Talk:Point72 Asset Management

Sourcing Issues

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, 21:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed renaming

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskey Pete (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Andrew Tong lawsuit

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)

Advertisement

This entry reads like a friggin' commercial for the firm! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.82.19 (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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. Cohen was reportedly suspicious of the circumstances under which Lee's own hedge fund closed in March 2009 and refused to rehire him.

—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

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)

References

Sources to add

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

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

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

| aum =$11 billion (2015)

-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

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080527130752/http://www.cbsnews.com:80/stories/2006/03/24/60minutes/main1438812.shtml to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/24/60minutes/main1438812.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Several issues

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:
  • Point72 has offices in Stamford, Connecticut, New York City, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, and London. SAC Capital previously maintained satellite offices in Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago.
    • http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/amid-plea-negotiations-sac-capital-retrenches/
    • http://www.reuters.com/article/sac-asia-idUSHKG13621520091204
    • http://www.institutionalinvestorsalpha.com/Article/2400624/Search/Inside-SACs-shark-tank.html

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?

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)

Input on Edits to Point72 Page

Seeking input on suggested additions to this article

Hello User:UnitedStatesian and any other interested volunteer editors: My name is Xan, and I work for Point72 Asset Management. I have been editing pages on behalf of the company for several years, with the approval of the volunteer community. I would like to update the article. In the last couple of years, a subsidiary, Point72 Ventures, has become an active investment arm of the company. It has received substantial media coverage, and I would like to propose that it be added as a new section to the article.
I would greatly appreciate the input of one or more volunteer editors on my suggestions. If approved, I am willing to add them to the article, or of course I would appreciate it if a volunteer would do that!

Here are the edits I am proposing:

Point72 Ventures

In 2016, Steve Cohen established Point72 Ventures, a venture capital fund that makes early-stage investments in Asia, Europe, Central America, and the United States. Point72 Ventures now invests in fintech, machine learning, and artificial intelligence, cyber-security and core-enterprise companies.

Matthew Granade, the head of Point72’s Market Intelligence unit and a former co-head of research at Bridgewater Associates, is the Managing Partner at Point72 Ventures. As of 2019, the fund was composed of about 15 employees, and its investments typically range from $500,000 to $15 million. Pete Casella leads Point72 Ventures-Fintech, Dan Gwak and Sri Chandrasekar, lead Point72 Ventures-AI, and David Dubick and Noah Carr lead Ventures’ third sleeve, Point72 Ventures-Core Enterprise.

Investments

Point72 Ventures-Fintech group made Ventures’ first investment in November 2016, in Acorns Grow Inc. Acorns is an app maker that encourages millennial-aged users to make regular small-dollar contributions to retirement funds. Since its founding, Point72 Ventures has made more than 35 investments: Quantopian, an online platform where members build computerized trading models and earn a share of profits, the mortgage tech start-up Roostify, a mortgage tech start-up Flare, an Australian payroll technology startup.

Among its most recent investments: in August 2018, Point72 Ventures-AI led a $20 million series B round of funding for inVia Robotics, a startup that provides fulfillment centers with automated robotics technology.

In April 2018, Point72 Ventures-Fintech invested an undisclosed amount of money in Imperative Execution, a new “dark pool” trading platform designed to counter the impact of certain high-speed trading strategies. Also in April, Point72 Ventures-AI led an $18.5 million investment in autonomous driving technology developer DeepScale, based in the Silicon Valley.

References

Thank you very much for any feedback!AlexReads (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment

My opinion: first paragraph is fine. Second and third paragraphs are way too detailed: Wikipedia is an encylopedia, with summary information. Imagine what the paragraph would look like once p72 ventures has made 200 investments (look at the articles for other VC firms and how their investments are described). None of the portfolio companies are themselves notable, and so I would not have that section. (if any of the investments become notable themselves, I would at that time add a sentence just on that company) UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my suggested edits. I will go ahead and post the first paragraph per your recommendation. I have one question: Would it be useful to readers to include perhaps the first or first and second investments made at the end of that paragraph, just as an example of the kinds of investments the unit is making? AlexReads (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Minor edits to this article

Hello User:UnitedStatesian and any other interested volunteer editors: My name is Xan, and I have been editing pages as part of my job on behalf of Point72 for several years, with the approval of the volunteer community. I would like to update the article by adding new Assets Under Management (AUM) information, the opening of offices in Sydney, Australia, and San Francisco, and the naming of Gavin O’Connor as COO. (The COO essentially manages most major business functions on a daily basis.) I have good references for all these updates. I would greatly appreciate your opinions on these edits. I am happy to make them if you approve. Thanks!

Here are the references for the above edits. I do not yet have a reference for the San Francisco office, so I can either wait until I do, or add it now for accuracy’s sake.

AlexReads (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Minor edits to this article

Hello User:UnitedStatesian and any other interested volunteer editors: I am going to go ahead and make the above updates, and I still welcome comments from the community on these changes. Thank you! AlexReads (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Page Updates

Hi User:WestportWiki. I wanted to share with you the page updates for which I would like to request your help. Currently, there are only three. They are as follows:

1. In the second paragraph of the History section, I’d like to add this sentence just before the last sentence that starts with "During this time…":

O’Connor left Point72 in 2019 and Tortorella assumed the role of General Counsel.

2. In the second to last paragraph in History about satellite offices, I’d like to add our San Francisco and Warsaw offices.

So, the end of the sentence would now be ...Sydney, Palo Alto, San Francisco, and Warsaw.

3. Under Cubist Systematic Strategies, I would like to add a sentence to the end as follows.

In 2020, Point72 hired Denis Dancanet, a former partner at quantitative hedge fund PDT, to head the unit.

Thank you for your review and consideration of these updates. Best! AlexReads (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

reply

Hi User:AlexReads I added #1, of all the things that could be added to this page #2 and #3 seem below the line. WestportWiki (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your time reviewing these edits and help in updating the page. I would appreciate it if you could give a bit more context on what you mean by “below the line” to help me better understand how to consider future edits. As an example, given the satellite office information is already in the article, I thought the page would be improved by making sure the list is complete? If that’s not the case, this would be helpful to know. Again, your guidance and expertise are much appreciated. AlexReads (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:AlexReads it's more like given you work there I am encouraging you to think beyond adding to a list of offices. What's the big deal stuff we can add? Then down the road; sure we can update a list of locations. But right now feels like there is bigger items to net. WestportWiki (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

References