Talk:Roth Capital Partners

I am simply trying to correct inaccurate statements in the previous version. Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Foundation asks us to keep the content true and correct.

Infochief1 (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The citations you are using here are not reliable secondary sources per WP reliable sources - please read the policy carefully. Also your edits do not follow WP NPOV guidelines and appear to involve a COI. The current version has proper citations and is encyclopedic in it's content, which includes the key elements of the firm's notability taken from significant and reliable secondary sources (New York Times, LA Times, New York Post, etc) and even the firm's own spokesperson. Since you appear to be new to WP, consider creating drafts in your sandbox first, or submitting suggestions to this page for discussion. Cypresscross (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article some, including removing a BLP violation. I changed the article format to a stub structure because, as it stood, there was needless repetition between the lead and body. There was also what seemed to be WP:UNDUE detail about the parties considering the overall length of the article and other details. Jbh ^Talk 14:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Good explanations / improvements to the article.Cypresscross (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE Issues

The page appears to be inundated with negative, peripheral content which does not respect NPOV or UNDUE, all brought forth by the editor Cypresscross. The page needs fresh, legitimate sources and additional information. No need to continuously add redundant info, nor is there is a reason to remove neutral content which is legitimately sourced.156.233.122.52 (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The edits were made from a strictly NPOV and consist of the most notable aspects of the coverage of the firm from reliable sources. The edits were made in accordance with WP guidelines on article structure, with the body expanding on the lede. The major sources, including the LA Times, were added by other editors. I am going to restore the stable, reliably sourced content, including the LA Times edits, which upon further investigation is supported by an extremely similar article in no less than the WSJ - see article here. If you would like to introduce new sources, I would suggest proposing additions to the text on this page for discussion and consensus. Cypresscross (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I have located and added multiple new reliable sources, including WSJ, Barrons's, Reuters, The Street and others. All of these sources, from global financial media outlets, support and expand on the subject edits. Cypresscross (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation / request for increase in protection level

A sockpuppet investigation has been opened here and a request to increase protection level on this page here Cypresscross (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Numerous items in TOC

I wonder if there should be so many small short sections with their own titles, since most if not all of the titled entities are non-notable on their own (i.e. entities not on Wikipedia). Despite the proper sourcing, this might open the article up to claims of negative bias. I'm not touching it due to the extensive editing that was done, but will send a courtesy ping to Cypresscross. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, these are interesting points you raise. Some Section headers were already removed by smartse here. I'm not sure I see the connection between the sub-heads and those entities not having their own WP pages, the subheads were added to improve the structure and readability of the page. I'm hoping other established editors comment so the article can be further improved. Cypresscross (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Normally, when the items are themselves so short and non-notable, they're not worthy of their own section. I'd just have them all in history without headers. Otherwise, it looks biased. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the heads up on that. I'll rework. Any and all feedback is much appreciated. Cypresscross (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Initially, I had a sub-head for "Criticism of underwriting practices", This is an accurate sub-heading. It might make sense to add back this sub-heading, and combine the rest of the body under that one sub-heading, and get rid of the other sub-headings as you suggest above. This would also tie this section into the lede. When I was researching, the common theme just about every source led to was a criticism of their underwriting practices (which is why I added that to the lede). Let me know what you think. Thanks. Cypresscross (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I think criticism of underwriting would work better as a title. The history though would be kind of sparse. I looked for sourcing to flush the history out and maybe balance things out, and found a few early items, mainly on the name change. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I made the changes based on our consensus. I agree the history section is sparse, and probably should at least have the current name change added. I already found some of the sources you link to above and will dig i nto the others. Any and all feedback is invited. Cypresscross (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a 2002 Orange County Business Journal article about them pivoting to smaller deals, but it's paywalled. [[4]] I pdfed it and can send it to you if you turn on your email. The email options are under your preferences at the top. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Restoring NPOV

I disclose that I have been paid by Roth Capital to edit on the firm's behalf.

As has been documented at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#ROTH_Capital_Partners, this article has been edited extensively by User:Cypresscross, who I and another editor believe has an undisclosed COI against the article's subject. As a result, the article has become a collection of negative highlights about the company, and I would like to suggest a number of edits to restore NPOV. I am using the "request edit" route instead of simply initiating a discussion on the Talk page in order to bring additional, unbiased editors to assist with this project.

1) The lead section places undue weight on the controversies surrounding the firm.

Delete: The company has been widely criticized for its underwriting practices and the deals it has promoted.

The firm was featured in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle for its underwriting relationships with dubious Chinese companies that led to crisis-level losses for American stockholders in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis while making windfall profits for the firm, and for hosting what has been described as "bacchanals" in which emerging companies woo investors amid topless models and extravagant music acts such as Kid Rock, Pitbull and Snoop Dogg.

Replace with: It has raised approximately $50 billion for small-cap and private companies.

The firm was featured in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle for its underwriting relationships with dubious Chinese companies.

2) Add sourced content to History section.

Add:Cruttenden left the firm to start his own venture capital company in 1998. Roth became the firm’s new chairman, after having become its president in 1993 and its chief executive in 1997. The firm was renamed Roth Capital Partners in 2000.

Since the 1990s, Roth has been involved in the IPOs of several notable companies, including U-Haul parent company AMERCO in 1994 and Imax Corp. in 2009.

3) For due weight and NPOV, condense "Criticism of underwriting practices" and "Feature in The China Hustle documentary" sections into a Controversies subsection within History. Also to achieve due weight and NPOV, trim those paragraphs themselves and add one sentence presenting a defense of Roth.

Delete: ==Criticism of underwriting practices== In 1998 the Los Angeles Times reported that Roth had been criticized for its underwriting practices, citing the company's role in the initial public offering of Aviation Distributors Inc., which later faced multiple shareholder lawsuits alleging the company had manipulated it's revenues in order to boost the company's stock price. The company initially went public at $5 per share and later traded as high at $12.88 per share before falling to just 97 cents per share following the announcement of the lawsuits.

In August 2010, Barron's reported that Roth's promotional materials claimed that it had "pioneered" the practice of PIPE financing and had helped raise more than $2.8 billion for 67 U.S.-listed Chinese companies.

In 2011, Reuters reported that Roth had become a leading investment bank underwriting Chinese reverse mergers which led to a number of "spectacular" collapses of Chinese stocks listed on American exchanges and cost U.S. investors billions of dollars and that led to multiple investigations.

Barron's also cited questions raised by investors about Orient Paper, China Natural Gas and China Green Agriculture, firms underwritten by Roth, and which were later investigated for fraud by the SEC.

One of Roth's clients, China Biotics, was delisted from the NASDAQ in June 2011, just months after Roth helped the company raise more than $79 million from U.S. investors. China Biotics’ auditor, BDO, subsequently resigned after making accusations that the company had falsified documents, overstated the company's assets and that irregularities it discovered "likely constitute illegal acts." In October 2011 the SEC suspended trading in China-Biotics.

==Feature in The China Hustle documentary== The firm was featured in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle for its underwriting relationships with dubious Chinese companies that led to crisis-level losses for American stockholders in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis while making windfall profits for the firm.

Replace with: ===Controversies=== Some investors have criticized Roth for its underwriting practices, citing the company's role in the 1997 initial public offering of a company that was later sued for fraud.

In 2011, Reuters reported that Roth had become a leading investment bank underwriting Chinese reverse mergers which led to a number of "spectacular" collapses of Chinese stocks listed on American exchanges and cost U.S. investors billions of dollars, and that led to multiple investigations. The firm’s underwriting practices in China were highlighted in the 2017 financial documentary The China Hustle.

The film was criticized for inaccuracies about Roth’s involvement in these business transactions; according to an Orange County Business Journal article, the transactions undertaken by Roth in China are more accurately described as “follow-on investments,” rather than “reverse mergers,” since Roth raised capital for the Chinese companies after they had already gone public in the U.S.

4) The Bacchanals section is POV.

Delete: ==Bacchanals== The firm's promotional activies have been compared to the lavish parties of Drexel Burnham Lambert’s of the mid-1980s, which were nicknamed “The Predator’s Ball”. In February 2007, The New York Post reported that Roth took several hundred of its clients to a Cancun-meets-Wall Street-themed lollapalooza. The primary feature of Roth’s event was the presence of “several dozen” topless Asian models, with the ticker symbols of the companies Roth underwrote body-painted on.

In August, 2011, Reuters reported that the firm, just hours after the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board issued a warning about Chinese reverse mergers, for which Roth was a leading underwriter, threw a “Miami Glam” party in which guests were surrounded by rhinestone-encrusted sculptures of leopards while bikini-clad hostesses served cotton candy as rapper Pitbull put on a concert.

Replace with: ==Roth Conference== Since 1988, the firm has hosted an annual conference in Orange County, California, that attracts institutional and private equity investors and focuses on small-cap and mid-cap stocks. The conference, which has included topics such as AI, blockchain technology, cryptocurrency and cannabis, is known for its extravagant nighttime entertainment, featuring musical acts including Snoop Dogg and the Black Eyed Peas. The conference has also included sports activities which raise funds for the Challenged Athletes Foundation.

The conference has been called "lavish" and described as a “bacchanal,” with its scantily clad dancers and hostesses and “free-flowing booze.”76.76.37.45 (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)