Talk:Connor O'Brien (alpine skier)

Founding and SiderPeru

I'd like to address first the references to O'Brien's first venture in private equity. I inserted some edits that I believe should not have been reverted. The main issues are:

There is no documentation as to why Stanton was formed, only that SiderPeru was its first investment. So it’s best to simply say that. The statement, “Being O’Brien’s first investment, he vastly underestimated the difficulties of an American lead [sic] consortium taking over a Peruvian state run company” is unsupported by the documentation. In fact, the documentation doesn’t contain even an indirect or incomplete reference to this. By Wikipedia’s standards for biographies of living persons, it is an unsupported contentious statement and must be removed.

The reference to the full partnership in SiderPeru is well documented in the SEC filing cited as the source. There is no reason to revert this change. The original drafter used a cable from the United States embassy in Lima, but the document was defaced by the website that posted it with a reference to imperialism. So while the document is reliable, it would not be clear to anyone without knowledge of these things that it is a State Department cable. The SEC filing, on the other hand, is unambiguous and lists all the partners in the venture. It makes the article stronger and more accurate.

There are several sources, including Business News America and SiderPeru’s annual report filed with the Peruvian Stock Exchange, to show that Stanton sold its interest in SiderPeru in January 2001. Stanton clearly would have had no involvement in SiderPeru for at least five years before its bankruptcy, so the reference to the bankruptcy is misleading and prejudicial, and it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amost42n81 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

ESCO Privatization and Ownership

On the subject to he privatization of ESCO, the Estonian shipping company: The entry as it now reads appears to be an attempt to deal with the previous misleading statement, which was unsupported by the documentation, that “O’Brien used family links to Estonia to privatize Esco in 1997.” The article now has simply cut-and-pasted several sentences from the source material, which are contemporary with the time the purchase was made and don't make sense here. O'Brien's link to Estonia through his mother is stated in the article and is clear, and the new text simply repeats information that is already in the article. The original text seemed to imply that O'Brien benefited from some special connection, which is not documented, but the suggestion of corruption continues with weak documentation. In fact, the Estonian transition to market economy got high marks for transparency, and some 90% of privatizations were done through auction, including this one. Estonia met the standards for membership in the European Union by the end of 2002. The cronyism and corruption that occurred in Russia was notably absent in Estonia. In any case, his ties to Estonia are well noted elsewhere in the article and need not be mentioned here except in the most general way.

The statement that Stanton partnered with Tschudi and Eitzen and other investors to purchase ESCO is correct and borne out by the Baltic Times article cited: “An international shipping concern, the Tschudi and Eitzen Group, acquired majority ownership in Eesti Merelaevandus (ESCO), the largest privately-owned shipping company in Estonia and the Baltic states, on June 7.

“The Tschudi and Eitzen Group purchased ESCO shares through the U.S. company Stanton Capital from Baltic Sea SA, which owned 80 percent of ESCO before the deal.”

Stanton was not the sole owner of the privatized ESCO, and it is a common practice of private equity to bring investors together to form investor groups for large acquisitions. I don’t know why this was reverted. It is factual and well documented.

The references copied from the Baltic Times article are also no more than suspicions or unproven allegations sourced anonymously by the publication, that have not been updated in nearly 20 years. As such, they really have no p lace in this biography.Amost42n81 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Return to Montreal

The statement, “After three business ventures all ended in bankruptcy, O’Brien dissolved Stanton Capital Corp, and decided to return to Canada in order to find new sources of financing” is not supported by the source cited. First of all, ESCO did not go bankrupt; it was taken over by the Norwegian company Tschudi and Eitzen Group. There is an implication here that O'Brien was unable to find investors that is not documented. If that's true, it needs to be stated and documented, not implied. Also, I’m not sure if it should matter why O’Brien moved to Montreal, but it seems counter intuitive that someone with connections in the financial sector would leave New York, the world’s financial capital, to find new sources of funding. Financial markets are international anyway, and Canadian funding can be had from New York if the investment is right. I don’t know why O’Brien went to Montreal. Maybe he wanted to return to where he was raised. Maybe he wanted to raise his kids in Canada so they would feel Canadian. Maybe he likes his weather just a little colder. In any case, it’s irrelevant and needlessly casts O’Brien in a negative light.Amost42n81 (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wayland Lawsuit

The paragraph on the Wayland lawsuit is another example, in my opinion, of selective sourcing and incomplete information. The sources cited by the contributor say clearly that Wayland was a vulture fund that specialized in taking advantage of stressed companies, that it had had purchased Millenium bonds at less than 50% of value and sought to have Millenium repurchase them at 100%. It says that the charges levied by Wayland (and Millenium) were common tactics. Yet this is written in a way that makes it appear that Millenium was somehow guilty of some wrongdoing. Available documentation also shows that Stanton no longer had a stake in Millenium by the time the suit was settled. And, of course, companies often settle suites even when they think they are in the right just out of pragmatic necessity. The articles cited show that there were clearly two sides to this story, but the text in this article doesn't indicate that. This episode, it seems to me, merits only the briefest mention. Amost42n81 (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Early Stanton Funds

The paragraph on the funds launched by Stanton in the early 2000s draws somewhat selectively from the source material and give a distorted view. For example, it is true that the source article says that two funds did poorly in 2008, but it also does not dispute O’Brien’s claim that investors had earned a return of 30% plus a significant tax break over the four previous years. The Wellington Financial article was definitely negative, but the article in the Globe and Mail that referred to it included significant information to indicate that the financial arrangements were complex and that the initial analysis by the Wellington analyst, Mr. Mark McQueen, had overstated the negatives. The Globe and Mail describes McQueen as Kevin O’Leary’s “nemesis,” which doesn’t mean he isn’t right but does possibly make him an extreme skeptic. It seems best under these circumstances—particularly in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic treatment of the subject--to simply state that there were losses and redemptions in the funds and leave it at that. Amost42n81 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sentence about losses

I reverted one revert, here [1]. After reviewing the source, the Amost42n81 sentence still seems supported by the source and more encyclopedic in tone. To address the specific objections . . .

• The Globe and Mail source is still in the article.
• The only additional information is the claim of 30 percent returns. The Globe and Mail quoted this number with no contradicting information, even though clearly they were talking to a source that would have that information. If there was another side to the story, I would expect it to have been in the Globe and Mail piece. One could add an "according to O'Brien", but it seems a reasonable use of the source to me.
• I didn't re-add the Stanton source, but I would agree, it doesn't add anything here.
• I think your claim that everyone loses the same percentage is a little hasty. If investors invest at different times and buy in at different prices, they will lose different percentage amounts of their money, even though they are, as you point out, offered the same price. If investor A buys in 1940 at $50, and investor B buys in 1941 at $100, and in 1942 the fund collapses to $25, then investor A has lost 50% of their money and investor B has lost 75% of their money -- even though they both are at the same price $25. It is true that from 1941 to 1942 it was down 75 percent for the year for both investors, only one of them lost 75 percent of their money.
• This is why the source explicitly says: "Investors who had bought in 2007 or 2008 lost up to 70% of their money." Taking the "some investors" or "up to 70" qualifiers out of the wikipedia article is not supported by the source.

I guess I would add:

• "Significant losses" and "up to 70 percent" is better than "blew up" for the encyclopedic voice and NPOV.
• While the source says that leverage "amplified losses," that is true of even small amounts of leverage. I don't see support in the source for describing this fund as excessively leveraged.
• I don't see anything in this source supporting a discussion of fees.
• "massive losses amplified by the fund’s use of leverage" is copy and pasted and should be re-written, per COPYVIO.

Given 66.119.135.6's gracious response, I think I will go ahead and edit the sentence back in but remove the Stanton web source and perhaps add the "according to O'Brien" if not to unwieldily... Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's good to see someone else involved with this page, and I thank Chrisvls for your contributions. And I would like to address some other sections of this bio that need to be fixed. First, The statement, “MartimeDirect…[faced] controversies of benefiting from leaked proprietary information” is technically correct, but the article cited provided much more context and indicated clearly that MaritimeDirect may have been an innocent recipient of the information, believing it had been approved by the company that owned the information (Poten), so this statement amounts to innuendo of wrongdoing without proper balance. I’m not sure why it needs to be there at all, but it should be complete. The source article states: “However, other sources maintain that the Internet company [MaritimeDirect] may have believed the information allegedly obtained from Raia was officially approved by Poten. “Site co-founder Bill Livanos said this week that he was unfamiliar with details of the Raia situation. “But he said MaritimeDirect makes every effort to ensure that market information it receives from brokerages is obtained under contract. “Asked whether the site could have mistakenly believed it was receiving contracted information, he added, ‘Things like that are possible, but we try to take steps to guard against it.’” So I think that paragraph should be changed.

Second, the paragraph about the Boralex lawsuit is odd. First of all, companies have disagreements and sue each other all the time. There is nothing about this suit, as far as I can tell, that is remarkable or sheds any light on O'Brien's life and character. But more significantly, the suit is unresolved. It is still before the courts on Quebec. So it seems to me that we need to discuss what this suit is about or delete the reference to it. O'Brien is not a major figure by any means, so why not delete it?

Finally, the paragraph on the fine levied against O’Leary Funds by the Quebec AMF also seems to omit important information, including the statement by the regulatory agency that, “Regarding its agreement with the AMF, O’Leary has confirmed that it took the necessary measures to correct each of the violations noted by the AMF and agreed to pay an administrative penalty of $38,000.” In any case, these appear to be relatively minor technical violations that drew a rather small penalty. There was no allegation of criminal wrongdoing and nothing referred for prosecution. Certainly, there were lapses in compliance, but they do not appear to be major lapses, and the application of administrative penalties would indicate that the AMF believed there was no intent to withhold information or violate regulations. My experience in business and government tells me that this was not a significant event, so what bearing does it have on this man’s biography? This paragraph should be eliminated or put into context. My preference would be to eliminate. Amost42n81 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

One last thought for today on this entry: In the paragraph on the fate of O’Leary Funds in 2011, the article quotes Wellington Financial but does not cite the information contained in the frequently cited Globe and Mail article that substantially reduces Wellington’s loss estimate. It’s still a significant loss, but it seems fair to state that the funds employed a complicated formula that made the losses seem larger initially than they actually were. The citations to the websites sidar.com and aihitdata.com (footnotes 26 and 27, respectively) are not useful. Sidar requires the reader to click through potentially scores of documents to find the right one, and aihitdata—well, I haven’t been able to figure that one out. In any case, the allegations may be in those websites somewhere, but if no one can find them, then the mentions are virtually unsourced. But the paragraph is strong enough without his detail. The point comes across: There were losses in most of the funds. Also, why personalize this by saying that people pulled their assets from O'Brien? They pull their assets from O'Leary Funds, where they were invested. So it's sufficient to say that they pulled their assets out.Amost42n81 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

O'Leary Funds

Sorry for any repetition here, but in the paragraph on the fate of O’Leary Funds in 2011, the article quotes Wellington Financial but does not cite the information contained in the frequently cited Globe and Mail article that substantially reduces Wellington’s loss estimate. There still appears to be a significant loss, which O’Leary continues to dispute, but it seems fair to state that the funds employed a complicated formula that made the losses seem larger initially than they actually were, and the source supports that. The Globe and Mail article does not say anywhere that there were losses in 24 of 25 funds; in fact, it says that initial reports indicated that there were losses in all but 15 of 46 funds, but even that figure was uncertain because of the way the funds were structured. The Globe and Mail article also says, “Keep in mind that these funds pay distributions, so their total return is likely higher. The Canadian Income Opportunities Fund 2, for instance, has a net asset value of $10.0254, but after adding in distributions its NAV jumps to $11.3261. But on the other hand, the funds charge management fees that eat into these returns.” The citations to the websites sidar.com and aihitdata.com (footnotes 26 and 27, respectively) are not useful. Sidar requires the reader to click through potentially scores of documents to find the right one, and aihitdata.com only shows the names of people who have left the firm. But what does that mean? People leave companies all the time, and the source does not allow one to draw a cause-and-effect relationship between the funds’ performance and the departures. O’Leary says it was all normal turnover. Maybe it was; maybe it wasn’t. But really, does it matter for a bio? I don’t think so, and I suggest we leave it out. The paragraph is strong enough without his detail, anyway. The point comes across: There probably were losses. As for the assertion that O’Brien “began charging investors additional administrative fees, with investors paying over $500,000 in additional fees in 2014”—well, I couldn’t find it. In any case, how many investors are we talking about? And are we talking about individual investors paying that amount or is it an aggregate figure? There were hundreds of millions of dollars under management, so $500,000 would not seem like a large aggregate figure. And surely, the fees each individual would have paid would have varied according to the portfolio. And we are now talking about 2014, with no other information about 2014. I think this is way too much detail for a bio. Amost42n81 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Boralex

The paragraph on the Boralex lawsuit is incomplete and leaves the erroneous impression that the matter was settled quickly in favor of Boralex. The only sources cited are a 2011 Boralex press release and Boralex’s page on TMX Money. In fact, the matter is still before the court in Quebec, and Boralex says in its Annual Report for 2015, page 72, “Since January 2011, O’Leary Funds Management LP et al. has been suing the Corporation in the Superior Court of Québec. The suit alleges that the November 1, 2010 business combination between Boralex and the Fund was illegal and, accordingly, demands payment of damages amounting to nearly $6.7 million (the initial suit was for an amount of nearly $14.4 million). The Corporation considers that this procedure has no basis in fact or in law and is defending itself vigorously. Therefore, the Corporation has not recorded any provision in respect of this litigation. In its defence, the Corporation has filed a counterclaim for over $1.4 million.” Amost42n81 (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Financial Regulators

The paragraph on the fine levied against O’Leary Funds by the Quebec AMF also seems to omit important information, including the statement by the regulatory agency that, “Regarding its agreement with the AMF, O’Leary has confirmed that it took the necessary measures to correct each of the violations noted by the AMF and agreed to pay an administrative penalty of $38,000.” Also—a small point—the AMF assessed the penalty in 2014. There is no information in the announcement of when it discovered the violations. It could have been months or even a few years earlier. So we can only say that the AMF announced in 2014 that O’Leary had agreed to pay a penalty. But why include this at all in a Wikipedia bio? Anyone with knowledge of financial regulations would know that these are relatively minor technical violations that drew a rather small penalty. There was no allegation of criminal wrongdoing and nothing referred for prosecution. Certainly, there were lapses in compliance, but they do not appear to be major lapses, and the application of administrative penalties would indicate that the AMF believed there was no intent to withhold information or violate regulations. These lapses occur in even the best of companies from time to time. So what bearing do they have on this man’s biography? This paragraph should be eliminated or put into context. Amost42n81 (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Maritime Direct

There is nothing in the source document to support the statement that after numerous controversies inhibited the debt-ridden business from attracting capital.” In fact, the article indicates strongly that the business model was flawed. The statement, “MartimeDirect…[faced] controversies of benefiting from leaked proprietary information” is technically correct, but the article cited provided much more context and indicated clearly that MaritimeDirect may have been an innocent recipient of the information, believing it had been approved by the company that owned the information (Poten), so this statement amounts to innuendo of wrongdoing without proper balance. There was no legal action brought, apparently, and the only result was that someone was fired by the company that owned the information. I’m not sure why it needs to be there at all, but if it is included it should be complete. The source article states: “However, other sources maintain that the Internet company [MaritimeDirect] may have believed the information allegedly obtained from Raia was officially approved by Poten. “Site co-founder Bill Livanos said this week that he was unfamiliar with details of the Raia situation. “But he said MaritimeDirect makes every effort to ensure that market information it receives from brokerages is obtained under contract. “Asked whether the site could have mistakenly believed it was receiving contracted information, he added, ‘Things like that are possible, but we try to take steps to guard against it.’” As for the situation with Spinnaker Consulting: Companies that go broke often face legal action by creditors. Why is this so important? Isn’t it enough to say that Maritime Direct went belly-up?Amost42n81 (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)