Talk:JLL (company)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removing "collapse in profit"

The original version of the section on "collapse in profit" was biased, plus the sources were questionable and unauthentic (e.g. one source only makes reference to the UK business rather than the company as a whole, and reads like a blog). The rewritten version with the addition of a competitor was intended to make the section sound more balanced, reflecting the whole industry (e.g. a lot of other financial companies like UBS, Citi, Deutsche Bank... incurred negative profits in the same recession and none of their pages mentioned these declines specifically). It's removed for now. JLL AP (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for more productive efforts from the above user

(1) I did not refer to PropertyWeek as a blog. I referred to the other source that mentioned widescale layoffs in the UK (which for some reason I could not locate its original version at the moment). The source was questionable and unauthentic.

(2) Again, the whole section on "collapse in profit" is biased. Please refer to wikipedia entries of other financial companies which are also facing pressures from the recession for your information.

(3) The edition on CBRE wikipedia entry was not at all a vandalism. The original entry (a green upward arrow) was used in a completely wrong way. It is not intended to show whether revenue is positive or negative (if it was, it would always be green and upward, there is no negative revenue). It is intended to say whether revenue has increased or decreased compared to previous year. Please refer to Goldman Sachs as an example. In this case, CBRE's revenue dropped from more than $6bn in 2007 to more than $5bn in 2008, which is a decrease.

(4) Please refrain from making vague assumptions (i.e. assuming that editions from employees from the subject company are all biased). Instead, I suggest we stick to logic and common sense. Jones Lang LaSalle receives no material benefit from information on open-source websites such as Wikipedia. Also, see assuming good faith.

(5) I have no idea what masking means. Please do not rely on technical IT tools for making allegations.

(6) Please be cooperative and use a positive tone. Our aim is to improve the article, not to criticize efforts of contributors.

(7) Let's be productive. Please help rephrase any content you deem inappropriate and/or provide specific comments rather than simply undo and delete. JLL AP (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions to Admins

(1) Work hard. Explain policies in greater details by providing examples and practical applications rather than referring to generic guidelines. Note that an ordinary contributor does not have the time to go through pages of guidelines and policies. Unexplained actions from admins would discourage contributors from contributing.

(2) Be specific. Look into contributors' writings more closely and provide specific comments after making corrections to their writings.

(3) Be positive. Assume good intentions from contributors and use this as a starting point. Do not rely on technical matters (e.g. IP lookups) and make false allegations. JLL AP (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

More POV content added by another Jones Lang Lasalle sockpuppet (this one is smart enough to mask her IP, but not from Wikipedia Admins)

JLL_AP <changed username> the log of your edits is very interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CB_Richard_Ellis&diff=prev&oldid=278256909
Why exactly were you vandalising the CBRE wikipedia entry ?
Is this a Jones Lang LaSalle company policy for marketing staff ?

Is another policy of your company to suppress any non-favourable press coverage ?
PropertyWeek is hardly a blog
It's the leading trade magazine of Real Estate Professionals
http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=297&storycode=3133310

---

The above comments did not follow Wikipedia's guidelines on assuming good faith and the use of positive tone. They are also being checked to see whether they constitute personal attacks. 210.80.128.183 (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

POV content added by Jones Lang Lasalle Marketing staff

Looking at the history of this article, there's been dozens of edits from IP address 210.80.128.183 between 4/3/09 to 5/03/09.
The content being added is just company cool-aid drivel.

It's interesting that an APNIC IP address look up on the offending IP number resolves to:
inetnum: 210.80.128.160 - 210.80.128.191
netname: JONES-AU
descr: UUNET Non-Portable Customer Assignment
descr: JONES LANG LASALLE
descr: 400 George Street
descr: 19 Level
descr: Sydney, ,
descr: AUS
country: AU

I think this would certainly conflict with Wikipedia's policy of articles being written from a Neutral point of view ?

I'll eventually get around to cleaning up this article later, but for now i'll just add an advert tag.

121.44.3.195 (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Fred K

---

The above comments did not follow Wikipedia's guidelines on assuming good faith and the use of positive tone. 210.80.128.183 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement

The article is being re-analyzed to make sure it does not constitute an advertisement. For this purpose, an advertising article is defined as an article with deliberate promotional purposes and contains opinionated views that cannot be substantiated through an objective and unbiased approach <please help rephrase this part>.

The advert tag is temporarily removed for now. Feel free to provide reasonable arguments to put it back again. JLL AP (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

<to be continued> JLL AP (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The "De-Advertising" of the article begins:
1. There's been a removal of awards and accolades of questionable significance placed throughout the body text. "The Ethisphere Institute" (?) accolade is of dubious significance
(if significance can be shown, they should be in sep section)
2. There's no rationale behind listing or including competitors in the body text (especially when used for unfavourable comparisons with later edits). McDonald's, for example, doesn't list Burger King and Wendy's.
(the appropriate Categories section for competitors already exists at the foot of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Real_estate_brokers )
121.44.25.129 (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)FredK

---

Point #1 above: this certainly sounds reasonable, but (1) we are uncertain whether this is really significant or not. When in doubt, do not remove the whole section but instead place a tag on it; (2) this doesn't seem to be related to advertising, but instead it seems to be related to the level of importance; and (3).. hmm, I thought Ethisphere was pretty well known, at least that's the only organization promoting business ethics that I know of. I'd like to check and see whether Wikipedia has anything on this organization. If not, maybe it's something worth adding on, I don't know...

Point #2: I completely concur. I'm not a big fan of such a section. But note that, again, this is not related to advertising.218.186.9.228 (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User FredK 121.44.x.xxx

<deleted>

- FredK, if you are not an admin, your controlling actions are very difficult to understand and justify

- If you are indeed an admin, you've run into trouble. Not only did you not follow several Wikipedia guidelines (like somebody mentioned below), you also apparently did not equip yourself with adequate knowledge on the field you're supposed to cover.

<deleted>

My advice for you: If you're not well-versed in some areas (especially if those areas are supposed to be under your administration), don't pretend to be so. For instance, "bottom line" is not an accounting term. Accountants are usually conservative and wouldn't use such an informal concept. "Bottom line" is usually used by investors and company management. And no, you should not remove Revenue from the company info box. It's still one of the first items (if not the very first item) investors tend to look at.

You have a lot to learn young man. Be humble. Take your time and learn from others. <deleted>

Regards,

--passerby

(this is a shared IP, some of the above comments were deleted, pls take any appropriate action) 202.161.45.8 (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 202.161.45.1 (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 202.161.45.8 (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. OK. Shouldnt have let this concern others actually.202.161.45.1 (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Caution note issued.202.161.45.8 (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted. 202.161.45.1 (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal of my further contribution

I certainly was aware of potential conflicts of interest that might arise should I engage in editing Wikipedia pages about Jones Lang LaSalle. (Isn't that what you learn as one of the first rules in CFA?) And I did exercise caution by verifying ALL sources for all pieces of information being put up to the page. Each and every single piece of information that I contributed is third-party verifiable (i.e. from public and reliable sources). Of course some might question the significance and importance of the sources, but I would be happy to dig more into it and provide further info if I was given a chance to do so.

This is my take: Wikipedia after all is a free project which needs support from contributors. Nobody trusts it completely anyway.

As a corporate, Jones Lang LaSalle receives no material benefit from open-source websites such as Wikipedia. In business, people do not open Wikipedia to look for company info. They use paid subscriptions such as Reuters, Bloomberg, OneSource, and the like. Company info written on Wikipedia is for the benefit of the wide public and their general interest/knowledge, and for this benefit, each and every single piece of information need only be factual and third-party verifiable. It is NOT written for the benefit of investors, potential customers, or equity researchers since they supposedly will not use Wikipedia. Even if retail stock traders treat Wikipedia as a source to help them make decisions, well, too bad, that's their mistake. In short, it's totally non-sense to promote any marketing campaign on Wikipedia.

(It is, I think, UNLIKE politics, in which unbiased pieces of information can twist public opinion in a very wide scale, which is why Obama should be forbidden to edit his own Wiki page for instance).

I started out treating this as a weekend and lunchtime hobby. And I enjoyed doing so, it was great. It's certainly good to know that the public gets more general understanding of the company from the article, but I would be foolish to use this as a tool for propaganda.

Now that actions from admins are largely unexplained (e.g. removing some facts contributed by users without adding a decent rationale), I don't feel very encouraged.

And now that I have also seen a lot of cautions from admins about potential conflicts of interest, I probably should simply walk away and withdraw my contributions (which is what I will do). There's nothing to gain and nothing to lose from this anyway. What I'm afraid of is that you won't come across many contributors that contribute their writings from a research point of view, which is what Wikipedia needs.

But I can be wrong. All the best to Wikipedia. I will continue using it as a user (of course during my pastime only, since now I know too well Wikipedia is not for serious work). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLL AP (talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC) JLL AP (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Yeah u probably should go. This is not a place for u, dont get involved too much. And no, you need not worry. It's Wikipedia anyway. If it's good, good for us! If it's not good, fine, we'll use other stuff then ;)202.161.45.1 (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Agreed. JLL AP (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of mistaken tags

lol, who on earth included the current bankruptcy tag? Pes2009ap (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Policies regarding articles on companies/organizations

Please read these before editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BFAQ

If you are an employee of the subject company, you are not prohibited from editing the company's Wikipedia page. However, it is not encouraged as it is a potential conflict of interest. It is best that you do not get yourself involved. 202.161.45.1 (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Yeah sure. I'm coolJLL AP (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I quite like your posts bru, I think u seem to be able to put up quite a lot of useful analyses, but I disagree on one point: statements containing facts only do NOT necessarily have a neutral POV, since those statements might still be considered not representative enough of the actual situation, which in many cases can still be regarded as biased. Pes2009ap (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Economic Recession

Well, now the economic recession section of the article looks like a joke: the questionable "blog" last time was replaced by two other sources that are luckily more decent but mention nothing about layoffs; the citations are even misplaced and point to the wrong info. JLL AP (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)210.80.128.183 (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)210.80.128.183 (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More info required

Some ruffled feathers here I see. Purely from a journalist's perspective I think this entry is not that useful, particularly concerning what JLL actually does. It's the second biggest company of its type but where are the examples of its work? Anyone interested in fleshing out the detail (even if you're from the company)? EphraimL (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

---

It's not useful because somebody stripped off too much info previously, now this entry becomes very plain. I have some details with me regarding the company's actual work. But then, if I start writing somebody will probably be very eager to undo all my editing again (even though I would always write nothing but verifiable facts). 210.80.128.183 (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

http://samspade.org/whois?query=210.80.128.183 (talk)
Interesting,
either
it's organized marketeering
or an employee has swallowed the JLL Kool Aid and is oblivious to the mass redundancies occurring in her office.

---

It's a him dude. And no I don't do marketing. I do financial analysis.

I've never visited Wikipedia during work hours. I only do so during lunch breaks and after work, so I don't have anything to be ashamed of.

As an employee of JLL, I do have the responsibility to give my best to the company. But at the same time I am a critical analyst with strong principles too (thanks in part to the CFA program). I'd be very interested if you could provide negative info on the company (because I have not had the time to search for it). In fact I'd really appreciate it, because you'd be helping me in a way. Unfortunately the negative info you (or someone else) have provided so far has been of very poor quality from a business analyst's point of view I'm afraid.

I don't have the time to go through every single point in the article right now. Plus, as mentioned, I'm not contributing to the article anymore (except flagging questions here and there and writing in this discussion page itself). So, can I ask whether we can add a tag to say this article needs more writing from someone who is expert in this field? (How do you do this btw?)210.80.128.183 (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Well since I've done some research on the company since I last contributed, I'm going to add detail. If you don't like it, let's talk about why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EphraimL (talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

---

OK, put some examples of the leasing work, which brings it to life. Will gradually get round to examples for the rest of it.EphraimL (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC).

Breach of contract section

I don't quite understand this part, even after reading the source. Maybe someone can explain?218.186.12.237 (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Insider trading section

This seems to be original research. No other sources have officially claimed insider trading done by this company (by law insider trading is OK as long as you have not acted upon private info and you disclose it to shareholders)218.186.12.237 (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I just realized that maybe I have used the wrong term above: original research is done when you don't cite any references, right?

If you have cited a reference, and you have done your own interpretation of the reference, but this interpretation did not seem to be supported by the original reference, what is it called?

whatever it is called, this section contains an unverified claim. 218.186.12.237 (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

---

The comparison of executive remuneration is a little naive too. It's the same as saying executives at StanChart being paid hefty amounts compared to executives at WalMart is a red flag. In this case ExxonMobil's business is more capital intensive, and it has much more employees in total, so salary per head can't be too high. On the other hand, the services industry (where this company JLones Lang Lasalle is operating in) relies more on human capital, so salary per head is usually higher compared to the heavy industry. Pes2009ap (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Revenue

Can somebody explain why he/she edited the revenue sign and changed it to a decrease? Show me the data and prove it. Take a look at this for your information: http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/financialHighlights?symbol=JLL.N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.80.128.183 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The arrow denotes the direction of 12 month gross profit on company revenue. (There's even a wikipedia article that explains it)
accountants call this "the bottom line" in a company financial statement.
As you can see below from JLL's own reported financial statement to the New York Stock Exchange:
http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ci&q=NYSE:JLL
Gross profit on Revenue year ending Q4/08 was $925.91m, slightly down from $927.90m in Q4/07. (which is actually is not too bad considering the economic conditions in 2008, maybe be the large number of staff layoffs at JLL prevented a worse result. ?
121.44.25.129 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)FredK
------------------------
As far as I understand , bottom line refers to net income or net profit, not gross profit. There are two things you probably need to provide further explanations: (1) what is this concept "gross profit on revenue"? Perhaps you can provide the link to the "wikipedia article that explains it". (2) Even if there is such a concept (which supposedly deals with profit rather than with revenue as you have pointed out), why is it applied to the Revenue portion while we can always put it in the specific portion for Profit?
My common sense tells me this: as a reader, I will read this similarly to the way I read stock quotes: a green upward arrow put before an indicator tells me that this particular indicator (not another indicator related to it) has declined compared to the previous period.
How the company has avoided the worst results is beyond the scope of the discussion. 218.186.9.228 (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

------------------------
Actually, your quite correct Net Income is refered to by accountants as "The Bottom Line" and is a much better measure of company performance. I Think I may add this to the company information box instead. 121.44.136.153 (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)FredK
------------------------
Thanks 218.186.9.228 for pointing this out. I wanted to mention this as wellJLL AP (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
------------------------
Change revenue arrow to upward pls210.80.128.183 (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
------------------------
I think you're correct. Anyone have any other ideas? Pes2009ap (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Collapse of profits

This section is so dramatic it already violated the neutral POV. 218.186.12.237 (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I just tried to trim this section down. Let me know if anyone has any comments. Pes2009ap (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

An article that violates the neutral point of view policy is defined as an article that is not written in an objective and unbiased manner. Most of the time, articles that contain only facts (i.e. information about which there is no serious dispute) that are verifiable through a reliable source should qualify as having a neutral point of view. <please help rephrase this part>

At this stage, the Jones Lang LaSalle article appears to be based largely on facts that are third-party verifiable. It appears to have a neutral point of view.

The neutrality caution tag is temporarily removed for now. Feel free to provide reasonable arguments for the check of neutrality. JLL AP (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

<to be continued> JLL AP (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As of November the 10th, 2011 this article looks more like a piece of corporate publicity than an enciclopedic entry, and should be thoroughly checked for a number of unverifiable, highly biased assertions. Consider for instance the part on corporate responsibility, which reads like a bunch of slogans rather than being historically informative, or providing any evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torotazo (talk • contribs) 02:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul and update - December 2014

In an attempt to bring this article up to Wikipedia standard I have:

• Removed old (4+ years), US-centric or self-aggrandizing text references
• Removed old, broken or self-aggrandizing footnotes
• Updated and added footnotes and standardised the format of all of them
• Removed extensive details of types of work undertaken; they read as advertising, virtually all examples are out of date, and several seem to be copied from the company's own site
• Replaced repetitive instances of the company name with "it" or "the company" for easier reading
• Removed a link obviously inserted by a competing interest: "See also - Cassidy Turley"
• Changed name to JLL where reference is made to the present day
• Updated facts to synchronize with the factbox

This has resulted in a considerable shortening of the text. I advise those closest to the organisation to add more up-to-date examples of the company's work - and to continue to update them.

I propose that we can now delete the "Multiple issues" box but will await feedback/edits first.

EphraimL (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Changing the name of the page to JLL

According to WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural". JLL rebranded itself as JLL a year ago and all its comms use those initials - and the press routinely calls it that (look up JLL in a Google news search). For that reason I propose recreating that page as "JLL". Thoughts please EphraimL (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Improvements to the infobox

Hello, Wikipedia! I'm Jessica, an employee of JLL. I hope to connect with the community of editors here to offer some suggestions for improving the JLL article. I will only post to talk pages and refrain from making direct edits, in order to adhere to the rules of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.

For starters, I'd like to address inaccuracies in the infobox of the article and offer sourcing to support the changes.

• Christie B. Kelly (Vice President & CFO) is no longer in those positions. Stephanie Plaines was named CFO this month and will start at the end of the month (March 2019).
  • done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Financial information is outdated
  • Revenue $16.3 billion (2018)
  • Operating income $706.9 million (2018)
  • Net income $491.7 million (2018)
  • AUM $60.5 billion (2018)
  • Total assets $10.02 billion (2018)
  • Total equity $3.73 billion (2018)
    • Done-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Number of employees has changed to 88,000 as of 2019
  • done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Are there any editors that would be willing to make these changes to the article? Please let me know if you have any feedback or questions. Thank you. JKatJLL (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, TonyTheTiger! JKatJLL (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Additional infobox changes

Hello! It's Jessica, again. I have a few minor updates to the infobox. Under "key people", DeAnne Julius and Roger Staubach are no longer employed or on the board at JLL and should be removed. TonyTheTiger was helpful with the first infobox updates, so maybe you'd be willing to make these updates and possibly check out my previous suggestions pertaining to the "Operations" section? I am an employee of JLL and will only post to talk pages and refrain from making direct edits, in order to adhere to the rules of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• JKatJLL, are these changes in the public domain. I.e., can you show me a link from a RS that verifies these changes or even a JLL.com webpage with current board of directors.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:TonyTheTiger, thank you for your feedback. Here are a few sources to verify the change in board members. This source lists the current board members as of July 2019. I've also listed our quarterly SEC filing from August 7 that includes a list of board members. Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

removed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, User:TonyTheTiger! JKatJLL (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Ethisphere

The lead contains It has been consistently named by the Ethisphere Institute as one of the world's most ethical companies., cited to the company's own press release, even though that is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, and may be a "purchased" honor per our article on the for-profit institute, which accepts money from its nominees. I vote to remove the sentence. Comments? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions to Operations section

Hello, Wikipedia! It's Jessica, again. I have returned with some suggested text to update the Operations section. As an employee of JLL, I will only post to talk pages and refrain from making direct edits, in order to adhere to the rules of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.

I am proposing to update the Operations section to the following text:

JLL is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and is the second largest public brokerage firm in the world. The company has approximately 91,000 employees in 80 countries, as of 2019.

Services include sales and leasing, property management, project management, and development. In 2014, the organization shortened its name to JLL for marketing purposes, while the legal name remained Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated.

Former company president Christian Ulbrich succeeded Colin Dyer as CEO in October 2016. Stephanie Plaines was the chief financial officer, as of March 2019. Sheila Penrose has served as the chair of the board since 2005.

References

Also, reference #3 can be used to update the number of employees in the infobox from 88,000 to 91,000. Are there any editors that would be willing to take a look at these changes and then implement them? If you have any feedback or questions, I'd be happy to chat! Thank you. JKatJLL (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, TonyTheTiger, thank you for helping me update the infobox. I am checking in to see if you are interested in helping me make these updates to the Operations section. If not, it's no problem and I can ask elsewhere. Since I have a conflict of interest as an employee I will not directly edit the article myself. Any feedback is appreciated as well.

Thank you. JKatJLL (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

JKatJLL, I would prefer not to get into serious editing of this article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Theroadislong, I noticed that you recently made some content-related edits to this article. I've drafted a new operations section and am seeking editor feedback and/or implementation of the section. Since this topic may be of interest to you, would you mind taking a look? Due to my conflict of interest, I will not be directly editing the article. Thank you. JKatJLL (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, TenPoundHammer, in reviewing the article history, I see that you have made significant edits to this article in the past. I've drafted an updated Operations section, which you may find earlier in this post, to address inaccuracies and add new, up-to-date information. I thought I would check in to see if reviewing and making these edits may be of interest to you. If not, I understand. I have a conflict of interest as an employee of JLL and I will not directly edit the article. Feedback is appreciated as well. Thank you. JKatJLL (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• @JKAtJLL: I think your above draft is acceptable and can be edited into the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, TenPoundHammer, thank you for replying so quickly with helpful feedback! Since I am an employee with a conflict of interest, I am going to stay on the safe side for transparency and refrain from directly editing the article. Would you mind making the updates in the live article? Thank you. JKatJLL (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, User:TenPoundHammer! JKatJLL (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Update inaccuracy in introduction

Hello, Wikipedia! It's Jessica. The introductory paragraph of the article has an inaccuracy that needs to be addressed. In the sentence, "It is the largest company of its kind in the world", it should state that JLL is the second largest company. I've included an article from the Washington Business Journal to support the change. As I've mentioned, I'm an employee of JLL and will only post to talk pages and refrain from making direct edits, in order to adhere to the rules of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, TenPoundHammer, I appreciate your help in reviewing my previous requests here. I'm reaching out to see if you have an interest in fixing the incorrect statement in the introduction mentioned above. Again, since I have a conflict of interest I will not make the edits myself. Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• @JKatJLL:  Done Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, User:TenPoundHammer! JKatJLL (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced change in the Operations section

Hello, Wikipedia! It's Jessica, again. The other day, a user from an IP address with no username made an edit to the Operations section, changing the sentence "JLL is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and is the second largest public brokerage firm in the world.", to "JLL is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and is the second largest project managment consultancy in world." The editor did not provide additional sourcing to support making the change, but it is also misspelled and inaccurate. JLL is a public brokerage firm, not a project management consultancy. As I've mentioned before, I am an employee of JLL and have a conflict of interest. Therefore, I will not make edits to the article and appreciate assistance and feedback from other editors. I'm also happy to answer any questions. Thank you. JKatJLL (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:TenPoundHammer, would you mind taking a look at this request and implement if you feel it is appropriate? Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I got it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, User:TenPoundHammer! JKatJLL (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverse inaccurate edit to infobox

Hello,User:Prisencolin! My name is Jessica, and I am an employee of JLL. I've posted requests on this page before where I've mentioned my conflict of interest. To reemphasize, I have a financial conflict of interest and will post edits requests here instead of making direct edits to the article.

Roger Staubach retired from his position as board chair in 2018, as you can see in the following reference. Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:TenPoundHammer, you've been of great help in the past when I've requested updates to this page. I'm hoping you can take a look at this request to revert an inaccurate edit made to the infobox regarding Roger Staubach as board chair, a position from which he retired in 2018. I've reached out to the editor that made the edit here and on their talk page but have not received a response. Thanks for taking a look and let me know if you have questions or feedback. JKatJLL (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, User:TenPoundHammer! JKatJLL (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

References

|}

Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I really don't know anything about this topic, and I can't say that I've checked any of the facts, but I think it's fair for me to assume good faith and publish your proposed contributions. Nothing seems blatantly promotional, and I appreciate that you're trying to follow the rules. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of Wikipedia editors who are passionate about topics like this, so these kinds of requests tend to languish for a while.

A couple questions:

1) The infobox gives a founding date of 1783. The History section merely says that the auctioneer "originated in the 1700s". Is the founding date in the infobox correct? (I can't actually read the Barron's article.)

2) One sentence says, "The combined business, with 2,700 employees and 43 offices, created the largest property agent in the UK, at the time of publishing in 2011." Can we rephrase the part that says "at the time of publishing"? The main problem I see is that there's no specific publisher or publication mentioned in that sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 03:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, this is not directly related to your History section, but I noticed that the # of employees in the infobox did not match the number of employees listed in the Operations section. For the time being, I made the infobox consistent with the sourced statement in the Operations section (91,000). But if there are better/more recent sources, we can revisit that. Zagalejo^^^ 03:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Zagalejo for your assistance! To answer your questions, the number of employees is actually 94,000, as of March 31, 2020. This has not been reported in mainstream journalism, but if it helps, this link to a recent SEC filing shows that we have 94,000 employees. I understand if we need to keep the closest number that can be sourced by a third-party source for now. The Barron's article does not state an exact date, only the following:

• "Chicago-based Jones Lang LaSalle dates to the founding of London real estate auctioneer Jones Lang Wootton in the 1700s."

I was unable to find the founding date of Jones Lang Wootton in mainstream journalism, which I understand is the preferred type of sourcing on Wikipedia. If it helps, this link from our site lists the founding date as 1783.

As for your second questions, I'm fine with adding clarification to the phrase "at the time of publishing". This is sourced from The Telegraph, so if you would prefer to reword to include them, I completely agree.

Please let me know if I can answer any other questions and thank you again for your help. JKatJLL (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply! For starters, I reworded that one sentence to mention the Telegraph in the text. Primary sources would be OK in certain contexts, and personally, I wouldn’t have a problem citing those sources for the founding date and number of employees. But given the past scrutiny of this article, it’s probably best to use independent, third-party sources as much as possible. Zagalejo^^^ 18:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you, again, User:Zagalejo! JKatJLL (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Update Chairman

Hello, TenPoundHammer, I appreciate your help in reviewing my previous requests here. I'm reaching out to see if you have an interest in updating our Chairman. Effective June 1, 2020, Siddharth Mehta became JLL’s new Chairman, succeeding Sheila Penrose. The news was covered in the Estates Gazette: https://www.egi.co.uk/news/change-at-the-top-as-jll-names-new-chairman/ I noticed two places on JLL’s Wikipedia page where Sheila Penrose is still listed as Chairman: the Operations section and the infobox. Again, since I have a conflict of interest I will not make the edits myself. Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, TenPoundHammer! Can I ask you for assistance with one more change? I noticed that the infobox still shows Stephanie Plaines as JLL's CFO, but a new CFO, Karen Brennan, was named in July. That was already updated in the Operations section ("Karen Brennan was named CFO on June 22, 2020 effective July 15, 2020.") and there are two sources (#12 and #13) already in the reference section -- https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2020/08/10/jll-misses-q2-targets-appoints-new-cfo.html and https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2020/06/global-real-estate-firm-jll-names-karen-brennan-ch.html?page=all Thanks!! JKatJLL (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Update employee number

Hello, TenPoundHammer, I know you’ve helped to review my previous requests here and was wondering if you might be interested in fixing the incorrect employee number in the Operations section. This was recently updated by an IP user and I’m not sure where they pulled the 150,000 number from. You can see on our 10-K filed with the SEC on February 27, 2020 (https://sec.report/Document/0001037976-20-000011/) that we had 93,000 employees as of December 31, 2019. This on page 85 of the report. The infobox has a similar number, which also reflects the inaccuracy of the 150,000 number. I’d also like to point out that the first sentence of the article says we are an American company but, in fact, we’re global. In this Business Insider article (https://www.businessinsider.com.au/jll-real-estate-coronavirus-pandemic-reopening-offices-2020-10). There it says we have offices in North America, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Again, since I have a conflict of interest I will not make the edits myself. Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• @JKatJLL: I went with "American...offices in several countries". The company's primary office is in the United States, so it is accurate to call it an American-based company. Given that English Wikipedia is used in all countries that speak English and not just the U.S., it is generally considered proper to identify topics by their originating country even if they have a significant presence elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• @TenPoundHammer: Thank you for that info, I understand now. Are you willing to update the employee number in the Operation section from 150,000 to 93,000 so it matches the infobox? Thanks again. JKatJLL (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• My bad, I missed that one. Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• @TenPoundHammer: Thank you!!! JKatJLL (talk)

Updating figures and History

Hello! It's Jessica here again. As an employee of JLL, I have a financial conflict of interest and will only post to talk pages and refrain from making direct edits, to adhere to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Since my last request, I saw that an editor has made a few updates in the introduction and infobox, and I wanted to follow up to update some of the basic facts and figures. On February 18, 2021, JLL filed its 2020 10k (https://sec.report/Document/0001037976-21-000009/) with the SEC, which provides updated figures for the financials and employee number listed in the article.

• Figures to update:
  • Revenue $16.6 billion (2020)
  • Net income $402.5 million (2020)
  • Total assets $14.316 billion (2020)
  • Total equity $5.610 billion (2020)
  • Number of employees: 91,000 (2020)

• Fortune 500 update in introduction: This can be changed to 179, which is the current ranking. The reference in the article links to the live listing on Fortune's website so doesn't need to be changed.

• Number of employees in Operations: Could this be updated to say "more than 90,000"? Using an approximate figure would mean this would not become outdated so quickly.

• Divestment and new partnership in History: JLL has divested Stessa and established a new partnership with Roofstock. Can the sentence in History about Stessa be removed and a new sentence added to the end of the section to summarize these moves?
  • Sentence to remove: In early 2018, the division acquired Stessa, a portfolio management company.
  • New sentence to add: In 2021, the company's technology division sold Stessa, the single-family rental asset management software company it acquired in 2018, to Roofstock as part of a deal in which JLL acquired a minority stake in Roofstock and it would provide services to JLL's clients.

References

User:TenPoundHammer and User:Zagalejo, I appreciate your help on previous requests. Would either of you have interest in assisting with this one? As mentioned above, since I have a conflict of interest I will not make the edits myself. Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I made some of the changes. I don't think the old revenue figures in the infobox were sourced to anything, so for the time being, I just removed them. (To be honest, I don't edit many articles like this, so I'm not familiar with the guidelines for those "increase/decrease" indicators. How far back in time are we supposed to go? If someone else wants to take a crack at it, the info is in the article history.) From what I can tell, most company articles just list one revenue figure in the infobox, so I followed that model here. I think the "increase/decrease" symbols are correct now, but if I'm misinterpreting something, let me know.

Can I suggest leaving the old sentence about Stessa to preserve the narrative? The acquisition is still part of JLL's history (unless I'm misunderstanding things). Zagalejo (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Zagalejo! The increase/decrease arrows all appear to be correct. I do think that the first mention of Stessa in the History can be removed; it was a relatively small acquisition so noting it twice within the section feels like too much weight. The wording of the new sentence explains that it was acquired in 2018, so the historical detail wouldn't be lost. Would you be comfortable with taking out that first sentence? Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure that’s fine. Zagalejo (talk)

Thank you very much, User:Zagalejo!JKatJLL (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Updating Fortune rank and company announcements

Hello! It's Jessica here with another request. As an employee of JLL, I have a financial conflict of interest and will only post to talk pages and refrain from making direct edits, to adhere to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. For this request, I have just three small items:

• Fortune 500 update in introduction: The new rankings were published earlier this summer and JLL is now ranked 186. Please can this update be made? The reference in the article links to the live listing on Fortune's website so doesn't need to be changed.

 Done

• Add mention of net-zero emissions commitments in History: Over the last two years, JLL has made commitments to reaching net zero emissions across its operations. Would it be possible to add a sentence about this in the History:
  • New sentence to add: In 2020, the company committed to reaching net zero emissions from its own buildings by 2030 and, in 2021, JLL committed to reaching net zero from client properties it manages by 2040.

 Not done entirely promotional. Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Add mention of Kylie Kendrick as new COO in Operations:
  • The company appointed Kylie Kendrick as its chief operating officer in June 2021.

 Not done not clear why we need to mention all non notable new employees? Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

References

User:Zagalejo and User:TenPoundHammer, since you both have helped before I wanted to see if either of you could assist with this one? As I mentioned, I will not make the edits myself since I have a conflict of interest. Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you mind if I disengage from this article? Sorry, I just don’t want to commit to updating this page over time. I’m only a volunteer here, and I’m not particularly enthusiastic about Wikipedia these days. I did update the Fortune 500 ranking, because that was easy to do on a phone. Zagalejo (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Zagalejo, and I do understand if you want to step back from helping here and I appreciate all your help to date. I'll see if other editors can assist with the remaining parts of the request. Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello editors, I am taking over briefly for my colleague Jessica, who is away on leave. Per the connected contributor template, I am disclosing that I work for JLL and will follow Wikipedia's guidelines for Conflict of Interest.

User:TonyTheTiger: You had helped with some older requests of my colleague's a couple of years ago. Would you be able to help with this request? Thank you! GKatJLL (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review User:Theroadislong. It looks like you didn't confirm whether or not our COO should be added; shall I wait for someone else to review that? Thanks, GKatJLL (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for review of recent History edit

Hello editors, per my disclosure on this page and note above, I am an employee of JLL and have a conflict of interest. I'm also a newer editor filling in for User:JKatJLL who is out on leave and have a question about whether a recent edit to the History is appropriate to include. Someone added two sentences to the JLL page about an issue at one of the offices in London for which JLL provides facilities management—this is not a JLL office. It's essentially a personnel issue involving an employee of a subcontractor, not a JLL employee. This has gained coverage because of ongoing union activity in London (which has been happening for some time and does not involve JLL). It doesn't seem like a detail that meets the criteria to be included in a company Wikipedia article because it is not a major event, does not involve a JLL employee, and does not have an impact on the company as a whole. Since I know it's not appropriate for me to edit the page, I am asking if editors not connected to JLL can look into this. Should it be removed? Thanks, GKatJLL (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@GKatJLL: Sorry that I haven't done exactly what you said. The Guardian article is about the actions of JLL@Facebook, not the subcontractor: JLL made the request to remove the individual. I agree it's quite a minor event in the history of the company, but I can't justify removing it entirely, so I've cut down the amount of text given to it and put in some context about JLL's connection to Facebook. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Updating figures and new acquisitions

Hello! It's Jessica again with a request on behalf of JLL. As an employee of JLL, I have a financial conflict of interest and will only post to talk pages and refrain from making direct edits, to adhere to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Since my last request, JLL has made some new acquisitions and released its full year results for financial year 2021, and I'd like to ask editors to make these updates in the article.

On February 28th, the company filed its 2021 10k (https://sec.report/Document/0001037976-22-000006/) with the SEC and this can be used to update the financials and employee number listed in the article.

• Figures to update:
  • Revenue $19.4 billion (2021)
  • Net income $961.6 million (2021)
  • Total assets $15.505 billion (2021)
  • Total equity $6.413 billion (2021)
  • Number of employees: 98,000 (2021)

• New acquisitions in History: JLL has made two acquisitions that are not currently mentioned. Can a mention of these be added to the end of the History?
  • New sentences to add: In late 2021 and early 2022, JLL made two "proptech" acquisitions. In November 2021, it purchased the property management software company Building Engines, and in February 2022 it acquired Hank, a company developing AI-based technology to improve energy efficiency of buildings.

References

Would anyone be able to assist with this request? As mentioned above, since I have a conflict of interest I will not make the edits myself. Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

User:MartinPoulter: I saw that you had helped my colleague last year, would you be able to help with this request? Thank you! JKatJLL (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@JKatJLL: Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. "Updating existing routine information based on updated sources is also non-controversial" Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User:IAmChaos Thank you for reviewing. I’ve made the edits, I hope I did everything right as I’ve not directly edited a page before. Thanks again, JKatJLL (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! Both your diffs look good. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate sentence to remove

Hi! I'm Allison and I am here in place of my colleague Jessica, who has previously made requests here, as she has moved to a new role at JLL. As she has done, I will post requests for any updates that are factual, well-sourced and appropriate for an encyclopedia on behalf of JLL. I have a financial conflict of interest as an employee of JLL and will follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines by using requests and not directly editing.

Earlier this month someone added a sentence to the page that struck me as not being encyclopedic, as it is about an update that was not a major change for the company and did not have reliable secondary sourcing, which I understand is very important. Could the following be removed?

"In June 2022, JLL purchased and merged with Dwyer Lynch & Co, a firm of surveyors specializing in Rent Advisory and Rent Review."

This sentence is not really accurate. As the JLL press release being used as one of the references explains, JLL hired the managing partner of this firm. The other reference used is the website for Dwyer Lynch & Co. As this was not a major acquisition for JLL and didn't generate press coverage, I wanted to bring it to the attention of the Wikipedia community to see if it can be removed. Thanks, AHatJLL (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

User:IAmChaos: I saw above that you'd helped my colleague before, would you like to review this request? AHatJLL (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like User:IAmChaos may not be around right now, so would you be able to help, User:Theroadislong? Similarly, I see you've helped with requests for JLL before. Thanks! AHatJLL (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Theroadislong (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, User:Theroadislong! I appreciate it. AHatJLL (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey sorry, I have been offline for awhile, my bad. I was still catching up but I had to throw out my watchlist for a bit. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

India Education Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 20:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Updating figures for 2022 financial year

Resolved

Hello! It's Allison here again with a request on behalf of JLL. As an employee of JLL, I have a financial conflict of interest and will only post to talk pages and refrain from making direct edits, to adhere to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. JLL has recently released its full year results for financial year 2022, and I'd like to ask if editors could update the relevant figures in the article.

The company's 2022 10k is now filed with the SEC (https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1037976/000103797623000007/jll-20221231.htm) and can be used to bring the financials and employee number in the infobox up-to-date.

• Figures to update:
  • Revenue $20.8 billion (2022)
  • Net income $654.5 million (2022)
  • Total assets $15.593 billion (2022)
  • Total equity $6.142 billion (2022)
  • Number of employees: 103,000 (2022)

References

Can an editor help me with this request? Thank you! AHatJLL (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Would either User:IAmChaos or User:Theroadislong be able to review my latest request? Thanks so much! AHatJLL (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done, AHatJLL I have made this update in the infobox, hopefully all is fine and thanks for getting the SEC source.Noxoug1 (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate your help on this, User:Noxoug1. Your edits look great. Thanks, AHatJLL (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Noxoug1, thanks again for your help here. I have just a couple of follow-up requests. I realized that there's another spot in the article where the employee figure needs to be updated: can you fix the employee figure listed in the Operations and add the new 10-K as the citation? Here's the citation again:

Also, while I was looking at Operations, the list of services doesn't include mention of our property technology (proptech) business. Proptech is mentioned via the discussion of the acquisitions in the History and media coverage of JLL has covered the company's move into this area, so I was wondering about making a slight tweak to the sentence discussing JLL's services:

Services include investment management, asset management, sales and leasing, property management, project management, development, and property technology.

Here is a source that could be used for the addition:

In case User:Noxoug1 isn't able to get to this, I've added the edit request template for these updates. AHatJLL (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done, AHatJLL I have made this update.Noxoug1 (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Finally, over the weekend someone added "American" to the description in the first line of the introduction, which is confusing, since the company is multinational. Could this be removed? Thanks! AHatJLL (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done, AHatJLL I have made this update.Noxoug1 (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Per the responses above by Noxoug1, I am closing this as answered. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for closing my request, User:Z1720. And many thanks again, User:Noxoug1, for your help implementing these changes. It's much appreciated! AHatJLL (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Small edit to introduction

Resolved

Hello! It's Allison once again with a quick request on behalf of JLL. As an employee of JLL, I have a financial conflict of interest and will only post to talk pages and won't make direct edits, to adhere to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. An editor recently added "residential" to the description of JLL in the first line of the introduction, which had previously read "Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) is a global commercial real estate services company". I'd like to suggest '''removing''' the "residential and commercial" wording from the description. The company provides various real estate services, and the specification of "residential and commercial" isn't necessary. Media often describes JLL as a "global commercial real estate services firm" see [https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/asias-private-credit-markets-thrive- desperate-borrowers-find-lenders-2023-07-20/ this piece for example], but it does provide some residential services, and is involved in property technology, too. Rather than overcomplicating things and trying to adjust the description to cover all of the types of services JLL provides, I think it would be simplest just to describe it as a "global real estate services company". User:Z1720 or User:Noxoug1 would either of you be able to help me with this request? Thank you! AHatJLL (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done, AHatJLL I have made this update, hopefully all is fine.Noxoug1 (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, User:Noxoug1, it's very much appreciated! AHatJLL (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)