Talk:Magnetar Capital

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Chicago This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Private Equity This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Private Equity Task Force, a collaborative effort to improve the depth of quality and coverage of the private equity and venture capital industry and related topics in Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. This task force seeks to collaborate with the following WikiProjects: WikiProject Finance & Investment WikiProject Companies WikiProject Biography Private EquityWikipedia:WikiProject Private EquityTemplate:WikiProject Private EquityPrivate Equity articles

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. 16912 Rhiannon (talk · contribs) has been paid by Beutler Ink on behalf of Magnetar Capital.

After news outlets started reporting that Magnetar might had a significant role in the financial crisis of 2007–2010, this article was created. I'm trying to avoid Personal Attacks, but I feel I must point out that an anonymous IP editor (74.113.151.1) has an IP address on the Magnetar internet domain (magnetar.com is 74.113.151.16). I'm concerned this could present a Conflict of Interest, especially since the user's only edits were to remove material from this article. I can't figure out how to use WikiScanner, but feel free to try it yourself.

This sentence was removed: "According to several reports the company helped worsen the financial crisis", with the comment that it was "opinion" and "could be considered defamation of character of the company." Also removed was reporting from This American Life, The Wall Street Journal, ProPublica, and The Australian, claiming that they "don't provide enough detail or related information to write something as if it is fact." Can the article describe reports in the mainstream media, or we have to first measure the amount of detail and opinion/defamation in such reports? Why can't we simply present it as "reports or allegations from the mainstream media"? ——Rich jj (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of WikiScanner, I used an IP lookup website to show that this IP translates to the host name of evanston.magnetar.com and is property of Magnetar Capital LLC in Evanston, Illinois.

there are two main 'stories'. one is the WSJ Ng/Mollencamp article from a few years ago (which was simply reprinted in the australian). The other is the ProPublica article by Eisinger and Bernstein, which was basically instigated by Planet Money, which is described as some kind of collaboration between NPR News and This American Life (specifically Alex Bloomberg at TAL) and TAL made a show based on the ProPublica reports. The ProPublica story goes much farther in accusing Magnetar of wrongdoing than the WSJ article. Anyways what was i writing this for? Oh yeah... I have to agree with your point Rich jj, when NPR stations (which are a 'reputable news source' as far as wikipedia is concerned) broadcast this story, several times, on a popular show, and it gets repeated over dozens of blogs and forums within a day..... its pretty notable. So.. a credible wikipedia article really has no choice but to include a section on the ProPublica/NPR/TAL reports. IMHO. although the stories themselves include the rebuttal from Magnetar... so the wikipedia article should as well doncha think?? laterz. Decora (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Money is an NPR blog and podcast that reports on economics issues for a non-expert audience. I think it was created by Adam Davidson and Alex Blumberg. Other public radio shows, like TAL, have used material from the podcast or commissioned the Planet Money team to put together a special report for NPR broadcast.

I'm still looking for more major news organizations publish their own reports on this issue, but so far I've just seen The Huffington Post [1], Roubini Global Economics [2], and The Business Insider [3]. ——Rich jj (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the article discuss Alexander Rekeda? This section has been removed three times (by an IP address on the Magnetar subnet). It stated that Rekeda orchestrated six CDO "deals" with Magnetar while working for different banks. I understand "deals" to be creations of massive financial CDO packages (what is the $-amount?). I also understand CDOs have been blamed for significant contribution to the financial crisis. Was Rekeda given his own section in the article because his six deals especially notable or make up a large portion of Magnetar's CDO business? Is Rekeda a notable person aside from his Magnetar deals?

In the latest deletion, the rationale was that Rekeda "is not apart of Magnetar Capital and should not be listed under under this heading [Magnetar's history]." However, I believe the company's notable business activities should be included, if this is actually notable. ——Rich jj (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i have rewritten it in an attempt to be more 'just the facts' style. thank you. Decora (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most notable thing about Alexander Rekeda is that in 2012, the SEC charged him with willful violation of various portions of U.S. securities acts, fined him $125,000, and banned him from doing almost anything in financial services for 12 months. The primary source of Rekeda's violations was his involvement in issuance of the Delphinus CDO, about whose asset composition he lied (he lied to the three rating agencies, S&P, Fitch's and Moody's). HOWEVER, the SEC administrative proceedings document does not mention Magnetar at all. It explicitly states that Rekeda's sanctioned behavior occurred while he was an employee of Mizhuo Securities "Alexander V. Rekeda was a registered representative and Head of Structured Credit, Americas, of Mizuho Securities". See here for the full text of the proceedings and findings against Rekeda by the SEC(pdf). I still haven't decided how to work this into the article but I can at least understand why there needs to be some clarification about Rekeda's behavior. By the way, he is currently ‎Managing Director and Head of Financial Securitizations at ‎Guggenheim Capital Markets (he worked there back in November 2011, so apparently they hired him back recently, despite what he did in the past). This is a good source article from The Wall Street Journal, Behind the Fall of a Crisis-Era Whiz (October 2012):

"Math whiz Alexander Rekeda's skill creating bonds from pools of risky subprime loans and other debts was prized by big banks before the financial crisis hit. Now the 38-year-old former trader stands out for a different reason: Regulators fined and suspended Mr. Rekeda on Thursday for allegedly hiding a trading loss on a collateralized loan obligation. The latest regulatory rebuke comes on top of one in July, when he was fined and suspended from the securities industry for misleading investors about an earlier bond deal...One of the deals Mr. Rekeda created at Mizuho, a $1.6 billion CDO called Delphinus CDO 2007-01, was sold to investors in mid-2007 just as the housing market started to crack. Delphinus soon imploded, and Mizuho suffered a multibillion-dollar loss on investments created by Mr. Rekeda and his team. The Japanese firm closed its U.S. CDO operation in late 2007. In retrospect, Crédit Agricole's Calyon unit [for whom Rekeda was formerly employed prior to Mizuho poaching him] "should have written Mizuho a thank-you note" for hiring Mr. Rekeda, said Janet Tavakoli, who runs a structured-finance consulting firm."

The tie-in to Magnetar is apparently the Delphinus CDO. The WSJ article doesn't mention Magnetar either though. Now I understand why it is difficult to work Rekeda into the Magentar Wikipedia article. Unless we can adequately explain his role, it doesn't make sense. I still haven't decided how to handle this.--FeralOink (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, There is nothing inherently evil about the component tranches of the Delphinus CDO containing synthetic assets. The quote from Janet Tavakoli (in the current version of the Magnetar Wikipedia article) lacks context and seems to suggest that being synthetic was a problem. The problem was that Rekeda LIED to the credit rating agencies, AND that he told his subordinates at Mizuho to send the portfolio compositions for Delphinus CDO tranches that were different (and better credit quality/lower risk) than what was actually there.--FeralOink (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have found tertiary sources covering the Magnetar's association with the Delphinus CDO. The funds for the CDO were from Magnetar. Also, Magnetar was associated with other horrendously-structured CDOs that went to junk, worth pennies on the dollar. I am not going to try to determine whether Magnetar's CDO losses were among THE very worst sustained, as currently suggested by the article. That would require that I derive some robust metric to for what is "worst" and then compare with all the other big league loser CDOs of that time). It would be original research, which is not what Wikipedia does. Instead, I am going to check if anything ever came of the SEC inquiry into Magnetar that the Wall Street Journal mentioned as being in progress in approx 2012. I will scan subsequent news coverage of Magnetar CDOs and losses in the years following 2012, as Magnetar was back to winning awards for good investment returns by 2015. I am definitely getting rid of that list of CDOs, because Magnetar issued other CDOs prior to and after those that are listed in the article. The only one of note I have found so far is Delphinus. Also, there is nothing significant about the fact that the CDOs are incorporated. It isn't as though they are actually companies with employees, and each one of them became worthless. By wikilinking to the CDO (or CBO/CLO) article, that becomes apparent. I *DO* believe the Delphinus CDO warrants inclusion in the article, and will draw on some of the remarks I made on this talk page earlier for content. Next on my list: consolidating and trimming redundancies while retaining Yves Smith and Janet Tavakoli sourced information.--FeralOink (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

people seem to have transformed a relatively simple explanation of the propublica article into a fantastic morass of mish mash language and impossible muddling nonsense. instead of simply presenting the arguments made by the major parties (propublica, magnetar) it has this meandering, self redundant train wreck of ideas.

then there is the attempt to 'shoe horn' naked capitalism / EConned into the article... great i have wanted to do the same for a while but have had other priorities. someone could easily have made a whole section on yves smith's take on magnetar, because it takes up several pages of her book. it would be much better than smashing it into the propublica section.

and of course the fact that janet tavakoli has discussed the whole trade years before others talked about it, and that Carrick Mollenkamp and Serena Ng wrote about it in the WSJ in 2008. anyways.

i would delve to repair this myself but... i have this thing called 'food' and 'a roof over my head' i have to 'pay for' and wikipedia isnt helping on that score so im kind of abandoning this sort of nitty gritty zero reward stuff for now .. especially since i cant even afford internet anymore lolz Decora (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your past edits are appreciated. I look forward to the time that you will be able to edit again. Quantling (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetar Capital's AUM is now ~$14 billion. ^[1]

I wanted to suggest that the summary box be updated to reflect that. Can I ask a Wiki editor for help with that or make the change myself?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrooklyMcLaugh (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to update the AUM figure: http://www.magnetar.com/firm-overview

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magnetar Capital. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328191847/http://www.pr-inside.com/fitch-withdraws-cdpc-ratings-r867691.htm to http://www.pr-inside.com/fitch-withdraws-cdpc-ratings-r867691.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi there! I'm looking for help to update this article, starting with a hopefully fairly simple update to the infobox and introduction. As disclosure, I do have a financial conflict of interest, as I am here on behalf of Magnetar Capital as part of my work at Beutler Ink. For this request, my goal is to clean up the infobox, adding some additional details and some sourcing too, and also adding some clarification to the introduction. The changes I'm suggesting are as follows:

Infobox

• To simplify things and clarify roles of key individuals, I've suggested removing the Founder parameter and placing founders Alec Litowitz and Ross Laser within the Key people parameter, noting parenthetically that Alec Litowitz is "Founder and CEO" and Ross Laser is "Co-founder and President"
• As the HQ location is currently unsourced, I've added a new citation
• For the AUM parameter, I've also added a citation and changed "~ $13.5 billion" to "$13.5 billion" per the source
• Finally, I've added the number of employees and provided a citation.

Introduction

• Since the introduction does not currently include these details, I've suggested adding a second sentence to note the year the firm was founded and include a brief description of its services, citing this story in The Wall Street Journal. Currently, the introduction says Magnetar Capital has "many activities", but offers no specifics.
• Following from the above, since it wouldn't be needed once the services are included, I've suggested trimming "Among its many activities,” from the existing second sentence
• The term "Magnetar trade" is currently bolded in the final sentence and this is not the subject of the article or an alternative name, I've proposed removing this formatting
• The final sentence of the introduction does not currently have a citation, but since the details are not specifically included and sourced in the main body of the article, I feel it's better to add one

I won't make any edits to the article myself because of my conflict of interest. Instead, I welcome input from uninvolved editors and assistance taking live changes as appropriate. Crh23 and Boson: Since both of you have reviewed updated on requests of mine in the past on a similar topic area, I'm wondering if you would be interested in reviewing these updates? Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rich jj and DMCer: Both of you have made constructive edits to this article in the past, although some time ago now. Would either of you be able to review this proposal to clean up the infobox with additional details and sourcing, and add some clarification to the introduction. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lamro: You created the infobox to this article in 2011. Would you be willing to review this request for updates? My goal is to add some additional details and sourcing to the infobox, and also add some clarification to the introduction. Also pinging a few other editors from this page's history who remain active on Wikipedia: Jon Kolbert, Rsrikanth05, Edward -- would any of you would be able to assist on this or have input on my general note about this page below? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are fairly minor and well-sourced, so I went ahead and updated the article accordingly.DMCer™ 18:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, DMCer! Appreciate your help. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! As editors consider my proposed edits above, I want to separately bring up the major concerns I have with this article in its entirety. For anyone new to this article, or who perhaps hasn't looked at it in a while, the key thing I would note is that there's been very little activity on this page for more than five years. The current content has not been edited significantly since 2013, and the majority of the article was written back in 2010; of 260 edits total, 145 of them were made in 2010 (96 in the month the article was created). These edits were mainly by a single user, VanishedUser sdu9aya9fasdsopa who is responsible for about 70% of the page's content. (VanishedUser has not been active for over 3 years or I would ping them here.)

Given this and the absence of up-to-date information in the article, it's clear to see that this article has not developed over time, and I see numerous issues with its existing content. Below I've highlighted some of of the major problems. While I have a conflict of interest which I've disclosed on this page previously, it's my hope that other editors will review the article and come to a similar conclusion: this article needs to be pared down and refocused toward its nominal subject, Magnetar Capital.

Overall, much of this article fails to treat its subject matter in a neutral manner and is not written in an encyclopedic tone. Instead, the article emphasizes non-Magnetar material, lacks important context, misses citations, and includes speculative content. Specifically:

• The infobox can be cleaned up with additional content and sourcing
• The introduction needs clarification to briefly describe Magnetar Capitals' "many activities". Also, "Magnetar Trade" should not be bold, as it is not the title of an alternate title for the article
• History lacks proper sourcing and context (there is little explanation to investigations, allegations, lawsuits, and their outcomes) and includes trivial detail (the comings and goings of Magnetar employees)
  • While past editors have clearly tried to include as much information as possible, the result is that the text is confusing and obtuse for readers who are not well versed on CDOs and the overall events involved; some summary and better narration of events is needed to make this more accessible
• There is an entire section listing Magnetar Capital's CDOs. As per Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia is not a directory
• In the press is the most problematic section of the article, as it is about the coverage of Magnetar, rather than using that coverage to add encyclopedic detail about Magnetar to the article. It includes:
  • History of articles published about Magnetar Capital
  • Superfluous information, such as a journalist's "many years experience"
  • Non-encyclopedic tone, such as the magazine-style phrasing of "time proved her correct"
  • Awards that journalists won for coverage of Magnetar, and other details more appropriate for the journalists' own Wikipedia articles like "it was the first Pulitzer for work published only on the web"
  • Speculation such as "This may reflect Magnetar Capital's superior performance"
  • Long and overly detailed passages (such as Magnetar Capital's response)
  • Unsourced material, some with "Citation needed" tags, including entirely unsourced subsections (Senate Report of 2011 and Counter response)
  • Excessive quotations
  • Tit-for-tat reporting about the coverage of a news story
  • A subsection on Magnetar Capital buying homes in Huber Heights, Ohio, which belongs in History, rather than being included with coverage of Magnetar Capital and CDOs

For now, I want to bring all these issues to editors' attention, and see if anyone has any specific thoughts on how best to approach. I'm working on drafting an updated version of the History that gives a better overview of events (and uses sourcing from the In the press section to add information, as appropriate), but I'm keen to hear how editors feel the In the press section should be treated. Specifically, whether this should be kept at all. In general, I'd love to get editors' thoughts on the article and how we can work together to improve it. Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is absurd for there to be an entire section devoted to EACH of Magnetar's collateralized debt obligation issuances. I am removing that and replacing by a summary, right now. There is nothing especially significant about Magnetar's CDOs versus anyone else's. They aren't larger, weren't more prone to failure/poorly structured, nor anything else. Also, there is the implication that CDOs (CBO/CLO) structures are inherently flawed, which is untrue. CDOs are still being issued today, in fact. They haven't been outlawed! They are a type of securitization, no more and no less.--FeralOink (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned. It isn't so simple as to remove that listing of CDOs. After reading the article, it appears that the entire thing is about Magnetar's CDO deals from 2005 to 2010! Magnetar is a going concern. It might STILL be issuing CDOs, except that the new ones haven't become worthless because we have been in a sustained recovery for the past eight years. Wow, this article is a MESS! There is a lot of redundancy too. I would like to clean up the entire thing. The same references and people are mentioned over and over. There is almost nothing about the company as it exists today, which is a REAL problem. It is a problem because it would be helpful to know what the status is, given that Magnetar is still a going concern, and as mentioned in the article currently, even won an award in 2015 from Institutional Investor, for being a good asset manager. I will try to clean up some of the redundancy tonight and this week, without minimizing the extent of Magnetar's contribution to the 2008 to 2010 financial crisis. I would suggest to COI edit or Rhiannon that he or she find some up-to-date content to add to the article, because the current emphasis on the past is of increasingly less relevance as time goes on, and causes an undue emphasis effect.--FeralOink (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it is important not to give undue influence to Magnetar as a cause of the 2008 financial crisis. Key contributors with equal or greater roles as Magnetar include Countrywide Savings and Loan, the AIG debacle (which was facilitated by then U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and is thoroughly discussed in the AIG company article), collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros, inadequately stringent consumer mortgage and lending practices by banks as well as failure by bank and other regulators to investigate and call for remediation of such practices, and so on and so forth. Pro-publica and Yves Smith/Naked Capital have covered plenty of bad actors. Magnetar was one of them, but the overall impressions of COI editor 16912_Rhiannon are not unreasonable ones. It is important that Wikipedia avoid the inadvertent implication that Magnetar was the REAL cause of the crisis, as that is not alleged by anyone, not Naked Capitalism nor anyone else. They contributed. We want to convey that, but not mislead readers.--FeralOink (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FeralOink, thanks so much for weighing in here and taking the time to look at this page, it's definitely a complicated one! For that reason, I'll be honest that I'm still working on a draft for the page and will keep your notes in mind as I finalize that. I agree on the main points you've raised here re: showing that Magnetar is an ongoing concern and being clear that it wasn't the root cause of the 2008 crisis, so those are two areas in particular that I'll be focusing on. Meantime, if there's any content you feel is too egregious to remain, I would not object to you removing it. Thanks again and I hope to ping you soon with some specific suggestions. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing as an impartial unbiased neutral and very ordinary editor of Wikipedia. I have NO conflict of interest.

Although Magnetar Capital has a sordid history, there is undue influence on past activities in the article. I am somewhat at a loss about how to represent this company in a neutral light, over 10 years after the 2007 - 2008 financial crisis. Yet I can't even find valid unbroken links to many of the Pulitzer Prize winning articles that exposed Magnetar on the Pro-Publica website! That is a sad statement of impermanence in its own right. Although the article says that the 2011 expose of Magnetar published by Pro-Publica won the first Pulitzer Prize for digital only reporting, the original article doesn't even exist anymore (404 error not found)! I found most of the content on the Pulitzer Prize website ONLY.

I am going to carve out or consolidate large sections of the article, while linking to currently extant sources. I will do so incrementally, over a period of time, so that any who wish to revert my changes or discuss further have an opportunity to do so here.--FeralOink (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi there! It's taken me a while, but I'm back with another request to update this article. @FeralOink: I am still in the process of drafting material to address the issues we have discussed here, and that you've flagged in your post above. But first, to get started with something simple, I have created a section to address a very basic issue: this article's lack of content that explains the company as it exists today. I'm hoping this can be a good place to start before I offer suggestions for the more complicated history of the company! Would you be able to review my proposed Corporate affairs section below, all of which is sourced to independent, third-party sources? It includes:

• Office locations
• Senior management
• Business areas

I won't make any edits to the article myself because of my conflict of interest. Instead, I welcome input from uninvolved editors and assistance taking live changes as appropriate. FeralOink, I appreciate all the work you have done to this article so far and I hope that my proposal here (and those to come) can help in those efforts. Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 00:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DMCer: Since you helped with my prior request here, are you interested in also reviewing this request to address this article's lack of content explaining Magnetar Capital as it exists today? Also pinging FeralOink, who has been active on this article and identified this as an area where the page is lacking. Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@16912 Rhiannon: I will help; however, I provided particulars about the reduced level of involvement permitted by my schedule on my talk page.--FeralOink (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much to Dormskirk for reviewing the whole draft and integrating into the article. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi there! I've continued to work on drafting improved content for this article, and I'm ready to share it here. As disclosure, I do have a financial conflict of interest, as I am here on behalf of Magnetar Capital as part of my work at Beutler Ink. @FeralOink: I hope your move is going well! I'm posting my proposed updates so you can review what I had in mind when you have time to dig in.

You can see my full-article draft in my user space. I've also made this diff to show the changes I've made in the draft vs. the live article.

To break up my proposal, following my request above, my next suggestion is creating a section that focuses on Magnetar Capital's CDO investments. In my draft, I have named this section Hedged CDO investment strategy.

As has been discussed on this Talk page above, when I started working on this article, much of it failed to treat its subject matter in a neutral manner and was not written in an encyclopedic tone. Instead, the article emphasized non-Magnetar material, lacks important context, missed citations, and included speculative content. FeralOink's work on the page since then has helped with these issues. My draft Hedged CDO investment strategy is another proposal to help address some remaining issues. I've outlined the major points below:

• My draft removed the entire section listing Magnetar Capital's notable CDOs.
  • Since none of these CDOs have their own Wikipedia articles, they probably shouldn't be called "notable". Additionally, any CDOs worth mentioning can be mentioned within the body copy. For example, my draft includes Pyxis ABS CDO 2006-1 LLC as it was the center of a lawsuit.
• My Hedged CDO investment strategy section is meant to replace the existing In the press section.
  • Much of this section has historically dealt with the coverage of Magnetar Capital, rather than using coverage to add encyclopedic detail about Magnetar Capital to the article.
  • My draft has removed:
    • The history of articles published about Magnetar Capital
    • Sections on individual journalists and works
    • The unsourced Senate Report of 2011 (which seems to exist to showcase one person's testimony)
    • The entirely unrelated Huber Heights, Ohio, subsection (this topic, should be handled in History)

I won't make any edits to the article myself because of my conflict of interest. Instead, I welcome input from uninvolved editors and assistance taking live changes as appropriate. Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FeralOink: Leaving you a ping here for when you return to more frequent editing on Wikipedia! I hope you are able to review my proposed content, as I know you have put a lot of thought and work into this article. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 02:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes requested by 16912 Rhiannon as they do seem to improve the article significantly. If you believe my edit has removed material which should be re-inserted then please go ahead and re-insert. Dormskirk (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing and making my suggested edits throughout the article, Dormskirk! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 16912 Rhiannon. I am back, finally! I do have some issues with the edits that Dormskirk kindly made for you.

* The Corporate Affairs section is oddly titled, and contains a lot of outdated information, e.g. all Magnetar's solar energy private equity was sold off several years ago as the article says in a later section. "Corporate events", sourced from Reuters, (corporate actions arb? festive parties? unclear). The Reuters article is just bare bones. Instead, I recommend that the section be renamed something like, "Company profile" with one paragraph about locations and current management, as in the article at present, and the other paragraph about Magnetars's investment portfolio and objectives. For example, it doesn't make any sense to say that Magnetar invests in fixed income (which is an asset class), and quantitative trading, which is a style of investment. Similarly, solar is a type of energy, so it shouldn't be broken out separately, particularly since Magnetar sold off some or all of their solar investments to a company in the UK, as I mentioned above (and as the article accurately states at present in a later section).

* Next, the large section about Magnetar's CDO hedging strategy should be in the "History" section, not a standalone section. The CDO hedging strategy resulted in a lot of bad press and massive losses for Magnetar investors and others during the financial crisis of 2008 and the following five years. Magnetar very narrowly eluded SEC and other financial crimes enforcement prosecution for some of its structuring notoriety. It is inaccurate and even somewhat defamatory way to suggest that Magnetar is still facilitating CDO (CBO/CLO) issuances that are associated with millions of dollars in losses now, nearly 10 years later.

* I would recommend some better sources about Magnetar's current activities. I read some of the exotic investment trade publications that are used as references. Most acknowledge that they were unable to get any confirmation from Magnetar or other parties to the transactions. There is a lot of "Magnetar did not respond to requests for comment" type of language. Sources such as Institutional Investor, for which there was formerly a reference, regarding an asset management award that Magnetar had received in 2015, are much more meaningful and reputationally legitimate as WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

* Finally, I noticed that a reference to an SEC proceeding and action against one of the members of the syndicate that issued some of those bad CDO's was removed. That sort of thing needs to remain, if not as a primary source (although SEC statements to the press are often included in Wikipedia articles) then as a secondary source via The Wall Street Journal, which covered the news story.

So, I guess I am saying that the article at present makes Magnetar look both better and worse than it actually is! There is still outdated information, and somewhat of a lack of understanding about hedge funds and private equity, in the past and the present. Hedge funds are inherently secretive about releasing information, which is completely acceptable as they don't have the same disclosure requirements as more traditional investment companies. I acknowledge that there might not be a lot of current information about Magnetar, as they haven't been in trouble with financial regulators for years now. It isn't surprising if the article is short, as one would expect a successful hedge fund to maintain a low public profile. That becomes clear by perusing Wikipedia articles for other big name hedge funds, for which there just isn't a lot of public information. Nothing wrong with that!

I am going to make some edits now. I will return later, and restore anything that got inadvertently removed by Dormskirk, on a second run. That includes positive content, not just the sordid past! Dormskirk indicated that he was open to reinsertion of content in his comment. This is really lengthy, I realize. I am not being so expansive because I am irritated. I just want to explain myself, as I had been quite interested in updating this article, and then sort of abandoned it for the past six months. I have enjoyed working with you on this very much, Rhiannon!--FeralOink (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FeralOink: The adjustments that you are proposing all make sense to me so, for my part, please go ahead. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dormskirk: I might have gotten a bit over-ambitious. Thank you for your equanimity and patience ;o) --FeralOink (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FeralOink: So glad you're back! Your edits make sense to me and I'm glad you were able to resolve the issues. Overall, I feel the article is much better because of our collaborative effort here. I, too, have enjoyed working with you on this article and thank you so much for your efforts on it. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetar should be part of Wikiproject Finance and probably Wikiproject Private Equity rather than the rather generic "Companies". I am going to take care of that now.--FeralOink (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]