Talk:Robert Agostinelli

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert Agostinelli article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Business: Accounting Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Accounting task force.

New York (state): Columbia University / Western NY Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western New York (assessed as Low-importance).

Private Equity

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Private Equity, a collaborative effort to improve the depth of quality and coverage of the private equity and venture capital industry and related topics in Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This project seeks to collaborate with the following WikiProjects:

Private EquityWikipedia:WikiProject Private EquityTemplate:WikiProject Private EquityPrivate Equity articles

Untitled

A lot of nonsense, marketing fluff, and unsubstantiated obfuscation on this page, not to mention unreliable, absent and dead link sourcing. I have tried to clarify and match info to sourcing more accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.167.15 (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Net Worth

Forbes lists Agostinelli as having a Net Worth of $1bn: [1]. For some reason this keeps being removed from the article. I would be interested to know why - most other investors have their net worth included in the infobox.

User:Spacevezon^talk 16:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because the raw fiscal data in the article does not support a claim of billionaire status? I see that the Forbes source is listed, which is fine. I also see the actual financial information listed. Good to have both. Forbes, the blog not the magazine, was perhaps confused, as well, as their sourcing is equally absent. Can't argue with the raw fiscal data. The OGFJ source also indidicates fund value as $1 billion and not the personal net worth of any one of the board members. All sourcing now appears to be present in the article so presumably the matter is resolved.

I must apologise, but the only source containing information regarding Agostinelli's net worth is Forbes, who give his net worth as $1bn. I would be very appreciative if you could point out exactly which raw fiscal data contradicts his billionaire status. Thanks, User:Spacevezon^talk 17:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major POV problems with this page. I think the financial data the editor above refers to is https://www.duedil.com/company/OC323649/rhone-group-limited-liability-partnership/financials The financial journal the poster is talking about is http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2010/12/utex-industries_acquired.html I have to agree that Forbes blog isn't necessarily reliable and does not cite its sourcing. A financial business journal in the wake of due diligence on a deal plus actual fiscal data strikes me as much more reliable as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.141.199.223 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct if I'm wrong, but surely the Duedil data refers to Rhone Group, not Agostinelli personally and is therefore not related to his personal net worth? User:Spacevezon^talk 17:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no data available on Agostinelli's personal net worth. Only inferences can be made from available reliable data. Hard fiscal data (OGFJ) places the value of the fund he manages at $1 billion. Hard fiscal data (Duedil) also places his firm's overall annual profit at just over a million annually. A blog post by Forbes with no sourcing or hard data appears to be based on the confusion between the fund value and personal income. Personal income can best be inferred by the Duedil data, which is the only hard data available, particularly since there is no indication anywhere that the individual's personal wealth is derived from any source other than Rhone. In any event, all sources are now present and people can examine all and make up their own minds. Clearly confusion exists and the article reflects that accurately and fairly by presenting any and all available raw sources without judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.141.199.197 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is with great regret that I must admit to finding it highly unlikely that Forbes would make a mistake regarding Agostinelli's net worth. The Forbes website is used as the source of net worth in many major pages, such as Carlos Smith, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Furthermore, the Forbes article seems to distinguish between Agostinelli's net worth (which it says is $1bn) and the fund value (which it gives as $8.5bn), which would appear to contradict your claim that the Forbes article has confused net worth with the fund value.

I must confess to being unsure what to make of the difference in fund values given by OGFJ ($1bn) and Forbes ($8.5bn). Do you think this apparent discrepancy be included in the article? Could I perhaps propose we replace the segment of text 'who manages an investment fund of about a billion' with 'who manages an investment fund whose value was described to be about $1bn in 2010 by OFGJ and $8.5bn in in 2012 by Forbes' ?

I look forward to continuing in our efforts to improve the content of this page. User:Spacevezon^talk 18:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is with equally great regret that I must inform you that the source of information on the personal wealth of those other individuals you mention isn't strictly limited solely to a blog, on Forbes.com or otherwise. Many cross-referencing using various reliable sources of data and audits exists for those people. As mentioned earlier, Forbes.com's blog post on Agostinelli isn't sourced with any data whatsoever; therefore, no one is in any position to decipher where they obtained their information. There is no information on Forbes.com's blog to suggest that it reflects original research. Moreover, the opposite appears to be true. The financial journal (OGFJ) cites the $1 billion fund value in what would appear to be as reliable as one can get given the disclosure came in the context of a major financial transaction which would have implied due diligence. The Forbes.com blog source must therefore be treated accordingly and not taken as gospel or absolute. For all we know, it could be a well-orchestrated public relations bamboozling. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. Until reliable personal hard fiscal data and financials are available on this individual himself, it seems this article is duly balanced, particularly to reflect the various facets of this specific debate. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.165.221.230 (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your query, I would only suggest including "Forbes.com" blog figures, beyond their current footnoted status, in the event that they can be cross-referenced with reliable hard-data and hence triple sourced as good and ethical journalistic practices would dictate. If a second source of reliable financial hard data could be found to substantiate the $8.5 billion (meaning financial data, not simply a rehashing or referencing of the Forbes.com blog post itself), then I can't see why it wouldn't be duly considered. Until then, however, the article seems fair and balanced, as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.165.221.230 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand your objection to the Forbes figures. As far as I know, Forbes is considered a reliable source, and is frequently used as such in Wikipedia. The Financial News also listed him as having a net worth of £630 million, which is just over $1bn dollars. I think perhaps the best path from here would be to seek the opinion of some more senior editors from wikiproject biography WP:BIOG - would you agree?. Surely the least we could do is add a sentence such as 'Forbes and the Financial News list him as having a net worth of around $1bn dollars' to the opening paragraph? User:Spacevezon^talk 20:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not unless these media cite their sources of their information. Elsewise it is not reliable. It does not appear that they do. Maybe someone can contact them and ask them to include where they come up with such figures. Then it would be reliable and sourced. Greetings.

I will try and explain to Spacevezon. The Forbes source is a blog, not the Forbes magazine- editorial rigor being very much different. For one, there is no sourcing. For two, there is no byline even. This is not the case in Forbes magazine- much different standard. One solution would maybe be for an ambitious Wikipedian to contact Forbes.com blog and request sourcing to be included in the article. Otherwise I concur that much more solid fiscal data is required to substantiate any kind of personal net worth value, or anything beyond the $1b fund value as sourced to the financial due diligence journal OGFJ. The Duedil data showing $1 million yearly profit for entire company barely supports a fund value of $1b, let alone any personal net worth remotely close to that. It seems to me that more well-sourced financial data is required to substantiate any further amendments to the article's current state. Data required, or specific data sourcing within any media articles. With the current state of Wall Street and financial shenannigans one cannot be too careful in erring on the side of caution and demanding only the highest quality of information. Greetings and salutations from Moscow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.116.153.21 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the Mitt Romney article for the standard of reliable sources on personal wealth. Both contain clear sourcing of related data - one a government personal finance document filing with very precise and detailed figures. The other, again, precise data derived from a specific government filing. There is no "about a billion" or any such ambiguity or guessing. The data is sourced, clear, irrefutable, and concrete. That is the threshold we must achieve in backing up financial assertions about personal wealth: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/08/13/romney_worth_between_190m_and_250m_campaign_says/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168972507188592.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useriauppuqevp (talk • contribs) 04:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I think it would be beneficial to hear some new opinions on the issue because we seem to be struggling to find consensus. I've mentioned the forbes source here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. User:Spacevezon^talk 12:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, no one is "struggling to find concensus", consensus exists very clearly as this talk page indicates. You clearly just don't like the outcome and would prefer another one. You are already in violation of WP:NOPR and shouldn't be editing this page yourself in any case. Please move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I commented in detail on the reliability of Forbes at RSN; and see for their methods and bylines. They differentiate between what someone owns, and the assets their funds control--see their full page on him. The need for care in doing this, in a situation where people and their publicists are prone to say whatever suits them, is why we rely upon good secondary sources that know how to interpret the data. As I just said at AN/I, that they give the figure as "approximately a billion" indicates, as an honest & responsible source should, that they do not know enough to be more precise. Given their uncertainty, arguing whether it is $990,000,000 or $1,100,000,000 seems a little absurd. He might or might not be a billionaire, but since the sources are unsure, I would certainly not edit war to put in the word "billionaire". Quoting the statement and its source is the way to do it in disputes like this. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

btw, the bosston.com and wsj sources mentioned above as examples of how to do it right also giver approximate figures. They, too, are good journalists. The wsj source has a very useful discussion of the factors that make for confusions and uncertainty. Anyone who wants to work with data of this sort should read it. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at the dispute above, I think ,

Pelham Bell Pottinger

In the opening paragraph it says that Agostinelli 'is a noted client of Pelham Bell Pottinger, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bell Pottinger Group'.

However, I was looking at the source and it seems to suggest that Rhone Capital rather than Agostinelli personally was the client of Pelham Bell Pottinger. Has anyone got any sources which show that Agostinelli personally uses Pelham Bell Pottinger?

The source also says the transaction took place in 2010. I looked at the 2012 client list [2] and it didn't list Rhone Group as a client. Does anyone know if, as of 2012, the Rhone Group were still clients of Pelham Bell Pottinger?

Could I perhaps propose we replace the current sentence with a sentence which better fits the sources, perhaps as follows: 'in 2010, Rhone Group was a client of Pelham Bell Pottinger, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bell Pottinger Group'. User:Spacevezon^talk 12:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a further point, is the Pelham Bell Pottinger group significant enough to mention in the introduction? I had a look at some other chairmen of companies who have been clients of Pelham Bell Pottinger, e.g. Igor Sechin, and it is not mentioned that their companies have been clients of Pelham Bell Pottinger anywhere on their page, let alone in the introduction. I am going to move the Pelham Bell Pottinger sentence to the Career section of the page. User:Spacevezon^talk 12:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you work for Bell Pottinger and this entry is bothersome given the firm's history of scrubbing Wikipedia entries. Precisely because of that history, it merits note on this site. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the subject of this article is not still a client. In fact, the precise opposite is true, as your relentless scrubbing on your client's behalf would indicate. I suggest you revert you recent edits of your own volition before you get blocked and someone else is forced to revert them for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are an employee of Bell Pottinger and therefore a paid advocate of the subject of this article, in violation of Wikipedia policy, that much is clear. It would be advised to tread carefully in attempting to scrub or delete anything without clear consensus required to make alterations to this page. Wikipedia is not a tool for assisting subjects in bridging the gap between their fantasies and reality. Kindly take that back to the Forbes blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Value of Fund managed by Rhone Group

This issue was brought up earlier in the Net Worth discussion, but I'd like to discuss it here separately from the Net Worth discussion.

An article from 2010 in the OGFJ lists the value of the fund managed by Rhone group as 'around $1bn'. Forbes lists the value of the fund as $8.5bn (see: [3] ). Currently, the page uses both articles as sources but only includes the value of the fund given by OFGJ. I find this slightly arbitrary: why choose OFGJ over Forbes. Would it perhabs be best to say something along the lines of 'the value of the fund was said to be 'around $1bn' in 2010 by the Oil & Gas Financial Journal and $8.5bn in 2012 by Forbes' ? I'd like to hear the views of other editors before making this edit. User:Spacevezon^talk 12:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You see an unsourced blog post containing no actual data as an equal source to a respected business financial journal describing a fiscal transaction that required extensive due diligence? Really? No. The Forbes.com blog entry is an outlier and doesn't match any of the other available information or data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a discussion at WP:RSN regarding the reliability of Forbes. I do not claim that Forbes is any more or less reliable than OFGJ. I simply do not understand why we have chosen to include only the value given by OFGJ. My suggestion is simply that we include both sources. I believe this suggestion would be consistent with the wikipedia guidelines regarding impartiality and neutral point of view.

As far as I know, we have only two sources (OFGJ and Forbes) which give the value of the fund managed by Rhone Group (if you know any other sources I would encourage you to mention them). I do not understand how it is possible, when given two pieces of data, to determine which of them is an outlier and which is not. For all we know, the OFGJ could be an outlier. I think in this situation it is best for us to remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. I do not know whether Forbes or OFGJ are correct (seeing that the OFGJ article was from two years before Forbes, it is also quite possible that the value of the fund has simply increased, in which case both would be correct). Perhaps Forbes is incorrect. If this were to be the case, you must find a reliable source which says so. At the very least, you should try and find a reliable source or significant authority who adheres to the belief that the Forbes figures are inconsistent with other reliable financial data. Until then, I believe it would be in the interests of impartiality to include both sources.

On a final note, I think it is important for all of us who wish to improve this page to remember the guidelines about living persons ( WP:BLP ). It would seem to me that arbitrarily deciding that the Forbes data is inconsistent with other reliable financial data (without citing a reliable source which has also made a similar conclusion) could be seen as original research.

I maintain that my proposal to include both the values is the most appropriate course of action.

I look forward to working with you to improve this page. User:Spacevezon^talk 14:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italian SEC (CONSOB)

Should the Italian Securities Commission mandated press release from December 2012 naming Agostinelli's Rhone Group as the subject of an investigation mandated by Italy's Generali Group be included in this article? Or should it be put into the Rhone Group page? http://www.generali.com/288451/Press-release-at-CONSOB-request-corrected.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentication2864 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhone Group llc vs Rhone Group llp

The opening paragraph of the page currently contains the following: 'Rhône Group, which has a current annual turnover of £4.85 million and £1.76 million post-tax annual profit.'

However, these statistics appear to be about Rhone Group LLP. Rhone Group LLP is a partnership which is distinct from Rhone Group LLC. See Limited liability company and Limited liability partnership. Although the two entities are obviously related, I think it is important that they are not confused. Note that it is Rhone Group LLC who manage the fund of uncertain value (either 'about a billion' or $8.5bn).

Rhone Group LLC is based in New York and was founded in 1995 whereas Rhone Group LLP was founded in 2006 and is based in London. Rhone Group LLC appears to be the more significant.

I have brought up this issue on the talk page for Rhone Group.

Financial Information

There seems to be some controversy over whether or not Agostinelli's net worth should be listed. It has been pointed out that to do so would be 'non-encyclopedic and a violation of personal privacy'. However, I don't think this is the case. It seems to me that Agostinelli's net worth is part of his notability and therefore deserves mention. Also, given that the information is already available on Forbes, I don't think there are any privacy issues. User:Spacevezon^talk 16:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Robert Agostinelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Robert Agostinelli Forbes.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]