over financial reporting determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and may not prevent or detect all misstatements. Due to the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the internal controls. Moreover, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate due to changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. As such, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, which may have a material adverse effect on our stock price.

Ongoing compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as compliance with current and future regulatory control requirements, including those expected to be imposed by the FSA, may require significant expenses and divert management resources from our operations and could require a restructuring of our internal controls over financial reporting. Any such expenses, time reallocations or restructuring could be disruptive and have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Tax

We may be required to pay Cantor for a significant portion of the tax benefit relating to any additional tax depreciation or amortization deductions we claim as a result of any step-up in the tax basis in the assets of BGC U.S. and BGC Global resulting from the exchange of interests in BGC Holdings for our common stock.

Cantor’s partnership interests in BGC Holdings may be exchanged for shares of our Class A common stock or our Class B common stock, on a one-for-one basis (subject to customary anti-dilution adjustments). The exchanges may result in increases to our share of the tax basis of the tangible and intangible assets of each of

61

Table of Contents

BGC U.S. and BGC Global that otherwise would not have been available, although the Internal Revenue Service may challenge all or part of that tax basis increase, and a court could sustain such a challenge by the Internal Revenue Service. These increases in tax basis, if sustained, may reduce the amount of tax that we would otherwise be required to pay in the future.

We are a party rights and obligations under a tax receivable agreement with Cantor that provides for the payment by us to Cantor of 85% of the amount of cash savings, if any, in U.S. federal, state and local income tax or franchise tax that we actually realize as a result of these increases in tax basis and of certain other tax benefits related to its entering into the tax receivable agreement, including tax benefits attributable to payments under the tax receivable agreement. It is expected that we will benefit from the remaining 15% of cash savings, if any, in income tax that we realize. (See—“Tax Receivable Agreement.”)

Other General Risks

Our business is global and exchange rate fluctuations impact our results.

Because our business is global, we are exposed to risks associated with changes in foreign exchange rates. Changes in foreign currency rates create volatility in the U.S. dollar equivalent of revenues and expenses, in particular with regard to British Pounds and Euros. In addition, changes in the remeasurement of our foreign currency denominated net assets are recorded as part of our results of operations and fluctuate with changes in foreign currency rates. We monitor the net exposure in foreign currencies on a daily basis and hedge our exposure as deemed appropriate with highly rated major financial institutions. However, potential movements in the U.S. dollar against other currencies in which we earn revenues could also adversely affect our financial results.

Employee misconduct or error could harm us by impairing our ability to attract and retain customers and subjecting us to significant financial losses, legal liability, regulatory sanctions and reputational harm; moreover, misconduct is difficult to detect and deter, and error is difficult to prevent.

Employee misconduct or error could subject us to financial losses, legal liability, regulatory sanctions and could seriously harm our reputation and negatively affect us. Misconduct by employees could include engaging in improper or unauthorized transactions or activities, failing to properly supervise other employees or improperly using confidential information. Employee errors, including mistakes in executing, recording or processing transactions for customers, could cause us to enter into transactions that customers may disavow and refuse to settle, which could expose us to the risk of material losses even if the errors are detected and the transactions are unwound or reversed. If our customers are not able to settle their transactions on a timely basis, the time in which employee errors are detected may be increased and our risk of material loss could be increased. The risk of employee error or miscommunication may be greater for products that are new or have non-standardized terms. It is not always possible to deter and detect employee misconduct or prevent error, and the precautions we take to deter and detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in all cases.

The financial markets in which we operate are generally affected by seasonality which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in a given period.

Traditionally, the financial markets around the world experience lower volume during the summer and at the end of the year due to a general slowdown in the business environment and, therefore, our transaction volume levels may decrease during those periods. The timing of local holidays also affects transaction volume. These factors could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in a given period.

62

Table of Contents

While portions of our compensation structure are variable, significant parts of our cost structure are fixed, and if our revenues decline and we are unable to reduce our costs in the amount that our revenues decline, our profitability could be materially adversely affected.

While portions of our compensation structure are variable, significant parts of our cost structure are fixed. We base our overall cost structure on historical and expected levels of demand for our products and services. If demand for these products and services and our resulting revenues decline, we may not be able to adjust our cost structure on a timely basis. If we are unable to reduce our costs in the amount that our revenues decline, our profitability could be materially adversely affected.

Partnership Structure

Our partnership structure may adversely affect our ability to retain, recruit and motivate some employee partners.

While we believe that our partnership structure promotes retention and recruitment, some employee partners may be more attracted to the benefits of working at a privately controlled partnership, which may adversely affect our ability to retain, recruit and motivate these persons. While BGC Holdings limited partnership interests entitle founding/working and other limited partners to participate in distributions of income from the operations of our business, upon leaving BGC Holdings (or upon any other redemption or purchase of such limited partnership interests, as described below), any such founding/working or other limited partners are, unless Cantor, in the case of the founding partners, and us, as the general partner of BGC Holdings, otherwise determine, only entitled to receive over time, and provided he or she does not violate certain partner obligations, an amount for his or her BGC Holdings limited partnership interests that reflects such partner’s capital account or post-termination amount, if any, and not any goodwill or going concern value of our business. Further, certain working partner units, such as PSUs and PSIs, have no right to a post-termination payment. Moreover, founding/working and other limited partners have no unilateral right to exchange their BGC Holdings limited partnership interests for shares of our Class A common stock.

The BGC Holdings limited partnership interests are also subject to redemption, and subject founding/working and other limited partners to non-competition and non-solicitation covenants, as well as other obligations. In addition, the exercise of Cantor’s right to purchase from BGC Holdings exchangeable limited partnership interests when founding partner units are redeemed by BGC Holdings will result in the share of distributions of income from the operations of our businesses on other outstanding BGC Holdings limited partnership interests, including those held by founding/working or other limited partners, to remain the same rather than increasing as would be the case if such interests were redeemed by BGC Holdings. In addition, any purchase of exchangeable limited partnership units by Cantor from BGC Holdings following Cantor’s decision to grant exchangeability on founding partner units will result in additional dilution.

The terms of the BGC Holdings limited partnership interests held by founding partners also provide for the following:

In addition, the ownership of the distribution rights and underlying shares of our Class A common stock received by founding partners is not dependent upon a founding partner’s continued employment with us or compliance with the partner obligations, and with respect to those shares founding partners are therefore not restricted from leaving us by the potential loss of the shares distributable pursuant to these distribution rights.

63

Table of Contents

Risks Related to our Relationship with Cantor and its Affiliates

We are controlled by Cantor, which has potential conflicts of interest with us and may exercise its control in a way that favors its interests to our detriment.

Cantor effectively is able to exercise control over our management and affairs and all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of our directors and determinations with respect to acquisitions and dispositions, as well as material expansions or contractions of our business, entry into new lines of business and borrowings and issuances of our Class A common stock and Class B common stock or other securities. This control is subject to the approval of our independent directors on those matters requiring such approval. Cantor’s voting power may also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control of us. Conflicts of interest may arise between us and Cantor in a number of areas relating to our past and ongoing relationships, including:

We also expect Cantor to manage its ownership of us so that it will not be deemed to be an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”), including by maintaining its voting power in us above a majority absent an applicable exemption from the Investment Company Act. This may result in conflicts with us, including those relating to acquisitions or offerings by us involving issuances of shares of our Class A common stock or Class B common stock, or securities convertible or exchangeable into shares of Class A common stock or Class B common stock, that would dilute Cantor’s voting power in us.

In addition, Cantor has from time to time in the past and may in the future consider possible strategic realignments of its own businesses and/or of the relationships that exist between and among Cantor and us. Any future related-party transaction or arrangement between Cantor and us is subject to the prior approval by our audit committee, but generally does not otherwise require the separate approval of our stockholders, and if such stockholder approval is required, Cantor may retain sufficient voting power to provide any such requisite

64

Table of Contents

approval without the affirmative consent of the other stockholders. Further, our regulators, including the FSA, may require the consolidation, for regulatory purposes, of Cantor and us with respect to our U.K. regulated entities or other entities or require other restructuring of the group. There is no assurance that such consolidation or restructuring would not result in a material expense or disruption to our business.

In addition, the service of officers or partners of Cantor as our executive officers and directors, and those persons’ ownership interests in and payments from Cantor and its affiliates, could create conflicts of interest when we and those directors or officers are faced with decisions that could have different implications for us and Cantor. See “—Risks Related to our Business—Our ability to retain our key employees and the ability of certain key employees to devote adequate time to us are critical to the success of our businesses, and failure to do so may adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.”

Our agreements and other arrangements with Cantor may be amended upon agreement of the parties to those agreements upon approval of our audit committee. During the time that we are controlled by Cantor, Cantor may be able to require us to agree to amendments to these agreements. We may not be able to resolve any potential conflicts and, even if we do, the resolution may be less favorable to us than if we were dealing with an unaffiliated party.

In order to address potential conflicts of interest between Cantor and its representatives and us, our certificate of incorporation contains provisions regulating and defining the conduct of our affairs as they may involve Cantor and its representatives, and our powers, rights, duties and liabilities and those of our representatives in connection with our relationship with Cantor and its affiliates, officers, directors, general partners or employees. Our certificate of incorporation provides that no Cantor Company, as defined in our certificate of incorporation, or any of the representatives, as defined in our certificate of incorporation, of a Cantor Company will owe any fiduciary duty to, nor will any Cantor Company or any of their respective representatives be liable for breach of fiduciary duty to, us or any of our stockholders, including with respect to corporate opportunities. The corporate opportunity policy that is included in our certificate of incorporation is designed to resolve potential conflicts of interest between us and Cantor and its representatives.

Our certificate of incorporation provides that Cantor and its respective representatives will have no duty to refrain from:

The BGC Holdings limited partnership agreement contains similar provisions with respect to BGC Partners and/or Cantor and their respective representatives, and the BGC U.S. and BGC Global limited partnership agreements contain similar provisions with respect to BGC Partners and/or BGC Holdings and their respective representatives.

If Cantor competes with us, it could materially harm us.

Agreements between us and Cantor are between related parties, and the terms of these agreements may be less favorable to us than those that we could have negotiated with third parties and may subject us to litigation.

Our relationship with Cantor results in agreements with Cantor that are between related parties. As a result, the prices charged to us or by us for services provided under agreements with Cantor may be higher or lower than prices that may be charged by third parties, and the terms of these agreements may be less favorable to us than those that we could have negotiated with third parties. For example, pursuant to the separation agreement, Cantor has a right, subject to certain conditions, to be our customer and to pay the lowest commissions paid by any other customer, whether by volume, dollar or other applicable measure. In addition, Cantor has an unlimited right to

65

Table of Contents

internally use market data from BGCantor Market Data without any cost. Any future related-party transactions or arrangements between us and Cantor is subject to the prior approval by our audit committee, but generally does not otherwise require the separate approval of our stockholders, and if such stockholder approval were required, Cantor may retain sufficient voting power to provide any such requisite approval without the affirmative consent of the other stockholders.

These related party relationships may from time to time subject us to litigation. For example, on March 9, 2012, a purported derivative action was filed alleging that certain related party transactions were unfair to the Company. See “Legal Proceedings.”

Risks Related to our Class A Common Stock, Sales of Class A Common Stock and Our Structure

We are controlled by Cantor, which in turn controls its wholly owned subsidiary, CF&Co, which is acting as our sales agent in our controlled equity offering. In addition, we have retained Cantor and its affiliates to provide us with additional investment banking services.

We are controlled by Cantor, which in turn controls its wholly owned subsidiary, CF&Co, which acted as our sales agent pursuant to controlled equity offering sales agreements, entered into on various dates in 2010 and 2011 and most recently on February 15, 2012 (collectively, the “Sales Agreements”), pursuant to which we may offer and sell up to an aggregate of 31 million shares of Class A common stock. CF&Co is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cantor and an affiliate of us. Under these agreements, we have agreed to pay CF&Co 2% of the gross proceeds from the sale of shares. As of March 1, 2012, we have issued and sold approximately 19.3 million shares of our Class A common stock under the Sales Agreements. In addition, Cantor, CF&Co and their affiliates have provided investment banking services to us and our affiliates in the past and may be expected to do so in the future. They receive customary fees and commissions for these services. In addition, they may also receive brokerage services and market data and analytics products from us and our respective affiliates.

CF&Co has retained independent legal advisors in connection with its role as sales agent under the Sales Agreements, but for the reasons described below it may not be in a position to provide us with independent financial input in connection with the offering of shares of our Class A common stock pursuant to the Sales Agreements. We are not required to, and have not engaged, an independent investment banking firm to act as a qualified independent underwriter or to otherwise provide us with independent input in our controlled equity offering.

While our board of directors and audit committee will be involved with any future decision by us to terminate the Sales Agreements or to enter into new sales agreements with CF&Co, our management has been delegated the authority to determine, and to so instruct CF&Co with respect to, matters involving the manner, timing, number of shares, and minimum prices per share or proceeds for sales of our shares, or the suspension thereof, in our controlled equity offering pursuant to the Sales Agreements. Our management may be expected to consult with appropriate personnel from CF&Co in making such determinations, but given the overlap between our senior management and that of Cantor and its wholly owned subsidiary, CF&Co, it may be expected that any joint determinations by our senior management and that of CF&Co with respect to our controlled equity offering will involve the same individuals. In making such joint determinations, our audit committee has instructed our senior management to act in the best interests of us and our stockholders. Nevertheless, in making such determinations, such individuals will not have the benefit of input from an independent investment banking firm that is able to make its own determinations with respect to our controlled equity offering, including, but not limited to, whether to suspend sales under the Sales Agreement or to terminate the Sales Agreements.

Purchasers, as well as existing stockholders, may experience significant dilution as a result of offerings of our shares of Class A common stock.

We currently have in place an effective equity shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 (the “Form S-3 Registration Statement”) with respect to the issuance and sale of up to 20 million shares of our Class A common stock from time to time on a delayed or continuous basis. As of March 1, 2012, we have issued and sold an

66

Table of Contents

aggregate of approximately 8.3 million shares of Class A common stock under the Form S-3 Registration Statement pursuant to the controlled equity offering sales agreement we entered into with CF&Co. on September 9, 2011 (the “September 2011 Sales Agreement”); with approximately 1.7 million shares of Class A common stock remaining to be sold under the September 2011 Sales Agreement. In addition, on February 15, 2012, the Company entered into a new controlled equity offering sales agreement (the “February 2012 Sales Agreement”) with CF&Co., pursuant to which the Company could offer and sell up to an additional 10 million shares of Class A common stock under the Form S-3. Further, we have an effective registration statement on Form S-4 (the “Form S-4 Registration Statement”), with respect to the offer and sale of up to 20 million shares of Class A common stock from time to time in connection with business combination transactions, including acquisitions of other businesses, assets, properties or securities. As of March 1, 2012, we have issued an aggregate of 791,910 shares of Class A common stock under the Form S-4, all in connection with acquisitions in the real estate brokerage industry. We also have an effective shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 pursuant to which we can offer and sell up to 10 million shares of our Class A common stock under the BGC Partners, Inc. Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan. As of March 1, 2012, we have issued approximately 28,254 shares of our Class A common stock under the Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan.

Because the sales of shares of our Class A common stock under the Sales Agreements have been made, and any other future sales of our Class A common stock may be made, in privately negotiated transactions or directly into the market at prevailing market prices or at prices related to such prevailing market prices, the prices at which these shares have been sold and may be sold in the future will vary, and these variations may be significant. Purchasers of these shares may suffer significant dilution if the price they pay is higher than the price paid by other purchasers of shares of our Class A common stock under the Sales Agreements and any future offerings of our shares of Class A common stock.

In selling shares of our Class A common stock under the Sales Agreements, we may determine to instruct CF&Co. not to sell our shares at less than a minimum price per share designated by us. Alternatively, we may instruct CF&Co. to sell our shares so as to seek to realize a designated minimum price per share for all shares sold over a designated time period, or so as to seek to raise a designated minimum dollar amount of gross proceeds from sales of all such shares over a designated time period. These approaches may result in some purchasers of our shares paying a significantly higher price per share than other purchasers, depending upon the number of shares sold, the market prices for our shares, and the liquidity and depth of our market. In particular, this could be the case near the end of any designated sales period, especially if we determine at that time to authorize CF&Co. to seek to sell our shares in privately negotiated transactions at a discount to prevailing market prices.

In addition, the sale by us of any shares of our Class A common stock may have the following effects:

Because we intend to use the net proceeds from the sale of shares of Class A common stock under the Sales Agreements, and may use the net proceeds from future offerings, for general corporate purposes, which, among other things, are expected to include principally repurchases of shares of our Class A common stock and purchases of BGC Holdings units or other equity interests in us or in our subsidiaries from Cantor, our executive officers, other employees, partners, and others, and/or to replenish cash used to effect such repurchases and purchases, investors should be aware that such net proceeds will not be available for other corporate purposes, and that, depending upon the timing and prices of such

67

Table of Contents

repurchases of shares and purchases of units and of the sales of our shares under the Sales Agreement and the liquidity and depth of our market, we may sell a greater aggregate number of shares, at a lower average price per share, under the Sales Agreement than the number of shares or units repurchased or purchased, thereby increasing the aggregate number of shares and units outstanding and decreasing our fully diluted earnings per share.

We intend to use the net proceeds of the sale of shares of Class A common stock under the Sales Agreements, and may use the net proceeds from future offerings, for general corporate purposes, which among other things, are expected to include principally repurchases of shares of our Class A common stock and purchases of BGC Holdings units or other equity interests in us or in our subsidiaries from Cantor, our executive officers, other employees, partners, and others, and/or to replenish cash used to effect such repurchases and purchases. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we repurchased 60,929 shares of Class A common stock at an aggregate purchase price of approximately $392,000, at an average repurchase price of $6.43 per share. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company redeemed 8.6 million limited partnership units at an average price of $6.60 per unit and approximately 0.2 million founding/ working partner units at an average price of $7.77 per unit. In the future we expect to continue to repurchase shares of our Class A common stock and purchase BGC Holdings units from Cantor, our executive officers, other employees, partners, and others, and these repurchases and purchases may be significant.

To the extent that we continue to use the net proceeds of the sale of shares of our Class A common stock to fund repurchases of shares and purchases of units, or to replenish cash used to effect repurchases and purchases, net proceeds will not be available for other corporate purposes. In addition, to the extent that we seek to sell shares of our Class A common stock to raise net proceeds for repurchases of shares and purchases of units, depending upon the timing and prices of the repurchases of shares and purchases of units and of the sales of our shares and the liquidity and depth of our market, we may in fact sell a greater aggregate number of shares of our Class A common stock, at a lower average price per share, in our offerings than the aggregate number of shares repurchased and units purchased by us and the average price per share or unit that we are paying in such repurchases and purchases. Thus, our strategy may result in an increase in the number of our shares and units outstanding and a decrease in our earnings per share on both a basic and a fully diluted basis. Nevertheless, our management believes that selling our shares, and using the net proceeds of such sales to repurchase shares and purchase units, is in our best interest and that of our stockholders. While we believe that we can successfully manage our strategy, and that our share price may in fact increase as we increase the amount of cash available for dividends and share repurchases and unit purchases by increasing the percentage of compensation our partners receive in the form of restricted partnership units, gradually lowering our compensation expenses for purposes of distributable earnings, and lowering our long-term effective tax rate for distributable earnings, there can be no assurance that our strategy will be successful or that we can achieve any or all of such objectives.

The market price of our Class A common stock has fluctuated significantly and may continue to do so. In addition, future sales of shares of Class A common stock could adversely affect the market price of our Class A common stock.

The market price of our Class A common stock has fluctuated widely since eSpeed’s initial public offering in December 1999, and the market price of our Class A common stock may continue to do so depending upon many factors, including our actual results of operations and perceived prospects, the prospects of our competition and of the financial marketplaces in general, differences between our actual financial and operating results and those expected by investors and analysts, changes in analysts’ recommendations or projections, seasonality, changes in general valuations for companies in our business segment, changes in general economic or market conditions and broad market fluctuations. The market price of our Class A common stock may continue to be subject to similar market fluctuations which may be unrelated to our operating performance or prospects, and

68

Table of Contents

increased volatility could result in a decline in the market price of our Class A common stock. Declines in the price of our Class A common stock may adversely affect our ability to recruit and retain key employees, including our working partners and other key professional employees.

Future sales of our shares also could adversely affect the market price of our Class A common stock. If our existing stockholders sell a large number of shares, or if we issue a large number of shares of our common stock in connection with public offerings, future acquisitions, strategic alliances, third-party investments and private placements or otherwise, the market price of common stock could decline significantly. In addition, our stockholders could be diluted by such future sales.

Events which could have such an effect include the following:

69

Table of Contents

In addition, we have registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), 150 million shares of common stock, which are reserved for issuance upon exercise of options, restricted stock, exchange rights and other incentive compensation granted under our Long-Term Incentive Plan. These shares can be sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to restrictions under the securities laws applicable to resales by affiliates. We may in the future register additional shares of common stock under the Securities Act that become reserved for issuance under our Long-Term Incentive Plan or other benefit plans. In addition, we have registered under the Securities Act 425,000 shares of common stock issuable under our stock purchase plan.

We may continue in 2012 our global program whereby partners redeem their REUs or RPUs in exchange for partnership units and receive exchangeability or cash for certain of their limited partnership units and, in many cases, a modification or extension of their employment arrangement.

In addition, we have issued shares of our common stock, warrants and convertible preferred stock and granted registration rights in connection with certain of our strategic alliances.

During 2011, we repurchased 60,929 shares of Class A common stock at an aggregate purchase price of approximately $392,000. The reacquired shares were designated treasury shares and will be used for general corporate purposes. As of March 1, 2012, we had approximately $68.8 million was remaining from the authorization of our board of directors and our audit committee to repurchase our Class A common stock, BGC Holdings limited partnership interests or other equity interests in our subsidiaries, including from Cantor or our executive officers. We may continue to make stock repurchases in 2012 and from time to time we may actively repurchase shares and may cease making repurchases at anytime.

For further information on the foregoing, see “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.”

Because our voting control is concentrated among the holders of Class B common stock, the market price of Class A common stock may be adversely affected by disparate voting rights.

As of March 1, 2012, Cantor beneficially owned approximately 78.3% of our voting power. As long as Cantor beneficially owns a majority of our combined voting power, it will have the ability, without the consent of the public stockholders, to elect all of the members of our board of directors and to control our management and affairs. In addition, it will be able to determine the outcome of matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders for approval and will be able to cause or prevent a change of control of us. In certain circumstances, such as when transferred to an entity controlled by Cantor or Mr. Lutnick, the shares of Class B common stock issued to Cantor may be transferred without conversion to Class A common stock.

The holders of Class A common stock and Class B common stock have substantially identical rights, except that holders of Class A common stock are entitled to one vote per share, while holders of Class B common stock are entitled to 10 votes per share on all matters to be voted on by stockholders in general. These votes are controlled by Cantor and are not subject to conversion or termination by our board of directors or any committee thereof, or any other stockholder or third-party. This differential in the voting rights could adversely affect the market price of common stock.

70

Table of Contents

We are a holding company, and accordingly we are dependent upon distributions from BGC U.S. and BGC Global to pay dividends, taxes and other expenses and to make repurchases.

We are a holding company with no independent means of generating revenues. Any dividends declared by us and all applicable taxes payable in respect of our net taxable income, if any, are paid from distributions to us from BGC U.S. and BGC Global. To the extent that we need funds to pay dividends or to pay taxes on our share of BGC U.S.’s and BGC Global’s net taxable income, or to repurchase shares of our common stock or BGC Holdings exchangeable limited partnership interests or if we need funds to pay dividends, make repurchases or for any other purpose, and either BGC U.S. or BGC Global or their respective subsidiaries are restricted from making such distributions under applicable law or regulation, or is otherwise unable to provide such funds, it could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to declare dividends. In addition, any unanticipated accounting, tax or other charges against net income could adversely affect our ability to pay dividends, taxes and other expenses and to make repurchases.

We may not be able to pay dividends on our common stock.

We are a holding company with no direct operations and will be able to pay dividends only from our available cash on hand and funds received from distributions from BGC U.S. and BGC Global. BGC U.S. and BGC Global intend to distribute to their limited partners, including us, on a pro rata and quarterly basis, cash that is not required to meet BGC U.S.’s and BGC Global’s anticipated business needs. As a result, BGC U.S.’s and BGC Global’s ability, and in turn our ability, to make any distributions will depend upon the continuing profitability and strategic and operating needs of our business, including various capital adequacy and clearing capital requirements promulgated by regulatory, banking and exchange authorities to which our subsidiaries are subject. We expect to pay not less than 75% of our post-tax distributable earnings per fully diluted share as cash dividends to all common stockholders, with the balance of such distributable earnings to be available to repurchase shares of our Class A common stock or purchase BGC Holdings limited partnership interests or other equity interests in our subsidiaries, including from Cantor, our executive officers, other employees, partners and others.

Our board of directors and our audit committee have authorized repurchases of shares of our Class A common stock and purchases of BGC Holdings limited partnership interests or other equity interests in our subsidiaries as part of this policy, including those held by Cantor, our executive officers, other employees, partners and others, at the volume-weighted average price, to the extent available, of such securities on the date on which such repurchase or purchase is made. As of March 1, 2012 we had approximately $68.8 million remaining under our stock repurchase authorization and may continue to actively make repurchases or purchases, or cease to make such repurchases or purchases, from time to time. In addition, from time to time, we may reinvest all or a portion of the distributions we receive in BGC U.S.’s and BGC Global’s respective businesses, although we neither have current plans to do so nor do we expect to so long as we maintain our current dividend policy. As a result, there can be no assurance that future dividends will be paid. See “Dividend Policy.”

Delaware law and our organizational documents may impede or discourage a takeover, which could deprive our investors of the opportunity to receive a premium for their shares.

We are a Delaware corporation, and the anti-takeover provisions of Delaware law impose various impediments to the ability of a third party to acquire control of us, even if a change of control would be beneficial to our existing stockholders. Some provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”) and our amended and restated certificate of incorporation (the “certificate of incorporation”), and amended and restated bylaws (the “bylaws”), could make the following more difficult:

71

Table of Contents

These provisions, summarized below, are expected to discourage coercive takeover practices and inadequate takeover bids. These provisions are also designed to encourage persons seeking to acquire control of us to first negotiate with our board of directors. We believe that the benefits of increased protection give us the potential ability to negotiate with the proponent of an unfriendly or unsolicited proposal to acquire or restructure us and outweigh the disadvantages of discouraging those proposals because negotiation of them could result in an improvement of their terms.

Our bylaws provide that special meetings of stockholders may be called only by the Chairman of our board of directors, or in the event the Chairman of our board of directors is unavailable, by the Chief Executive Officer or by the holders of a majority of the voting power of our Class B common stock, which is held by Cantor and CFGM, the managing general partner of Cantor, an entity controlled by our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Lutnick. In addition, our certificate of incorporation permits us to issue “blank check” preferred stock.

Our bylaws require advance written notice prior to a meeting of stockholders of a proposal or director nomination which a stockholder desires to present at such a meeting, which generally must be received by our Secretary not later than 120 days prior to the first anniversary of the date of our proxy statement for the preceding year’s annual meeting. Our bylaws provide that all amendments to our bylaws must be approved by either the holders of a majority of the voting power of all outstanding capital stock entitled to vote or by a majority of our board of directors.

We are subject to Section 203 of the DGCL. In general, Section 203 of the DGCL prohibits a publicly held Delaware corporation from engaging in a “business combination” with an “interested stockholder” for a period of three years following the date the person became an interested stockholder, unless the “business combination” or the transaction in which the person became an “interested stockholder” is approved in a prescribed manner. Generally, a “business combination” includes a merger, asset or stock sale or other transaction resulting in a financial benefit to the “interested stockholder.” An “interested stockholder” is a person who, together with affiliates and associates, owns 15% or more of a corporation’s outstanding voting stock, or was the owner of 15% or more of a corporation’s outstanding voting stock at any time within the prior three years, other than “interested stockholders” prior to the time our common stock was quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. The existence of this provision would be expected to have an anti-takeover effect with respect to transactions not approved in advance by our board of directors, including discouraging takeover attempts that might result in a premium over the market price for the shares of our common stock held by stockholders.

In addition, our brokerage businesses are heavily regulated and some of our regulators require that they approve transactions which could result in a change of control, as defined by the then-applicable rules of our regulators. The requirement that this approval be obtained may prevent or delay transactions that would result in a change of control.

Further, our Long Term Incentive Plan contains provisions pursuant to which grants that are unexercisable or unvested may automatically become exercisable or vested as of the date immediately prior to certain change of control events. Additionally, change in control and employment agreements between us and our named executive officers also provide for payments in the event of certain change of control events.

The foregoing factors, as well as the significant common stock ownership by Cantor, could impede a merger, takeover or other business combination or discourage a potential investor from making a tender offer for our common stock, which, under certain circumstances, could reduce the market value of our common stock.

Delaware law may protect decisions of our board of directors that have a different effect on holders of Class A common stock and Class B common stock.

Stockholders may not be able to challenge decisions that have an adverse effect upon holders of Class A common stock if our board of directors acts in a disinterested, informed manner with respect to these decisions, in good faith and in the belief that it is acting in the best interests of our stockholders. Delaware law generally

72

Table of Contents

provides that a board of directors owes an equal duty to all stockholders, regardless of class or series, and does not have separate or additional duties to either group of stockholders, subject to applicable provisions set forth in a company’s charter.

If our dividend policy is materially different than the distribution policy of BGC Holdings, upon the exchange of any BGC Holdings limited partnership interests, such BGC Holdings limited partners could receive a disproportionate interest in the aggregate distributions by BGC U.S. and BGC Global that have not been distributed by us.

To the extent BGC Holdings distributes to its limited partners a greater share of income received from BGC U.S. and BGC Global than we distribute to our stockholders, then as founding/working partners, limited partnership unit holders and/or Cantor exercise any exchange right to acquire Class A common stock or Class B common stock, as applicable, exchanging partners may receive a disproportionate interest in the aggregate distributions by BGC U.S. and BGC Global that have not been distributed by us. The reason is that the exchanging partner could receive both (1) the benefit of the distribution that have not been distributed by us from BGC U.S. and BGC Global to BGC Holdings (in the form of a distribution by BGC Holdings to its limited partners) and (2) the benefit of the distribution from BGC U.S. and BGC Global to us (in the form of a subsequent cash dividend, a greater percentage indirect interest in BGC U.S. and BGC Global following a repurchase by us or a greater value of assets following a purchase of assets with the cash that otherwise would be distributed to our stockholders). Consequently, if our dividend policy does not match the distribution policy of BGC Holdings, holders of Class A common stock and Class B common stock as of the date of an exchange could experience a reduction in their interest in the profits previously distributed by BGC U.S. and BGC Global that have not been distributed by us. Our previously described intention to match the distribution policy of BGC Holdings was superseded by a decision (which we announced on May 7, 2008) by our board of directors to provide for greater flexibility by our management. Our current dividend policy could result in distributions to our common stockholders that are different from the distributions made by BGC Holdings to its equity holders.

If we were deemed an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act as a result of our ownership of BGC U.S., BGC Global or BGC Holdings, applicable restrictions could make it impractical for us to continue our business as contemplated and could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition and results of operation.

If Cantor ceases to hold a majority of our voting power, Cantor’s interest in us could be deemed an investment security under the Investment Company Act. If we were to cease participation in the management of BGC Holdings (or if BGC Holdings, in turn, was to cease participation in the management of BGC U.S. or BGC Global) or not be deemed to have a majority of the voting power of BGC Holdings (or if BGC Holdings, in turn, was deemed not to have a majority of the voting power of BGC U.S. or BGC Global), our interest in BGC Holdings or BGC U.S. or BGC Global could be deemed an “investment security” for purposes of the Investment Company Act. If BGC Holdings ceased to participate in the management of BGC U.S. or BGC Global or be deemed not to have a majority of the voting power of BGC U.S. or BGC Global, its interest in BGC U.S. or BGC Global could be deemed an “investment security” for purposes of the Investment Company Act. Generally, an entity is an “investment company” if it owns investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of its total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items), absent an applicable exemption. We are a holding company and hold BGC U.S. limited partnership interests, BGC Global limited partnership interests, the BGC Holdings general partnership interest and the BGC Holdings special voting limited partnership interest, which entitles the holder thereof to remove and appoint the general partner of BGC Holdings. A determination that we hold more than 40% of our assets in investment securities could result in us being an investment company under the Investment Company Act and becoming subject to registration and other requirements of the Investment Company Act.

The Investment Company Act and the rules thereunder contain detailed prescriptions for the organization and operations of investment companies. Among other things, the Investment Company Act and the rules thereunder limit or prohibit transactions with affiliates, limit the issuance of debt and equity securities, prohibit

73

Table of Contents

the issuance of stock options and impose certain governance requirements. If anything were to happen that would cause us, BGC Holdings or Cantor to be deemed to be an investment company under the Investment Company Act, the Investment Company Act would limit our or its capital structure, ability to transact business with affiliates (including Cantor, BGC Holdings or us, as the case may be) and ability to compensate key employees. Therefore, if Cantor, BGC Holdings or we became subject to the Investment Company Act, it could make it impractical to continue our business, impair agreements and arrangements, and the transactions contemplated by those agreements and arrangements, between and among us, BGC Holdings, BGC U.S., BGC Global and Cantor or any combination thereof and materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition and results of operations.

Not applicable.

We have offices in the United States, Canada, Europe, United Kingdom, Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Our principal executive offices are located at space at 499 Park Avenue, New York, New York. We also occupy a large space at 199 Water Street, New York, New York. Under the Administrative Services Agreement, we are obligated to Cantor for our pro rata portion (based on square footage used) of rental expense during the 16-year term of the lease for such spaces.

Our largest presence outside of the New York metropolitan area is in London, located at One Churchill Place, Canary Wharf.

We occupy concurrent computing centers in Rochelle Park, New Jersey and Trumbull, Connecticut. Our U.S. operations also lease office space in Chicago, Illinois, West Palm Beach and Sarasota, Florida, and Garden City, Long Island, New York. In addition to two London locations, in 2010 we signed a 14-year lease for a concurrent data center in Romford, U.K. Our foreign operations lease office space in Beijing, Copenhagen, Hong Kong, Istanbul, Johannesburg, Mexico City, Moscow, Nyon, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo and Toronto. We believe that our facilities are adequate for our current operations.

After completing the acquisition of Newmark in October 2011, we also have a number of other offices in nine states (NY, CA, CT, FL, GA, IL, MA, NJ, TX) and the District of Columbia. In addition, Newmark operates through license agreements in a number of states, including four states where Newmark does not have its own offices (IN, MI, PA and TN).

In the ordinary course of business, various legal actions are brought and are pending against the Company and its affiliates in the U.S. and internationally. In some of these actions, substantial amounts are claimed. The Company is also involved, from time to time, in reviews, examinations, investigations and proceedings by governmental and self-regulatory agencies (both formal and informal) regarding the Company’s business, which may result in judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief. The following generally does not include matters that the Company has pending against other parties which, if successful, would result in awards in favor of the Company or its subsidiaries.

Employment and Competitor-Related Litigation

From time to time, the Company and its affiliates are involved in litigation, claims and arbitrations in the U.S. and internationally relating to various employment matters, including with respect to termination of employment, hiring of employees currently or previously employed by competitors, terms and conditions of employment and other matters. In light of the competitive nature of the brokerage industry, litigation, claims and arbitration between competitors regarding employee hiring are not uncommon.

74

Table of Contents

Other Matters

In August 2004, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”) commenced an action in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against us. In its complaint, TT alleged that we infringed two of its patents. TT later added eSpeed International Ltd., ECCO LLC and ECCO Ware LLC as defendants. On June 20, 2007, the Court granted eSpeed’s motion for partial summary judgment on TT’s claims of infringement covering the then current versions of certain products. As a result, the remaining products at issue in the case were the versions of the eSpeed and ECCO products that have not been on the market in the U.S. since around the end of 2004. After a trial, a jury rendered a verdict that eSpeed and ECCO willfully infringed. The jury awarded TT damages in the amount of $3.5 million against ECCO and eSpeed. Thereafter, the Court granted eSpeed’s motion for directed verdict that eSpeed’s infringement was not willful as a matter of law, and denied eSpeed’s general motions for directed verdict and for a new trial. eSpeed’s remittitur motion was conditionally granted in part. TT indicated by letter that it accepted the remittitur, which would reduce the total principal amount of the verdict to $2,539,468. Although ultimately the Court’s “Final Judgment in a Civil Case” contained no provision for monetary damages, TT’s motion for pre-judgment interest was granted, and interest was set at the prime rate, compounded monthly. On May 23, 2008, the Court granted TT’s motion for a permanent injunction and on June 13, 2008 denied its motion for attorneys’ fees. On July 16, 2008, TT’s costs were assessed by the Court clerk in the amount of $3,321,776 against eSpeed. eSpeed filed a motion to strike many of these costs, which a Magistrate Judge said on October 29, 2010 should be assessed at $381,831. We have asked the District Court to reduce that amount. Both parties appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which issued an opinion on February 25, 2010, affirming the District Court on all issues presented on appeal. The mandate of the Court of Appeals was issued on April 28, 2010.

On June 9, 2010, TT filed in the District Court a “Motion to Enforce the Money Judgment.” We have opposed this motion on the ground that no money judgment was entered prior to the taking of the appeal by TT. A Magistrate Judge concluded there was no money judgment, but on its own initiative recommended the District Court amend the Final Judgment to include damages in the principal amount of $2,539,468. On March 29, 2011, the District Court affirmed. The parties subsequently stipulated to a further amendment to the judgment to apportion this amount in accordance with the remitted jury verdict between eSpeed. We reserved our rights with respect to this amended judgment and on May 27, 2011 filed an appeal of the amended judgment, which remains pending. We may be required to pay TT damages and/or certain costs. We have accrued the amount of the District Court jury’s verdict as remitted plus interest and a portion of the preliminarily assessed costs that we believe would cover the amount if any were actually awarded.

On February 3, 2010, TT filed another civil action against the Company in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging direct and indirect infringement of three additional patents, U.S. Patents Nos. 7,533,056, 7,587,357, and 7,613,651, and by later amendment to the complaint No. 7,676,411 by the eSpeedometer product. On June 24, 2010, TT filed a Second Amended Complaint to add certain of our affiliates. On February 4, 2011, the Court ordered that the case be consolidated with 9 other cases filed by TT in February 2010 against other defendants, involving some of the same patents. On May 25, 2011, TT filed a Third Amended Complaint, substituting certain of our affiliates for the previously named defendants. On June 15, 2011, TT filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, adding claims of direct and indirect infringement of six additional U.S. Patents Nos. 7,685,055, 7,693,768, 7,725,382, 7,813,996, 7,904,374, and 7,930,240. On October 3, 2011 we filed an answer and counterclaims. On February 9, 2012, the Court granted a motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Patent No. 7,676,411 is invalid, and a motion for partial summary judgment, that Patent No. 7,533,056 is not invalid for lack of written description.

On August 24, 2009, Tullett Liberty Securities LLC (“Tullett Liberty”) filed a claim with FINRA dispute resolution (the “FINRA Arbitration”) in New York, New York against BGC Financial, L.P., an affiliate of BGC Partners (“BGC Financial”), one of BGC Financial’s officers, and certain persons formerly or currently employed by Tullett Liberty subsidiaries. Tullett Liberty thereafter added Tullett Prebon Americas Corp. (“Tullett Americas,” together with Tullett Liberty, the “Tullett Subsidiaries”) as a claimant, and added 35 individual employees, who were formerly employed by the Tullett Subsidiaries, as respondents. In the FINRA Arbitration, the Tullett Subsidiaries allege that BGC Financial harmed their inter-dealer brokerage business by

75

Table of Contents

hiring 79 of their employees, and that BGC Financial aided and abetted various alleged wrongs by the employees, engaged in unfair competition, misappropriated trade secrets and confidential information, tortiously interfered with contract and economic relationships, and violated FINRA Rules of Conduct. The Tullett Subsidiaries also alleged certain breaches of contract and duties of loyalty and fiduciary duties against the employees. BGC Financial has generally agreed to indemnify the employees. In the FINRA Arbitration, the Tullett Subsidiaries claim compensatory damages of not less than $779 million and exemplary damages of not less than $500 million. The Tullett Subsidiaries also seek costs and permanent injunctions against the defendants.

The parties stipulated to consolidate the FINRA Arbitration with five other related arbitrations (FINRA Case Nos. 09-04807, 09-04842, 09-06377, 10-00139 and 10-01265)—two arbitrations previously commenced against Tullett Liberty by certain of its former brokers now employed by BGC Financial, as well as three arbitrations commenced against BGC Financial by brokers who were previously employed by BGC Financial before returning to Tullett Liberty. FINRA consolidated them. BGC Financial and the employees filed their Statement of Answer and BGC’s Statement of Counterclaim. Tullett Liberty responded to BGC’s Counterclaim. Tullett filed an action in the Supreme Court, New York County against three of BGC’s executives involved in the recruitment in the New York metropolitan area. Tullett agreed to discontinue the action in New York state court and add these claims to the FINRA Arbitration. Tullett and the Company have also agreed to join Tullett’s claims against BGC Capital Markets, L.P. to the FINRA Arbitration. The hearings in the FINRA Arbitration and the arbitrations consolidated therewith are scheduled to begin in mid-April 2012.

On October 22, 2009, Tullett Prebon plc (“Tullett”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against BGC Partners captioned Tullett Prebon plc vs. BGC Partners, Inc. (the “New Jersey Action”). In the New Jersey Action, Tullett asserted claims relating to decisions made by approximately 81 brokers to terminate their employment with the Tullett Subsidiaries and join BGC Partners’ affiliates. In its complaint, Tullett made a number of allegations against BGC Partners related to raiding, unfair competition, New Jersey RICO, and other claims arising from the brokers’ current or prospective employment by BGC Partners’ affiliates. Tullett claimed compensatory damages against BGC Partners in excess of $1 billion for various alleged injuries as well as exemplary damages. It also sought costs and an injunction against additional hirings.

In response to a BGC motion, Tullett filed its First Amended Complaint (the “Amended New Jersey Complaint”), which largely repeated the allegations of injury and the claims asserted in the initial complaint. The Amended New Jersey Complaint incorporates the damages sought in the FINRA Arbitration, repeats many of the allegations raised in the FINRA Arbitration and also references hiring of employees of Tullett affiliates by BGC Partners or BGC Partners’ affiliates overseas, for which Tullett and/or the Tullett Subsidiaries have filed suit outside of the United States, including one in the High Court in London and another commenced by a Tullett affiliate against seven brokers at a BGC Partners affiliate in Hong Kong, on which we may have certain indemnity obligations. In the London action, the High Court found liability for certain of BGC Partners’ actions, affirmed on appeal, and the case was settled during the damages hearing thereafter. The Hong Kong case has also been settled. BGC Partners moved to dismiss the Amended New Jersey Complaint, or in the alternative, to stay the action pending the resolution of the FINRA Arbitration. In that motion, BGC Partners argued that Tullett lacked standing to pursue its claims, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that each of the causes of action in the Amended New Jersey Complaint failed to state a legally sufficient claim. On June 18, 2010, the District Court ordered that the First Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Tullett appealed. On May 13, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Judicial Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court dismissing the case with prejudice. Subsequently, Tullett, joined by two subsidiaries, has filed a complaint against BGC Partners in New Jersey state court, alleging substantially the same claims. The New Jersey state action also raises claims related to employees who decided to terminate their employment with Tullett and join a BGC Partners affiliate subsequent to the federal complaint. BGC has moved to stay the New Jersey state action and has also moved to dismiss certain of the claims asserted therein. On November 9, 2011, the court granted BGC Partners’ motion to dismiss Tullett’s claim for “raiding”, but otherwise denied the motions to dismiss and for a stay. BGC Partners moved for leave to appeal the denial of its motions. On December 21, 2011, the Superior Court, Appellate Division, denied BGC Partners’ motion for leave to appeal. On December 22, 2011, BGC Partners filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses. This action is proceeding to discovery.

76

Table of Contents

Subsidiaries of Tullett filed additional claims with FINRA on April 4, 2011, seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief against BGC Financial and nine additional former employees of the Tullett subsidiaries alleging similar claims (similar to those asserted in the previously filed FINRA Arbitration) related to BGC Financial’s hiring of those nine employees in 2011. These claims have not been consolidated with the other FINRA proceedings. BGC Financial and those employees filed their Statement of Answer and the employees’ Statement of Counterclaims, and the Tullett subsidiaries responded to the employees’ counterclaims.

BGC Partners and its affiliates intend to vigorously defend against and seek appropriate affirmative relief in the FINRA Arbitration and the other actions, and believe that they have substantial defenses to the claims asserted against them in those proceedings, believe that the damages and injunctive relief sought against them in those proceedings are unwarranted and unprecedented, and believe that Tullett Liberty, Tullett and the Tullett Subsidiaries are attempting to use the judicial and industry dispute resolution mechanisms in an effort to shift blame to BGC Partners for their own failures. However, no assurance can be given as to whether Tullett, Tullett Liberty or any of the Tullett Subsidiaries may actually succeed against either BGC Partners or any of its affiliates.

In November, 2010, the Company’s affiliates filed three proceedings against Tullett Prebon Information (C.I.) Ltd and certain of its affiliates. In these proceedings, our affiliates seek to recover hundreds of millions of dollars relating to Tullett’s theft of BGCantor Market Data’s proprietary data. BGCantor Market Data (and two predecessors in interest) seek contractual damages and two of our brokerage affiliates seek disgorgement of profits due to unfair competition. In the ordinary course of business, various legal actions are brought and may be pending against the Company. The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings by governmental and self-regulatory agencies (both formal and informal) regarding the Company’s business. Any such actions may result in judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.

On March 9, 2012, a purported derivative action was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York captioned International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund, etc. v. Cantor, CFGM., CF&Co., the Company and its directors, Index No. 650736-2012, which suit alleges that the terms of the April 1, 2010 8.75% Convertible Notes issued to Cantor were unfair to the Company, the Company’s Controlled Equity Offerings unfairly benefited Cantor at the Company’s expense and the August 2011 amendment to the change in control agreement of Mr. Lutnick was unfair to the Company. It seeks to recover for the Company unquantified damages, disgorgement of payments received by defendants, a declaration that the 8.75% Convertible Notes are void and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that each of these allegations is without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

Legal reserves are established in accordance with FASB guidance on Accounting for Contingencies, when a material legal liability is both probable and reasonably estimable. Once established, reserves are adjusted when there is more information available or when an event occurs requiring a change. The outcome of such items cannot be determined with certainty; therefore, the Company cannot predict what the eventual loss related to such matters will be. Management believes that, based on currently available information, the final outcome of these current pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

  Not applicable.

77

Table of Contents

PART II

Price Range of Class A Common Stock

Our Class A common stock is traded in the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “BGCP.” There is no public trading market for our Class B common stock which is held by Cantor and CFGM. The following table sets forth, for the fiscal quarters indicated, the high and low sales prices per share of our Class A common stock, as reported in the consolidated transaction reporting system.

The Company declared quarterly dividends of $0.17, $0.17, $0.17 and $0.17 for the first, second, third and fourth quarters of 2011, respectively.

On March 12, 2012, the last reported closing price of our Class A common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market was $7.80. As of March 12, 2012, there were 355 holders of record of our Class A common stock and 2 holders of record of our Class B common stock.

Dividend Policy

Our board of directors has authorized a dividend policy which provides that we expect to pay not less than 75% of our “post-tax distributable earnings per fully diluted share” as cash dividends to our common stockholders, with the balance of such distributable earnings to be available to repurchase shares of our Class A common stock or purchase BGC Holdings limited partnership interests or other equity interests in our subsidiaries, including from Cantor, our executive officers, other employees, partners and others. Please see below for a detailed definition of “post-tax distributable earnings per fully diluted share.”

We expect to pay such dividends, if and when declared by our board of directors, on a quarterly basis. The dividend to our common stockholders is expected to be calculated based on post-tax distributable earnings allocated to BGC Partners, Inc. and generated over the fiscal quarter ending prior to the record date for the dividend. No assurance can be made, however, that a dividend will be paid each quarter.

The declaration, payment, timing and amount of any future dividends payable by us will be at the sole discretion of our board of directors. We are a holding company, with no direct operations, and therefore we are able to pay dividends only from our available cash on hand and funds received from distributions from BGC U.S. and BGC Global. Our ability to pay dividends may also be limited by regulatory considerations as well as by covenants contained in financing or other agreements. In addition, under Delaware law, dividends may be payable only out of surplus, which is our net assets minus our capital, or, if we have no surplus, out of our net profits for the fiscal year in which the dividend is declared and/or the preceding fiscal year. Accordingly, any unanticipated accounting, tax, regulatory or other charges against net income may adversely affect our ability to declare dividends. While we intend to declare and pay dividends quarterly, there can be no assurance that our board of directors will declare dividends at all or on a regular basis or that the amount of our dividends will not change.

78

Table of Contents

Partnership and Equity Repurchases

Our board of directors and our audit committee have authorized repurchases of shares of our Class A common stock and purchases of BGC Holdings limited partnership interests or other equity interests in our subsidiaries, including those held by Cantor, our executive officers, other employees, partners and others, at the volume-weighted average price, to the extent available, of such securities on the date on which such repurchase or purchase is made. As of March 1, 2012, we had approximately $68.8 million remaining under this authorization and may continue to actively make repurchases or purchases, or cease to make such repurchases or purchases, from time to time.

The following table details our share repurchase activity during the fourth quarter of 2011, including the total number of shares purchased, the average price paid per share, the number of shares repurchased as part of our publicly announced plans and the approximate value that may yet be purchased under these plans:

Certain Definitions

“Revenues for distributable earnings,” “pre-tax distributable earnings” and “post-tax distributable earnings” are supplemental measures of operating performance that are used by management to evaluate the financial performance of the Company and its subsidiaries. BGC Partners believes that distributable earnings best reflects the operating earnings generated by the Company on a consolidated basis and are the earnings which management considers available for distribution to BGC Partners, Inc. and its common stockholders, as well as to holders of BGC Holdings partnership units during any period.

As compared with “income (loss) from operations before income taxes,” “net income (loss) for fully diluted shares,” and “fully diluted earnings (loss) per share,” all prepared in accordance with GAAP, distributable earnings calculations primarily exclude certain non-cash compensation and other expenses which generally do not involve the receipt or outlay of cash by the Company, which do not dilute existing stockholders, and which do not have economic consequences, as described below. In addition, distributable earnings calculations exclude certain gains and charges that management believes do not best reflect the ordinary operating results of BGC.

Revenues for distributable earnings are defined as GAAP revenues excluding the impact of BGC Partners, Inc.’s non-cash earnings or losses related to its equity investments, such as in Aqua Securities, L.P. and ELX Futures, L.P., and its holding company general partner, ELX Futures Holdings LLC. Revenues for distributable earnings also include the collection of receivables which would have been recognized for GAAP other than for the effect of acquisition accounting.

Pre-tax distributable earnings are defined as GAAP income (loss) from operations before income taxes excluding items that are primarily non-cash, non-dilutive, and non-economic, such as:

79

Table of Contents

Distributable earnings calculations also exclude charges related to purchases, cancellations or redemptions of partnership interests and certain one-time or non-recurring items, if any.

“Compensation and employee benefits” expense for distributable earnings will also include broker commission payouts relating to the aforementioned collection of receivables.

Beginning with the first quarter of 2011, BGC’s definition of distributable earnings was revised to exclude certain gains and charges with respect to acquisitions, dispositions, and resolutions of litigation. This change in the definition of distributable earnings is not reflected in, nor does it affect the Company’s presentation of prior periods. Management believes that excluding these gains and charges best reflects the operating performance of BGC.

Since distributable earnings are calculated on a pre-tax basis, management intends to also report “post-tax distributable earnings” and “post-tax distributable earnings per fully diluted share”:

BGCs’ distributable earnings per share calculations assume either that:

Each quarter, the dividend to common stockholders is expected to be determined by the Company’s Board of Directors with reference to post-tax distributable earnings per fully diluted share. In addition to the Company’s quarterly dividend to common stockholders, BGC Partners expects to pay a pro-rata distribution of net income to BGC Holdings founding/working partner and other units, including REUs, RPUs, PSUs and PSIs, and to Cantor for its noncontrolling interest. The amount of all of these payments is expected to be determined using the above definition of pre-tax distributable earnings per share.

Certain employees who are holders of RSUs are granted pro-rata payments equivalent to the amount of dividends paid to common stockholders. Under GAAP, a portion of the dividend equivalents on RSUs is required to be taken as a compensation charge in the period paid. However, to the extent that they represent cash payments made from the prior period’s distributable earnings, they do not dilute existing stockholders and are therefore excluded from the calculation of distributable earnings.

Distributable earnings is not meant to be an exact measure of cash generated by operations and available for distribution, nor should it be considered in isolation or as an alternative to cash flow from operations or GAAP net income (loss). The Company views distributable earnings as a metric that is not necessarily indicative of liquidity or the cash available to fund its operations.

Pre- and post-tax distributable earnings are not intended to replace the Company’s presentation of GAAP financial results. However, management believes that they help provide investors with a clearer understanding of BGC Partners’ financial performance and offer useful information to both management and investors regarding certain financial and business trends related to the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. Management believes that distributable earnings and the GAAP measures of financial performance should be considered together.

80

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth selected consolidated financial data for the last five years ended December 31, 2011. This selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with “Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our Consolidated Financial Statements and the accompanying Notes thereto included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Amounts in thousands, except per share data.

81

Table of Contents

The following discussion of BGC Partners, Inc.’s financial condition and results of operations should be read together with BGC Partners, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements and notes to those statements, included elsewhere in this document. When used herein, the terms “BGC Partners,” “BGC,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to BGC Partners, Inc., including consolidated subsidiaries.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Form 10-K”) contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such statements are based upon current expectations that involve risks and uncertainties. Any statements contained herein that are not statements of historical fact may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. For example, words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue,” “strategy,” “believes,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “expects,” “intends” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements.

Our actual results and the outcome and timing of certain events may differ significantly from the expectations discussed in the forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause or contribute to such a discrepancy include, but are not limited to:

82

Table of Contents

This discussion summarizes the significant factors affecting our results of operations and financial condition during the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010. This discussion is provided to increase the understanding of, and should be read in conjunction with, our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included elsewhere in this Report.

Overview and Business Environment

BGC Partners is a leading global brokerage company primarily servicing the wholesale financial markets. The Company specializes in the brokering of a broad range of products, including fixed income securities, interest rate swaps, foreign exchange, equities, equity derivatives, credit derivatives, commercial real estate,

83

Table of Contents

property derivatives, commodities, futures, and structured products. BGC Partners also provides a full range of services, including trade execution, broker-dealer services, clearing, processing, information, and other back-office services to a broad range of financial and non-financial institutions. BGC Partners’ integrated platform is designed to provide flexibility to customers with regard to price discovery, execution and processing of transactions, and enables them to use voice, hybrid, or in many markets, fully electronic brokerage services in connection with transactions executed either over-the-counter (“OTC”) or through an exchange.

Through its eSpeed, BGC Trader™ and Market Data brands, BGC Partners offers financial technology solutions, market data, and analytics related to select financial instruments and markets. Through its Newmark Knight Frank brand, the Company offers commercial real estate tenants, owners, investors and developers a wide range of brokerage services as well as property and facilities management. BGC Partners’ customers include many of the world’s largest banks, broker-dealers, investment banks, trading firms, hedge funds, governments, corporations, property owners, real estate developers and investment firms. Named after fixed income trading innovator B. Gerald Cantor, BGC, following the acquisition of Newmark, has offices in over 35 major markets, including New York and London, as well as in Atlanta, Beijing, Boston, Chicago, Copenhagen, Dubai, Hong Kong, Houston, Istanbul, Johannesburg, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Miami, Moscow, Nyon, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Washington, D.C. and Zurich.

The financial intermediary sector has been a competitive area that has had strong revenue growth over the past decade due to several factors. One factor is the increasing use of derivatives to manage risk or to take advantage of the anticipated direction of a market by allowing users to protect gains and/or guard against losses in the price of underlying assets without having to buy or sell the underlying assets. Derivatives are often used to mitigate the risks associated with interest rate movements, equity ownership, changes in the value of foreign currency, credit defaults by corporate and sovereign debtors and changes in the prices of commodity products. Over the past decade, demand from financial institutions, financial services intermediaries and large corporations has increased volumes in the wholesale derivatives market, thereby increasing the business opportunity for financial intermediaries.

Another key factor in the growth of the financial intermediary sector over the past decade has been the increase in the number of new products. As market participants and their customers strive to mitigate risk, new types of equity and fixed income securities, futures, options and other financial instruments are developed. These new securities and derivatives are not immediately ready for more liquid and standardized electronic markets, and generally increase the need for trading and require broker-assisted execution.

From the second half of 2008, and through the first three quarters of 2009, the onset of the credit crisis and ensuing global economic slowdown resulted in an industry-wide slowdown in growth or outright decline in the volumes for many of the OTC and listed products we broker. Beginning in December 2009, and continuing over the course of 2011, industry wide monthly volumes for many of the products we broker once again increased year-over-year. These industry volumes are generally good proxies for the volumes in our Rates, Foreign Exchange, and Equities and Other Asset Classes brokerage businesses.

BGC Growth Drivers

As a wholesale intermediary, our business is driven by several key drivers in addition to those listed above. These include: overall industry volumes in the markets in which we broker, the size and productivity of our front-office headcount (sales people and brokers alike), regulatory issues, and the percentage of our revenues related to fully electronic brokerage.

Many of these main drivers had a positive impact on our results in 2011 compared to the year earlier.