Talk:Melvin Capital
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Huge readership suddenly
editThe pageviews show that this topic is obviously in the news cycle. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Assets under control
editTheir 13f filing shows $20B under their control but the article states $12.5B. The source for the current number is the WSJ. Thinking about updating the article but wondering why wsj reports 12.5. Am I missing something here? Jone951 (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I updated the article as I believe WSJ reported outdated information. This discussion should probably be deleted but I don't think I can delete it. Jone951 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I reverted the number back $12.5bil per reporting in WSJ and elsewhere. It is not the WSJ info but the SEC filings that are outdated; the SEC numbers are from September 2020, and therefore do not take into account Melvin's substantial losses - reported to total more than 30% in 2021 alone - on GameStop and other equities it had shorted. Happy to discuss further, but don't see why we should go for an outdated number when trusted sources provide more up-to-date information. --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not a further outdated number, WSJ just didn't do its research. The author used an outdated figure from a 13F from March 2020. And if you read the article it states that MCM's AUM was 12.5B BEFORE the supposed 30% loss. So before my edit the wikipedia article incorrectly stated the 12.5B figure was from Jan 2021 when it was actually from March 2020, I simply updated the figure and added the correct filing date for the 13F referenced. Please read the WSJ citation to confirm this and I'll leave it to you to revert your changes thanks. Jone951 (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- As per WSJ on 1 Feb Melvin "started the year with about $12.5 billion and now runs more than $8 billion. The current figure includes $2.75 billion in emergency funds Citadel LLC, its partners and Mr. Cohen’s Point72 Asset Management injected into the hedge fund on Jan. 25." https://www.wsj.com/articles/melvin-capital-lost-53-in-january-hurt-by-gamestop-and-other-bets-11612103117. Not only are WSJ a blue-chip source, but they cite multiple insiders familiar with the fund's current state, so conducting original research based on outdated filings does not seem helpful. At any rate, another user has already updated the page to reflect the most recent reporting. --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
But how could their AUM go from $20 billion in September 2020 to $12.5 billion in January 2021? That's over a 60% loss in only 4 months, even before their losses from gamestop and other short positions. But if the article cites secret insiders I guess it's hard to refute. Jone951 (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Their AUM went from $20 billion in September 2020 to $12.5 billion in late January 2021 precisely because of their short positions, notably in GameStop. That they sustained huge losses in 4 months is precisely what makes this a major story. Incidentally, why do you say "before their losses from GameStop"? The WSJ sources are reporting the state of play on 1 Feb, viz. AFTER the GME calamity. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The article says MC "started the year" with $12.5B, and goes on to say they currently have (at the time it was published) $8B after losses, including $2.75B that they got from Point72. So if this is correct their total losses since September 2020 is 1−((8−2.75)/20) = 74%. This figure seems too high to me. Jone951 (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Lacking of controversies section
editIn Poland Melvin Capital was short playing on CD Project(the short playing by big capital on CD Projekt, ended after CyberPunk premiere with lowering the value of CD Projekt, and maybe was one of the reasons that CD Projekt was accused by Stowarzyszenie Inwestorów Indywidualnych(organization of private investors) and probably Melvin suffer big loss(was kicked off from shorts), on Thursday, when the stock exchange price of CD Projekt get very high after. This may be just very little echo of GameStop rev. or as well just done by Musk "tweet"...[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.204.53.48 (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM does not apply if the comment suggests a change to the article, regardless of merit. Bilorv, you may very well disagree with the suggestion, that's fine, and quite reasonable, I'd probably agree with you, but policy doesn't say talk page comments are to be removed just for being bad suggestions. Benjamin (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- What suggestion do you see? I see incomprehensible personal opinions with no suggested change. — Bilorv (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- That there should be a controversies section, for one. Benjamin (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- What suggestion do you see? I see incomprehensible personal opinions with no suggested change. — Bilorv (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ check CDR Short Squeeze Failure, or Rejestr Krotkiej Sprzedazy or https://stooq.pl/mol/?id=663
Lots of bio about founder - perhaps better to have a new page dedicated to him?
editLots of information on this page, especially the "History" section, are biographical details of its founder, Gabe Plotkin. Might it be worth starting a page devoted to him and moving this info there? Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Just excise it if it's excessive. I don't think the founder has enough individual merit to warrant a page, they are only notable in the context of this company. 2A01:4B00:87FF:9B00:C9EE:1A49:C7B9:22A6 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Gamestop should be GameStop
editIn the first paragraph, the last sentence says that "In the Gamestop Short Squeeze they sustained losses of 53%." The official name for GameStop is "GameStop" and not "Gamestop" and the page for that article actually calls "Gamestop" GameStop as well, so I suggest that in that sentence it should be GameStop too. Davidxu160801 (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Link to Ken(neth) Griffin is wrong
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Ken Griffin who is linked to is not the correct person.
The correct one is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_C._Griffin
- Already done by another editor. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)