Talk:Engine No. 1

Introduction of Engine No. 1

I work for Rubenstein and on behalf of Engine No. 1, I’m requesting an edit to the introductory portion of the page. Engine No. 1 is miscategorized as an “activist and impact investing hedge fund,” the firm is instead an investment firm, with assets that stretch outside of the definition of “hedge fund.” See sources that describe the firm as an “investment firm” below.

Additionally, see sources covering the firm’s ETFs below.

Hedge funds do not offer ETFs, only investment firms offer ETFs.

I believe it would be more accurate and in line with the existing supporting citations to state: “Engine No. 1 is an American investment firm.”

Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Hi Nbaderrubenstein, thank you for engaging on the talk page. I agree that investment firm probably fits it better, it might have started out closer to a hedge fund but is more of a general investment firm now. I have replaced "hedge fund" with "investment firm", but kept "activist" and changed "impact investing" to "impact-focused", with a wikilink to impact investing, as sources talk about this frequently. Thoughts? FYI, the first two sources you cite are the same, did you mean to cite something else? 15 (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response, 15. Meant this to be my second source:

Agreed, “impact-focused investment firm” is more accurate than “impact investing hedge fund,” thank you.

I would suggest removing the term “activist” as well. Engine No. 1 acted like an “activist investor” for the Exxon campaign, but has not since, and the term does not accurately describe the entire breadth of the firm, which includes ETFs and constructive investments. Sources below:

Additionally, the firm has never publicly identified itself as an activist. Engine No. 1’s CEO Jennifer Grancio stated in September that the firm “was aiming to be a constructive partner to companies it invested in, not an activist hedge fund launching proxy contests.” Source below:

I would instead argue that “active-ownership” is a more accurate description of Engine No. 1’s investing style. See usage here:

I believe it would be more accurate if the term “activist” was removed altogether, or replaced with “active-owner,” “active-investor”, or something to that effect. Thank you.

Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I realise that there is a desire for ESG activists to contrast themselves from Icahn-type activism and that the term "active ownership" (or "constructive investments") is becoming more popular. However, we have to go by what sources say and this is not a clear-cut case of more recent sources using "active ownership" vs older ones using "activist". Further, active ownership can fall under activism if the latter term is interpreted broadly. Given the preponderance of sources describing EN1 as activist, I would like to stick to the term (although I'm fine with you requesting third opinions at e.g.,Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment or WP:3O, preferably the first).

I appreciate you coming up with sources on the investment strategy that I was unaware of, as a description of the firm's investment strategy is certainly important. I'm sure active-ownership can be fit into the lead (something along the lines of "Describing their investment approach as active-ownership,...?) or Engine No. 1 § Investment activities at least, but will have to find some time to look at all the sources available. If you want, you can make suggestions. 15 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for getting back to me and the suggestion to add the description of the firm as “active-owners” to the lede. I would recommend something like, “The firm’s investment approach has been described as ‘active-ownership.’” Please let me know your thoughts, thanks.

Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wanted to check back in on this, thanks 15

173.56.246.169 (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, with attribution given that it is not widely used and mostly by representatives in the firm in interviews or low quality sources. 15 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Since this request has been responded to, I am closing this as answered. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

I work for Rubenstein and on behalf of Engine No. 1, I’m requesting an edit to the infobox on this page. Engine No. 1 is miscategorized as a “hedge fund,” the firm is instead an investment firm, with assets that stretch outside of the definition of “hedge fund.” See sources that describe Engine No. 1 as an “investment firm” here, here and here. Additionally, see sources covering the firm’s ETFs here, here and here. Hedge funds do not offer ETFs, only investment firms offer ETFs.

I believe it would be more accurate and in line with the existing supporting citations and the overview of this page to change the industry to “investment firm.” Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have replaced "hedge fund" with "investement banking" (rather than "investiment firm") as that is a better description of the industry rather than the company type. Please let me know if you think this is inaccurate. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{{edit COI}}

{{reply to|GiovanniSidwell }}

Thank you, GiovanniSidwell, but unfortunately “investment banking” is still incorrect. Engine No. 1 is not an investment bank, as it does not provide “advisory-based financial transactions on behalf of individuals, corporations, and governments.” (Definition pulled from the Wiki page)

<ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_banking

Investment Management would be a better description of the firm as it does manage assets/investments, most notably securities, “to meet specified investment goals for the benefit of investors.”

<ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_management

Please let me know if that makes sense to you.

(As stated above, I work for Rubenstein and on behalf of Engine No. 1) Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Private equity fund

Hello again, I work for Rubenstein and on behalf of Engine No. 1. As a conflicted party, I’m sharing a suggested edit on the on the discussion page instead of editing directly.

Engine No. 1 launched a new fund in March of 2023, think it would be available to add a subsection in investment activities about the fund. Potential additions include:

In March of 2023, Engine No. 1 launched a new fund that will target investments in traditional real assets and infrastructure opportunities, such as power and energy assets; metals and mining; agriculture; and refined products and chemicals. Erik Belz, who led investments in natural resources companies at Blackstone, was hired to lead the private equity strategy.

Sources: [1] and [2]

Thanks for your consideration. Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done @Nbaderrubenstein: In order for an edit such as this to be implemented it must be written from a neutral point of view. Your suggested text and sources both seem to covering up the fact that your company is investing in fossil fuels and mining operations. I respectfully submit that if you want this to be implemented, your revised text must be clear (unambiguous) and not seem to be promotional (ie. it should not try to promote this fund as something completely new and different without proper evidence). The above edit is ambigous in that it does not describe very well what the fund invests in (fossil fuels, correct me if I am wrong), and is promotional (as are the sources in some ways). Best, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)