Talk:Man Group

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Man Group logo (new).svg

Prominence of Madoff mention
Hello,

I’m getting in touch from Man Group and wanted to flag a recent edit made on the wiki page. The edit brings a piece of information mentioned further down the article up into the first paragraph and raises its prominence to become a very significant part of the history of our company (in bold). The sentence is:

''In 2014, the company suffered losses—some 59% of which have since been recovered—through investment in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. ''

Per the WP NPOV, it feels to us that the Madoff issue has now been given undue weight and doesn’t feature in a proportionate manner. Would you agree with that?

For your background, the information is already listed on the page (further down, as below), and based on the nature of the investment as described in the article it was extremely small, representing just 0.5% of AuM of a former division owned by Man Group, and it was not a direct investment into the ponzi scheme, but into a fund of funds that ultimately then invested in it. As you can perhaps tell from the Man Group page, the firm has a long history and a large range of investment funds covering lots of strategies and performance for our clients. Therefore while we have never requested that it be removed as we understand the potential reader interest in such events, I do hope you will agree that the information doesn’t deserve the prominence it has now been given?

Relevant lower section:

RMF and Bernard Madoff[edit]

''RMF, a former division of Man Group, invested 0.5% of its funds under management at the time with various third-party funds which, in turn, had positions in funds ultimately managed by Bernard Madoff. RMF was one of 107 financial institutions and 13,000 individuals to invest in such funds. As of 2014, 59% of all such funds have been recovered and returned to various institutions and individuals.''

The reason provided by the editor for including the mention upfront was that the Booker prize and the mention of the Madoff investment deserve equal prominence. While we would argue that the Booker prize was a more significant part of our business, it is also already mentioned further down the page and so could be deleted to help even things out, rather than selecting one negative piece of information to counterbalance it as has currently been done.

I'd be very grateful for your thoughts on this, and please let me know if there's anything you disagree with.

Best,

Danny Danny Read Man (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I would be OK to remove the Madoff material from the lead but we should leave it in the main text. Dormskirk (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Dormskirk - is it ok to make the update now (removing from the lead but leaving as is in the main text)? I can also remove the Booker prize reference if required.
 * Best
 * Danny Danny Read Man (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. Dormskirk (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)