Talk:Lucerne Capital Management

Dubious
I've tagged the number of employees as dubious. The company website says they have "assembled an experienced team of 12 professionals". I would guess that number refers to investment bankers and related specialists, not to the total employees including secretarial staff or similar support roles - accounting, HR and so on. While it's possible that some of the "experienced professionals" fill those roles, I don't think that conclusion can be drawn from the source. Huon (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

AUM
Lucerne's assets under management continues to be changed from $478 million (March 2015) to $863 million (May 2018) by a user who has disclosed they have been paid by Lucerne Capital Management. While the March 2015 figures are no doubt outdated, the user who continues to restore the updated number fails to provide a reliable source. I've done some digging and can't seem to find a source supporting these numbers. So, old AUM numbers stay until a source can confirm $862M is correct. Meatsgains (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging you here so you can request your changes regarding Lucerne's AUM. Quit restoring your unsourced content and let's discuss. Meatsgains (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

On the advise of Girth Summit, I took this to WP:RSN and and was advised by John M Baker that we should consider referencing a primary source (https://www.adviserinfo.sec.gov/IAPD/content/ViewForm/crd_iapd_stream_pdf.aspx?ORG_PK=111288) when it comes to reporting Regulatory Assets Under Management. I would please ask you to consider page 8, Item 5, section F, number 2 - which quotes the regulatory assets under management as $ 1,107,764,000. Again, on advise of Girth Summit  I have not made any updates to the Lucerne Capital Management - but would propose the AUM box on the right be updated to $1,107,764,000 (March 2019) and then the text within Overview section be updated to:


 * "...and as of 2019 had over $1.1 billion in regulatory assets under management."

With both of these changes referencing the ADV source. I trust now that a primary source has been referenced, this edit will be supported as this produces the most accurate representation of the firm.Jonathan Larken (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)