Talk:Operational due diligence (alternative investments)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
External sources - moved from page[edit]
I have removed the next list of links. Some may be suitable as external links, but this list as such is impossible to use.
- HedgeFundOperationalDueDiligence.com
- Hedge Fund Operational Due Diligence: Understanding the Risks by Jason Scharfman (Wiley 2008)
- Journal of Operational Risk
- Analyzing Operational Due Diligence Frameworks in Fund of Hedge Funds
- Evaluating Your Hedge Fund's Administrator
- Hedge Fund Due Diligence: A Source of Alpha in a Hedge Fund Portfolio Strategy
- Information Overload Red Flags
- Information Technology Due Diligence
- Hedge Fund Operational Due Diligence Questionnaire - To Use or Not to Use?
- Evaluating Your Hedge Fund's Adminsitrator
- Preparing for the operational due diligence visit: A hedge fund's guide
- Factor Exposures and Hedge Fund Operational Risk: The Case of Amaranth
- What’s Wrong With Hedge Fund Operational Risk Ratings and Certifications?
- The Madoff Identity: A New Operational Due Diligence Paradigm in a Post-Madoff World
- Hedge Fund Audited Financial Statement Reviews During Operational Due Diligence
- Hedge Fund Operational Due Diligence - An Absolute or Floating Standard?
- Jack of all trades or master of none? - The benefits of multi-disciplinary operational due diligence
- Hedge Fund Service Provider Due Diligence: A Window Into Operational Risk
- http://www.riskglossary.com/link/operational_risk.htm
--Dirk Beetstra T C 19:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Merging the "Operational due diligence" and "Operational Due Diligence" articles[edit]
Well the difference in the titles only relates to the capitalization of the first letters of the second and third words. So that is an argument for merging.
However, ODD for fund management and alternative investments is a very different beast to ODD for other businesses. On that basis I would suggest that merging into one article would be misleading because the casual reader would assume that the article was only discussing one topic when in fact it was discussing two.
I suggest that a disambiguation is a better approach.
Robert Waters (Operational and IT Due Diligence practitioner) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.62.32.131 (talk • contribs)
Hmmm... what we have is perhaps a merge or perhaps just a poor disambiguation to be fixed. Questions:
- One article or two?
- If two, is there a primary topic, and if not is there a case for a two-way DAB?
- If two, what to call the articles?
- If one, what to call it?
Answer to the last question I think is operational due diligence, uncapitalised. So the current (merge?) proposal at Talk:Operational Due Diligence#Requested move does have something to be said for it, it's just not a very helpful way of (re)raising the issue. Andrewa (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's a draft suggestion:
- Current article at Operational due diligence moves to Operational due diligence (alternative investments).
- Article from Operational Due Diligence then moves to Operational due diligence as proposed, and a main link is added to it to point to Operational due diligence (alternative investments).
- Resulting redirect remains at Operational Due Diligence pointing to Operational due diligence.
- See also section at Operational due diligence (alternative investments) points to Operational due diligence.
No other disambiguation should then be required.
I'm not 100% happy with the name Operational due diligence (alternative investments) and would particularly like other suggestions. Andrewa (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)