Talk:Signature Bank

Signature Bank has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 12, 2023. (Reviewed version).

More information WikiProject Companies To-do: ...

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment 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.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptocurrency Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency 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.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Close

A news item involving Signature Bank was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 March 2023.

Wikipedia

Untitled

This article reads like an advertisement for the bank. NPOV 19:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.91.199 (talk)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Jared Kushner with Signature Bank’s CEO, Joseph DePaolo and chairman, Scott A. Shay.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Long term disruptive editing

This article may have been the object of long term disruptive editing. I encourage any editor with knowledge of the article and or subject to review the article and its editing history carefully in order to remove any questionable material. It may be necessary to revert the article to an earlier version. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to edit the Ponzi Scheme section to provide additional, relevant information. Page 21 of the PDF found here https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=RQhhxV5o6pqIqBsCY3_PLUS_bUQ==&system=prod shows the dismissal. This is the citation used.

Replace

Ponzi Scheme

In early 2016, some investors filed suit against Signature after the company lost $66 million of investor cash in a Ponzi scheme run by William Landberg, a money manager who pleaded guilty to the crime.^[1] Investors allege that Signature helped Landberg by ordering him to shift money around dozens of accounts to cover up long-term overdrafts. Landberg was sentenced to three and a half years in federal prison.^[2]

With

Plan Administrator v. Signature Bank

In early 2016, some investors filed suit against Signature after the company lost $66 million of investor cash in a Ponzi scheme run by William Landberg, a money manager who pleaded guilty to the crime.^[3] Investors allege that Signature helped Landberg by ordering him to shift money around dozens of accounts to cover up long-term overdrafts. Landberg was sentenced to three and a half years in federal prison.^[4] Signature Bank successfully defended itself from all claims made against it related to Mr. Landberg’s actions.^[5] Infoupdates36 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

References

[1]
Vanderford, Richard (March 30, 2012). "SEC Wants Up To $13M In Fraud Case Against West End Exec". Law360.
[2]
Moyer, Liz (February 23, 2016). "Signature Bank Sued Over Connection to Ponzi Schem". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
[3]
Vanderford, Richard (March 30, 2012). "SEC Wants Up To $13M In Fraud Case Against West End Exec". Law360.
[4]
Moyer, Liz (February 23, 2016). "Signature Bank Sued Over Connection to Ponzi Schem". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
[5]
"Transcript of Oral Ruling". New York State Unified Court System. Retrieved 15 January 2019.

Not done: Please provide reliable secondary sources to support this new sentence. Primary sources, such as court documents, can only be used if they're interpreted by a reliable secondary source. Original interpretations of primary sources are considered original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 12:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bank keeps deleting/undoing “negative” truths/facts about the Bank.

Proposed Edits for Discussion

Protected

What's going on?

Adding Additional Information

Editors support the changes made by DGG to reduce promotionalism in the article.
Cunard (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I attempted to add some additional information (link to revision) to this article, but my edit was reverted by user BBB23. As I mentioned on their talk page, I'm unsure as to why this information was removed since the information seemed to be pretty similar to info that's on other pages about banks and other financial institutions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bank_of_New_York_Mellon#Operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citibank#Products_&_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Stanley#Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamated_Bank#Products_and_services

Can someone else weigh in here? - Welltraveled (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Welltraveled: I've removed the material you re-added. I've added a WP:COI tag to the article as it is clear that you have a conflict of interest. If you want to continue to push your agenda on this Talk page, that's up to you, but if you persist in editing the article directly without a clear consensus from other editors that your edits are reasonable, you risk being blocked. You've been blocked twice before, and I imagine any block at this point would be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: It's unclear to me as to why you think there's some sort of conflict of interest here, as most all of the information that I've provided has been backed up by third-party citations which are publicly available. It also still hasn't been made clear to me what was actually wrong with my edits. The information that I added to the article is similar to information that is being provided on the articles of other financial institutions. I guess the next step is to open up a Third Opinion request? Welltraveled (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I'm still unsure as to why this page has the COI flag and, in addition to that, I'd really appreciate some clarity as to why the additional information that I added didn't meet the requirements to stay on the page. Providing me with some details would certainly help me become a better editor. Welltraveled (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Bbb23. I've been summoned to participate in this discussion. In order to have some background, could you point out, please,what is the reason for being named as having a conflict of interest with regards to Signature Bank. (Incidentally, in Welltraveled's talk page I see only only one, 24-hour block; not two. But that's not too important.} Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Adding Additional Information Resolution

I had attempted to add some additional information to the page that outlines the various departments of the bank, similar to what I've seen on other bank/finance related articles, and I'm hoping to get some additional clarity as to why they were reverted so that I can adjust them. You can see a bit more history regarding this particular edit here. Welltraveled (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request for a Third Opinion in regard to this discussion has been removed (i.e. declined). Third Opinions are only available for content disputes and issues about conflict of interest are conduct disputes. While there may or may not also be a content issue here, content issues require thorough talk page discussion in order to qualify for a Third Opinion and that has not occurred here. If you need an evaluation on a conflict of interest issue, the conflict of interest noticeboard may be of assistance, but be aware that BOOMERANG is always a possibility. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

I've done some basic cleanup of the current version, similar to the way I've reduced promotionalism in other bank articles. I've deemphasized the list of products to the extent that it has in other bank articles, moved ratings &c from the top to near the bottom, removed minor local charities, substitued "it" for the name of the bank after the first use in each paragraph, reduced the number of headings, and so on. The Trump material still needs some changes--it's included in two separate sections, and once is enough. I leave that, and further adjustments to others. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@DGG:Thank you for responding to my RfC - I appreciate the feedback and seeing how you 'reduced promotionalism' in this article is helpful. What do you think if we were to combine the two Trump headings into a single heading under the 'Controversies' section - something like the below?

Relationship With Trump Family

On July 13, 2018, The New York Times featured a full-length article on Signature Bank being the "go-to bank" to Donald Trump and the Trump family. President Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump served on Signature Bank's board of directors between 2011 and 2013, before stepping down on April 24, 2013.[19]

Property transactions totaling more than $150 million financed through Signature Bank to President Trump's son-in-law and political advisor Jared Kushner and lawyer Michael Cohen are under review by New York banking regulators. The bank received requests in 2018 from the New York State Department of Financial Services for records of its interactions with Kushner.[27] The bank is also under investigation for whether it knew that they planned to use improper tactics to push out low-rent tenants.[28]

Welltraveled (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Summoned by bot. I read through the article and think that the content that exists is fine, but just needs to be arranged a little better. The first standalone section about the Trump family's relationship with the bank isn't a controversy, but the investigations in the controversies section are. I moved the Trump relationship section to the end of the history section. Since he's so prominent a figure, it makes sense to highlight the familial relationship in the table of contents. This is not necessarily a bad thing, unless the investigations turn up more impropriety. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Summoned by bot - As it currently stands, I see no pressing issues but I also am going through and making some changes to improve the overall quality. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

At this moment, and after checking up the article's edit history, I agree with the changes effected by DGG. And it is my not too speculative opinion that many articles in Wikipedia about corporations, and not just banks, are also infected by the odious bacterion of promotionalism, a lot of them in an underhand and wily manner, too. Nonetheless, WP:OSE. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I tend to clean up by subject area, and I am checking a sample of other banks. I 've once pr twoce checked every article in a subject area for promotionalism (US Law Schools, plastic surgeons) but I doubt I'll be able to return to see if what I did sticks. (if I tried to go back to everything I've work on earlier, the work would rapidly pyramid). Next up: US Med schools. There are too many banks for me to also start that myself--but if someone wants to do that. removing a checklist of routine services is very easy DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reads like a press release?

I think this sentence is inaccurate:

Controversies Section

Logo question

Diversity In Management

GA Review

Passed. Bruxton (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Signature Bank/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 00:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to review this article. Please allow me 7-10 days to complete the review. Check back each day to see suggestions. Bruxton (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyright check

Earwig picks up a direct copy of our article at a forum. In addition to Earwig I will check individual citations. Bruxton (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

A good summary of what is to come. It follows MOS:LEAD. Normally I prefer to avoid citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE but the 2 citations are likely needed. All of the information in the lead is later cited in the body.
Not necessarily a GA issue but I prefer stating US$60 billion per MOS:$ on the first occurrence and $60 billion thereafter. Bruxton (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Establishment and expansion

The section is concise and thorough. The citations check out. Individually,

Citation 17 checks out
Citation 19 checks out Bruxton (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Great helpful chart "Signature Bank stock price". Bruxton (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Operations in the final years

The prose is clear and concise covering the main points without getting into too much detail. The table in this section is espeicially helpful.

Citation 30 checks out
Citation 3 checks out

Cryptocurrency

This section is excellent and all citations check out. It is a very thorough assessment of the bank's involvement and risk regarding cryptocurrency.

Controversies

A dead link and dead archive here. Consider replacing. Bruxton (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Controversies

A very interesting section. I learned a lot reading it.

Citations all check out Bruxton (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Collapse

Have their been updates that allow us to know if this ever came true? "As of December 2022, 90 percent of $89 billion in bank deposits exceeded the maximum insured by the FDIC. All depositors are expected to be made whole"

Disposition of assets

Might not be a GA item, but usefull to read MOS:YEAR regarding the omission of year in the section.

The line: "On March 19, the FDIC announced ..." I think we the article would benefit from adding the year.
Also: "At the end of July, the FDIC". Bruxton (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Addressed all three above issues with rewording or year additions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Thank you for an excellent article which is both thorough and well written. It was a pleasure to review this article. Bruxton (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Table

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.

Close

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Signature Bank

Untitled

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

Long term disruptive editing

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

Ponzi Scheme

Plan Administrator v. Signature Bank

The Bank keeps deleting/undoing “negative” truths/facts about the Bank.

Proposed Edits for Discussion

Protected

What's going on?

Adding Additional Information

RfC: Adding Additional Information Resolution

Reads like a press release?

I think this sentence is inaccurate:

Controversies Section

Logo question

Diversity In Management

GA Review

Copyright check

Lead

Establishment and expansion

Operations in the final years

Cryptocurrency

Controversies

Controversies

Collapse

Disposition of assets

Table

Parent

Copyvio seems to be a false alarm

Related Articles