- 1 Fund manager remuneration
- 2 Hedge fund manager pay
- 3 Hedge fund update
- 4 Hedge fund#Domicile
- 5 Hedge fund#Investment manager locations
- 6 Barclay brothers
- 7 Hedge fund, and one of Keithbob's deletions
- 8 Another suggestion
- 9 Systemic risk discussion
- 10 Hedge fund Performance chart
- 11 Brevan Howard article & talk page
- 12 Hedge fund article
- 13 Private Equity article: the simple example
- 14 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 15 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 16 Regarding your help on the edit of Barclays and Banks in the United Kingdom
- 17 The FED's total loans bigger than $1 trillion
Fund manager remuneration
Hi there, Wildfowl. I wish I'd been able to weigh in on the remuneration topic at Talk:Hedge fund before, but I've just managed to put together some thoughts based on research, and a proposed alternative way to address the same subject matter. Have a look, and let me know what you think when you've got a moment. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hedge fund manager pay
Hi again Wildfowl, it looks like TSATF hasn't been around for about a week now, so I was wondering if you’re OK with adding the sentences I proposed for the Fees and remuneration section? I doubt he’d object. And as I mentioned before, even if there's agreement to add something I propose, I'd rather not make that edit myself due to my COI. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hedge fund update
Hello Wildfowl, just wanted to let you know that I had posted a revised draft of the new section I had prepared, with a reply on the Hedge fund Talk page yesterday, in case you'd like to review and possibly move it over. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- On Monday of last week I posted a thorough reply to your comments (and others') with another revision of the Hedge fund structure section that I hope answers the outstanding concerns. My reply (see here) is admittedly long, however I'd like to ask if you're willing to look at it again and offer your feedback to this version. Let me know back on that Talk page if you're able. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, Wildfowl, hope all is well there. Yesterday I finally got to posting a dedicated section on the Hedge fund Talk page about the next subsection, Domicle. (See here.) If you have a chance to review and comment, I'd be grateful, and I'm reaching out to at least additional participant as well. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hedge fund#Investment manager locations
Hi there, Wildfowl. Last week I posted a detailed request about the Investment manager locations section on the Hedge fund article's Talk page (see here). So far I haven't received any reply, so I'm reaching out to you and a couple of additional editors about it. I'll keep an eye on the page and respond as necessary. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hubert, you seem to have got yourself into a right state over the Barclay brothers' tax affairs. Advice:
- Calm down.
- Find out the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance.
- Find out the difference between tax avoidance and aggressive tax avoidance. The former is what any ordinary person might do, e.g. using ISAs (in the UK). The latter includes stuff like using tax havens, using multiple tax jurisdictions, using tax advisers, tax accountants, tax lawyers, etc – i.e. what billionaires like the Barclays do.
- Don't take it too seriously anyway – life's too short.
- Please don't be patronising to other editors. I edited your contribution to remove the NPOV language. 'Aggressive' is hostile and condemnatory language. You say there is a distinction between 'what any ordinary people might do' and 'what billionaires like the Barclays do'. Can you really not see what you said there? I remind you that the Barclay brothers are 'ordinary people' too. Having a lot of money doesn't make them less 'ordinary'. As such they get the same protection in Wiki conventions as 'ordinary people' which means protection from snide, political commentary. If you still feel strongly then I recommend replacing 'aggressive' with neutral terminology such as 'sophisticated' or 'controversial'. Hubertgrove (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hedge fund, and one of Keithbob's deletions
Hi there, Wildfowl. Since Keithbob decided to leave the Hedge fund page recently, I haven't had any takers on a question I posed to the Talk page, and I wonder if you'd be willing to look at it? Although you and I have had differences of opinions on a number of hedge fund topics, I think we both believed that some of Keithbob's cuts went too deep; the one at the link in this note is one of them. What do you think? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey there, I just posted up another proposed revision for Hedge fund, about the Side pockets section, with an explanation and suggested language on the Talk page. Mind taking a look when you have a moment? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just adding a quick note here: thanks very much for moving the section over! Glad we could find agreement on it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Systemic risk discussion
Hi there, Wildfowl. After waiting a couple of weeks for ImperfectlyInformed (aka "II") to weigh in again, it sounds less likely he'll weigh in again soon. I was thinking of going back and asking a few other editors who have participated on the page before; John M Baker is a name who comes to mind. The other option would be 3O, although that's much less likely to find a knowledgable editor, so I lean to the former. What do you think? And are you interested in reaching out to find another opinion as well, or OK with me doing it? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for consulting me. Try II again, or John M Baker. It's hard to get people involved, surprisingly. Wildfowl (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- John M Baker is exactly who I had in mind. Let's start with him first, and I'll point him to our thread at article Talk. And I agree: for such a prominent subject, and such a highly-read page, it's surprising how little activity there is on the article itself or the discussion page. Says something about the esoteric nature of the subject, I'd imagine. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi again, Wildfowl. Alas, I've had no success re-engaging any of the editors who had previously been involved with the article. User:Pine had planned to do so, but is now too busy. I also see that you haven't been around since late June; I'm inclined to take the question to 3O now, but it would be most ideal if you were around to discuss the topic. I'll wait a bit to see if you're watching this page, and probably ask for assistance by the end of the week. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hedge fund Performance chart
Hi Wildfowl, thanks for talking through the chart with me, and apologies for my absence. I've just responded to your questions and John's on the Talk page; I hope you'll have a chance to take a look at it soon. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Brevan Howard article & talk page
Hi Wildfowl, I'm getting in touch because I see you have an interest in finance articles. Would you be prepared to help me out on the Brevan Howard article? There are a number of things which are incorrect in the article, I've made a list of all of this on the talk page and have backed it up with sources.
Would be great if you could lend a hand. The user page of the previous editor who was helping out says he is taking a long break from Wiki, and the page hasn't attracted any new editors for a while. --DanJay000 (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know much about Brevan Howard. All I can do is mark it as a "watched" page. You would probably be better off finding somebody with more knowledge of the topic to help you. Wildfowl (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hedge fund article
In response to your post: Well, I don't think I have a conflict of interest. As you can tell from my personal page, I do work in the investment management industry. I've represented hedge funds in the past, though I don't at the moment, and I've also done work for the Investment Company Institute, which is pretty much anti-hedge fund. Nobody is telling me what they want written. John M Baker (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Private Equity article: the simple example
I would like to come back to our issue regarding the simple example section as presented in the Private Equity article of Wikipedia. I would like to structure my comments in two parts. The first part will simply suggest small changes in your example without changing the substance of it. The second part will debate the substance of your section.
First part: I suggest changing the chronological order of the first phrase:
- "A private equity fund, ABC Capital II, borrows $9bn from a bank (or other lender). To this it adds $2bn of equity – money from its own partners and from limited partners (pension funds, rich individuals, etc.)"
- "A private equity firm raises a new fund, ABC Capital II, with a total commitment of USD 10bn. This money is raised from its own partners and from limited partners (pension funds, rich individuals, etc.). It then wants to acquire XYZ Industrials which is valued at USD 11bn. For this acquisition, ABC Capital uses USD 2bn of equity (its own money) and borrows USD 9bn from a bank (or other lender)."
I suggest slightly modifying the exit process:
- "The stock market is experiencing a bull market, and XYZ Industrial is sold two years after the buy-out for $13bn, yielding a profit of $2bn."
- "After two years, ABC Capital wishes to exit from this investment. Out of the different exit strategies, it chooses to IPO because the stock market is bullish. XYZ Industrial is IPOed and and ABC Capital sells its stake for USD 13bn, yielding a profit of USD 2bn"
(obviously, the way we present this exit strategy is oversimplified since it will be very hard for ABC to sell 100% of its stake, at least in the short run.) Those two minor changes only seek to bring more precision to the example. They do not change at all the operation.
I will not try to argue on whether the example is biased or not. It is a question of interpretation and sources. As you know (since I provided you with sources in our discussion) the average deal is much smaller in size. I personally believe that most LBOs (at least in Europe) have much smaller debt-to-equity ratio, but then again it is possible to find some examples of such leverage (in the 1980s). Let's not argue on those points since we both disagree and have sources.
I would like to bring your attention to two points:
- First, Private Equity operations achieve high returns through three steps. - The first one is to increase the operating profits of the firm (EBITDA), either by streamlining the company and selling assets (as you mention in your example) in order to reduce costs, or by increasing revenues (while keeping margins or even increasing margins).
- The second one is to increase the attractiveness of the company (i.e. invest in attractive markets like new geographies with good growth prospects or new product lines with higher margins). This attractiveness is measured by indicators such as the EBITDA multiple or the P/E ratio (for listed companies).
- The last one is to increase leverage (i.e. finance acquisition with a large portion of debt). However it is important to be aware that debt in itself does not create value. It does increase the profits made by the PE firm as long as the company generates returns that are higher than the interest rates of the debt. The leverage components acts as an accelerator. If it goes well, debt will make it go better for the PE firm. If it goes wrong, debt will make it even worse for the PE firm (and the company).
Why did I go through this lengthy explanation? Simply to point out that your simple example only considers financial leverage. You also say that XYZ Industrial is IPOed at a good time, which would hint that the valuation multiples have increased between the time of acquisition and the time of sale, but it does not put a stress on the underlying cause for this higher valuation. I believe the simple example should be structured in a way that makes the three components listed above apparent.
- Second, the simple example follows with: "The lenders (the people who put up the $9bn in the example) can insure against default by syndicating the loan to spread the risk, or by buying credit default swaps (CDSs) or selling collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) from/to other institutions (although this no business of the private equity firm)."
I agree 100% on the syndication part. However I still believe that CDOs and CDSs have nothing to do here. As we have had this discussion before, I would like to sum up the arguments we listed:
- I believe CDOs and CDSs should not appear in the simple example for two reasons: the first one because these financial operations are not initiated by Private Equity firms. The second one because those instruments have a bad reputation and I dislike the implicit association that the example presents. - You believe that the section should not be changed for two reasons: the first one because you believe it is important to give context and explain how Private Equity operations interreact with other financial operations. The second one because you believe I want to promote Private Equity and want to censor any controversy that might arise on the subject.
I do not want to censor controversies, and I think a controversy section should be created on the Private Equity article. This controversy section could include a lot of interesting controversies, such as high leverage and limited liability of the funds, complex financial engineering and tax avoidance schemes, vulture funds etc...
However, I know that CDOs and CDSs should not be presented as "context". For CDOs it is obvious, it has nothing to do with Private Equity. Maybe your source mistook CDOs for syndication, but I have never heard of SPV for pools of loans from PE transactions. I would like to have proof that this financial product exists before saying it does. Now regarding CDSs. While it is possible for the lenders to buy CDSs in order to insure against default risk from XYZ Industrials, it is not caused by the LBO transaction but only because the bank wishes to manage its risk. Banks will buy CDSs against sovereign bonds, corporate bonds and maybe some other products. By the way I am not even sure it is possible to buy CDSs on non-listed debt instruments, since the definition of the event that triggers the CDSs is defined by a consortium of banks and it would imply that those banks can assess the specifics of the situation. Back to my point: as CDSs operations are not caused by the LBO transaction, it should not be included, even as context. As you can see, those very complex products are far from simple, and you are saying it is part of a context when there is no proof of that.
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Regarding your help on the edit of Barclays and Banks in the United Kingdom
Hi! Thanks for the messages! Massive thank you for enlighten me about the issue and appreciate your time to write in and correct the mistakes. I am not first time user, I can assure it was not an exercise, but I am not that professional either, so thanks, I will try with sandbox next time.
With regarding the issue of 'provinces', thanks for point out that, I wasn't thinking anything else, I just thought 'wait a minute, the British uses county rather than the province used by France or China'. Thanks for helping me out there.
With regarding the issue of the 'TSB Bank'. My thought was, the Banks that showing in the list are the parent groups, such as RBS Group, and Lloyds Banking Group. Rather than individually listing Royal Bank of Scotland, and its Coutts, NatWest, and the Lloyds Bank and Bank of Scotland, now separated TSB Bank. So I just thought maybe I can put out more subsidiary names that are more recognisable and are operating with their brands on the high street but didn't showing in the list immediately. I haven't really worked out the wording there, it is my mistake, and apology for the inconvenience caused, and I wonder maybe you can worked out a way to put out there? Please give me some more feedback about the issue? And what do you think of my suggestion?
- @Arthasmb:Hi Arthas. A couple of points:
- I have added Halifax, Birmingham Midshires and Intelligent Finance List of banks in the United Kingdom at the place you suggested. Feel free to modify that or add more stuff.
- You can sign a comment by adding "~~~~" (without the quotes) in the place where the signature ought to go. If you do that, when you save the comment Wikipedia will translate the "~~~~" into your username plus the time and date. Useful!
- Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! – Wildfowl (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The FED's total loans bigger than $1 trillion
Hey there. Totally new to this, and I'm not even from the States. I would actually appreciate if you could incorporate that bit of information somewhere useful.. Because that's just what I wanted - that piece of information to be known, and to be written somewhere in the Wiki on the 07/08 financial crisis. And specifically to what I'm comparing that figure to, is the $1 trillion mentioned in the sentence above mine... Do you see the importance of that piece of info? 99% of people think it was $700 billion that was used to bail out the banks, when the actual number is more than tenfold higher.
Thank you for your helpful comment and you wanting to help make the text sound right and consistent.
Sorry for my English, and I hope you understand what I'm wanting to add and why.