Talk:Winton Group

Proposed article expansion
This article was very recently created by a new editor who got very active on articles about hedge funds and related firms in August, and then, just as suddenly, stopped editing. About this same time, a veteran editor (non unreasonably) templated it as needing improvement. This is where I come in: I've been asked by Winton Capital Management to get involved and see about making this a substantially better article. Hence I have this potential conflict of interest to acknowledge, and I'd like to seek consensus prior to making direct edits.

In the past several weeks I have put together a much-expanded version that I believe is a major improvement, not just in Winton's view, but highly consistent with Wikipedia's goals. The new draft is written with expert advice, scrupulously cited, and, I hope others will agree, not unduly promotional. Winton has done very well in its existence, but all claims thereto are verified with third-party sources. It is also written in British English, as is appropriate to the subject matter. You can find this alternative draft here: User:WWB Too/Winton Capital Management.

If there is anything in my draft which is a complete non-starter then I am open to discussing it, but if any editor who finds this note agrees this is an improvement on the current article, I'd prefer to see it copied over now and make any adjustments later. One more note: I plan to seek input at relevant WikiProjects and from previously involved editors, but if there is no objection after a week or so, I may just move it myself. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I left my comments on your draft on its talk page. It looks good, and applaud you for calling attention to the COI. When I templated this article, it was intended to improve references and verify notability, both of which happened quickly, so I removed the templates and did some WP:MOS cleanup. But your draft is much more thorough, and I would endorse it. Cmprince (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. I made several changes based on your feedback, explained in some detail on the project talk page, and copied the draft over. Next I'll obtain and upload a logo for the infobox, and call it good. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You've done a nice job of organizing the material and citing sources. Over the next days, I'll review and make changes as needed. I look forward to working together to improve the article. Cheers! -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 02:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going through and copy editing the article. I am noticing a tendency to embellish in a way that is not characteristic of an encyclopedia. In general though, the writing, research and organization are very good and neutrally written. Nice job! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 03:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Style points
We should avoid the nickname "Winton" in the article. Instead we can say the entire name of the subject, or use the abbreviation WCM (established in the lead) or we can say "the company" or "the firm". I know "Winton" is used by some industry magazines etc. but we need a higher standard for this encyclopedia. Thanks for your help in making references to the subject uniform in the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your attention, Keithbob. I'm busy on other things at the moment, but I may have some time to weigh in up ahead, so I'll check in here again and with you when I have the opportunity. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks WWB, a couple of other small points.
 * We should keep in mind the subject is WCM, not Harding. So its not really appropriate to say Harding did this, Harding did that. He did those things as an administrator of the firm, so we just say the company did this or that and leave Harding out of it, IMO. Its OK, of course, to say he is the founder, chairman etc and that he guides the company.
 * Also the lead could be expanded to to summarize the entire article a little better while staying away from details. Last point, we should be careful to not keep repeating facts about their reliance on data research and how many researchers etc.
 * I've tried to neutralize all of this that with my edits so far. Anyway, these are just comments to explain my edits.  Overall its a very good article and on a good contribution to expanding the encyclopedia.
 * Though I haven't checked any of the sources, the article seems to be very well documented. I would caution though about over using a single source. I note that one source has been cited 18 times when there are 30 other sources to choose from. We should be careful not to give too much undue weight to one source as that can create some POV in the article.
 * Again, thanks for your contributions and hard work! :-) Cheers! -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Updating this article
Back in 2011, I worked on behalf of Winton Capital Management to expand this article with the help of volunteer editors. More than a year later, they've asked me again to help them with updates to bring the article current. To this end, I have a handful of changes and additions below that I'm hoping to have vetted and then moved into the article by another editor, given my COI.

Before I get to the updates, though, there's an issue that's been introduced to the article that I'm hoping someone can address. Throughout much of the current article, Winton is referred to as "WCM", a change instituted by User:Keithbob, who felt that "Winton" was a nickname. However, no one really calls the company "WCM"—in the press, they're usually introduced as "Winton Capital Management", and then called "Winton" from there on out (see here for a nice example of how this is usually handled). I'd like to propose that we bring the article into line with how the company is talked about in the press, rather than instituting a Wikipedia-specific abbreviation, and change all instances of "WCM" in the current article, including in the lead paragraph, to "Winton".

OK, on to the new information! For each change, I've provided the markup so that an editor can easily add this information into the article: First, three updates about Winton's assets under management:


 * In the infobox, "Assets under management" should read "$25.5 billion "


 * I'd like to propose that the last sentence of the introduction be updated to read (which also includes a small change in wording to indicate what the $1.6 million figure refers to): "The firm's first fund was launched with $1.6 million in 1997 and it held $25.5 billion in assets under management."


 * Lastly, to bring the Assets under management section up to day, I'd suggest that the following sentence be added to the end of the last paragraph:

Second, personnel at Winton has changed a bit; I've provided a paragraph below to replace the current first paragraph of the Operations section, providing up-to-date information:

I'll be back at some point to propose a few other changes, but I'd like to get the information in here up-to-date first. If these suggested edits all look okay, could an editor move them over into the article for me? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

WCM to Winton

 * I've made all of the changes except for the WCM to Winton in-article name change. That's something that you're going to have to discuss with Keithbob, since it is a disagreement you have with him. Silver  seren C 21:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, that makes sense to me. I have a few follow-up requests here that do not involve any previous discussion with Keithbob, so I'd like to post those first and then follow up with him. And I'll follow up this note with another request a bit later today. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WWB wants WP to conform to the methodology of some newspapers which start out saying Winton Capital Management and then go to Winton for short. Being an encyclopedia we have our own formatting guidelines and acronyms are the preferred method in my opinion. I cannot find any MOS guideline for corporations. User:Silverseren what is you opinion on this issue? -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that while we do have our own formatting guidelines, I don't believe i've ever heard that acronyms are preferred. In fact, i've seen them discouraged throughout the MOS. And it's not surprising that there isn't any specific guideline for companies, it's an area that the MOS and other rules don't address for the most part because no one wants to talk about companies, for some reason. I feel that if the sources are abbreviating it to just Winton, it would be appropriate to do the same, rather than trying to force in an acronym instead. The name Winton is far easier to read than an acronym anyways. Silver  seren C 18:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, then I'm OK with the change to Winton as long as it is stated in the lead that Winton as an alternate name. -- — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Keithbob, would you suggest the article open with Winton Capital Management (Winton) similar to how it does now, only with "WCM" in the parentheses? And would you be willing to make the changeover? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, ✅ --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello there, Keithbob, hope you've been well. Back in fall 2011, you helped me out with the article Winton Capital Management. This spring I've been working with them again to update the article, and I wanted to revisit one point where we had differed at the time. This was about using "Winton" on subsequent reference (which I had started with) as opposed to "WCM" (which you had changed it to). Here's the thing: Winton doesn't really seem to be referred to as WCM in very many sources at all; "Winton" is far more common, as seen in The Telegraph and Bloomberg, both of which are pretty typical examples of how the name is usually handled. There's also this interview with Winton founder David Harding, where he clearly refers to the company as just "Winton". Previously you'd suggested that Winton was just a "nickname", but I think it's quite clear that it's the preferred diminutive version of the full name—and surely the article shouldn't use "Winton Capital Management" at every mention. There is clear consensus among reliable sources about how to abbreviate it; right now Wikipedia is out on its own with "WCM". Note, as well: the company's logo includes the word "WINTON". What do you think? Would you be willing to consider a change back to "Winton"? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in hearing other editors opinions but my would remain the same ie that it should be either Winton Capital Management or WCM. One or the other. I understand that news stories will use a short hand version but we are an encyclopedia and our standards are more formal. For example, most news articles about Ringo Starr will use his full name in the first mention then after that they will say, Ringo. But on WP we say full name in the lead and then Starr, his surname, thereafter. So WP has higher and different standards then news article. So that's my feeling but I would be open to other opinions from other editors. Thanks for taking the time to ask and for all your good work on the article. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. if you like you can copy my comment above to the WCM talk page and then ask for a third opinion and go with consensus. I won't object if the third opinion disagrees with me. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey there, maybe we should take the question to 3O? But I'll confess, I don't quite see your point: the majority of available sources shorten the company name to "Winton", so why shouldn't Wikipedia do the same? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the majority of the sources say Winton, then maybe the article name should be changed to Winton. We don't always use proper names. For example Ringo Starr's article is not called Richard Starkey. We title the article using the name by which the subject is commonly known. If that is the common name of the company than maybe a title change is in order. I dont' know. What I'm saying is once the subject is ID'd in the main title we should not use "slang" terms in the rest of the article. But check with a 3rd opinion and see what others think. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Ringo Starr / Richard Starkey is an apt analogy; we're not talking about two different but arguably valid names; we're talking about a full name and a shorter name. A better analogy would be John Lennon / Lennon, re: full name on first mention, last name subsequently. The sources generally say "Winton Capital Management" on first mention, then "Winton" on second reference, and it's simply my suggestion that Wikipedia reflect that. Anyhow, I'm happy to seek out input at 3O and we'll see what others think. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be correct there is a WP policy for Lennon, WP:SURNAME, its there one for organizations? let's take the issue to 3O or even better a noticeboard and see what others think. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is such a guideline for company names, though as you know I see several reasons to prefer "Winton". Anyhow, I've just listed it at 3O, so we'll see what someone else thinks. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional requests for this page
As mentioned in the previous section, I have more suggestions for updating this article and, as a paid consultant, I feel I should not be the one to implement them. For this one, I see some problems with the wording in the current version:


 * First, there seems to have been confusion at some point over the firm, Winton, and the funds that it administers. There are several places in the article where either the incorrect term is used, or there isn't enough context provided for the meaning to be clear:
 * At the end of the last sentence under History#Founding, "the fund was able to secure investors" should read "the firm was able to secure investors."
 * The first sentence under History#Early years begins "In October 1997, the fund was launched..." I'd like to propose that we clarify this a bit and change it to read "In October 1997, Winton's first futures fund was launched..."
 * Finally, the first paragraph under History#Expansion begins with "According to the firm..." However, the previous sentence has discussed both Winton and Goldman Sachs, so it isn't clear which firm this refers to. I'd like to propose that the clause be reworded to read "According to Winton, …"


 * Second, reference #4 in the article has somehow lost most of its details. Here's the complete reference:



There's also an addition to the article I'd like to propose:


 * There are a couple things that need to be updated in the first paragraph of the Investment strategy section: Winton is now registered with the Securities and Exchange Commision, and what was formerly the Financial Services Authority is now called the Financial Conduct Authority. So, I'd like to update the first paragraph of that section to read as below:

That's all for the moment. I'm happy to answer any questions about the issues I've raised or the current article otherwise. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gave it a shot. Are you prohibited from editing the page? Cause I think it would be more efficient for you to do the edit yourself. II  | (t - c) 14:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, II. Looks to me like you got 'em all. Good and interesting question about editing directly; I agree it would be more efficient were I to do it. I'll explain on your Talk page in a moment. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Two more suggestions
Following the implementation of my suggested changes above, there are two final additions I'd like to propose here:


 * First, in the last two paragraphs of the Expansion section, I've noticed a couple of errors. It was Winton's Diversified Trading Program, not the firm as a whole, that returned the figures given in the article, and the percentage should read -5.38%, not -5.39%. (Sources provided in the following markup.) Additionally, I've added some recent information about Winton's returns in recent years and their continued expansion into China. So, I'd like to propose that the final two paragraphs of the Expansions section be replaced with the below:


 * Second, the Investment strategy section currently mentions Winton's use of statistical tools, but more generically than I think is possible in an encyclopedic treatment. (There's also a missing period in the next-to-last sentence in this paragraph that ends with "... its trading models have the highest potential for positive returns.") I'd like to propose adding the following to the end of the third paragraph to provide some insight how Winton deals with data:

And that's all I have for this page for now. I'll be happy to respond to questions or comments from any editor about the above. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Partially ✅. Having had a look at the information and the corresponding sources, I've made the first set of edits with the addition of a few wikilinks. I've not yet made the second set of edits because I wanted to discuss a particular line first, specifically the ones about King James Bibles. I don't have access to the corresponding source but I assume that quote is a line from the article? If so, I think we should quote it to make it clear we aren't making what is a fairly unusual comparison between big data and bible volumes - I'm not aware of bibles being used as a common standard of measurement. If you could confirm it is a quote, I can put it in quote marks and that should be fine. If it isn't, I think we should find a different comparison, yeah? Cheers, Stalwart 111  08:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Stalwart, thanks for making the first change. The part about the King James Bible is from the source, though not quite a direct quote. If you think it would be clearer to quote directly, here's what I would suggest:
 * In recent years, Winton has further developed its statistical research, focusing on big data; according to the Financial Times, in 2013 its machines processed "the equivalent of 30m King James bibles' worth of information every day".
 * Is that better? Note: the source lowercases "bible", which seems a bit odd to me, but that is what it says. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is, so I've now ✅ the second part too, with that amended first line and an extra wikilink. Stalwart 111  06:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Correcting number of employees in infobox
In May and June of this year, I proposed several revisions to this article (see the above messages) on behalf of Winton. I now have one very minor request but, given my COI, I think it's best I not edit directly. Specifically, the number of employees listed in the infobox and the body of the article differ, and should be reconciled:
 * The infobox lists 206 employees and cites a 2011 Pensions & Investments article.
 * The Operations section lists 280 employees and cites a 2013 Financial Times article.

The FT article, being more recent, is the correct one. It's also behind a paywall, so I could quote it for any editor who would like to see that first. If someone would be willing to update the infobox to note that there are 280 employees currently, I'd be very grateful. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I'll assume the paywalled source says what you say it says (and it would be logical to assume so anyway, given the other data sourced to it) and so I've made the requested edit. Cheers, Stalwart 111  06:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Very excellent, thanks! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Two requests for this article
Hello to anyone watching this page. I have a few updates to suggest for this article, which I think are fairly minor and I hope you'll agree. As you can see from other requests I have posted on this Talk page in recent years, I am occasionally retained by Winton Capital Management to help keep this article up-to-date; this is such an occasion. I will refrain from implementing these updates myself, because of this financial COI with Winton. Instead, I am looking to other editors to review and make these updates for me. I'll try to make this easy to follow:

Leadership changes
First, there have been recent changes to Winton's leadership that should be noted here. The article should be updated to note that David Harding is now the executive chairman and CEO of Winton, while the former CEO, Tony Fenner-Leitão, has left the company. These changes are confirmed by The Wall Street Journal. Not explained in the WSJ article is that the former chairman Anthony Daniell is now the company's vice chairman. I would like to see this update made at a future point—when I have a source that states his new role—but for now I suggest removing mention of Daniell since it would be confusing, and inaccurate, to list both him and Harding as chairman.

Here are the changes that I suggest making to the first paragraph of the Operations section. If these changes look appropriate to other editors I've also provided the markup to make this update as seamless as possible.

To clear up any potential confusion in advance: My markup replaces the first citation of this section with the WSJ article. The citation I replaced was this Bloomberg article, which was only used to confirm that David Harding was president and CEO of Winton. This source is not used elsewhere in the article, so removing the full citation will not disrupt anything else.

Assets under management
Second, this article currently lists Winton's AUM as $25.5 billion as of February 2013. Though this is a very slight change, the WSJ article mentions that Winton's AUM is approximately $25 billion as of March 2014.

The AUM is listed in three places in the article: the infobox, the last sentence of the introduction and the last sentence of the Assets under management section. Could these three instances be updated, using the new WSJ source, so that the article provides the most current information possible?

I'll be happy to respond to any questions or comments about the above. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * These are reasonable requests and I have made the changes to the main page. Thank you for using the appropriate procedure for requesting changes when you have a COI. Tdslk (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help here Tdslk. I'm in the process of preparing another set of requests, this time to clarify some existing information in the Investment strategy section and the introduction. I hope you'll be willing to help with that request as well, but understand if you are busy elsewhere. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional requests for this article
Additional suggestions for the page, as I mentioned in the thread above. For anyone new to the page, I have prepared these requests on behalf of Winton Capital Management and will therefore avoid any edits to this page. It is my hope that another editor can review this request and make the updates if they agree this represents an improvement:

Investment strategy section
I would like to suggest several revisions to the Investment strategy section; compare to the highlighted changes in the first box below.


 * First, to clarify Winton's various registrations. Winton is registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority. While all three of these organizations are mentioned in the article, and sources do provide enough information to clarify the role of the CFTC and SEC, no such source seems to exist for the FCA. This is probably because the FCA is a recent creation, supplanting the FSA (more on that here). One possibility: use the About page from the Winton website, which of course is a primary source. Another: perhaps editors are knowledgable about the FCA and are comfortable making this slight change without a source. I haven't included one in the language below.


 * Second, I'd like to add in that Winton invests in global equity markets. Right now the article mentions that Winton invests in futures markets worldwide, but is not so clear about its funds' investment in equity markets. To verify this, I have added this Alpha article that mentions Winton's involvement with global equities markets.

Here is what I suggest, I've highlighted my additions so they are easy to see and below is the markup, with the highlighting removed.
 * Third, cash equities have recently become a larger part of Winton's Futures Fund, so I have added a short sentence regarding this to the very end of this section. I have added two sources to verify this. One from The New York Times and the other from Hedgeweek.

As with my earlier round of suggested edits I'm happy to answer any questions about the above, though I hope that these edits are straightforward and are seen as an improvement over the existing text. And just a heads up, I will have one more suggestion, once this is resolved. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ - as with your earlier round of suggested edits, I see nothing problematic with those changes. Quite the opposite - they serve to provide a more comprehensive picture of the company's investment strategy without self-aggrandisement or advertising and add a couple of useful references. I've made those changes with a few changes of my own to spacing. Stalwart 111  23:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help here, Stalwart. And thanks as well for the complimentary remarks; I appreciate you saying so. Now that these edits have been made I have one more request to present. I'll post this below. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Introduction
Now that the information related to the company's registrations and investment strategies has been updated in the article, I have one final suggestion to make. I would like to update the introduction to reflect these recent changes to the article. Here are the improvements I'm hoping to make:


 * First, to replace "UK-authorised" with "quantitative". Currently the phrase "UK-authorised" is wikilinked to the Financial Services Authority article, which, as I explained above, is no longer the correct regulating body in the UK. I am suggesting inserting "quantitative" into the introduction because that is how Winton's investment strategy is often described and seems to me to be a more meaningful descriptor.


 * Second, and similar to my suggestions for the Investment strategy section, I would like to clarify Winton's various regulations. Simply saying that Winton is "UK-authorised", in addition to linking to the incorrect page, fails to address how Winton is authorized in the United States.


 * Third, I would like to see Winton's activities better summarized. Currently the introduction only mentions Winton's activities as a CTA, however Winton manages equities in addition to futures contracts so I have added in to the introduction that Winton also trades on global equity markets.

Here is my suggested revision, highlighted, and the markup with the highlighting removed:

As always, I'm happy to answer any questions about the above. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks reasonable, so I made the changes. Tdslk (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tdslk - great work.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you as well Tdslk, I appreciate the help. And I have no more requests for the Winton page at this time. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Article Revisions
Hello to everyone who is part of the Wikipedia community and involved with this page. I would like to propose some changes to this article page, as it is terribly out-of-date. In advance, I must acknowledge my conflict of interest as a Winton employee. I am sensitive to the fact that Wikipedia pages must maintain a NPV. That said, the changes that I am proposing are objective and I am happy to discuss them in advance.

Fundamentally, Winton Capital Management is now known as Winton Group. I propose changing the title of the page and URL to align with this, but mention that Winton Capital Management is a wholly-owned subsidiary and point the old URL to the new page. . My suggestion is to change the introductory sentence to read "Winton Group (which includes Winton Capital Management) is a British investment management firm founded by David Harding." I recommend keeping the nickname 'Winton' throughout, as this is how the firm is typically known and is analogous with the The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc article referencing 'Goldman'.

The company was founded in February 1997 rather than October 19973.

The company's website address has changed to www.winton.com. I propose changing this URL throughout the article.

The firm's number of employees and assets under advisement are very out-of-date. I propose changing 'assets under management' to 'assets under advisement' (AUA) throughout the article, to reflect the fact that some of the firm's assets are sub-advised. The correct number of employees is 450 and AUA is $32bn as at 25 November 2016.

There is an error in the Expansion section. I recommend striking "In October 2009, the company announced that a passive 10% stake in the firm was acquired by Goldman Sachs." According to the citation, the 10% stake occurred in July 2007. However, this is repetitious with the earlier line, "In July 2007, Petershill Fund, a private equity fund set up by Goldman Sachs Asset Management International, acquired a 9.99% stake in Winton."

Under the Operations section, the CIO and COO named are no longer at the firm. I suggest mentioning that Andrew Moss is the CEO of Winton Investment Management2 and that Nicholas Saunders is the Chief Operating Officer.

Winton Group has nine offices around the world: London, Oxford, Hong Kong, New York, Shanghai, Sydney, San Francisco, Tokyo and Zurich. I would suggest adding this sentence to the end of the first paragraph and striking the line under Operations which reads, "Winton's offices are based in the UK with offices in Oxford and West London".

I look forward to discussing these initial updates and next steps with the community. Many Thanks, Sean.Bernard (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Sean.Bernard (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2017
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Winton Group. Recent sources show the name change, and there is no opposition. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Winton Capital Management → Winton Group – Winton Capital Management is now known as Winton Group Sean.Bernard (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment - please provide more evidence that independent reliable sources now use the new name. This is required per WP:NAMECHANGES. We don't update just because the official name has changed.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

* Bloomberg Company Profile * Warwick University - Department of Statistics * Nasdaq Company Profile * Tech City News * Fortune * Forbes * StreetInsider.com - US SEC Form 13F * PE Hub Network
 * Many thanks for your feedback, . Please refer to the following additional independent sources:

I appreciate your consideration in making this name change. Sean.Bernard (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed Expansion of the Expansion Section
Hi,. I would like to propose some changes to this section, as it is out-of-date. Can you help? In advance, I must acknowledge my conflict of interest as a Winton employee. I am sensitive to the fact that Wikipedia pages must maintain a NPV. That said, the changes that I am proposing are objective and I am happy to discuss them in advance.

The Expansion section is frozen in time as of 2013. We propose the following additions at the bottom of the section to bring it up-to-date:

Winton’s geographic expansion continued in 2014 with the opening of offices in New York, Sydney and Tokyo , and Shanghai the following year. In 2016, Winton launched a San Francisco data science centre to help it explore emerging data opportunities in the Bay Area. A new equity event-based program using research into Winton’s proprietary datasets had started trading a few months earlier. Later that year, Petershill Fund sold its stake in Winton to Affiliated Managers Group and Winton changed the name of its holding company from Winton Capital Management to Winton Group.

I look forward to discussing these initial updates and next steps with the community. Many Thanks, Sean.Bernard (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sean.Bernard (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, one of the parts ("help it explore emerging data opportunities") does not seem neutral at all. Also, perhaps tweaks should be made to the equity program sentence? It doesn't really sound suitable. Just my input on the matter. Regards, VB00 (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the feedback,. How about we amend the sentence to:

In 2016, Winton launched a San Francisco data science centre to investigate new data sources and technology in the Bay Area. .

If the equity program sentence is problematic, we can strike it.

If you are happy with the proposed edits, might you be able to update the page? Sean.Bernard (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Before we add new information to this section, I wonder if we might address some of the material already present in the Expansion section, material which seems promotional in tone. The text I'm referring to wasn't proposed and agreed upon through the edit request system. According to the diffs →, , this was text added before that system regularly began on the page in 2013.

The 'Expansion' section implies milestones, whereby a company grows throughout the year. This growth would include new offices, new products, etc. What appears to be promotional in tone at first glance would be text which does not conform with the concept of a milestone — for example, continuing evaluations of already running products (i.e., ", having achieved margins of 65%") and laudits for performance (i.e., "the Winton Futures Program held up relatively well with a loss of -5.38% in 2009").

In the extended content section below, I took the liberty of rewriting the "Expansion" section as bulleted points, similar to a timeline. This includes the new information that you'd like added. In this re-written section, passages which seem promotional in tone and may be irrelevant to the topic of expansion have been stricken out. Please feel free to peruse these suggestions and if any of them are acceptable to you, kindly re-submit an edit request — I assure you our response will be expedited. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   02:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Expansion

 * In 2005, the firm launched the Winton Evolution Fund, which was designed as a mixed arbitrage and multi-strategy fund investing in a variety of financial instruments and securities. The launch of this fund was part of the firm's transition, away from the futures market, and towards a more diversified strategy . ← This is promotional-speak, and should be reworded
 * In July 2007, Petershill Fund, a private equity fund set up by Goldman Sachs Asset Management International, acquired a 9.99% stake in Winton. According to the firm, it believed the acquisition would further increase market confidence in its operations.
 * In 2007, Winton was managing $10 billion in total assets.
 * In 2007, Winton was ranked as the third largest CTA by the industry journal Absolute Return.
 * In 2007 it became founding member of the Hedge Fund Standards Board, which sets a voluntary code of standard of best practice endorsed by its members. ← Who are the other members? Needs to be inserted here.
 * In 2008, Winton was named Real Business ' s "most profitable" company having achieved margins of 65%, and was ranked the third largest private finance company in Britain by The Daily Telegraph.
 * In late 2008, the company opened offices in Hong Kong, their first outside of the UK. During the economic downturn in 2008 and 2009 the Winton Futures Program held up relatively well with a loss of -5.38% in 2009 after a 20.25% return the previous year.
 * In 2010, the company launched the Winton Global Equity Fund which received UCITS approval in Europe. The fund was designed to be a long-only, portfolio using quantitative analysis. The Winton Futures Fund returned an approximate annualised rate of 17% net from its inception in 1997 through 2010. In 2012, Winton had a positive return on its investments every year, except 2009 and 2012. ← In 2012, but not in 2012  While Winton's individual funds are established in offshore locations, the investment advisor fees are repatriated to the United Kingdom where they are taxed.
 * In September 2012, Winton became research consultants with Fortune SG Fund Management of Shanghai to help develop China's first managed futures fund.
 * In 2013, media coverage of the firm's founder reported that Winton paid nearly £521 million in British taxes since 2006, including £133 million in 2011 alone.
 * In 2014 the company opened offices in New York, Sydney, and Tokyo. Shanghai offices followed in 2015.
 * In 2016, Winton opened offices in San Francisco. data science centre to help it explore emerging data opportunities in the Bay Area. A new equity event-based program using research into Winton’s proprietary datasets had started trading a few months earlier
 * Also in 2016, Petershill Fund sold its stake in Winton to Affiliated Managers Group, and Winton changed the name of its holding company from Winton Capital Management to Winton Group.

Hello , Many thanks for the assistance in updating the Wikipedia page and helping with the clean-up of the expansion section. I am generally happy with these suggestions. I agree about removing the content with the promotional tone. I would suggest, however, that we make the following modifications: Kind regards Sean.Bernard (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove 'mixed arbitrage' from the first bullet. This is incorrect and not supported by the reference.
 * For the bullet referring to 2013, 'of the firm's founder' should not be struck; per the article, it was the firm's founder that paid the taxes, not Winton.
 * In 2016, Winton opened 'an office' in San Francisco (not multiple).


 * All discussed changes ✅.
 * Also, in bullet #4, where it says Winton "became founding member of the Hedge Fund Standards Board, which sets a voluntary code of standard of best practice endorsed by its members.." I think it would be best to list the other members of this board. For example, Wikipedia's Delta Air Lines article states that Delta was a founding member of the SkyTeam Alliance in 2000 and has codeshare agreements, then lists the other members of this agreement, as a professional courtesy. Let me know if that is acceptable and I'll make the change. Thank you for your help.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   19:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

2018 Updates
Hi , Many thanks for your help with the above. Might it be possible to get your help with a few more changes?


 * The Winton Futures fund has been renamed to The Winton Fund. Perhaps we note that in its first mention (i.e. under the 'Early Years' section) and then update the fund name in the last sentence under 'Investment Strategy'? Recommendation: "...the firm began trading in October 1997 with the Winton Futures Fund (renamed to The Winton Fund on 30 September 2017).".
 * Perhaps this should also be included as a 'Company Milestone'? The fund was renamed to reflect the fact that it trades a diverse range of financial instruments, including futures, forwards, cash equities, cash bonds, and credit indices.
 * Further to the above the reference to “Winton's futures trading” should be changed to “Winton’s trading” in the 'Investment Strategy' section.
 * Lastly, in the Investment Strategy section, add "Winton decided in 2018 to cut the weight of trend following in the Winton Fund from 50% to around 25% by the start of 2019. At the same time, the company launched trend following-only vehicles for clients that wanted to maintain a higher exposure to the strategy."

Sean.Bernard (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply 01-NOV-2018

 * Instances where the word "futures fund" was used was swapped with "fund" only (i.e., Winton futures fund changed to → Winton fund)
 * The one instance where futures trading was mentioned, the word futures was dropped.

All of this lays bare the differences in concepts for what a Wikipedia article should look like. There are two versions here, Wikipedia's and Wintons — and the twain shall never meet. This is made more problematic by references which are seemingly inaccessible. The Winton article has no less than 12 references which do not contain URL's. This is odd in a modern day company that is barely 21 years old. There should be a plethora of web accessible references here, especially when we are dealing with finances. Thus, those claims which speak to highly sensitive topics such as Winton's ability to make a client money (areas discussing strategy) I believe that URL's should be provided or the claim should be omitted.  Spintendo   01:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is heavy on promoting Winton's trading expertise, its "scientific" abilities and its comprehensive knowledge of the trading industry. How else is the reader to understand repeated texts which communicate the same messaging points, such as:
 * 1) The five separate instances where they are told about the "highly scientific nature" of the trades;
 * 2) The eight different instances where the reader is told about the company's assets and how large they are;
 * 3) The four different instances where Winton is described as having superior knowledge of just the perfect time to make a trade;
 * 4) The three unique times that the reader is told how much money they would save, as the firm excels in saving on its operating expenses by eliminating wasteful trading.

Disclose requirement 01-NOV-2018
Could you make sure to fill out a WP:COIDISCLOSE template at the top of this talk page, taking care to mention any affiliations you have with other COI editor's companies and whether you are paid for these requests. Much appreciated!  Spintendo   01:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC) ''' Sean.Bernard (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)