A fact from Engine No. 1 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 4 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
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. [1] [2] [3]
Additionally, see sources covering the firm’s ETFs below. [4] [5] [6]
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
Thank you for the thoughtful response,
15. Meant this to be my second source:
[1]
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: [2] [3] [4]
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: [5]
I would instead argue that “active-ownership” is a more accurate description of Engine No. 1’s investing style. See usage here: [6]
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, 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.
[7]
[8]
[9]
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)
References
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)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
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.
Thanks for your consideration. Nbaderrubenstein ( talk) 15:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
A fact from Engine No. 1 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 4 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
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. [1] [2] [3]
Additionally, see sources covering the firm’s ETFs below. [4] [5] [6]
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
Thank you for the thoughtful response,
15. Meant this to be my second source:
[1]
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: [2] [3] [4]
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: [5]
I would instead argue that “active-ownership” is a more accurate description of Engine No. 1’s investing style. See usage here: [6]
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, 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.
[7]
[8]
[9]
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)
References
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)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
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.
Thanks for your consideration. Nbaderrubenstein ( talk) 15:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)