Talk:Vulture fund

Untitled

This article is a bit of a mess - first chunk would be good if it was referenced - second chunk - Africa - which I wrote I'm bound to say is good at least its referenced although I'll have to come back and clean them up when I've got time but at least I thought I should make the sources clear - third chunk by Djunga 1 is really an essay without any refs and obvious mistakes ICC did not award $116 million to FG anywhere I can see and is full of strange phrases like "Exasperated at its inability to settle the debt, FGH has resorted to enforcing its judgment rights" which sound almost as if Djunga 1 is writing about their own feelings and comments about the "liberal media"Jubileader (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

The article also has some POV issues. It talks relentlessly about vulture funds as bad things. Vulture funds enable investors who have made loans which are in default an option to get some kind of return on the money by transferring all the risk to the fund. The argument that vulture funds are causing misery presupposes that the morally just course is for people (and nations) to be allowed to borrow but not to then be required to repay the debt (either to the original creditor or the fund to whom the creditor assigns the receivable). The argument can be run both ways, but this article only presents the single point of view. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

On balance the vulture funds do not seem to have a positive influence in the overall scheme of things. But it really goes back to the original loans which should have never been given, very comparable to the ninja loans. The difference is that with the ninja loans, people can walk away - but when vulture funds come in the mistakes of the past continue to haunt.

Be that as it may, it should be noted in the article, in some Latin American countries these issues prompted the foundation of the Bank of the South so that borrowings no longer occur from outside their group of countries and the longterm consequences of vulture fund involvement may be avoided or reduced. It was also meant to reduce the influence of IMF, Worldbank etc. on these countries, which often felt like too much outside influence on their domestic matters, or so it looks from afar. When one issue causes a counter development, maybe this should not be overlooked. 144.136.192.62 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

can we remove citations tag?

placeholder for discussion

can we remove original research tag?

placeholder for discussion

Derogatory term?

User Meatsgains is claiming that "vulture fund" is a derogatory term. While a small number of sources use that description (his proposed source actually uses the unusual description "derogative", but that's by the way), most sources that describe the term explicitly (rather than just using it) simply describe the investment strategy that characterises such funds: it seems to be a purely technical description like "long only".

User Meatsgains further claims that a consensus has been established that the term is derogatory: if this is indeed the case he will no doubt be able to point to the detailed discussions here and elsewhere which established this consensus. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Meatsgains, I think you are fighting an uphill battle here. I don't think that the preponderance of reliable sources are going to support a POV that the vulture funds are a benevolent force that is simply trying to assist the Third World nations by reducing their bloated treasuries. It's like arguing that John Dillinger made a career of helping banks identify weaknesses in their security systems. You might argue as well that the "Sicilian Mafia" or the "Sinaloa Cartel" are "derogatory terms", but those are the terms used in reliable sources, so we might as well get used to it. Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My position is quite different from yours: vulture funds are pursuing an entirely legitimate investment strategy. Ther success or failure will depend on various legal rulings, but there is absolutely nothing wrong in them attempting to pursue such rulings. Of course some people don't like their success to date, for a whole raft of reasons, but that is none of our business: we simply report what the reliable sources say with appropriate weight. It's equally important to avoid POV wars in either direction. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

By including the description and removing, "considered by some authors", the page gives due weight to the unanimous viewpoint. It is not just considered derogatory by some authors, it just is. Can you find someone that would disagree with that?

We reached consensus that the term was derogatory on an ANI and the RfC on Paul Singer's talk page. Do you need me to copy and paste exactly what users said in agreement? If you need me to I will. No users opposed that the term is derogatory. Meatsgains (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

::Possibly because that was not the topic of either discussion. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

These are very "creative" ideas… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, since we're headed towards inclusion of "vulture fund" in the article on Singer, we should probably include the same material in the article on Elliott. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The RfC is not closed. Don't get ahead of yourself. Meatsgains (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope I am not violating any policy for copying other user's responses... Do we need to notify them about this discussion and that we are mentioning their usernames? Anyways, below are statements from other users (from the RfC and ANI) confirming an agreement that the term is derogatory.

• Once a claim has been made (and obviously it has been made) that the term is derogatory, an admin should enforce the content staying out until a consensus to include is formed. That is the backbone of BLP policy.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Can you cite where in the policy it says that? Because the thing about consensus that everyone knows is that there isno consensus a lot of the time. You'd be allowing any editor to cover up anything that sounds derogatory. But Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the actual sources' coverage, not revise it and cover things up. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I could, but you obviously know where this is. I should have said that there is consensus for the well sourced derogatory content to be restored. If it's this much of an issue, remove the material and start an RfC.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support My understanding is that the Huffington Post isn't necessarily reliable, New York Times and Bloomberg reveiw are definitely reliable, therefore it stays, and yes I know "Vulture Fund" is a derogatory term (I work in the financial industry), but we're here to report what reliable sources state, and they do state his is a vulture fund. Kosh Vorlon 16:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Meatsgains (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope, no consensus there: just some rather selective quotations and one individual opinion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Have there been any users who disagree that it is derogatory? No, just those who agree. Meatsgains (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Most commenters in the discussions you refer to have taken no formal position on whether or not the term is derogatory: the discussions have been about whether or not a particular fund should be described as a vulture fund. Several commenters have noted that even if the term is derogatory that does not prevent it being used in this context as WP:NOTCENSORED, and the balance of reliable sources says that it is a vulture fund. One commenter has explicitly agreed with your position that the term is derogatory, but should still be used. As I said, no clear consensus yet on the narrow point of whether the term is derogatory: and thus the article accurately reflects the fact that some sources say that the term is derogatory, and some do not. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No sources, or users, say that the term is not derogatory, only that it is derogatory. We don't even need consensus on this issue because it is apparent. Meatsgains (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If there are no opposing views or reliable sources citing the term vulture fund as not derogatory, then "considered by some author's" should be removed because it is not just some, it is all. No source says that it is considered by "some authors" and this phrase violates WP:WEASEL, which states that these types of phrases "deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint." I have provided adequate reliable sources to prove this. Meatsgains (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What an extraordinary argument. Take a look at page 432 of "The Handbook of Traditional and Alternative Investment Vehicles" which discusses investing in distressed debt, refers to vulture funds, and does so without the slightest suggestion that vulture funds are in any way a bad thing. Sure there are people who take a moral stance on vulture funds, both for and against, but there are plenty of souces which discuss this investment strategy completely dispassionately. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Be careful not to confuse two different issues: (1) is the name perjorative, and (2) are such funds a bad thing. It is easy to confuse the two because if you dislike vulture funds you likely use the term perjoratively. But even if you accept that such funds have a useful function in a modern economy with liquidity in its credit markets (as I do), the term still has a fairly negative tint to it. Used as an adjective or a metaphor, "vulture" is just not a positive word. Nobody says "he soared like a vulture" or "she was cunning as a vulture". But for better or worse the label has stuck (never heard such funds referred to by any other short hand label), and to be honest, it is reasonably descriptive - trying to get value out of something that otherwise would be discarded financial carrion. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Arguing against myself now, but came across this link which commences: 'So-called ”vulture funds” are also known by the less pejorative term ”distressed debt funds” on account of the fact that they traditionally purchase debt in default - very often sovereign debt.' [1] Not sure what I think anymore. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

::::::I just did a quick experiment with Google news. There are 23 hits for "distressed debt funds" vs. 1,280 for "vulture funds." Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It certainly is complicated, which is essentially why I am arguing for the current nuanced description rather than simply coming down on either side. (Not that I think the current nuance is necessarily exactly right, and no doubt it could be tweaked to better reflect reality: perhaps replace "some" with "many"?) As Legis says it is clear that many people who use the term don't like the funds, and it is probable that the name was originally chosen for its unpleasant overtones, although we should remember that the original vulture funds were quite different from the modern versions. That said many other sources simply use the term as a technical shorthand for a rather extreme technical investing style ("quant funds" is an example of a similar brief label) without taking any position on morality; a small number even explicitly approve of the funds, but probably not enough to mention in the lead.

The history of the term is interesting and should probably be better reflected somewhere in the article. As far as I can tell the original vuture funds were small US based real estate funds; presumably these moved to mortgage debt, then debt in general. The modern idea of a concentration on sovereign debt seems to be a creation of campaigners and the media rather than the funds themselves.

As you might guess I have been doing a lot of googling too. The most common modern definition is some variety of "distressed credit fund" or "distressed debt fund"; the second most common definition is the same but with "derogatory" or similar appended. Which is what the current version reflects. We do explain the metaphor early on, which seems entirely right, though perhaps more history could be added to this section? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

To go back to Legis' point, the term "vulture" independently has a negative connotation tied to it. Whether you are criticizing a person or a hedge fund as a "vulture", both are equally bad labels.

By saying it is "considered by some authors" is false and misleading. This needs to be fixed. All sources I provided state that the term is derogatory. If a source does not explicitly say that the term is not "derogatory" then why narrow the viewpoint to "some" or "many"?

Joe, how exactly did you get those numbers from Google news? I searched and received 13,400 hits for "distressed debt funds" and 1,750 hits for "vulture funds". Meatsgains (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::By putting quotation marks around "vulture funds" and "distressed debt funds", so that you search for that specific phrase. Your search simply turned up articles that contain the words "debt," "fund," or "distressed." Joe Bodacious (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The argument that any source which does not explicitly deny something should be taken as implicitly supporting the claims of other sources about the same thing is certainly an unusual one. I'm intrigued by what form Meatsgain's expects such explicit denials to take: is he looking for statements like "A vulture fund is a non-derogatory term for a distressed credit fund"? Or what? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In short, when multiple reliable sources support a statement, then why shouldn't we include that statement as it appears in the sources, especially if it improves the page? Why are we attaching phrases like "considered by some authors" to it when no source said such thing? Meatsgains (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources say that the term is derogatory, and so we should indeed include that fact. And look! We already do! We note that some authors consider the term derogatory, which is all that can be deduced from the sources given. We can't say that all sources consider the term derogatory, because many of them make no statement on the matter, even implicitly. We certainly can't say in Wikipedia's "own voice" that the term is derogatory, because that would require a clear consensus of reliable sources. So we report as fact what all sources agree on (that vulture funds are distressed debt funds) and as divided opinion what sources are divided on.

Note that I am taking exactly the same line here and at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman): we report accurately what reliable sources say while maintaining appropriate narrative distance on questions where there is no clear consensus.

There is, of course, room, for debate on exact phrasing. For example, one might prefer "The term is frequently considered derogatory", or some other such form of words. Do feel entirely free to make changes of that kind: just don't go beyond what the sources actually say. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at Wiktionary's list of English derogatory terms. The similarly related pejorative, vulture capitalist, is included in this list.

Again, I cite WP:BLUE. The citation policy is not a tool to cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute. The phrase does not require sources in the first place. No RS challenge the fact that "vulture fund" is a derogatory term. Meatsgains (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly that's a wiki, and so not a reliable source. Secondly, even if we ignored that point, other, arguably more appropriate, wikis take a different view. e.g. [2] and [3]. Thirdly that's a definition of "vulture capitalist", which is an entirely different investment strategy. And fourthly none of this establishes that the term is universally considered derogatory, as noted ad nauseam above, or the fact that WP:BLUE is not policy, no matter how much you want it to be. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact is, it is included in the list of English derogatory terms. Don't discredit that list. I used the list as a reference and example, not a reliable source. I clearly stated that vulture capitalist was a "similarly related pejorative", meaning "vulture" is used in the exact same derogatory context. The term is universally considered derogatory. Can you please explain to me how it isn't? In reply to WP:BLUE, just because it is an essay, does not mean it should not be followed. Why would a user waste time writing an essay if it didn't hold any weight? Meatsgains (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why indeed? I'm sure every case is different, but it is not unusual at Wikipedia to find a user obsessing over some arcane detail. Why it is so important to insert "derogatory" into this article is beyond me. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There are some excellent essays about essays, including several explaining why essays should never be cited as policy. But, being essays, they go on to explain that they themselves should never be cited to establish this point. The essay which can be cited is not the true essay perhaps? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I am citing the essay as advice not policy. I've already established this. Meatsgains (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

And those of us who disagree with you are entirely free to reject that "advice". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You can reject any advice I'm willing to offer but you haven't made any attempt do engage in any type of discussion on the issue. Meatsgains (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There has been lengthy and extensive discussion, and the resulting text is entirely consistent with the sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources provided note the term as derogatory. Narrowing the viewpoint is unnecessary and frankly incorrect.

Below, I provided the description used for the pejorative pig, when talking about police. I am providing this as a reference and example.

This derogatory term was frequently used during the 19th century, disappeared for a while, but reappeared during the 20th and 21st century. It became frequently used again during the 1960s and 1970s in the underground and anti-establishmentculture. Now prevalent in many English-speaking countries. It is also used in anti-authoritarian punk and hip-hop circles.Oz magazine showed a picture of a pig dressed as a policeman on a front cover.

Meatsgains (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out repeatedly many sources simply define the term "vulture fund" in a purely technical way, and several of these even write approvingly of the funds themselves. Your insistence that term is always derogatory is unsupported and unsustainable. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

We're not talking about the approval or disapproval of hedge funds. We are talking about the term being derogatory and I have provided sufficient sources to support this claim. How can you argue my "insistence" is "unsupported and unsustainable". Until someone can provide sources that counter the term as derogatory, the edit keeps. Meatsgains (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of consensus, not a matter of finding sources that support your claim. I think the way the lead is written now is a better solution. It still mentions that the term can be considered derogatory.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on the way it currently reads has not been met. Meatsgains (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How would you want to prove that it's always derogatory? If you find one source that says so, there are many others that don't say 'always derogatory'. Why do you think it is always derogatory? A vulture would probably think it's embellishing, in some cases.--Melody Lavender (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly: claiming it is derogatory requires a clear consensus of sources to that effect, when what we have is a mixed bag of sources, some of which say it is derogatory, while some simply describe the technical meaning of the term without the slightest hint of any moral terpitude or other significance beyond a bare description of the strategy. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please cite one hedge fund that deems the term vulture fund as "embellishing". I think you will have a hard time with that one. No source cites the term as not being derogatory and the current provided sources do not have opposing views. What we do have is reliable sources providing both the technical description and the negative connotation of the word. If we narrow the viewpoint of the negative connotation, is it required we narrow the viewpoint of the technical description?

Are you saying consensus overrides reliable sources? And at what point has consensus been met? Meatsgains (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by sock struck, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Herschelkrustofsky/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to weigh in on this discussion and, after editing the page for some time now, I feel that the term "derogatory" should be used in the the first sentence of the lead to appropriately define a "vulture fund." Credible sources were used to make this claim, and no sources have yet been put forward that debunk this claim. I think the sources Meatsgains cited are sufficient to state that a "vulture fund" is derogatory term and a term no one would ever want affiliated with their company. I am writing this prior to reverting back to the version drafted by Meatsgains to prevent an edit war. I am not attempting to start an edit war, but rather I am showing my support of keeping the phrase in the first sentence of the lead section. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 15:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The next person who implements the edit in question without gaining consensus for it will pay a visit to WP:EWN. This edit was first tried by Meatsgains on 18 July. It has been reverted by several different editors and is quite obviously lacking consensus in this section. The only way to make it happen, then, is to convince other editors that it should be adopted. One way to accomplish this is an RfC. The way not to accomplish it is to continue trying to do it without some mechanism for gaining consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity I apologize for the failure to follow protocol - I was attempting to show my support for the edit with the undo - it was not my intention to cause some sort of edit war so I apologize for that. While the "derogatory" argument is important to this page I think that a large portion of the material included in the body of this article belongs with the Distressed securities content. The Sovereign debt being discussed in this article only covers only a fraction of what distressed debt is. With the heavy emphasis on Singer and Elliot Co. and other companies involved in distressed securities, the vulture fund page reads as a WP:ATTACK on specific hedge funds by pinpointing their work sovereign debt.

If you take a look on the talk page for distressed securities it was asked by user Stevenmitchel [4] that the article be renamed Distressed Debt and should encompass all types of distressed debt (junk bonds, securities, vulture funds, etc). I think that in addition to "derogatory" being used to define the term vulture fund, much of the info on this page should be merged with the distressed securities page and moved onto a new distressed debt page to consolidate all of these interchangeable terms. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 16:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know how many users currently oppose the edit in question. Right now it seems three oppose (it was four but apparently one is an accused sock puppet) and two support? Can we assume that the IP that made the edit in the first place supports the edit in question? I know consensus is not reached through "votes" per say but Jonathan is the only one presenting a valid argument. Meatsgains (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question, I am in support of the edit. I also wanted to follow up regarding my earlier comments regarding the distressed securities page. I have moved the 'Argentina' section included on this page to the distressed securities page. A section was already in place in that article and I have expanded it by adding the information from the 'Argentina' section on this page to the 'Argentina' section on the distressed securities page. Best Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 21:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If no other users weigh in on the "is a derogatory term" debate then I would like to restore the lead back to the original version I first added. This does not constitute "edit warring", as Nomoskedasticity proposed, because users are no longer engaged in meaningful discussion on the issue. Those left in discussion, support adding the description to lead sentence. Meatsgains (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to move/merge page

If you think it is always a derogatory term, then I wonder why you don't suggest to move the item to Distressed equity fund or similar, as suggested by Comatmebro. I'd question whether it's encyclopedic to have an entry for an article with a derogatory term as the main title. A derogatory term should be a redirect. And to answer you question further up: It doesn't matter if a hedge fund manager thinks its derogatory (or embellishing). We're not writing from the perspective of a hedge fund manager. Also, I'm missing any discussion about how valid (or not) the analogy to a scavanger is. Do vulture funds always eat dead meat (=companies that are already bankrupt) or are they helping their death along, which a vulture wouldn't do - I think. I'm not a biologist. I'm serious about this. If we want to come to a conclusion about the derogatory-issue, we have to consider if the metaphor is valid.--Melody Lavender (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There is still no consensus for your proposed edit which goes beyond what the sources say; by contrast the current form reflects the souurces carefully. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The term vulture fund is derogatory and critics use the term for that intended reason, to be derogatory. The term distressed equity fund is not derogatory, so why would I move the description there? We are not discussing the morality of vulture funds. We are discussing the term itself. Scavenger is synonymous with vulture and equally derogatory [5][6]. Jonathan, there is no consensus for you version either. The current form is only accurate to you. Meatsgains (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is you deliberately want to keep the article under a derogatory term? Seriously? (What are you trying to say?) There is a policy on encyclopedic tone and listing a topic under a derogatory term just for the sake of listing it under a derogatory term is certainly against it. This policy recommends a businesslike tone. Moving the article to Distressed debt investment or a similar title would solve the problem. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Melody Lavender: No, sorry I completely misunderstood your post before. I am in full support of moving the article to a new page: distressed debt investment. I'm glad you brought to my attention that an article with a derogatory term as the main title violates WP:TONE. By changing the title of the article, we can be much more accurate while abiding by policy. Meatsgains (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with merging most of this page to Distressed debt investment; indeed I support such a move. Essentially the only thing which should remain here is the lead (in its current accurate form, rather than the claim that the tern is always derogatory, or simply is derogatory, which is not supported by the sources; note that I am entirely happy with "frequently" and would even accept "usually"). Then a section should be added on the history of the term, nothing the the original vulture funds were distressed real estate funds, not distressed debt. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The claim that the term is derogatory is supported by the sources. As I stated before, some sources provide a technical description while other sources provide the negative connotation but no source challenges that the term is derogatory. Again, Jonathan, the lead is accurate only to you. But yes, we can agree that the whole page should be moved to the distressed debt investment page. Meatsgains (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

To claim that the term is derogatory is in effect to claim that everybody using the term is either (1) being derogatory, or (2) ignorant of the true meaning of the term. There are a significant number of technical sources which use the term without engaging in any censure or criticism of the funds, and so are clearly not using the term in a derogatory fashion. Thus it is not true that the term is derogatory, though it is true that it is frequently used as such. Which is what the lead currently says. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

One example for the term not used being used in a derogatory fashion: This paper by the Indian Institute of Management concludes with the recommendation that vulture funds should be established as a solution to the overhang of companies' bad debt. The term is not used in a negative way, there is no hint that it could be considered derogatory. The authors simply describe the process: "As the very name suggests, the vulture fund thrives on the remains of sick and dying companies." The paper continues by mentioning that vulture funds speed up the winding up process. There is no hint that the authors feel the term is derogatory and they portray the activites of such funds as beneficial. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest/support moving the entire page to Distressed securities. The distressed securities page already exists and and its title is more encyclopediccompared to "vulture fund." As Melody Lavender stated, "a derogatory term should be a redirect." I think a good example that parallels this discussion is the term Obamacare. You'll notice that by clicking the aforementioned link you are redirected to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act page. On that page, the term "Obamacare" is a very small portion of the actual page, and it is defined specifically as a pejorative. I think similarly, Vulture Fund should redirect to Distressed securities and content from this page should be entirely moved over. Best Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that I am unlikely to write my history section for a while I am happy with a merge for the moment. But please don't define "vulture fund" as specifically pejorative or derogatory on the merged page, because as shown above it isn't. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

An RfC might be a good idea for this proposed move. I think it's not a great idea -- either a significant amount of material will be lost, or the merged page will be too long. As for derogatory: I agree that what Meatsgains wants is no more appropriate for a section on the proposed target than it is here. I suspect that this editor wants that particular language as a way to facilitate arguments about the use of "vulture fund" at articles on people like Paul Singer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity In response to your comment, no material will be lost and the distressed securities page was relatively short when I first started moving information over so I don't see length being an issue whatsoever. I think Jonathan A Jones, Melody Lavender, Meatsgains, and myself have come to the consensus that the pages should be merged. I will allow you time to submit an RfC if you so choose, but if you do not take action I will be merging the articles here shortly. Best Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 18:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I would definitely advise following the standard merge procedure described at Wikipedia:Merging rather than an RFC or just leaping to a merge. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a great plan. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I support proposing a merge discussion. Meatsgains (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Just joining the discussion; I support such a merge. Whatever the result, the use of the clearly derogatory term "vulture fund" should be kept to an encyclopedic minimum. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

After you folks have finished whitewashing vulture funds, I encourage you to go to work on "Loan Sharks," who are also legitimate businessmen who have been victimized by bad publicity and a derogatory name. How are they supposed to send Vinnie over to break your legs now, when they are concerned about being perceived as "sharks," which is clearly derogatory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.191.211 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Breaking a debtor's legs to induce repayment is rather illegal, so I fail to see whatever point you think you're making. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not very encyclopedic to have this article repeatedly referring to hedge funds as "vulture funds", which is a heavily loaded and not especially honest pejorative term. A better approach would involve mentioning and explaining the term, but not sprinkling it throughout a whole WP article (as if the reinforce the supposed veracity of the metaphor).

Further comment: if there are users seriously arguing that the term is dry and descriptive and not explicitly pejorative, could one of those users please distill the argument down to roughly fifty words so that a new user could apprehend it without tracing through the above textwall? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Guys, if the term is pejorative, a move could be the solution... but merging two related but different concepts (a type of investment fund and a type of debt) into one single article, seeing that none of them is precisely a stub... well, it doesn't make sense to me. You either end up with a large amount of info lost in the process or an article which is too long and about two different things. --Langus (t) 18:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The concepts are related. The so called "vulture funds" invest in distressed securities. The pejorative "vulture fund" does not deserve its own article, but rather a section on the distressed securities page, where a description of the term can be mentioned. Also, most content on the vulture fund page overlaps and can easily be removed to make for a concise merge. Meatsgains (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Any Google search (regular, news, academic) shows that sources talk more about distressed equity funds (let's avoid the contested term) than about distressed securities/bonds. Why do you think that distressed equity funds don't deserve its own article but distressed debt does? In any case it should be the other way around: readers are more likely to be searching for the first one. --Langus (t) 01:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Recently removed material from the page

I have removed a couple of sections regarding Paul Singer and the Elliot Corporation after spending some time reviewing the page and the above discussion. The article relies heavily on examples of Paul Singer - before my edits there were three separate sections dedicated to information related to Paul Singer (see WP:UNDUE) - what about the hundreds of other vulture funds doing this same thing, many times at a larger scale, throughout the world? I intend to add additional information to this page in the next couple of days to give more examples of vulture funds in a manner that does specifically pin point one particular vulture capitalist in an attempt to balance out the article. Best, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 00:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you tag this section, but not remove it since causual users won't know if it existed or not. JacksonRiley (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged the section and changed the name of the section you added in accordance with my notes from my initial edits. I am open to having other editors add the perspectives of other hedge funds to the section (I intend to as well), and not make it specifically about one hedge fund. Best, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 19:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There does seem to be an unfortuante obsession with Paul Singer from two editors, who seem rather partisan in opposite directions, so a greater balance towards other examples would certainly be a good thing. It would also be good to expand the history if possible to include earlier meanings of the term, before the recent concentration on sovereign debt. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, Jonathan. I've done some research over the weekend on the term and some other key examples throughout history. I will do my best to expand the article, but would definitely appreciate any help I could get. Thanks! Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 00:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Great; will do what I can, but I am currently on the end of a very unreliable internet connection, so my ability to assist at the moment is quite patchy. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

New name

Distressed equity fund is used by reliable sources, however the term Distressed hedge fund seems to be more common. I think it would be more appropriate. What do you think? --Langus (t) 16:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Distressed equity funds makes it sound like the hedge funds are "in distress" don't you think? Meatsgains (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Distressed equity fund seems a very odd name for funds that basically invest in distressed securities or distressed debt. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am open to changing it if we feel that it is not the appropriate title. What do you guys suggest? Happy to help out. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 23:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Either Distressed debt fund or Distressed securities fund please. I don't really mind which: the second is more precise but the first is more easily understandable so both have advantages. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If we change the name of the page to “Distressed securities fund” or “Distressed securities debt” it would be a slightly more accurate page name, but if that is the case I would like to reintroduce merging the page to Distressed securities. Reason being: Wikipedia does not have pages dedicated to types of companies— they have pages dedicated to types of industries. “Distressed equity fund”, “Distressed securities fund”, “Distressed securities debt”, etc. are all types of categories, not pages. Companies that invest in distressed debt can be categorized as private equity funds, hedge funds, and investment banks. Every company mentioned in the Distressed securities page is also a Distressed equity fund. Distressed equity funds invest in distressed securities (assets and debt), not just distressed equity. A merge would place the Distressed equity fund page (a type of company) into the more appropriate Distressed securities page (a type of industry). Let me know what you guys think. Best Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 17:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"Distressed securities (also known as distressed-debt) are securities or bonds of companies or government entities that are experiencing financial or operational distress". They are bonds ("an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders"), not a type of industry. Also, I'm surprised with the idea that "WP does not have pages dedicated to types of companies" (it even has a category for them: Companies by type, from where you can be directed to Small and medium enterprises, Fictional company, Employee-owned corporation, etc). After all, WP:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia.

That being said, I want to remind you that article titles are to be picked among what reliable sources use to describe the subject at hand ("a private equity or hedge fund that invests in debt considered to be very weak or in imminent default"). At such, "Distressed debt fund" and "Distressed security fund" seem to be valid options judging from Google results.[7][8] They even yield more hits than "Distressed hedge fund".[9] --Langus (t) 22:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I can find very little evidence that these funds are called distressed equity funds with any regularity, which is not surprising as debt and equity are entirely different things. I see that some distressed private equity funds also invest in distressed corporate debt, but that seems to be the limit of it. So, yes, it should be either "Distressed debt fund" or "Distressed security fund" or "Distressed securities fund". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

So I've been doing some more digging on the subject and wanted to see what peoples' thoughts were on the merge we've previously discussed. Distressed securities also include bank debt and trade claims, which encompasses “Distressed equity funds” (not just bonds). The Distressed securities page notes the emergence of the secondary debt market as "the creation of an industry of professional suers of foreign states.” Without a merge, the Distressed equity fund page will be an almost exact replica of the Distressed securities page because, in theory, every company that is mentioned in the Distressed securities page is also a Distressed equity fund. Notice, if you search for “oil company” (a type of company) on Wikipedia, you are redirected to Petroleum industry (a type of industry). Shouldn't we try to follow this same format by redirecting Distressed equity fund (a type of company) to Distressed securities (a type of industry)? Best Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 18:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The page you link to above is about hedge funds which invest in distressed securities, and does not use the term "distressed equity" anywhere on the page. Googling "distressed equity fund" [10] produces few pages, and most of what it does produce is not pages about funds that invest in distressed assets of any kind: for example [11] is about equity funds which have themselves become distressed. I am completely at a loss as to why you think "distressed equity" has anything to do with what the rest of us are talking about. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we are all in agreement that "Distressed equity fund" is not an accurate page name and the "google search" argument has been exhausted. I am not arguing in favor or against "distressed equity", I am suggesting a merge between the current page (a type of company) and Distressed securities (a type of industry) following the oil companies example I provided above. Just trying to clarify things here, sorry for the confusion. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 20:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

So let's move this page to distressed securities fund pending further discussions on the merge. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments

The Distressed securities fund (vulture fund) article is the subject of a discussion at Talk:Economy of Argentina#‎Request for comments on neutrality. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Page should be renamed to "Vulture Fund"

This is by far and overwhelmingly the most common term for these types of fund, used by numerous organisations, financial institutions, governments, the media, etc. It has repeatedly been used in legislation against vulture funds and the source that is used to define it in this article even uses the term. This article should stick to Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and not some term created by Paul Singer's PR people. The term may be considered derogatory by them, but is de-facto and far more common than "Distressed securities fund", so thus meets the criteria for "Non-neutral but common names", in the same way as other articles like Loan shark. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This was already discussed extensively above. Meatsgains (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, as usual it was just you opposing any change to what is a commonly used name and claiming that there was no consensus since you were the only editor opposing it. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please show me where I was "the only editor opposing it". Meatsgains (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2015

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 Vulture fund, lowercase as it is not a proper noun. Clear evidence that "Vulture fund" is the commonname. If editors find the term "derogatory" then a wider community discussion via RFC at WP:W2W is warranted. Local consensus in an RM is not sufficient on the "derogatory" nature of a term to override WP:COMMONNAME Mike Cline (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Distressed securities fund → Vulture Fund – Requesting move as per WP:COMMONNAME, though as a Non-neutral but common name. Though "Distressed securities fund" is a technical term favoured by the financial community, "Vulture Fund" is by far a more commonly used term, as can be seen in its usage throughout the article and the sources given as seen in the Viewpoints section of the article which overwhelmingly uses sources favouring the term. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - This was already discussed above with consensus to move the page from "Vulture fund" to "Distressed securities fund". "Vulture fund" is a derogatory term and should not be used as a page name and instead only as a redirect. Meatsgains (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Where is that discussion/consensus? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure on that one. I seem to see a lot of editors in above discussions raising a lot of the same concerns as in this requested move and seems to be far from a consensus.SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Where is the discussion/consensus you refer to? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to this discussion that we had last year. After reading back through it, I realized we were talking about the term "vulture fund" being derogatory, not using it as a page name. Meatsgains (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Is that then acknowledgement that there was never consensus to move the page from Vulture Fund to Distressed securities fund? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support - as per my above comments and those of other editors in above discussions. Should stick to common names and not use jargon from the financial sector. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Jargon? If anything, "vulture fund" is jargon. Call the page what it is, a distressed securities fund. Meatsgains (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Jargon: Special words or expressions used by a profession or group that are difficult for others to understand'[12]. Again, I think we should stick with what the sources overwhelmingly say and use commonly used terms as per Wikipedia's guidelines. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have corrected myself. For it to be jargon it actually has to be used by the financial sector and since there are no sources which mention "distressed securities fund" in this article, I have to conclude that it's a term not used by anyone other than its proponents on this page. The current naming now very clearly fails the criteria for WP:RECOGNIZABLE since it seems to have been made up on the spot by editors rather than being based on actual sources. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia should follow the sources, and a simple CTRL-F on "vulture" highlights 75% of the references and most of the external links. It's certainly how I've always heard it referred to, and I've worked in finance. Yes, these funds won't actually write "vulture" on their website, but as pointed out there's plenty of other places on Wikipedia where we use the common name rather than the inoffensive technical name. SnowFire (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I have voiced my opinion on the subject in the past on this talk page - I believe the conversation between myself and Jonathan A Jones led to the merge and redirect. I still support the notion that the term "vulture fund" is derogatory, unecessary, and should only be used as a redirect. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comatmebro - Thanks for your comment, but this discussion isn't about whether the name is derogatory or not, but if we should adapt the WP:COMMONNAME as a Non-neutral but common name. However, I am curious to know what you suggest the name be as I have yet to find a single reference which uses the name Distressed securities fund in the article. In the three references ([13][14][15]) used in the lede alone (which should certainly at least mention the name of the article), the phrase "distressed securities fund" comes up a total of zero times, whilst "vulture" comes up 3 times in The Economist article, 2 times in The Daily Telegraph article and 11 times in the Duke University paper. Can you show me at least one source in the article where "distressed securities fund" is mentioned? It seems almost like a made-up term. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are curious for my input on what the name should be, my opinion on the nature of the name you are offering up is relevant, so please don't pull the "off topic" card here. My opinion, which is well-documented in the above talk page discussions, is that the article should keep the name it currently has because the name you are offering up is, as i stated before, a derogatory pejorative. I am basing my opinion on my intrepration of WP:UCRN WP:NPOVNAME and WP:NDESC. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 14:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I assure you, I am not trying to play any sort of "card" here, I just wished to remind you that I have already conceded that the proposed name is non-neutral but common. Thank you, I have now read the above discussion and can conclude my suspicions that the current naming of this article is based on conjecture rather than any actual sources is correct. I have yet to see a single source mentioned in these discussions or in the article that makes any reference to something called a "distressed securities fund" and there are clearly no sources which support the current naming of the article. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for coming off a bit harsh there - I missed the "Non-neutral but common" caveat and I appreciate you bringing that to my attention. I am reposting my comment from above as it relates to your notion that "the current naming of this article is based on conjecture rather than any actual sources." Here is what I based the name of this article on:

• If we change the name of the page to “Distressed securities fund” or “Distressed securities debt” it would be a slightly more accurate page name, but if that is the case I would like to reintroduce merging the page to Distressed securities. Reason being: Wikipedia does not have pages dedicated to types of companies— they have pages dedicated to types of industries. “Distressed equity fund”, “Distressed securities fund”, “Distressed securities debt”, etc. are all types of categories, not pages. Companies that invest in distressed debt can be categorized as private equity funds, hedge funds, and investment banks. Every company mentioned in the Distressed securities page is also a Distressed equity fund. Distressed equity funds invest in distressed securities (assets and debt), not just distressed equity. A merge would place the Distressed equity fund page (a type of company) into the more appropriate Distressed securities page (a type of industry). Let me know what you guys think. Best Comatmebro~Come at me~ 17:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That's no problem. I have already read that and again, that to me looks like conjecture. Is there anything remotely in line with WP:RS which supports this like there is for the current proposal? There certainly isn't on this article. Furthermore, now looking at the "discussion" through which it was decided to change the name from vulture fund to begin with, there seems to be no consensus whatsoever for the move and also occurred on a completely different page rather than on the page in question... After seeing this, I'm not even sure why we're having this discussion considering there was never any consensus to change the name of Vulture Fund to begin with - thanks for bringing Talk:Distressed securities to my attention. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support -- it's very clearly the common name. it's also clear that Meatsgain's claim above that there was a consensus for moving to "distressed securities fund" was unfounded. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Just looking at some traffic figures for this page: over the last 90 days it has been accessed 4165 times, while "vulture fund" has been accessed 3584 times, meaning that "Distressed securities fund" was only accessed directly 581 times while 3584 found it through the far more commonly used "vulture fund".[16][17] This is also not taking into account that "distressed securities fund" has the upper hand here as pages will overwhelmingly link to the article name rather than redirect.

Does this alone not demonstrate that "Distressed securities fund" is not WP:RECOGNIZABLE? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Doing a bit more probing, it also seems that the English language Wikipedia is the only one out of 14 which uses this terminology. Every other wikipedia project uses the term "Vulture fund", most accompanied by "in English: vulture fund". SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2015 (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.

RFC on W2W

Per Mike_Cline "If editors find the term "derogatory" then a wider community discussion via RFC at WP:W2W is warranted." I still find the term degragotry and therefore have submitted an RfC on WP:W2W. Please let this comment serve as a notice to all editors included in the recent RfC that a discussion on this topic will continue on WP:W2W. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)