Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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

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

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   þ      No   o

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.   þ

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

Large Accelerated Filer   þ      Accelerated Filer   o      Non-accelerated Filer   o

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

The aggregate market value of the 20,553,870 shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, held by non-affiliates based upon the last sale price, as reported on the New York Stock Exchange, of the Common Stock on June 30, 2006 was approximately $1.26 billion.

As of February 23, 2007, the Registrant had 18,476,152 shares of Common Stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

          Parts I, II, and IV of this Annual Report on Form 10-K incorporate by reference information from the Registrant’s 2006 Annual Report to Shareholders that is included in Exhibit 13.1 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

          Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K incorporates by reference information (to the extent specific sections are referred to herein) from the Registrant’s Proxy Statement for its 2007 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 2, 2007.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

          Our principal executive offices are located at 800 Nicollet Mall, Suite 800, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, and our general telephone number is (612) 303-6000. We maintain an Internet Web site at http://www.piperjaffray.com. The information contained on and connected to our Web site is not incorporated into this report. We make available free of charge on or through our Web site our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all other reports we file with the SEC, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file these reports with, or furnish them to, the SEC. “Piper Jaffray,” the “Company,” “registrant,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Piper Jaffray Companies and our subsidiaries. The Piper Jaffray logo and the other trademarks, tradenames and service marks of Piper Jaffray mentioned in this report, including Piper Jaffray ^® , are the property of Piper Jaffray.

Financial Information about Geographic Areas

          We operate predominantly in the United States. We also provide sales and trading and investment banking services to selected companies in international jurisdictions, primarily in Europe, through Piper Jaffray Ltd., our brokerage and investment banking subsidiary domiciled in London, England. In addition, in 2006 we expanded our international presence by opening an office in Shanghai, China. Net revenues from Piper Jaffray Ltd. were $31.4 million, $14.4 million, and $11.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively. Long-lived assets attributable to foreign operations were $2.5 million, $1.0 million, and $0.6 million at December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively.

Competition

          Our business is subject to intense competition driven by large Wall Street and international firms. We also compete with regional broker dealers, boutique and niche-specialty firms, and alternative trading systems that effect securities transactions through various electronic media. Competition is based on a variety of factors, including price, quality of advice and service, reputation, product selection, transaction execution and financial resources. Many of our large competitors have greater financial resources than we have and may have more flexibility to offer a broader set of products and services than we can.

          In addition, there is significant competition within the securities industry for obtaining and retaining the services of qualified employees. Our business is a human capital business and the performance of our business is dependent upon the skills, expertise and performance of our employees. Therefore, our ability to compete effectively is dependent upon attracting and retaining qualified individuals who are motivated to serve the best interests of our clients, thereby serving the best interests of our company. Attracting and retaining employees depends, among other things, on our company’s culture, management, work environment, geographic locations and compensation.

Seasonality

          Our equities trading business typically experiences a mild slowdown during the summer months.

Employees

          As of February 23, 2007, we had approximately 1,104 employees, of whom approximately 642 were registered with the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”).

Regulation

          As a participant in the financial services industry, our business is regulated by U.S. federal and state regulatory agencies, self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and securities exchanges, and by foreign governmental agencies, regulatory bodies and securities exchanges. We are subject to complex and extensive regulation of most aspects of our business, including the manner in which securities transactions are effected, net capital requirements, recordkeeping and reporting procedures, relationships with customers, the handling of cash and margin accounts, experience and training requirements for certain employees, the manner in which we prevent and detect money-laundering activities, and business procedures with firms that are not members of the self-regulatory organizations in which we participate. The regulatory framework of the financial services industry is designed primarily to safeguard the integrity of the capital markets and to protect customers, not creditors or shareholders. The laws, rules and regulations comprising this regulatory framework can (and do) change frequently, as can the interpretation and enforcement of existing laws, rules and regulations. The timing and effects of such changes are difficult to predict accurately, and may directly and substantially affect the manner in which we operate our company, as well as our profitability.

          Our broker dealer subsidiary is registered as a securities broker dealer and as an investment advisor with the SEC and is a member of various SROs and securities exchanges (including the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and NASDAQ) and the NASD. The SROs and securities exchanges are self-regulatory bodies composed of members who have agreed to abide by these

regulatory organizations’ respective rules and regulations. Each of these organizations can expel, fine and otherwise discipline member firms and their employees.

          Our broker dealer subsidiary is subject to the uniform net capital rule of the SEC (Rule 15c3-1), and the net capital rule of the NYSE. Both rules set a minimum level of net capital a broker dealer must maintain and also require that a portion of the broker dealer’s assets be relatively liquid. Under the NYSE’s rule, the NYSE may prohibit a member firm from expanding its business or paying cash dividends if resulting net capital falls below NYSE requirements. In addition, our broker dealer subsidiary is subject to certain notification requirements related to withdrawals of excess net capital. As a result of these rules, our ability to make withdrawals of capital from our broker dealer subsidiary may be limited.

          Our broker dealer subsidiary is subject to federal anti-money laundering regulation. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 contains anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws and mandated the implementation of various regulations that require us to implement standards for verifying client identification at account opening, monitoring client transactions and reporting suspicious activity. Certain of our businesses also are subject to compliance with laws and regulations of U.S. federal and state governments, non-U.S. governments, their respective agencies and/or various self-regulatory organizations or exchanges in the area of privacy of client information. Any failure with respect to our practices, procedures and controls in these areas could subject us to regulatory consequences, including fines, and potentially other liabilities.

          Our broker dealer subsidiary is also licensed as a broker dealer in each of the 50 states, requiring us to comply with applicable laws, rules and regulations of each state. Any state may revoke a license to conduct a securities business and fine or otherwise discipline broker dealers and their employees.

          Piper Jaffray Ltd., our United Kingdom brokerage and investment banking subsidiary, is registered under the laws of England and Wales and is authorized and regulated by the U.K. Financial Services Authority. As a result, Piper Jaffray Ltd. is subject to regulations regarding, among other things, capital adequacy, customer protection and business conduct.

          During 2006, our broker dealer subsidiary established a representative office in Shanghai, China, which is registered with the China Securities Regulatory Commission. The Shanghai representative office is subject to the administrative measures on representative offices of foreign securities organizations stationed in China. These administrative measures relate to, among other things, business conduct.

Executive Officers

          Information regarding our executive officers (all of whom have held their current positions with us since December 31, 2006), and their ages as of February 23, 2007, are as follows:

           Andrew S. Duff is our chairman and chief executive officer. Mr. Duff became chairman and chief executive officer of Piper Jaffray Companies following completion of our spin-off from U.S. Bancorp on December 31, 2003. He also has served as chairman of our broker dealer subsidiary since 2003, as chief executive officer of our broker dealer subsidiary since 2000, and as president of our broker dealer subsidiary since 1996. He has been with Piper Jaffray since 1980. Prior to the spin-off from U.S. Bancorp, Mr. Duff also was a vice chairman of U.S. Bancorp from 1999 through 2003.

           Thomas P. Schnettler is our vice chairman and chief financial officer. He has been with Piper Jaffray since 1986 and has held his current position since August 2006, after serving as head of our Corporate and Institutional Services business beginning in July 2005. Prior to that, he served as head of our Equities and Investment Banking group from June 2002 until July 2005, head of our investment banking department from October 2001 to June 2002, and as co-head of this department from 2000 until October 2001. From 1988 to 2000, he served Piper Jaffray as a managing director in our investment banking department.

           Timothy L. Carter is our chief accounting officer, a position he has held since August 2006. Mr. Carter joined Piper Jaffray in 1995 and served as controller from 1999 until obtaining his current position.

           James L. Chosy is our general counsel and secretary. Mr. Chosy has served in these roles since joining Piper Jaffray in March 2001. From 1995 until joining Piper Jaffray, he was vice president, associate general counsel of U.S. Bancorp. He also served as assistant secretary of U.S. Bancorp from 1995 through 2000 and as secretary in 2000 until his move to Piper Jaffray.

           Frank E. Fairman is head of our Public Finance Services business, a position he has held since July 2005. Prior to that, he served as head of the firm’s public finance investment banking group from 1991 to 2005, as well as the head of the firm’s municipal derivative business from 2002 to 2005. He has been with Piper Jaffray since 1983.

           Benjamin T. May is head of our High-Yield and Structured Products business, a position he has held since he joined Piper Jaffray in 2005. Prior to joining Piper Jaffray, he spent ten years with Wachovia Corporation, last serving as Head of High-Yield Sales, Trading and Research.

           R. Todd Firebaugh is our chief administrative officer. Mr. Firebaugh joined Piper Jaffray as head of planning and communications in December 2003 after serving Piper Jaffray as a consultant since March 2002. He was named chief administrative officer in November 2004. Prior to joining us, he spent 17 years in marketing and strategy within the financial services industry. Most recently, from 1999 to 2001, he was executive vice president of the corporate management office at U.S. Bancorp, and previously served U.S. Bancorp as senior vice president of small business, insurance and investments.

           Robert W. Peterson is head of our Equities business, a position he has held since August 2006. Mr. Peterson joined Piper Jaffray in 1993 and served as head of our Private Client Services business from April 2005 until obtaining his current position. Prior to that, he served as head of investment research from April 2003 through March 2005, as head of equity research from November 2000 until April 2003 and as co-head of equity research from May 2000 until November 2000. From 1993 until May 2000, he was a senior research analyst for Piper Jaffray.

           Jon W. Salveson is head of our Investment Banking business, a position he has held since May 2004. Mr. Salveson joined our investment banking department in 1993, and has served as a managing director in that department since January 2000.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.

Developments in market and economic conditions have in the past adversely affected, and may in the future adversely affect, our business and profitability.

     Performance in the financial services industry is heavily influenced by the overall strength of economic conditions and financial market activity, which generally have a direct and material impact on our results of operations and financial condition. These conditions are a product of many factors, which are mostly unpredictable and beyond our control, and may affect the decisions made by financial market participants. Uncertain or unfavorable market or economic conditions could result in reduced transaction volumes, reduced revenue and reduced profitability in any or all of our principal businesses. For example:

	•		Our investment banking revenue, in the form of underwriting, placement and financial advisory fees, is directly related to the volume and value of the transactions as well as our role in these transactions. In an environment of uncertain or unfavorable market or economic conditions, the volume and size of capital-raising transactions and acquisitions and dispositions typically decrease, thereby reducing the demand for our investment banking services and increasing price competition among financial services companies seeking such engagements, which may reduce the amount of business we do, the size of underwriting, placement and advisory fees we receive and our role in the transactions generating these fees.
	•		A downturn in the financial markets may result in a decline in the volume and value of trading transactions and, therefore, may lead to a decline in the revenue we receive from commissions on the execution of trading transactions and, in respect of our market-making activities, a reduction in the value of our trading positions and commissions and spreads.
	•		Changes in interest rates, especially if such changes are rapid, high interest rates or uncertainty regarding the future direction of interest rates, may create a less favorable environment for certain of our businesses, particularly our fixed income business, resulting in reduced business volume and reduced revenues.
	•		We expect to increasingly commit our own capital to engage in proprietary trading, investing and similar activities, and uncertain or unfavorable market or economic conditions may reduce the value of our positions, resulting in reduced revenues.

     The cyclical nature of the economy and this industry also leads to volatility in our operating margins, due to the fixed nature of a portion of our compensation expenses and many of our non-compensation expenses, as well as the possibility that we will be unable to scale back other costs in a timeframe to match any decreases in revenue relating to changes in market and economic conditions. As a result, our financial performance may vary significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year.

Developments in specific sectors of the economy have in the past adversely affected, and may in the future adversely affect, our business and profitability.

     Our results for a particular period may not reflect the overall strength of general economic conditions and financial market activity, due to factors that differentiate our business within the financial services industry. For example:

	•		Volatility in the business environment for the consumer, financial institutions, health care, technology, alternative energy, business services, and industrial growth sectors, including but not limited to challenging market conditions for these sectors that are disproportionately worse than those impacting the economy and markets generally or downturns in these sectors that are independent of general economic and market conditions, may adversely affect our business.
	•		Our fixed income activities are centered on public finance investment banking and municipal sales within the higher education, housing, state and local government, healthcare, and hospitality sectors. Additionally, our high-yield and structured product activities specialize in the secondary sales and trading market for aircraft finance debt. We do not participate in significant segments of the fixed income market. As a result, our results in this area may not correlate with the results of other firms or the fixed income market generally.
	•		A relatively small number of institutional clients generate a meaningful portion of our institutional sales and trading revenues, and failure to replace lost business from our larger institutional clients could materially adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We may not be able to compete successfully with other companies in the financial services industry who are often larger and better capitalized than we are.

     The financial services industry is extremely competitive, and our revenues and profitability will suffer if we are unable to compete effectively. We compete generally on the basis of such factors as quality of advice and service, reputation, price, product selection, transaction execution and financial resources. With respect to a number of these factors, we may be at a competitive disadvantage because of our relatively small size compared to some of our competitors. Consolidation in the financial services industry has bolstered the geographic reach and the capital base of some of our competitors, affording them greater capacity for risk and potential for innovation than is possible with a comparatively small capital base. Larger financial services firms typically have greater resources than we have, giving them flexibility to offer a broader set of products than we can. For example, larger firms have grown their fixed income businesses by investing in, developing and offering non-traditional products. Because we are smaller, it is more difficult for us to diversify and differentiate our product set, and our fixed income business mix currently is concentrated in traditional categories, potentially with less opportunity for growth than other firms may have. Firms with a larger capital base also have greater flexibility to offer credit products to corporate clients, which can be a significant competitive advantage.

     Recently, extensive regulation and increased competitiveness of international markets have reduced the number of financing transactions conducted in the United States. Larger firms have leveraged their size to adapt to this trend, primarily by growing and supporting their international operations. To the extent companies forgo financing transactions to avoid extensive regulation or use international markets where we currently do not have a presence, our business may be adversely affected.

We have experienced significant pricing pressure in areas of our business, which may impair our revenues and profitability.

     In recent years we have experienced significant pricing pressures on trading margins and commissions in debt and equity trading. In the fixed income market, regulatory requirements have resulted in greater price transparency, leading to increased price competition and decreased trading margins. In the equity market, we have experienced increased pricing pressure from institutional clients to reduce commissions, and this pressure has been augmented by the increased use of electronic and direct market access trading, which has created additional competitive downward pressure on trading margins. The trend toward using alternative trading systems is continuing to grow, which may result in decreased commission and trading revenue, reduce our participation in the trading markets and our ability to access market information, and lead to the creation of new and stronger competitors. Institutional clients also have pressured financial services firms to alter “soft dollar” practices under which brokerage firms bundle the cost of trade execution with research products and services. Some institutions are entering into arrangements that separate (or “unbundle”) payments for research products or services from sales commissions. These arrangements have increased the competitive pressures on sales commissions and have affected the value our clients place on high-quality research. Additional pressure on sales and trading revenue may impair the profitability of our business. Moreover, our inability to reach agreement regarding the

terms of unbundling arrangements with institutional clients who are actively seeking such arrangements could result in the loss of those clients, which would likely reduce our institutional commissions. We believe that price competition and pricing pressures in these and other areas will continue as institutional investors continue to reduce the amounts they are willing to pay, including by reducing the number of brokerage firms they use, and some of our competitors seek to obtain market share by reducing fees, commissions or margins.

The volume of anticipated investment banking transactions may differ from actual results.

     The completion of anticipated investment banking transactions in our pipeline is uncertain and beyond our control, and our investment banking revenue is typically earned upon the successful completion of a transaction. In most cases we receive little or no payment for investment banking engagements that do not result in the successful completion of a transaction. For example, a client’s acquisition transaction may be delayed or terminated because of a failure to agree upon final terms with the counterparty, failure to obtain necessary regulatory consents or board or stockholder approvals, failure to secure necessary financing, adverse market conditions or unexpected financial or other problems in the client’s or counterparty’s business. If the parties fail to complete a transaction on which we are advising or an offering in which we are participating, we will earn little or no revenue from the transaction. Accordingly, our business is highly dependent on market conditions as well as the decisions and actions of our clients and interested third parties, and the number of engagements we have at any given time is subject to change and may not necessarily result in future revenues.

Our ability to attract, develop and retain highly skilled and productive employees is critical to the success of our business.

     We face intense competition for qualified employees from other businesses in the financial services industry, and the performance of our business may suffer to the extent we are unable to attract and retain employees effectively, particularly given the relatively small size of our company and our employee base compared to some of our competitors and the geographic locations in which we operate. The primary sources of revenue in each of our business lines are commissions and fees earned on advisory and underwriting transactions and customer accounts managed by our employees, who are regularly recruited by other firms and in certain cases are able to take their client relationships with them when they change firms. Some specialized areas of our business are operated by a relatively small number of employees, the loss of any of whom could jeopardize the continuation of that business following the employee’s departure.

Our underwriting and market-making activities may place our capital at risk.

     We may incur losses and be subject to reputational harm to the extent that, for any reason, we are unable to sell securities we purchased as an underwriter at the anticipated price levels. As an underwriter, we also are subject to heightened standards regarding liability for material misstatements or omissions in prospectuses and other offering documents relating to offerings we underwrite. As a market maker, we may own large positions in specific securities, and these undiversified holdings concentrate the risk of market fluctuations and may result in greater losses than would be the case if our holdings were more diversified.

An inability to readily divest or transfer trading positions may result in financial losses to our business.

     Timely divestiture or transfer of our trading positions can be impaired by decreased trading volume, increased price volatility, concentrated trading positions, limitations on the ability to transfer positions in highly specialized or structured transactions to which we may be a party and changes in industry and government regulations. While we hold a security, we are vulnerable to price and value fluctuations and may experience financial losses to the extent the value of the security decreases and we are unable to timely divest, hedge or transfer our trading position in that security. The value may decline as a result of many factors, including company-specific, market or geopolitical events. Changing market practices also are increasing the risks associated with trading positions. For example, in order to win business, firms increasingly are committing to purchase large blocks of stock from issuers or significant shareholders, and block trades increasingly are being effected without an opportunity for us to pre-market the transaction, which increases the risk that we may be unable to resell the purchased securities at favorable prices. In addition, increasing reliance on revenues from hedge funds and hedge fund advisors, which are less regulated than many investment company and advisor clients, may expose us to greater risk of financial loss from unsettled trades than is the case with other types of institutional investors. Concentration of risk may result in losses to us even when economic and market conditions are generally favorable for others in our industry.

Use of derivative instruments as part of our risk management techniques may place our capital at risk, while our risk management techniques themselves may not fully mitigate our market risk exposure.

     We may use futures, options and swaps to hedge inventory. Our fixed income business manages a portfolio of interest rate swaps that hedge the residual cash flows resulting from a tender option bond program. Our fixed income business also provides swaps and other interest rate hedging products to public finance clients, which our company in turn hedges through a counterparty. There are risks inherent in our use of these products, including counterparty exposure and basis risk. Counterparty exposure refers to the risk that the amount of collateral in our possession on any given day may not be sufficient to fully cover the current value of the swaps if a counterparty were to suddenly default.

Basis risk refers to risks associated with swaps used in connection with the tender option bond program, where changes in the value of the swaps may not exactly mirror changes in the value of the cash flows they are hedging. It is possible that losses may occur from our current exposure to derivative and interest rate hedging products and expected increasing use of these products in the future.

     We continue to refine our risk management techniques, strategies and assessment methods on an ongoing basis. However, our risk management techniques and strategies may not be fully effective in mitigating our risk exposure in all economic market environments or against all types of risk, including risks that we might fail to identify or anticipate. Some of our strategies for managing risk are based upon our use of observed historical market behavior. We apply statistical and other tools to these observations to quantify our risk exposure. Any failures in our risk management techniques and strategies to accurately quantify our risk exposure could limit our ability to manage risks. In addition, any risk management failures could cause our losses to be significantly greater than the historical measures indicate. Further, our quantified modeling does not take all risks into account. Our more qualitative approach to managing those risks could prove insufficient, exposing us to material unanticipated losses.

An inability to access capital readily or on terms favorable to us could impair our ability to fund operations and could jeopardize our financial condition.

     Ready access to funds is essential to our business. In the future we may need to incur debt or issue equity in order to fund our working capital requirements, as well as to make acquisitions and other investments. In addition to maintaining a cash position, we rely on bank financing as well as other funding sources such as the repurchase and securities lending markets for funds. Our access to funding sources could be hindered by many factors. Those factors that are specific to our business include the possibility that lenders could develop a negative perception of our long-term or short-term financial prospects if we incurred large trading losses or if the level of our business activity decreased due to a market downturn. Similarly, our access to funds may be impaired if regulatory authorities took significant action against us, or if we discovered that one of our employees had engaged in serious unauthorized or illegal activity.

Increases in capital commitments in our proprietary trading, investing and similar activities increase the potential for significant losses.

     The trend in capital markets is toward larger and more frequent commitments of capital by financial services firms in many of their activities. As we implement our growth strategy following the divestiture of our PCS branch network, we expect to increasingly commit our own capital to engage in proprietary trading, principal investing and similar activities. Our results of operations for a given period may be affected by the nature and scope of these activities, and such activities will subject us to market fluctuations and volatility that may adversely affect the value of our positions, which could result in significant losses and reduce our revenues and profits. In addition, increased commitment of capital will expose us to the risk that a counterparty will be unable to meet its obligations, which could lead to financial losses that could adversely affect our results of operations. These activities may lead to a greater concentration of risk, which may cause us to suffer losses even when business conditions are generally favorable for others in the industry.

We may make strategic acquisitions of businesses, engage in joint ventures or divest or exit existing businesses, which could cause us to incur unforeseen expense and have disruptive effects on our business but may not yield the benefits we expect.

     From time to time, we may consider acquisitions of other businesses or joint ventures with other businesses. Any acquisition or joint venture that we determine to pursue will be accompanied by a number of risks. After we announce or complete an acquisition or joint venture, our share price could decline if investors view the transaction as too costly or unlikely to improve our competitive position. Costs or difficulties relating to such a transaction, including integration of products, employees, technology systems, accounting systems and management controls, may be difficult to predict accurately and be greater than expected causing our estimates to differ from actual results. We may be unable to retain key personnel after the transaction, and the transaction may impair relationships with customers and business partners. These difficulties could disrupt our ongoing business, increase our expenses and adversely affect our operating results and financial condition. In addition, we may be unable to achieve anticipated benefits and synergies from the transaction as fully as expected or within the expected time frame. Divestitures or elimination of existing businesses or products could have similar effects.

Our technology systems, including outsourced systems, are critical components of our operations, and failure of those systems or other aspects of our operations infrastructure may disrupt our business, cause financial loss and constrain our growth.

     We typically transact thousands of securities trades on a daily basis across multiple markets. Our data processing, financial, accounting and other technology and operating systems are essential to this task. A system malfunction or mistake made relating to the processing of our clients’ transactions could result in financial loss, liability to clients, regulatory intervention, reputational damage and constraints on our ability to grow. We outsource a substantial portion of our critical data processing activities, including trade processing and back office data processing. For example, we have entered into contracts with Thomson Financial, Inc. pursuant to which Thomson Financial handles our trade

and back office processing, and Unisys Corporation, pursuant to which Unisys supports our data center and network management technology needs. We currently are evaluating a system conversion with another third party, which would replace our contract with Thomson Financial. We also contract with third parties for our market data services, which constantly broadcast news, quotes, analytics and other relevant information to our employees. We contract with other vendors to produce and mail our customer statements and to provide other services. In the event that any of these service providers fails to adequately perform such services or the relationship between that service provider and us is terminated, we may experience a significant disruption in our operations, including our ability to timely and accurately process our clients’ transactions or maintain complete and accurate records of those transactions.

     Adapting or developing our technology systems to meet new regulatory requirements, client needs and industry demands also is critical for our business. Introduction of new technologies present new challenges on a regular basis. We have an ongoing need to upgrade and improve our various technology systems, including our data processing, financial, accounting and trading systems. This need could present operational issues or require significant capital spending. It also may require us to make additional investments in technology systems and may require us to reevaluate the current value and/or expected useful lives of our technology systems, which could negatively impact our results of operations.

     Secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our computer systems and networks also is critically important to our business. We take protective measures and endeavor to modify them as circumstances warrant. However, our computer systems, software and networks may be vulnerable to unauthorized access, computer viruses or other malicious code, and other events that could have a security impact. If one or more of such events occur, this potentially could jeopardize our or our clients’ or counterparties’ confidential and other information processed and stored in, and transmitted through, our computer systems and networks, or otherwise cause interruptions or malfunctions in our, our clients’, our counterparties’ or third parties’ operations. We may be required to expend significant additional resources to modify our protective measures or to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or other exposures, and we may be subject to litigation and financial losses that are either not insured against or not fully covered through any insurance maintained by us.

     A disruption in the infrastructure that supports our business due to fire, natural disaster, power or communication failure, act of terrorism or war may affect our ability to service and interact with our clients. If we are not able to implement contingency plans effectively, any such disruption could harm our results of operations.

Our business is subject to extensive regulation that limits our business activities, and a significant regulatory action against our company may have a material adverse financial effect or cause significant reputational harm to our company.

     As a participant in the financial services industry, we are subject to complex and extensive regulation of many aspects of our business by U.S. federal and state regulatory agencies, securities exchanges and other self-regulatory organizations and by foreign governmental agencies, regulatory bodies and securities exchanges. Generally, the requirements imposed by our regulators are designed to ensure the integrity of the financial markets and to protect customers and other third parties who deal with us. These requirements are not designed to protect our shareholders. Consequently, these regulations often serve to limit our activities, through net capital, customer protection and market conduct requirements and restrictions on the businesses in which we may operate or invest. Compliance with many of these regulations entails a number of risks, particularly in areas where applicable regulations may be newer or unclear. In addition, regulatory authorities in all jurisdictions in which we conduct business may intervene in our business and we and our employees could be fined or otherwise disciplined for violations or prohibited from engaging in some of our business activities.

     With the integrity of the financial markets having been called into question in recent years, the current environment poses heightened risk of regulatory action, which could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or could result in fines or reputational damage to our company. Additionally, many of the issues that face the financial services industry are complex and difficult and our reputation could be damaged if we fail, or appear to fail, to deal appropriately with them. Moreover, new laws or regulations or changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws or regulations may also adversely affect our business. For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules of the SEC, the NYSE and the NASD have necessitated significant changes to corporate governance and public disclosure. These provisions generally apply to companies with securities listed on U.S. securities exchanges and some provisions apply to non-U.S. issuers with securities traded on U.S. securities exchanges. In addition, the scope of new legal and regulatory requirements could require us to invest in additional resources to ensure compliance, and new accounting and disclosure requirements could adversely affect our business.

Regulatory capital requirements may limit our ability to expand or maintain present levels of our business or impair our ability to meet our financial obligations.

     We are subject to the SEC’s uniform net capital rule (Rule 15c3-1) and the net capital rule of the NYSE, which may limit our ability to make withdrawals of capital from Piper Jaffray & Co., our broker dealer subsidiary. The uniform net capital rule sets the minimum level of net capital a broker dealer must maintain and also requires that a portion of its assets be relatively liquid. The NYSE may prohibit a member firm from expanding its business or paying cash dividends if resulting net capital falls below its requirements.

Our U.K.-based broker dealer subsidiary is also subject to similar limitations under U.K. laws. As Piper Jaffray Companies is a holding company, we depend on dividends, distributions and other payments from our subsidiaries to fund all payments on our obligations, including any share repurchases that we may make. These regulatory restrictions may impede access to funds our holding company needs to make payments on any such obligations. In addition, underwriting commitments require a charge against net capital and, accordingly, our ability to make underwriting commitments may be limited by the requirement that we must at all times be in compliance with the applicable net capital regulations.

Our exposure to legal liability is significant, and could lead to substantial damages.

     We face significant legal risks in our businesses. These risks include potential liability under securities laws and regulations in connection with our investment banking and other corporate finance transactions. The volume and amount of damages claimed in litigation, arbitrations, regulatory enforcement actions and other adversarial proceedings against financial services firms have increased in recent years. Our experience has been that adversarial proceedings against financial services firms typically increase during a market downturn. We also are subject to claims from disputes with our employees and our former employees under various circumstances. Risks associated with legal liability often are difficult to assess or quantify and their existence and magnitude can remain unknown for significant periods of time, making the amount of legal reserves related to these legal liabilities difficult to determine and subject to future revision. Legal or regulatory matters involving our directors, officers or employees in their individual capacities also may create exposure for us because we may be obligated or may choose to indemnify the affected individuals against liabilities and expenses they incur in connection with such matters to the extent permitted under applicable law. In addition, like other financial services companies, we may face the possibility of employee fraud or misconduct. The precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases and we cannot assure you that we will be able to deter or prevent fraud or misconduct. Exposures from and expenses incurred related to any of the foregoing actions or proceedings could have a negative impact on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, future results of operations could be adversely affected if reserves relating to these legal liabilities are required to be increased or legal proceedings are resolved in excess of established reserves.

The business operations that we conduct outside of the United States subject us to unique risks.

     To the extent we conduct business outside the United States, we are subject to risks including, without limitation, the risk that we will be unable to provide effective operational support to these business activities, the risk of non-compliance with foreign laws and regulations, the general economic and political conditions in countries where we conduct business and currency fluctuations. If we are unable to manage these risks effectively, our reputation and results of operations could be harmed.

We may suffer losses if our reputation is harmed.

     Our ability to attract and retain customers and employees may be diminished to the extent our reputation is damaged. If we fail, or are perceived to fail, to address various issues that may give rise to reputational risk, we could harm our business prospects. These issues include, but are not limited to, appropriately dealing with potential conflicts of interest, legal and regulatory requirements, ethical issues, customer privacy, record-keeping, sales and trading practices, and the proper identification of the legal, reputational, credit, liquidity and market risks inherent in our products and services. Failure to appropriately address these issues could give rise to additional complaints, claims and enforcement proceedings against us, which could, in turn, subject us to fines, judgments and other penalties.

Our stock price may fluctuate as a result of several factors, including but not limited to changes in our revenues and operating results.

     We have experienced, and expect to experience in the future, fluctuations in the market price of our common stock due to factors that relate to the nature of our business, including but not limited to changes in our revenues and operating results. We may not achieve steady and predictable earnings on a quarterly basis, which could cause fluctuations in our stock price. Other factors that may affect our stock price include changes in competitive conditions in the securities industry, developments in regulation affecting our business, failure to meet the expectations of market analysts and changes in recommendations by market analysts.

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and of Delaware law may prevent or delay an acquisition of our company, which could decrease the market value of our common stock.

     Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions that are intended to deter abusive takeover tactics by making them unacceptably expensive to the raider and to encourage prospective acquirors to negotiate with our board of directors rather than to attempt a hostile takeover. These provisions include a classified board of directors, limitations on actions by our shareholders by written consent and a rights plan that gives our board of directors the right to issue preferred stock without shareholder approval, which could be used to dilute the stock ownership of a potential hostile acquiror. Our board of directors recently approved, subject to shareholder approval,

eliminating the classified structure of the board, which would result in the annual election of all directors in 2010. Delaware law also imposes some restrictions on mergers and other business combinations between us and any holder of 15 percent or more of our outstanding common stock. In connection with our spin-off from U.S. Bancorp we adopted a rights agreement, which would impose a significant penalty on any person or group that acquires 15 percent or more of our outstanding common stock without the approval of our board of directors. We believe these provisions protect our shareholders from coercive or otherwise unfair takeover tactics by requiring potential acquirors to negotiate with our board of directors and by providing our board of directors with more time to assess any acquisition proposal, and are not intended to make our company immune from takeovers. However, these provisions apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some shareholders and could delay or prevent an acquisition that our board of directors determines is not in the best interests of our company and our shareholders.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS.

          Not applicable.

Initial Public Offering Allocation Litigation

     We have been named, along with other leading securities firms, as a defendant in many putative class actions filed in 2001 and 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York involving the allocation of securities in certain initial public offerings. The court’s order, dated August 8, 2001, transferred all related class action complaints for coordination and pretrial purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Allocation Securities Litigation , Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS). These complaints assert claims pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The claims are based, in part, upon allegations that between 1998 and 2000, in connection with acting as an underwriter of certain initial public offerings of technology and Internet-related companies, we obtained excessive compensation by allocating shares in these initial public offerings to preferred customers who, in return, purportedly agreed to pay additional compensation to us in the form of excess commissions that we failed to disclose. The complaints also allege that our customers who received favorable allocations of shares in initial public offerings agreed to purchase additional shares of the same issuer in the secondary market at pre-determined prices. These complaints seek unspecified damages. Seventeen focus cases have been selected, including eleven cases for purposes of merits discovery and six cases for purposes of class certification. We are named defendants in two of the merits focus cases and none of the class certification focus cases. On October 13, 2004, the court issued an opinion largely granting plaintiffs’ motions for class certification in the six class certification focus cases. Defendants filed a petition seeking leave to appeal the class certification ruling and, on December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No 05-3349-CV (Dec. 5, 2006) vacating the class certifications and remanding for further proceedigns finding that (1) a district judge may not certify a class without making a ruling that each F.R.C.P. Rule 23 requirement is met, (2) all the evidence must be assessed as with any threshold issue, (3) the fact that a Rule 23 requirement might overlap with an issue on the merits does not avoid the court’s obligation to make a ruling as to whether the requirement is met, and (4) the cases pending on appeal may not be certified as class actions. Plaintiffs have petitioned the Second Circuit for rehearing and rehearing en banc of its decision.

Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation

     In 1998, we were named, along with other leading securities firms, as a defendant in several putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court consolidated these purported class actions in In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation , Case No. 98 CV 7890 (LMM). The consolidated amended complaint, which sought unspecified compensatory damages, treble damages and injunctive relief, was filed on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in certain initial public offerings for U.S. companies and alleged that defendants conspired in offerings of an amount between $20 million and $80 million to fix the underwriters’ discount at 7.0 percent of the offering amount in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs’ damage claims were dismissed in 2004. Absent any ability to recover damages, plaintiffs have been instructed to advise the court whether they intend to pursue injunctive relief as a class action.

     Similar purported class actions also have been filed against us, as well as other leading securities firms, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of issuer companies asserting substantially similar antitrust claims based upon allegations that 7.0 percent underwriters’ discounts violate the Sherman Act. These purported class actions were consolidated by the district court as In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation , Case No. 00 CV 7804 (LMM), on May 23, 2001. On April 18, 2006, the Court denied plaintiffs’ request that the matter be certified as a class action. Plaintiffs have appealed the denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

PART II

PART III

SIGNATURES

          Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized on March 1, 2007.

		PIPER JAFFRAY COMPANIES
		By		/s/ Andrew S. Duff
		Its		Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

          Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities indicated on March 1, 2007.

SIGNATURE				TITLE
/s/ Andrew S. Duff				Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Andrew S. Duff				(Principal Executive Officer)
/s/ Thomas P. Schnettler				Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer
Thomas P. Schnettler				(Principal Financial Officer)
/s/ Timothy L. Carter				Chief Accounting Officer
Timothy L. Carter				(Principal Accounting Officer)
/s/ Michael R. Francis				Director
Michael R. Francis
/s/ B. Kristine Johnson				Director
B. Kristine Johnson
/s/ Samuel L. Kaplan				Director
Samuel L. Kaplan
/s/ Addison L. Piper				Director
Addison L. Piper
/s/ Frank L. Sims				Director
Frank L. Sims
/s/ Jean M. Taylor				Director
Jean M. Taylor

PIPER JAFFRAY COMPANIES
INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE

		Page
		Form				Annual
		10-K				Report
Consolidated Financial Statements
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting							30
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm							31
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm							32
Consolidated Financial Statements
Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition							33
Consolidated Statements of Operations							34
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity							35
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows							36
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements							37
Financial Statement Schedule
Schedule I — Piper Jaffray Companies (Parent Company Only) Financial Statements
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm			F-2
Statements of Financial Condition			F-3
Statements of Operations			F-4
Statements of Cash Flows			F-5
Notes to Financial Statements			F-6

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Piper Jaffray Companies

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Piper Jaffray Companies as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2006, and have issued our report thereon dated February 28, 2007 (incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K). Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in Item 15(a) of this Annual Report. This schedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.

In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
February 28, 2007

See Notes to Financial Statements

See Notes to Financial Statements

Piper Jaffray Companies
(Parent Company Only)
Notes to Financial Statements

Note 1 Background

Background

          Piper Jaffray Companies (“Parent Company”) is the parent company of Piper Jaffray & Co. (“Piper Jaffray”), a securities broker dealer and investment banking firm; Piper Jaffray Ltd., a firm providing securities brokerage and investment banking services in Europe headquartered in London, England; Piper Jaffray Financial Products Inc., an entity that facilitates customer derivative transactions; Piper Jaffray Financial Products II Inc., an entity dealing primarily in variable rate municipal products; and other immaterial subsidiaries. Piper Jaffray Companies and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) operate as one reporting segment providing investment banking services and institutional sales, trading and research services.

General

          The financial information of the Parent Company should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements of Piper Jaffray Companies and the notes thereto in the Piper Jaffray Companies 2006 Annual Report to Shareholders and also included in Exhibit 13.1 to this Form 10-K.

Use of Estimates

          The preparation of the financial statements and related disclosures in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Note 2 Dividend Restrictions

          As a registered broker dealer and member firm of the NYSE, Piper Jaffray is subject to the Uniform Net Capital Rule of the SEC and the net capital rule of the NYSE. Piper Jaffray has elected to use the alternative method permitted by the SEC rule, which requires that it maintain minimum net capital of the greater of $1.0 million or 2 percent of aggregate debit balances arising from customer transactions, as such term is defined in the SEC rule. Under the NYSE rule, the NYSE may prohibit a member firm from expanding its business or paying dividends if resulting net capital would be less than 5 percent of aggregate debit balances. As of December 31, 2006, Piper Jaffray exceeded 5 percent of aggregate debits by $362.5 million. Advances to affiliates, repayment of subordinated debt, dividend payments and other equity withdrawals by Piper Jaffray are subject to certain notification and other provisions of the SEC and NYSE rules. In addition, Piper Jaffray is subject to certain notification requirements related to withdrawals of excess net capital.

Note 3 Guarantees

          The Parent Company has guaranteed certain obligations and activities of Piper Jaffray Ltd. related to lease obligations, underwriting activities and custody and clearance arrangements with counterparties. In addition, the Parent Company has guaranteed the performance of certain of its subsidiaries derivatives activities.

Exhibit Index

Exhibit				Method of
Number		Description		Filing
2.1		Separation and Distribution Agreement, dated as of December 23, 2003, between U.S. Bancorp and Piper Jaffray Companies. #			(1	)
2.2		Asset Purchase Agreement dated April 10, 2006, among Piper Jaffray Companies, Piper Jaffray & Co. and UBS Financial Services Inc. #			(2	)
3.1		Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation.			(1	)
3.2		Amended and Restated Bylaws.			(1	)
4.1		Form of Specimen Certificate for Piper Jaffray Companies Common Stock.			(3	)
4.2		Rights Agreement, dated as of December 31, 2003, between Piper Jaffray Companies and Mellon Investor Services LLC, as Rights Agent. #			(1	)
10.1		Employee Benefits Agreement, dated as of December 23, 2003, between U.S. Bancorp and Piper Jaffray Companies. #			(1	)
10.2		Tax Sharing Agreement, dated as of December 23, 2003, between U.S. Bancorp and Piper Jaffray Companies. #			(1	)
10.3		Insurance Matters Agreement, dated as of December 23, 2003, between U.S. Bancorp and Piper Jaffray Companies. #			(1	)
10.4		Sublease Agreement, dated as of September 18, 2003, between U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.			(4	)
10.5		Form of Cash Award Agreement.*			(1	)
10.6		U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. Second Century 2000 Deferred Compensation Plan.*			(1	)
10.7		U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. Second Century Growth Deferred Compensation Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective September 30, 1998).*			(1	)
10.8		Piper Jaffray Companies Amended and Restated 2003 Annual and Long-Term Incentive Plan.*			(5	)
10.9		Form of Stock Option Agreement for Employee Grants under the Piper Jaffray Companies Amended and Restated 2003 Annual and Long-Term Incentive Plan.*		Filed herewith
10.10		Form of Restricted Stock Agreement for Employee Grants under the Piper Jaffray Companies Amended and Restated 2003 Annual and Long-Term Incentive Plan.*		Filed herewith
10.11		Form of Stock Option Agreement for Non-Employee Director Grants under the Piper Jaffray Companies Amended and Restated 2003 Annual and Long-Term Incentive Plan.*			(6	)
10.12		Piper Jaffray Companies Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors.*			(7	)
10.13		Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation Program.*		Filed herewith
10.14		Summary of Annual Incentive Program for Certain Executive Officers.*			(8	)
10.15		Summary of Addison L. Piper Compensation Arrangement*		Filed herewith
10.16		Form of Notice Period Agreement.*		Filed herewith
13.1		Selected Portions of the 2006 Annual Report to Shareholders.		Filed herewith