Talk:Point72 Asset Management

User:Hedge Date added the paragaph below to Steven Cohen's page. I removed it, as it has nothing to do with Cohen himself, and is related to the trader's time at the firm, but I'm not sure it's even suitable for use here. My reasoning is, 1) it's information about an individual trader who left the firm, not about the firm, and 2) there's no evidence that SAC supported or knew about his activities, but there is evidence to the contrary. In fact, the Reuters article says, "The cooperation agreements do not accuse Cohen or anyone else at SAC of wrongdoing. Lee has not been been associated with SAC since January 2004." The sourced piece also mentioned that SAC would not re-hire the trader. Until either of these things changes, I'm preserving the paragraph here for possible future use.

On November 7, 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that a plea agreement with a cooperating witness in a multi-year FBI hedge fund insider trading investigation, Richard Choo Beng Lee, would shed light on trades made from 1999 to 2004 when Lee worked for SAC Capital Advisors.^[1] Cohen was reportedly suspicious of the circumstances under which Lee's own hedge fund closed in March 2009 and refused to rehire him.^[1]

—DMCer™ 22:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest an NPOV solution for information contained in Hedge-Fund Giant Surfaces in Trading Probe? I think what the Wall Street Journal and other media are reporting on former SAC employees is noteworthy. There are, in fact, two former SAC rainmakers in the news. One of them, Richard Grodin, has been issued a subpoena, and there is no implication by that he is even suspected of a crime. However, Grodin apparently supervised another former SAC trader (Choo-Beng Lee) who reached a plea agreement on October 13th, and who will apparently reveal information on trades taking place from 1999 to 2004 when he worked for SAC, as well as on the activity of other SAC traders. This is being reported in multiple news media, so why not on Wikipedia? — Hedge Date (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I see where your coming from, but seeing as SAC isn't actually charged with anything, how it is specific to the trader, rather than the firm at the moment (I realize this may change), it seems like it would give the topic undue weight. I suppose the article could mention the fact that there's an "investigation" taking place. It would have to clearly state that the firm itself has not been charged with any wrongdoing. I'll add it, let me know what you think —DMCer™ 10:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's good. I realize the tone is delicate, given that SAC has not been accused of wrongdoing. I have read in several places that a five year statute of limitation exists on insider trading, so these 1999-2004 trades are unlikely to result in charges. I may add that point. — Hedge Date (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the statute of limitations. The unspoken implication of the recent Bloomberg story is that Lee and the five as-yet-unnamed cooperating co-conspirators will be giving foundational testimony for insider trading taking place during the past five years, though we obviously don't know if those trades involve SAC or spin-off funds financed by Cohen. — Hedge Date (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, looks fine to me.—DMCer™ 22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/as-investors-bail-out-sac-shows-a-brave-face/?src=recg ; this seems a noteworthy addition - mass withdrawal of outside money at SAC. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

They changed their name to Point72 Asset Management.--Monstermike99 (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The old website www.sac.com does not redirect to their new website http://point72.com/ BrianStanton61 (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I moved the article to the new name and noted the name change in the History section with a reference. Bahooka (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I work for Point72. I would like to help make this article better reflect current factual information about Point72, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and standards (and I do understand that Wikipedia is not a place to do marketing, etc.) While there are some more substantial issues to discuss, at the moment I have two specific requests which I believe are straightforward -- both updates to the infobox in the upper right. Both have citations. These are the edits -- to replace each of the lines, "industry" and "aum":

| industry =financial services^[1]

| aum =$11 billion (2015)^[2][3]

-AlexReads (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@TheSoundAndTheFury, BrianStanton61, and Bahooka: Could you take a look at my request above? -AlexReads (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done, AlexReads. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There are several issues with the accuracy of this article. In the interest of keeping in accurate, and in line with what has been reported in independent/reliable sources, here are some things it would be good to address:

• Regarding the discussion above (“Name change”), SAC is a distinct entity from Point72. SAC still exists, though it is winding down. Recent coverage reflects this better than the media coverage that was available in 2014 when that was under discussion. See for instance: A number of points in this article should be rewritten to reflect that they are not identical, to remove instances where statistics (e.g. the number of employees) from SAC remain in the article that is now titled “Point72…”, etc.
• Relatedly, the lead sentence, which characterizes Point72 as a group of hedge funds, is inaccurate. Point72 is a family office, and does not manage money from outside investors (a recent ruling would permit that no sooner that January 2018). See
• Given the distinction between SAC and Point72, what is the best way to proceed? I can understand that much media coverage in 2014 implied they were the same entity, so the decision that was made then (to proceed with a merged article) may have been the most logical at the time. But it seems to me it would be easier to present accurate information clearly if there were two separate articles. If it’s kept all as one article, it will be important to attend to this detail throughout the article. Any updated thoughts on this -- one article or two?
• There was a hoax edit in 2013 -- some of the cities have been removed, but other cities, and the incorrect numbers, are still there. Furthermore, even the cities that were already in the article at that time -- SF, Hong Kong, etc. -- were not mentioned in the source cited. That last point is not really a problem, as those cities are accurate -- I can come up with sources that support it. The cleanest way to handle this might be to just replace with the following text and citations:
  • Point72 has offices in Stamford, Connecticut, New York City, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, and London. SAC Capital previously maintained satellite offices in Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago.
    • http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/amid-plea-negotiations-sac-capital-retrenches/
    • http://www.reuters.com/article/sac-asia-idUSHKG13621520091204
    • http://www.institutionalinvestorsalpha.com/Article/2400624/Search/Inside-SACs-shark-tank.html

Pinging Onel5969, TheSoundAndTheFury BrianStanton61Bahooka. AlexReads (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi AlexReads, thanks for bringing these up and pinging me. I think you should just go ahead with the changes. Let's see if there's anything to dispute afterwards. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you TheSoundAndTheFury. I've started making some of these edits, and will continue gradually. -AlexReads (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Today I've made several edits to clarify the distinction between Point72 and SAC Capital. I removed one sentence from the history section that is now better described in the lead section: in the process, I removed the following Wall Street Journal citation: Copeland, Rob (March 11, 2014). "SAC Seeks a New Start as 'Point72'". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 12, 2014. -AlexReads (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Above (see #Name change from 2014), editors considered whether Point72 and SAC should have separate articles. Recent press coverage has more clearly established that in spite of some shared history, Point72 is a legally distinct entity from SAC. SAC continues to exist, separately (in a "wind-down" mode, per SEC settlement). I acknowledge that some sources have referred to Point72 as a "renamed" SAC; but increasingly, sources are correctly identifying them as separate entities, and referring to Point72 as the "successor" to SAC. (See, for instance, the MarketWatch and Bloomberg articles I recently cited in the lead section; there are others as well.)

I believe readers would be best served with two articles; each article could explain the relationship to the other entity, and link to the other Wikipedia article.

I appreciate Wikipedia editors supporting me in making some factual updates, even as a Point72 employee. But to make a split is a bigger issue, and I hope to hear some others' views on that before making any decision. -AlexReads (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@TheSoundAndTheFury, BrianStanton61, Bahooka, Onel5969, and Shawnc: I have inquired with several WikiProjects, but have not gotten any feedback on the idea of splitting this article. I firmly believe it is the right thing to do, and it is well-supported by independent sources; but because I work for Point72, I am hesitant to take this action without any feedback. Could any of you take a look at my suggestion above? I realize a split will result in a tiny stub for Point72, and I plan to add some basic (and carefully sourced) information about Point72's business divisions, etc. I will try to do that in the next couple days. -AlexReads (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

After nearly two weeks, and having notified several WikiProjects without response, I felt it was safe to conclude this split was uncontroversial. I moved the information about SAC to its own article: S.A.C. Capital Advisors and I have adjusted redirects as best I could. Let me know if there are any concerns. -AlexReads (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have now finished what I think is a complete overview of Point72. I appreciate the input I have had from other Wikipedians along the way, and I have done my best to include lots of citations and maintain a neutral point of view. But since I know I am not supposed to "own" the article, I will now turn my attention elsewhere. As always, I look forward to any feedback or further improvements from other Wikipedians. -AlexReads (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:UnitedStatesian and any other interested volunteer editors: My name is Xan, and I have been editing pages as part of my job on behalf of Point72 for several years, with the approval of the volunteer community. I would like to update the article by adding new Assets Under Management (AUM) information, the opening of offices in Sydney, Australia, and San Francisco, and the naming of Gavin O’Connor as COO. (The COO essentially manages most major business functions on a daily basis.) I have good references for all these updates. I would greatly appreciate your opinions on these edits. I am happy to make them if you approve. Thanks!

Here are the references for the above edits. I do not yet have a reference for the San Francisco office, so I can either wait until I do, or add it now for accuracy’s sake.

^{[1] [2] [3]} AlexReads (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello User:UnitedStatesian and any other interested volunteer editors: I am going to go ahead and make the above updates, and I still welcome comments from the community on these changes. Thank you! AlexReads (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:WestportWiki. I wanted to share with you the page updates for which I would like to request your help. Currently, there are only three. They are as follows:

1. In the second paragraph of the History section, I’d like to add this sentence just before the last sentence that starts with "During this time…":

O’Connor left Point72 in 2019 and Tortorella assumed the role of General Counsel.^[1]

2. In the second to last paragraph in History about satellite offices, I’d like to add our San Francisco and Warsaw offices.

So, the end of the sentence would now be ...Sydney, Palo Alto, San Francisco, and Warsaw.^[2]

3. Under Cubist Systematic Strategies, I would like to add a sentence to the end as follows.

In 2020, Point72 hired Denis Dancanet, a former partner at quantitative hedge fund PDT, to head the unit.^[3]

Thank you for your review and consideration of these updates. Best! AlexReads (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, this page could use some updating and cleanup.

Please add to the "2014-2019" subsection of History:

• In 2015, the firm created Point72 Academy,^[1] a 15-month paid program to train college graduates to work for the firm,^[2] and in 2016, the program began recruiting college graduates from Europe and Asia.^[3] That same year, the firm started Point72 Ventures, a venture capital unit focused on developing financial technology.^[4] In June 2025, Point72 Ventures helped fund series A for CX2, a military technology startup.^[5]

Please add to the "2020 to present" subsection of History:

• In March 2020, Point72 hired Mo Grimeh as head of its macro investing business,^[6] and created Point72 Hyperscale, a hybrid venture and private equity fund for early-stage AI technology companies.^[7] In 2025, Point72 Turion began as a stock-picking hedge fund focused on AI.^[8]

Thank you very much.Mrsnewyork (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Dahawk04 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Dahawk04 thank you for reviewing, I have made the changes! Mrsnewyork (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Already done Dahawk04 (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

Hi again, I'd like to suggest a few more updates to the article:

• Please add the following explanation of Point72 Ventures: Initially, Point72 focused on fintech startups before shifting focus to additional sectors such as investing in AI, defense technology and consumer startups.
• In 2025, Point72 Turion began as a stock-picking hedge fund focused on AI - please add to this sentence that in 2025, Point72 Turion had $1.5 billion in assets.^[1]
• The "Nines" program was created in 2012 for analysts to build a team and test strategies. It was renamed LaunchPoint in 2020.^[2]
• Point72 has offices in Miami,^[3] Seattle,^[4] Dubai,^[5] Milan^[6] and Bengaluru^[7]
• In 2008, Harry Schwefel joined the firm and was appointed as co-CIO in 2018.^[8]
• Timothy Shaughnessy is currently listed as CEO in the article. Please correct to Chief operating officer. See this source for verification.

Thank you Mrsnewyork (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I could validate the Miami office and Turion fund AUM. Will review others time permitting VacFiller (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks VacFiller! The list of references at the bottom of my edit request has sources to support inclusion of the remaining information. Mrsnewyork (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mrsnewyork:, a few notes here. The first is that I added this primary source to footnotes in the information box. Normally primary sources are not to be used but if it is verifying basic information then it is acceptable. I updated leadership positions based on that link. For future requests, I would suggest you change the website so you do not have to bring in references from various sources to support. This also keeps the list evergreen. Be back with more comments shortly. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

For the line "...Harry Schwefel joined the firm and was appointed...", this is the kind of company jargon that isn't necessary. Readers don't care when someone was appointed. In fact, I was going to remove the information about early hirings but it seems relevant to one of the accusations made by the New York Times. So unless there is something notable about the appointment, I would not be willing to add it. Others may disagree so up to them what they would want to do here.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

For "...Timothy Shaughnessy is currently listed as CEO...", adding to the comment above actually. I do not see this person on the company website which is the precise reason why the primary source should be used for such information. Since there is nothing relevant to them, I simply removed their appointment from the body altogether. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

For office locations, these should never be in the body unless there is some relevance to them. Simply listing offices is not encyclopedic. I did add them to the information box as general information but removed the rest from the body. Again, I am using a primary source so that you do not need to keep tracking down different sources for when locations change. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing on the page about LaunchPoint currently. If you are suggesting that it be added, it would need to be written different than how you proposed as it does not provide much context. I would suggest coming up with a brief overview of what the company does such as its funds and then propose it in a new section, keeping WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO in mind. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Finally, there is no source for your first proposed change. I would also suggest you incorporate that into a request for a brief overview about what they offer as that could then be added to the lead potentially. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that is all. I would like to reiterate that it is important to use the edit request feature for COI edits as opposed to requesting on user's talk pages. I do realize that the queue for requests can be long and take time, but it is necessary to avoid the appearance of canvassing. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Partly done: See comments herein. CNMall41 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi CNMall41, thank you for your extensive cleanup of this article and constructive feedback. I have used the edit request tag for both my requests, I understand its necessity.

To your point about including a source to further contextualize Point72 Ventures, I've included the source on the page, with 2 additional sources, for convenience below:

@Mrsnewyork:, I realized you used the edit request template, but that was not the reason I pointed it out. I was pointing out the user talk page requests which again, can give the impression of canvassing. Just something to keep in mind. Unfortunately, I cannot access the Bloomberg or Forbes articles as they are paywalled. I would suggest formatting everything as a new request so others with immediate access to the sourcing can review. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Initially, Point72 Ventures focused on fintech startups^[1] before shifting focus to additional sectors such as investing in AI^[2] and defense technology startups.^[3][4]

I have also written further context for Point72 Launchpoint below, taking into consideration your points about WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO:

• The "Nines" program was created in 2012 for analysts to build a team and test strategies and as of 2020, has trained over 70 long/short managers.^[5] The program was renamed Launchpoint in 2020; it trains portfolio managers to create a business plan and investing strategy, and build a team.^[6][7] As of 2023, 50% of Point72's long/short managers were from Launchpoint.^[8]

Finally, a clarification that Andrew B. Cohen is the CIO for Cohen Private Ventures, not Point72 Asset Management see company website and here is a second source. His listing in the Infobox as CIO is a bit misleading.

Thank you again Mrsnewyork (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@OscarGuy1000: The past tense of "to plead" is "pleaded" (sometimes "pled", but "pleaded" is more common). "Plead" is present tense. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Pled is the informal of pleaded so either works, but you are correct that "plead" is present tense. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist.

In a continued effort to bring this article further within Wikipedia guidelines, I suggest consolidating the "History" subsections under the heading, "Background and history," as it will streamline the content and chronology.

Second, I suggest the following language update for the opening "Background and history" section, both for WP:RELEVANCE and for further context to the founding of Point72. I tweaked the existing language a bit, expanding on Cohen's personal SEC settlement, as well as Point72's efforts to develop their legal and compliance teams. I also updated many of the references according to WP:RS:

Background and History

Point72 was founded in 2014 by Steve Cohen as a family office,^[1][2] following Cohen's former company, SAC Capital, pleading guilty to federal insider trading charges and paying a $1.8 billion fine.^[3] Cohen himself was not personally charged with insider trading.^[4] In 2016, Cohen reached a settlement with the SEC over failure to supervise one of the employees convicted of insider trading, a charge he neither admitted or denied, and agreed not to manage outside capital for two years.^[5] Following that period, in 2018, Cohen resumed operations as a registered investment advisor and Point72 opened to external investors.^[6][7] Point72 also took measures to develop its legal and compliance departments, including hiring Vincent Tortorella as chief compliance and surveillance officer,^[8][9] and Kevin J. O'Connor (attorney) as in-house attorney.^[10] Tortorella's compliance team included former CIA, FBI and SEC personnel.^[11]

Finally, CNMall41 suggested that I include greater context for Point72 Ventures in a new request, as the sources I used are paywalled. For convenience, I included both links to the archived versions of the articles, as well as quotes from the article to support the content:

Point72 Ventures:

• Initially, Point72 Ventures focused on fintech startups:

Quote: "Billionaire Steven Cohen’s investment firm is starting a venture capital unit to fund and help develop financial technology for asset managers."^[12]

before shifting focus to additional sectors such as investing in AI^[13]

Quote: "Cohen’s firm, Point72 Asset Management, set up the new investment vehicle in March under the name Point72 Ventures...It will provide early stage capital, along with advice and feedback, to startups in fields such as data mining, artificial intelligence, and machine learning."

and defense technology startups^[14][15]

Quote from Bloomberg: "Billionaire Steve Cohen’s Point72 Asset Management is raising its first venture capital fund for clients, seeking to bet on the “urgent” need for defense technology startups."

Quote from Forbes: "Billionaire Steve Cohen’s venture capital arm, Point72 Ventures, is pivoting away from fintech and crypto...The firm will instead shift more focus to investing in artificial intelligence and defense technology startups..."

Thank you Mrsnewyork (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Not done: The proposed changes are removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist. Encoded  Talk 💬 16:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Encoded, thanks for reviewing my request. I'd like to take another stab at this, as this section could use some cleanup to fix the primary source and "citation needed," and tighten the language. I know that the history of SAC Capital Advisors is intertwined with the founding of Point72, however, SAC has its own article that expands on the insider trading lawsuit. Below is a revised version of the first paragraph of the 2014 to 2019 subsection, which now includes the context that I omitted in the rpevious version. If you have time, would you mind looking this over? Thanks!

Background and History

Point72 was founded in 2014 by Steve Cohen as a family office,^[1][2] following an 11-year investigation which culminated in Cohen's former company, SAC Capital, pleading guilty to federal insider trading charges and paying a $1.8 billion fine.^[3] Cohen himself was not personally charged with insider trading.^[4] In 2016, Cohen reached a settlement with the SEC over failure to supervise one of the employees convicted of insider trading, a charge he neither admitted or denied, and agreed not to manage outside capital for two years.^[5] Additionally, Point72 was initially not allowed to manage money from outside investors.^[3] Following that period, in 2018, Cohen resumed operations as a registered investment advisor and Point72 opened to external investors.^[6][7] Point72 also took measures to develop its legal and compliance departments, including hiring Vincent Tortorella as chief compliance and surveillance officer,^[8][9] and Kevin J. O'Connor (attorney) as in-house attorney.^[10] Tortorella's compliance team included former CIA, FBI and SEC personnel.^[11]

I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Mrsnewyork (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)