 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello, I work for Rubenstein and on behalf of Tiger Global.
The edit made on 09:16, 9 January 2025 to the article is inaccurate, and I am seeking to have a non-conflicted party revert the page back to the 07:27, 30 September 2024 version.
As reported by Bloomberg, Moneycontrol, and Fortune India, the affected party in the front-running case was Capital Group. Tiger Global was not involved in the controversy. As reported by Moneycontrol, “the big client was not Tiger Global but were funds under Capital Group.” Fortune India reported, “Several media reports have erroneously mentioned Tiger Global as the “Big Client” but Tiger Global does not “trade” as an “FPI” but the tech-focused VC invests largely in startups and deals in securities of its portfolio companies post listing.”
Thank you Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good catch, editor did not provide enough sources to verify claim. See WP:ECREE
Done Sophisticatedevening (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Disagree. There are multiple sources citing Tiger Global as the fund in this context. The COI editor's request and the sources are carefully selected to distort the truth.
- Attaching a few to refute their request. Moneycontrol, NDTV Profit. Happy to discuss, but reverting the changes for now. Bullsandgoals (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Appreciate your perspective, @Bullsandgoals. I think the confusion here is the dates of these articles. It was initially reported on January 3rd & 4th (the articles you cite) that Tiger Global was involved. However, as more reporting was done by several outlets, they realized this was inaccurate. On January 6th (the date for the articles I cited), it was reported that the client was Capital Group, not Tiger Global.
- Again, in accordance with Wikipedia’s COI rules, I ask you to remove the section. Please consider the articles I linked above, particularly this excerpt from MoneyControl, “But, sources close to the development, told Moneycontrol that the big client was not Tiger Global but were funds under Capital Group.” Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
| This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Tagging COI page and @Sophisticatedevening Thanks! Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- I am going to abstain from this one as I already did the first one, so other editors can take it from here. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Several of the later source do explicitly claim that Tiger Global was not involved here. Let's see, grabbing the first sources I see when googling...
- MoneyLife, Jan 10: "I have received an email from a whistle-blower (shared with SEBI) saying the Big Client ... is the Los Angeles-based Capital Group."[1]
- BusinessWorld, Jan 8: "The "Big Client" was Capital International Group"[2]
- NDTV, Jan 4: "The US-based "big client" through which Ketan Parekh was allegedly front-running trades was Tiger Global Management, as per the data available on the stock exchanges" and then further anaylsis of trades of the "big client" and Tiger Global, alleging that they line up. [3]
- MoneyControl, Jan 6: is refusing to let me read further than the headline but the headline is "US-based Capital Group"[4]
References
- That's everything on the first two pages of google hits that mentions who the big client is. I count three for Capital Group and one for Tiger Global, and @Nbaderrubenstein is correct that the Tiger Global one is the earliest and several of the other sources explicitly say it was a misidentification, which suggests that it's been superseded. Going to remove this for now. @Bullsandgoals, if you still object, I think this should probably go to some noticeboard or wikiproject where it can get a few more eyes on it, I'm just not sure which one. Rusalkii (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
