Talk:Bridgewater Associates

Fair use rationale for Image:Bridgewater Associates.gif

Image:Bridgewater Associates.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hedge Fund?

Is this company really a hedge fund? A hedge fund has pretty specific parameters as to who can invest in it and to my knowledge that does not include investment banks, pension funds and other large financial entities. Normally it is high net worth individuals... Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_fund#US_regulation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.2.231 (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

They have a few hedge funds under their umbrella, as well as other assets under management. So calling them solely a hedge fund would be incorrect. The existing description on the main page matches well with what I was told by recruiters and during a phone interview. Sorry for not having a written source, they're very secretive. 171.159.192.10 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

People always refer to Bridgewater colloquially as a hedge fund though--employees of the firm included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.44.115.66 (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Janderson12 edit undo: "2/25/2009 It has just come out that Bridgewater is under investigation by the SEC."

This edit has been undone by Bridgewater Associates, Inc., located in Westport, CT as we are unaware of any SEC investigation involving our company. It is possible that the investigation referred to relates to a different company with a similar name. Any person wishing to provide additional information may contact us at: Communications_PR "at" bwater.com BWCommunications (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the edit by Janderson12 was triggered by this item: "Madoff investigation involves Bridgewater man who worked for financier". Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bold Changes

In light of the Ad tag I am making bold changes to restructure an edit the article for NPOV and to remove peacock fluff.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Parking Sources

• ref name="CNN" [1]
• 100 Hedge funds to watch Financial Times, March 19, 2010
• ref name=2011HedgeFund100>"The 2011 Hedge Fund 100 Ranking". Institutional Investor, Inc. May 12, 2011.
• ref name="McKinsey&Company">The Asset Management Industry in 2010, 'McKinsey&Company, 2006. Accessed March 26, 2010.
• ref name="FinancialNewsLateralThinking">Schultes, Renée. Bridgewater seeks competitive advantage through lateral thinking, Financial News, Sept 11, 2006. Accessed April 7, 2010.
• ref name="FT_Stern">Stern, Stefan. Time to toughen up and embrace the joys of conflict, Financial Times, January 15, 2008. Accessed March 22, 2010.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Text Removed

• That same year the company received Euromoney Institutional Investor's Best Research award and Money Management Letters Hedge Fund Manager of the Year (Multi-strategy) award.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bridgewater Associates/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 20:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is not accessible to general readers in many places. For example: "The history of Bridgewater Associates is characterized by growth and the pioneering of industry strategies such as: currency overlay in the 1980s, the separation of alpha and beta strategies in the early 1990s,[9] the creation of absolute return products, like the global alpha fund in 1991 and the All Weather, risk parity product in 1996." This is traxoline that can only be understood by people who specialize in the financial sector. Some of this can be solved by careful wikilinking of jargon, but I think it also needs to be rewritten to accommodate general readers. Several instances of citation overkill. Any time there's more than two references attached to a sentence, it's not useful to a reader, because they won't know which reference goes with which fact. Use citation bundling, or judiciously choose which reference is the best to support the statement(s). Combine one and two sentence paragraphs together to make the article flow better. The history section especially suffers from two sentence "paragraphs", making it a choppy read.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Fix the citation overkill problem, mentioned above. Also, some references are used more than once (#61 and #62, for example). Just write one citation, but use the ref tag twice. Anytime a quote or even a quoted blurb is used, be sure to provide a reference. In the "Daily Observations" section, the first sentence says that the paper is described as "packed with charts and data" but the end of the sentence provides no ref for where that quote came from. Also, why is "packed with charts and data" important to include anyway? Is that a criticism, and accolade, or merely representative of the what the paper is?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The "1991-present" section reads like a timeline list, rather than a narrative or prose. It would be better to construct a narrative. Perhaps a sidebar with a brief timeline would be appropriate for the future, however (not required here). Not sure why the "Corporate culture" section needs a special subsection on "Transparency..." Just combine the subsection into the "Corporate culture" section. The article mentions that the New Yorker called the company "weird", but it would be nice to see a better emphasis on the particular "weird" practices and other criticisms. I see some of that is mentioned, but not much elaboration.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article has an overall positive tone about the company, and it comes off as a little like an advertisement. I'm not sure the best way to tackle this, but I think replacing a lot of the corporate-speak and financial sector jargon with terminology and phrasing friendlier to general readers will help. Sentences like, "The fund seeks to provide, "high, risk adjusted returns" during all market conditions and at least match the return of the overall market" is an example of what I'm talking about. This reads like it came straight from the company's prospectus. Again, I'm not sure how to improve this...I just know it puts me off as a general reader, when this crops up throughout the article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems with stability.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images need alt-text. Additionally, I don't think the first panorama image (Connecticut headquarters) is necessary. It doesn't actually show anything except for trees, and the barest hint that there's a building in there, so I'm not convinced that it adds anything to the article. The second image is fine.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article is a pretty good start, and not too far from GA status. I'm putting it on hold for 7 days for improvements to be made.

\

Hi Astrocog, thanks for a very comprehensive review and delineation of areas needing improvement. I know from experience that this can be time consuming for the reviewer. Here’s what I’ve done:

• Added wikilinks for financial terminology
• Reduced technical language
• Eliminated citation overkill
• Combine small paragraphs
• Edit History section for better flow
• Remove dup citations
• Remove and reduce “corporate speak” *Improved photo text

I like photos in articles as it makes them “look” more pleasing. While I agree that the wide photo doesn’t show the headquarters clearly it does illustrate the natural setting which is notable since most hedge funds are on Wall Street. However, if you think it should be removed, let me know and I’ll do it. Also let me know if there is more “corporate speak” that needs to be removed or changed. It is hard for me to step back and read text that I have written myself and have re-read dozens of times. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Good improvements overall - certainly enough for GA status. While I disagree about the panoramic photo, I'm not passionate enough about it to fail the nomination because of it. Just keep in mind that if you ever work this up to a FA nomination, the reviewers will ding you on that and ask what exactly it is illustrating that makes it necessary. I think you've done a good job working this article into nice shape. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Need a Section for Regulation

Given the management similarities to Madoff and MF Global (i.e. cultish secretive leader), it would seem anyone wishing to learn about Bridgewater Associates would first want to know what regulatory framework they operate under, yet there is zero mention of this topic in the article, so it is quite deficient imho. No doubt this simple and noncontroversial suggestion for article improvement will be quickly deleted by the TM patrol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.138.0 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with verification - fix or lose GA status

I have been alerted to many 'failed verification' tags on this article's information. As the original GA reviewer, I'm very troubled by this and upon looking into some of the tags, I see many have merit. I'm going to give the main contributors 7 days to fix this problem, after which I'll check in again. If the tags have not been addressed, I'll do a reassessment, which could result in loss of GA status on the article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent addition

Recently a new editor has added a new section to the article called Commitment Firm I think it creates some issues including original research and undue weight and may need to be cut back or eliminated. Any thoughts from others.?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Bridgewater_Associates, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.179.7 (talk) 03:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bridgewater Associates. 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/20111015140153/http://www.leadersmag.com/issues/2011.3_Jul/ROB/LEADERS-Eileen-Murray-Bridgewater-Associates.html to http://www.leadersmag.com/issues/2011.3_Jul/ROB/LEADERS-Eileen-Murray-Bridgewater-Associates.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Broken infobox

Can someone repair the broken infobox in the article, please? PlanetDeadwing (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, done. Markvs88 (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Critics

Behavour during 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, Bridgewater Associates bet against european companies.

• Der Aktionär.de: Hedgefonds-Legende wettet im großen Stil gegen Europa
• Institutional Money: Bridgewater geht 14 Milliarden-Leerverkaufposition in Europaaktien ein, March 19, 2020
• Welt.de: Spekulanten stürzen sich auf deutsche Konzerne

--KLritikbörsenwelte (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

A few new possible refs

• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/01/business/how-does-the-worlds-largest-hedge-fund-really-make-its-money.html
• https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/bridgewater-spent-1-million-renovating-a-45-foot-rockstar-bus-to-shuttle-employees-between-the-office-bars-and-casinos-book-says/ar-AA1jBTdO

John Cummings (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

AUM Clarification

Hi, I'd like to make a clarification regarding the company's AUM. An IP editor recently updated the AUM in the infobox and added two related sentences to the end of the History section using a Pensions & Investments article and MarketWatch article. The figures $97.2 billion and $72.5 billion noted respectively in the article, however, relate to the hedge fund AUM and not the firmwide AUM. Therefore, I am requesting to change the AUM in the infobox back to $125 billion using the Reuters article which had previously been referenced, and to remove the inaccurate sentences from History ("As of September 25, 2023 Bridgewater's AUM totaled $97.2 billion, with assets sliding 23%. As of January 22, 2024 Bridgewater's AUM totaled $72.5 billion, according to MarketWatch."). I am happy to discuss if anything needs further clarification. Jaren Laurel Strategies (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)