Talk:Saxo Bank/Archives/2011

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Note: WP:SOAP redirects here.

Too many people with different agendas here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.127.4.139 (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is 203.127.4.139? He/she has several times removed and altered neutral and objective information on Saxobank! And 203.127.4.139 has also removed the references linking to the sources validating the information! 80.243.125.83 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is a joke. It is so blatant that there are so many trying to smear this company's name. Unverifiable and unsubstantiated accusations are littered throughout the whole article. And how the heck would some of these information be in the public domain if it's not the work of some disgruntled ex-employee trying to run a smear campaign??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.242 (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, how does "Points of Criticism" fit into an article on Wikipedia???? You don't see that on Lehman or any other company's wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.247 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sasper, GigaVL, Rik63 and Evadanit have no credibility on this article as they have made edits showing that they were insiders and potentially ex-employees of this company —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.245 (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see my answer to your accusations in the section below.--Sasper (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement

The current version of this article does not convey a Neutral point of view and reads like an advertisement. Articles about companies are acceptable only if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. All editors should Assume good faith and work on re-writing Saxo Bank. You can also help Wikipedia by expanding it. Hu12 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Edited as advised, please comment, thank you. Dozo 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Much better, however, you can use the article on wikispam to guide further edits. Hu12 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I added some points of criticism. References are kind of hard to give. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.163.47 (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article sounds like it was written by the public relations department of saxo bank. which employs more than 300 computer technicians. Many of these technicians' jobs is exactly to go on the internet and make good publicity for Saxo bank and make certain that pages where disgruntled clients have posted any negative information is challenged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxofraud (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand promotion

why has the fact about ayn rand been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.229.164 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

please adresse the reasoning for this or put it back? 87.60.229.164 (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Which fact about Ayn Rand? The one added earlier today? If so, nobody removed it. I am going to {fact} tag it now though. --Onorem♠Dil 16:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dodgy Hiring and Firing Policy?

I'm curious whether anyone has any information about Saxo Bank's hiring and firing policy. There has been a recent round of redundancies (around 60, I believe - more than 4% of the workforce), many in IT, in Copenhagen. At the same time, the bank is still advertising open positions - many in IT, in Copenhagen. This is not the first time that this has happened AFAICT - Berlingske Tidende raised this issue last October when 39 were fired and 46 were hired. Daen (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[The above section was removed at 11:09, 9 September 2008 by 193.178.175.46 - an IP number of Saxo Bank - and restored by --Sasper (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)]

The firing policy is deeply inspired by that of former CEO of GE Jack Welsh. Rumour has it that a new round of redundancies is on its way but this has not been confirmed by the top management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.82.186 (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody erased my text. It is not true that Saxo Bank fired over 400 employees within 2 hours. I don't know who's writing it but on Monday 23 September 2008 it was announec that 320-340 was going to be fired but they have still not been sacked and its Wednesday today. The story is all over the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.82.186 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

They did fire around 400 people this friday - alot of those people were people that had been hired within the last couple of weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.161.185.116 (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that Saxo Bank hire and fire. This should be made aware for new employees that have to do research on the back before getting a job. It should be made clear that employees have been hired and fired within 6 months of moving out of their homes, selling up and living in rented, to loosing their job and nearly being made bankrupt. People have a right to that don't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.207.84 (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Which bank in the world doesn't hire and fire? I wouldn't put my money with them if they're just going to let lazy, irresponsible or stupid employees stay on the payroll for eternity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.249 (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that someone who wanted to stay employed to feed their family and build a home was stupid or irresponsible...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadanit (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is important that this information remain here and should not be removed. That so many have contributed similar information about this company cannot be coincidental. Incidentally, the law appears to be on their side as any employees who have not been at a company for a year have little protection by law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.177.160 (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would never edit this article as I am an employee but this really need a clean-up. First of all, Saxo Bbank did not fire 400 employees in Sepetmber 2008. The actual number is 309, something which is also stated in the annual report. In this report, you can also read about the restructuring of the bank, something hardly mentioned in this article but extremely important if you want to understand why Saxo Bank has done so well during the financial crisis. Secondly, 15% of the whole article is about a Aspergers Syndrome case that I have actually never heard of. I reccommend no-one to use this article as it is not liable and not very good either. I sincerely hope someone will re-write the article. 15:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.178.175.46 (talk)

Article was edited by Saxo Bank

An IP number from Saxo Bank has recently removed critical statements from the article and the talk page (section above). See this IP lookup on 193.178.175.46. Midas Fondsmæglerselskab is the mother company of Saxo Bank. --Sasper (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

At 11:10, 9 September 2008, the same IP number (193.178.175.46) also removed a whole section from the article called "Points of criticism". See difference between revisions here. It could be argued that the section consisted of unsourced claims, but it is really not up to Saxo Bank to decide this! Since the category tags and interwiki links were also crudely removed in that edit, I assume that the person is not really familiar with editing Wikipedia, nor its policies. The purpose clearly was to remove any criticism. --Sasper (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was founded by User:Dozo on 13 September 2006. From his contributions page we'll see that he was only active for a few months in 2006, editing only Saxo Bank and related talks, as well as one little edit on a financial topic (CFD). He has removed posts from this talk page (examples 1 2). He has also removed misplaced warning messages from his user page, although they shouldn't have been removed but moved to his talk page (history). Despite of his limited wiki experience, he was been able to add a a logo and later a pristine info box to the article in this edit. This is not perfect evidence of anything, but it does seem suspicious to me. Most edits are slightly POV and focused on the services the bank offers, and it does read like an advertisement. I would assume User:Dozo was created specifically for editing Saxo Bank, and that he maybe has a personal user account too. The person behind it might be a student employee, an admiring customer or another friend of Saxo Bank. --Sasper (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Danish version of the article has been self-edited too, in total 8 anonymous edits by Saxo Bank's IP numbers (history). Interestingly, one of these anonymous users (193.178.175.69) has also written a Danish article about the financial issue mentioned above (Contract for difference, CFD) - based on the English version. I think it is very likely that anonymous Saxo Bank IP number 193.178.175.69 is identical with User:Dozo. IP verification here. --Sasper (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't read too much into this. All Saxo Bank employees employeed at the HQ are writing from the same IP address. That does not justify editing your own article but I still think you are making too much of a fuss out of this case, writing it in the first section of the article and everything. Is that really the most important thing about Saxo Bank? -- Saxo Bank employee, 19:29, 23 April 2009 (CET)

Er, yes. see NPOV. -- LoneRifle (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag spamming

I removed some of the points of criticism because it wasn't documented. There seems to be no explanation why the article was so massively tagged though. Nothing on the talk page! It seems to be a "political" drive-by tagging as it werent motivated or in fact relevant. Seems that some people REALLY dislike that critical, however factual, information is added to articles on Wikipedia. I think the article is written in a neutral way, it is rather well documented using third party authoritative sources, and a lot of "positive" information on Saxo Bank is there as well!

Crashwhiled2 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Saxo Bank

From your numerous edits on the Saxo Bank article, it is very obvious that you are an insider and have worked in this company. Your edits seem to be furthering a personal agenda of yours.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.243 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 15 November 2008

Haha, sorry, but your accusation is really silly. No, I am not a present or former employee, stockholder, family member or whatever. On the contrary, I have done some work to re-insert information that was deleted by Saxo Bank and other anonymous IP-numbers. As you'll see by a closer look on the page history, I didn't write very much of it myself, I mostly re-inserted sections what had been deleted. The point was not whether the information was unsourced/biased or not, but that Saxo Bank itself was not the right one to alter it, especially not when the bank did it anonymously. Similarly, the bank had added positive information when negative sentences were removed. I wrote about it in my blog and it was cited in the financial daily Børsen. See a machine translation of my blog here (there are four blog posts about the matter.) Saxo Bank admitted that their PR department had edited the articles, but they claimed they didn't mean to control anything systematically. They also said they would henceforth not make anonymous edtits. Since then, I think I have done the unveiling job I needed to do, and have only edited some factual errors (headquarter address etc.). BTW, I think the whole article should be re-written to a more neutral style, taking away company PR as well as slander. I don't think a section called "Points of criticism" is relevant (and I didn't write it), but some of the contents in it may be moved to proper sections. The history facts are, however, well-documented by sources as you'll see in the Danish version of the article. P.S. Please don't forget to sign your posts, or make yourself a username. ----Sasper (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[Posts above moved from User talk:Sasper]

I agree with Sasper - this article needs a lot of cleaning up. Points of Critism is totally unreferenced, and the public relations section has one reference for a whole boatload of facts. The body reads like a magazine article, not a list of salient facts about the bank. Jbmcb (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reporting faults in SaxoTrader and problems with Saxo Bank support

Saxo Bank acknowledge that there is at present no transparency regarding faults in the software.

I and other users have found major faults that could well have a devastating impact on investments. Users should be made aware of such problems.

So I would like to suggest additional sections, organised by product, in the main article to publicise such problems.

Each problem description could include: a) a one-line header b) details of the problem c) its impact and severity d) when it was first noticed and reported to Saxo Bank e) response, if any, from Saxo Bank f) the user's id

Tony (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This will be quite difficult to implement in the article, because we need reliable third party references. If a newspaper or journal writes about this, we can of course cite it in the Wiki article. I think you should contact a journalist and try to have them write about the topic.--Sasper (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ownership and business model

Delete the following: "A little less than a year after, Saxo Bank suspended Charles Henri-Sabet as Global Head of Trading, pending a cross-country legal investigation for criminal insider trading.[26]"

Raison: The information from Euromoney, The Weekly FiX, September 2008 were referred to an inquiry against Charles Henry Sabet. These informations have proven to be inaccurate. (To prove that fact, a confirmation email of the deletion of this acticle by its author, has been send to the wikipedia administrator). This information can be verified, this article is no longer available when you try to acces to it from search engines Euromonney link.

Regarding this case, an agreement was reached between the parties concerned. See article in danish "Saxo Bank indgår kæmpe forlig med bortvist direktør" or its english translation; "Saxo Bank in a huge settlement with their ex Director"

--forextrue (talk) 11:32, 05 October 2009 (UTC)

Representative offices

The article says, even in its introduction, that "one will not find Saxo Bank branches in Denmark or elsewhere". I don't want to delete anything from the article, I just like to edit Wiki articles about companies and organisations I know but this is not true. Saxo Bank is indeed an online and investment bank with a growing asset management department but it has indeed offices around the world that clients can visit for meetings and educational seminars. I have myself been to the office in London, Canary Wharf, and I know the Bank has a grand office in Singapore with more than 100 employees and also representative offices in Amsterdam, Milan, Prague, Zürich etc. The article also mentions a new office in Dubai.

3:00 pm, 13 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.241.234.4 (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Image

An image of the headquarters (or more, possibly other illustrations too) would do this article good.:-)Ramblersen (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to contact Saxo Bank's Group Public Relations for pictures of the headquarters. I can release the images to Wikimedia Commons under GPL -- Saxo-PR (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathematicians hired to monitor transactions

I removed the following part of the article:

Business.dk reported that the bank has a team of mathematicians employed to surveil the clients' trading patterns.

Saxo Bank is not doing anything untraditional in employing mathematicians, since indeed most larger financial institutions employ a number of mathematicians, economists and even physicists. To a lay reader this may sound incriminating or disturbing, but the main task of these employees is in fact to improve the trading systems performance in relation to speed and pricing, and safety in relation to sniping and other unauthorized activity.

Furthermore, the secret source in the business.dk article referenced claims that Saxo employs these mathematicians to monitor individual trading patterns (in order to take unfair advantage of customers). However, and this is not stated in the business.dk article: Saxo shows the same two-sided price, for the same amount, at the same time, to any and all clients trading. This means that no single clients trading pattern is of interest.

Therefore the accusation in the business.dk article is not only wrong, but also shows the lack of insight from the secret source and the journalist who wrote it. The fact that an article was brought in an online newspaper does not excuse wrong information. In relation to this particular statement regarding the role of the employed mathematicians, therefore, the article is in my opinion an unreliable source, in accordance with the Wikipedia principles of WP:IRS

Either this information regarding the widespread use of mathematicians among larger financial institutions, and regarding Saxo showing the two-sided price etc. should be included, (which I originally did until it was removed) to clarify to the lay reader that this is not uncommon or suspicious, and correct the mistaken information in the business.dk article, or the information about employing mathematicians should be left out completely, to preserve the neutrality of the article.

-- Pontoppidan (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to verify that much information made publicly available by Saxo Bank about its business model describes the important role of highly educated mathematicians, engineers, and scientists ("quants") in the development of advanced systems for trading and business intelligence, including research into market making microstructure and mathematical finance, which is highly pertinent to the Saxo Bank's core area of business expertise, similar to most investment banks. I hope this clarify any misunderstandings. -- Saxo-PR (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to section, The 2010 Crisis: Media Stories of Alleged Misconduct

My name is Kasper Elbjørn and I am the Head of Public Relations at Saxo Bank. I am writing this disclosure in accordance with Wikipedia's suggested guidance on conflict of interest.

According to that guidance with respect to defending interests, deletion of unsupported, defamatory material is the prerogative of any user, including any person or institution involved, which clearly extends to any assertions made on the basis of sources that are in their own nature erroneous or defamatory.

Additionally, this guidance discusses that undue weight in articles discussing persons and institutions should be remedied by neutral editors through condensing and expanding sections appropriately, in order to reflect a balanced and neutral point of view.

I have chosen not to edit this article directly following large-scale changes that were made by one user, Vitassa, on June 7, 2010. I wish to highlight the questionable neutrality of Vitassa's edits, which constitute the only contribution by this user to Wikipedia to date, and then allow users to consider whether the entire section is of any merit and whether the article would benefit from a different approach to providing information on the topics, about which Vitassa has chosen to provide some material.

I acknowledge that changes made recently through other editing have gone a good distance in correcting factual errors and misunderstandings and balancing what we consider to have been a particularly slanted selection of material from referenced sources. I wish to call upon continued objective, neutral editing of the article by other users.

Insofar as neutral editors wish to receive feedback about the correctness or verifiability of content that they may provide or modify, we encourage them to do so on this talk page, in accordance with the Wikipedia's guidance on verifiability and self-referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxo-PR (talk • contribs) 08:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Office in Columbia and Rylberg's termination of partnerships

I've removed the section regarding a Saxo Bank office in Columbia. Firstly the link was dead, and secondly I've not been able to find any information regarding a Saxo Bank office in Columbia. There is information about the planning of an office in Panama, but this doesn't seem to have been realized yet .

Furthermore, I think there was a biased representation of Eric Rylberg's role in Saxo Bank. The sentence "Rylberg got rid of a number of Saxo's institutional partners that were deemed 'shady', after meeting some initial opposition from Lars Seier Christensen and Kim Fournais that allegedly were more interested in the turnover these partners provided" is not supported by any of the links. On the contrary, epn.dk reports that Saxo Bank admits there have been a few "rotten eggs in the basket" who have been thrown out, but also quotes Kim Fournais for the following: "»Men vi er også blevet klogere, og vi har lavet en massiv oprydning. Vi har sagt farvel til hundredvis af partnere,« siger Kim Fournais, som dog tilføjer, at langt størstedelen blev verfet ud, fordi de ikke genererede tilstrækkelig omsætning til banken." (translation: 'But we've also become smarter, and we've cleaned up massively. We've said goodbye to hundreds of partners", says Kim Fournais, although he adds that the vast majority of partnerships were terminated because they weren't making sufficient revenue for the bank".)

This does not support what was previously written in the wikipedia article.

--Pontoppidan (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please log-in if you are going to edit this article !

As previously stated there are far too many people with an agenda who are editing this article. I've discovered numerous times various edits where bias, POV or wrongful information has been sneaked in, by users editing from a random IP-address instead of logging in to Wikipedia. If you are going to edit this article, please do so through your wikipedia user, so we can also have a subsequent discussion about your edits, if anyone disagrees with them.

--Pontoppidan (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Undid revision by 79.157.77.42 unnamed IP-address, where relevant comments from a Danish professor in corporate governance as well as relevant points from the Danish FSA were excluded, to portray solely the negative aspect of the Danish FSA's assessment, and not the complete report that was given. Once again, please login if you disagree and wish to engage in a discussion. Making your first and only edit ever on Wikipiedia from an unnamed IP-address in this article, and changing it in such a way, reveals bias or hidden agenda.

--Pontoppidan (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I put the whole media crisis text in the Public Relations section. I hope you agree, as you have written most of it, that it belongs there. However, I still think it is very much only a concern to Danish readers and not international.

--Uae expat (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC/GMT +4 hours)

Compliance with investor protection requirements

I have removed the following from the media crisis section:

Two experts in Danish financial regulation, Professor Carsten Tanggaard, and Professor Nis Jul Clausen told business newspaper Børsen that they had doubt Saxo Bank was in compliance with EU's directives outlining investor protection requirements and quality standards for banks' advisory services.:

Since the Danish FSA has already completed its survey, and the results of this investigation are available elsewhere in the article, these comments which were made prior to the investigation no longer seem relevant to me. If you disagree let us have a discussion here in this section --Pontoppidan (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Coatracking

I think the "Public relations" section needs to be trimmed to comply with WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)