Talk:Vulture fund

Untitled

This article is a bit of a mess - first chunk would be good if it was referenced - second chunk - Africa - which I wrote I'm bound to say is good at least its referenced although I'll have to come back and clean them up when I've got time but at least I thought I should make the sources clear - third chunk by Djunga 1 is really an essay without any refs and obvious mistakes ICC did not award $116 million to FG anywhere I can see and is full of strange phrases like "Exasperated at its inability to settle the debt, FGH has resorted to enforcing its judgment rights" which sound almost as if Djunga 1 is writing about their own feelings and comments about the "liberal media"Jubileader (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

The article also has some POV issues. It talks relentlessly about vulture funds as bad things. Vulture funds enable investors who have made loans which are in default an option to get some kind of return on the money by transferring all the risk to the fund. The argument that vulture funds are causing misery presupposes that the morally just course is for people (and nations) to be allowed to borrow but not to then be required to repay the debt (either to the original creditor or the fund to whom the creditor assigns the receivable). The argument can be run both ways, but this article only presents the single point of view. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

On balance the vulture funds do not seem to have a positive influence in the overall scheme of things. But it really goes back to the original loans which should have never been given, very comparable to the ninja loans. The difference is that with the ninja loans, people can walk away - but when vulture funds come in the mistakes of the past continue to haunt.

Be that as it may, it should be noted in the article, in some Latin American countries these issues prompted the foundation of the Bank of the South so that borrowings no longer occur from outside their group of countries and the longterm consequences of vulture fund involvement may be avoided or reduced. It was also meant to reduce the influence of IMF, Worldbank etc. on these countries, which often felt like too much outside influence on their domestic matters, or so it looks from afar. When one issue causes a counter development, maybe this should not be overlooked. 144.136.192.62 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

can we remove citations tag?

placeholder for discussion

can we remove original research tag?

placeholder for discussion

Derogatory term?

User Meatsgains is claiming that "vulture fund" is a derogatory term. While a small number of sources use that description (his proposed source actually uses the unusual description "derogative", but that's by the way), most sources that describe the term explicitly (rather than just using it) simply describe the investment strategy that characterises such funds: it seems to be a purely technical description like "long only".

User Meatsgains further claims that a consensus has been established that the term is derogatory: if this is indeed the case he will no doubt be able to point to the detailed discussions here and elsewhere which established this consensus. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Meatsgains, I think you are fighting an uphill battle here. I don't think that the preponderance of reliable sources are going to support a POV that the vulture funds are a benevolent force that is simply trying to assist the Third World nations by reducing their bloated treasuries. It's like arguing that John Dillinger made a career of helping banks identify weaknesses in their security systems. You might argue as well that the "Sicilian Mafia" or the "Sinaloa Cartel" are "derogatory terms", but those are the terms used in reliable sources, so we might as well get used to it. Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My position is quite different from yours: vulture funds are pursuing an entirely legitimate investment strategy. Ther success or failure will depend on various legal rulings, but there is absolutely nothing wrong in them attempting to pursue such rulings. Of course some people don't like their success to date, for a whole raft of reasons, but that is none of our business: we simply report what the reliable sources say with appropriate weight. It's equally important to avoid POV wars in either direction. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

By including the description and removing, "considered by some authors", the page gives due weight to the unanimous viewpoint. It is not just considered derogatory by some authors, it just is. Can you find someone that would disagree with that?

We reached consensus that the term was derogatory on an ANI and the RfC on Paul Singer's talk page. Do you need me to copy and paste exactly what users said in agreement? If you need me to I will. No users opposed that the term is derogatory. Meatsgains (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly because that was not the topic of either discussion. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

These are very "creative" ideas… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, since we're headed towards inclusion of "vulture fund" in the article on Singer, we should probably include the same material in the article on Elliott. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The RfC is not closed. Don't get ahead of yourself. Meatsgains (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope I am not violating any policy for copying other user's responses... Do we need to notify them about this discussion and that we are mentioning their usernames? Anyways, below are statements from other users (from the RfC and ANI) confirming an agreement that the term is derogatory.

• Once a claim has been made (and obviously it has been made) that the term is derogatory, an admin should enforce the content staying out until a consensus to include is formed. That is the backbone of BLP policy.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Can you cite where in the policy it says that? Because the thing about consensus that everyone knows is that there isno consensus a lot of the time. You'd be allowing any editor to cover up anything that sounds derogatory. But Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the actual sources' coverage, not revise it and cover things up. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I could, but you obviously know where this is. I should have said that there is consensus for the well sourced derogatory content to be restored. If it's this much of an issue, remove the material and start an RfC.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support My understanding is that the Huffington Post isn't necessarily reliable, New York Times and Bloomberg reveiw are definitely reliable, therefore it stays, and yes I know "Vulture Fund" is a derogatory term (I work in the financial industry), but we're here to report what reliable sources state, and they do state his is a vulture fund. Kosh Vorlon 16:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Meatsgains (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope, no consensus there: just some rather selective quotations and one individual opinion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Have there been any users who disagree that it is derogatory? No, just those who agree. Meatsgains (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Most commenters in the discussions you refer to have taken no formal position on whether or not the term is derogatory: the discussions have been about whether or not a particular fund should be described as a vulture fund. Several commenters have noted that even if the term is derogatory that does not prevent it being used in this context as WP:NOTCENSORED, and the balance of reliable sources says that it is a vulture fund. One commenter has explicitly agreed with your position that the term is derogatory, but should still be used. As I said, no clear consensus yet on the narrow point of whether the term is derogatory: and thus the article accurately reflects the fact that some sources say that the term is derogatory, and some do not. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No sources, or users, say that the term is not derogatory, only that it is derogatory. We don't even need consensus on this issue because it is apparent. Meatsgains (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If there are no opposing views or reliable sources citing the term vulture fund as not derogatory, then "considered by some author's" should be removed because it is not just some, it is all. No source says that it is considered by "some authors" and this phrase violates WP:WEASEL, which states that these types of phrases "deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint." I have provided adequate reliable sources to prove this. Meatsgains (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What an extraordinary argument. Take a look at page 432 of "The Handbook of Traditional and Alternative Investment Vehicles" which discusses investing in distressed debt, refers to vulture funds, and does so without the slightest suggestion that vulture funds are in any way a bad thing. Sure there are people who take a moral stance on vulture funds, both for and against, but there are plenty of souces which discuss this investment strategy completely dispassionately. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Be careful not to confuse two different issues: (1) is the name perjorative, and (2) are such funds a bad thing. It is easy to confuse the two because if you dislike vulture funds you likely use the term perjoratively. But even if you accept that such funds have a useful function in a modern economy with liquidity in its credit markets (as I do), the term still has a fairly negative tint to it. Used as an adjective or a metaphor, "vulture" is just not a positive word. Nobody says "he soared like a vulture" or "she was cunning as a vulture". But for better or worse the label has stuck (never heard such funds referred to by any other short hand label), and to be honest, it is reasonably descriptive - trying to get value out of something that otherwise would be discarded financial carrion. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Arguing against myself now, but came across this link which commences: 'So-called ”vulture funds” are also known by the less pejorative term ”distressed debt funds” on account of the fact that they traditionally purchase debt in default - very often sovereign debt.' [1] Not sure what I think anymore. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I just did a quick experiment with Google news. There are 23 hits for "distressed debt funds" vs. 1,280 for "vulture funds." Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It certainly is complicated, which is essentially why I am arguing for the current nuanced description rather than simply coming down on either side. (Not that I think the current nuance is necessarily exactly right, and no doubt it could be tweaked to better reflect reality: perhaps replace "some" with "many"?) As Legis says it is clear that many people who use the term don't like the funds, and it is probable that the name was originally chosen for its unpleasant overtones, although we should remember that the original vulture funds were quite different from the modern versions. That said many other sources simply use the term as a technical shorthand for a rather extreme technical investing style ("quant funds" is an example of a similar brief label) without taking any position on morality; a small number even explicitly approve of the funds, but probably not enough to mention in the lead.

The history of the term is interesting and should probably be better reflected somewhere in the article. As far as I can tell the original vuture funds were small US based real estate funds; presumably these moved to mortgage debt, then debt in general. The modern idea of a concentration on sovereign debt seems to be a creation of campaigners and the media rather than the funds themselves.

As you might guess I have been doing a lot of googling too. The most common modern definition is some variety of "distressed credit fund" or "distressed debt fund"; the second most common definition is the same but with "derogatory" or similar appended. Which is what the current version reflects. We do explain the metaphor early on, which seems entirely right, though perhaps more history could be added to this section? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

To go back to Legis' point, the term "vulture" independently has a negative connotation tied to it. Whether you are criticizing a person or a hedge fund as a "vulture", both are equally bad labels.

By saying it is "considered by some authors" is false and misleading. This needs to be fixed. All sources I provided state that the term is derogatory. If a source does not explicitly say that the term is not "derogatory" then why narrow the viewpoint to "some" or "many"?

Joe, how exactly did you get those numbers from Google news? I searched and received 13,400 hits for "distressed debt funds" and 1,750 hits for "vulture funds". Meatsgains (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

By putting quotation marks around "vulture funds" and "distressed debt funds", so that you search for that specific phrase. Your search simply turned up articles that contain the words "debt," "fund," or "distressed." Joe Bodacious (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The argument that any source which does not explicitly deny something should be taken as implicitly supporting the claims of other sources about the same thing is certainly an unusual one. I'm intrigued by what form Meatsgain's expects such explicit denials to take: is he looking for statements like "A vulture fund is a non-derogatory term for a distressed credit fund"? Or what? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In short, when multiple reliable sources support a statement, then why shouldn't we include that statement as it appears in the sources, especially if it improves the page? Why are we attaching phrases like "considered by some authors" to it when no source said such thing? Meatsgains (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources say that the term is derogatory, and so we should indeed include that fact. And look! We already do! We note that some authors consider the term derogatory, which is all that can be deduced from the sources given. We can't say that all sources consider the term derogatory, because many of them make no statement on the matter, even implicitly. We certainly can't say in Wikipedia's "own voice" that the term is derogatory, because that would require a clear consensus of reliable sources. So we report as fact what all sources agree on (that vulture funds are distressed debt funds) and as divided opinion what sources are divided on.

Note that I am taking exactly the same line here and at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman): we report accurately what reliable sources say while maintaining appropriate narrative distance on questions where there is no clear consensus.

There is, of course, room, for debate on exact phrasing. For example, one might prefer "The term is frequently considered derogatory", or some other such form of words. Do feel entirely free to make changes of that kind: just don't go beyond what the sources actually say. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at Wiktionary's list of English derogatory terms. The similarly related pejorative, vulture capitalist, is included in this list.

Again, I cite WP:BLUE. The citation policy is not a tool to cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute. The phrase does not require sources in the first place. No RS challenge the fact that "vulture fund" is a derogatory term. Meatsgains (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly that's a wiki, and so not a reliable source. Secondly, even if we ignored that point, other, arguably more appropriate, wikis take a different view. e.g. [2] and [3]. Thirdly that's a definition of "vulture capitalist", which is an entirely different investment strategy. And fourthly none of this establishes that the term is universally considered derogatory, as noted ad nauseam above, or the fact that WP:BLUE is not policy, no matter how much you want it to be. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact is, it is included in the list of English derogatory terms. Don't discredit that list. I used the list as a reference and example, not a reliable source. I clearly stated that vulture capitalist was a "similarly related pejorative", meaning "vulture" is used in the exact same derogatory context. The term is universally considered derogatory. Can you please explain to me how it isn't? In reply to WP:BLUE, just because it is an essay, does not mean it should not be followed. Why would a user waste time writing an essay if it didn't hold any weight? Meatsgains (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why indeed? I'm sure every case is different, but it is not unusual at Wikipedia to find a user obsessing over some arcane detail. Why it is so important to insert "derogatory" into this article is beyond me. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)