Talk:Point72 Asset Management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:S.A.C. Capital Advisors)
Jump to: navigation, search

Sourcing Issues[edit]

The statement While the firm manages more than $11 billion in net assets, utilizing leverage, SAC controls more than $80 billion in assets needs to be referenced. Thank you. -- Trade2tradewell 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is difficult to define what "leverage" means in the Stevie sense, let alone what SAC has leverage over. --Whiskey Pete, 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed renaming[edit]

I propose renaming to SAC Capital Advisors, as that seems to be the more canonical name for the SAC Capital mothership entity, these days. What do folks have to say?

Agreed. I will add a redirect page entitled "SAC Capital." --Tvwatcher 19:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Tong lawsuit[edit]

Is the Tong sexual harassment lawsuit notable enough to be included? http://www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2007/2007_27200.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.69.35 (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

This entry reads like a friggin' commercial for the firm!

Yes it needs to be changed, its a gross over-statement of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.30.75 (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Insider trading investigation[edit]

User:Hedge Date added the paragaph below to Steven Cohen's page. I removed it, as it has nothing to do with Cohen himself, and is related to the trader's time at the firm, but I'm not sure it's even suitable for use here. My reasoning is, 1) it's information about an individual trader who left the firm, not about the firm, and 2) there's no evidence that SAC supported or knew about his activities, but there is evidence to the contrary. In fact, the Reuters article says, "The cooperation agreements do not accuse Cohen or anyone else at SAC of wrongdoing. Lee has not been been associated with SAC since January 2004." The sourced piece also mentioned that SAC would not re-hire the trader. Until either of these things changes, I'm preserving the paragraph here for possible future use.

On November 7, 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that a plea agreement with a cooperating witness in a multi-year FBI hedge fund insider trading investigation, Richard Choo Beng Lee, would shed light on trades made from 1999 to 2004 when Lee worked for SAC Capital Advisors.[1] Cohen was reportedly suspicious of the circumstances under which Lee's own hedge fund closed in March 2009 and refused to rehire him.[1]

DMCer 22:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest an NPOV solution for information contained in Hedge-Fund Giant Surfaces in Trading Probe? I think what the Wall Street Journal and other media are reporting on former SAC employees is noteworthy. There are, in fact, two former SAC rainmakers in the news. One of them, Richard Grodin, has been issued a subpoena, and there is no implication by that he is even suspected of a crime. However, Grodin apparently supervised another former SAC trader (Choo-Beng Lee) who reached a plea agreement on October 13th, and who will apparently reveal information on trades taking place from 1999 to 2004 when he worked for SAC, as well as on the activity of other SAC traders. This is being reported in multiple news media, so why not on Wikipedia? — Hedge Date (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I see where your coming from, but seeing as SAC isn't actually charged with anything, how it is specific to the trader, rather than the firm at the moment (I realize this may change), it seems like it would give the topic undue weight. I suppose the article could mention the fact that there's an "investigation" taking place. It would have to clearly state that the firm itself has not been charged with any wrongdoing. I'll add it, let me know what you think —DMCer 10:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That's good. I realize the tone is delicate, given that SAC has not been accused of wrongdoing. I have read in several places that a five year statute of limitation exists on insider trading, so these 1999-2004 trades are unlikely to result in charges. I may add that point. — Hedge Date (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I added the statute of limitations. The unspoken implication of the recent Bloomberg story is that Lee and the five as-yet-unnamed cooperating co-conspirators will be giving foundational testimony for insider trading taking place during the past five years, though we obviously don't know if those trades involve SAC or spin-off funds financed by Cohen. — Hedge Date (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, looks fine to me.—DMCer 22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the issue[edit]

I removed the section in question after looking over it again and researching more, including this recent article, which states SAC was never subpoenaed, investigated, or suspected of wrongdoing. So, this really has nothing to do with the firm, other than the fact that some employee once worked there. The information should be added to the Galleon Group article (which needs expansion anyway).—DMCer 20:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources to add[edit]

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/as-investors-bail-out-sac-shows-a-brave-face/?src=recg ; this seems a noteworthy addition - mass withdrawal of outside money at SAC. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Name change[edit]

They changed their name to Point72 Asset Management.--Monstermike99 (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The old website www.sac.com does not redirect to their new website http://point72.com/ BrianStanton61 (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I moved the article to the new name and noted the name change in the History section with a reference. Bahooka (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Two specific edit requests[edit]

Hi, I work for Point72. I would like to help make this article better reflect current factual information about Point72, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and standards (and I do understand that Wikipedia is not a place to do marketing, etc.) While there are some more substantial issues to discuss, at the moment I have two specific requests which I believe are straightforward -- both updates to the infobox in the upper right. Both have citations. These are the edits -- to replace each of the lines, "industry" and "aum":

| industry =financial services[2]

| aum =$11 billion (2015)[3][4]

-AlexReads (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@TheSoundAndTheFury, BrianStanton61, and Bahooka: Could you take a look at my request above? -AlexReads (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done, AlexReads. Onel5969 TT me 20:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ a b Pulliam, Susan (2009-11-07). "Hedge-Fund Giant Surfaces in Trading Probe". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-11-07. 
  2. ^ Kishan, Saijel (October 22, 2015). "Point72's Haynes Says 'Cost of Being Excellent' Keeps Going Up". Bloomberg. 
  3. ^ Fletcher, Laurence (October 22, 2015). "Steven Cohen's Firm in Talks to Rehire Fund Manager". Wall Street Journal. 
  4. ^ "Cohen's point72 Hires Former CS Equity Research Head Flannery". FIN Alternatives. October 30, 2015. 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Point72 Asset Management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Several issues[edit]

There are several issues with the accuracy of this article. In the interest of keeping in accurate, and in line with what has been reported in independent/reliable sources, here are some things it would be good to address:

  • Regarding the discussion above (“Name change”), SAC is a distinct entity from Point72. SAC still exists, though it is winding down. Recent coverage reflects this better than the media coverage that was available in 2014 when that was under discussion. See for instance: [1][2] [3] [4] [5] A number of points in this article should be rewritten to reflect that they are not identical, to remove instances where statistics (e.g. the number of employees) from SAC remain in the article that is now titled “Point72…”, etc.
  • Relatedly, the lead sentence, which characterizes Point72 as a group of hedge funds, is inaccurate. Point72 is a family office, and does not manage money from outside investors (a recent ruling would permit that no sooner that January 2018). See [6]
  • Given the distinction between SAC and Point72, what is the best way to proceed? I can understand that much media coverage in 2014 implied they were the same entity, so the decision that was made then (to proceed with a merged article) may have been the most logical at the time. But it seems to me it would be easier to present accurate information clearly if there were two separate articles. If it’s kept all as one article, it will be important to attend to this detail throughout the article. Any updated thoughts on this -- one article or two?
  • There was a hoax edit in 2013 -- some of the cities have been removed, but other cities, and the incorrect numbers, are still there. Furthermore, even the cities that were already in the article at that time -- SF, Hong Kong, etc. -- were not mentioned in the source cited. That last point is not really a problem, as those cities are accurate -- I can come up with sources that support it. The cleanest way to handle this might be to just replace with the following text and citations:

Pinging Onel5969, TheSoundAndTheFury BrianStanton61Bahooka. AlexReads (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi AlexReads, thanks for bringing these up and pinging me. I think you should just go ahead with the changes. Let's see if there's anything to dispute afterwards. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you TheSoundAndTheFury. I've started making some of these edits, and will continue gradually. -AlexReads (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Today I've made several edits to clarify the distinction between Point72 and SAC Capital. I removed one sentence from the history section that is now better described in the lead section: in the process, I removed the following Wall Street Journal citation: Copeland, Rob (March 11, 2014). "SAC Seeks a New Start as 'Point72'". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 12, 2014.  -AlexReads (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Split Point72 and SAC articles?[edit]

Above (see #Name change from 2014), editors considered whether Point72 and SAC should have separate articles. Recent press coverage has more clearly established that in spite of some shared history, Point72 is a legally distinct entity from SAC. SAC continues to exist, separately (in a "wind-down" mode, per SEC settlement). I acknowledge that some sources have referred to Point72 as a "renamed" SAC; but increasingly, sources are correctly identifying them as separate entities, and referring to Point72 as the "successor" to SAC. (See, for instance, the MarketWatch and Bloomberg articles I recently cited in the lead section; there are others as well.)

I believe readers would be best served with two articles; each article could explain the relationship to the other entity, and link to the other Wikipedia article.

I appreciate Wikipedia editors supporting me in making some factual updates, even as a Point72 employee. But to make a split is a bigger issue, and I hope to hear some others' views on that before making any decision. -AlexReads (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@TheSoundAndTheFury, BrianStanton61, Bahooka, Onel5969, and Shawnc: I have inquired with several WikiProjects, but have not gotten any feedback on the idea of splitting this article. I firmly believe it is the right thing to do, and it is well-supported by independent sources; but because I work for Point72, I am hesitant to take this action without any feedback. Could any of you take a look at my suggestion above? I realize a split will result in a tiny stub for Point72, and I plan to add some basic (and carefully sourced) information about Point72's business divisions, etc. I will try to do that in the next couple days. -AlexReads (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
After nearly two weeks, and having notified several WikiProjects without response, I felt it was safe to conclude this split was uncontroversial. I moved the information about SAC to its own article: S.A.C. Capital Advisors and I have adjusted redirects as best I could. Let me know if there are any concerns. -AlexReads (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, I have now finished what I think is a complete overview of Point72. I appreciate the input I have had from other Wikipedians along the way, and I have done my best to include lots of citations and maintain a neutral point of view. But since I know I am not supposed to "own" the article, I will now turn my attention elsewhere. As always, I look forward to any feedback or further improvements from other Wikipedians. -AlexReads (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)