The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futu Holdings[edit]

Futu Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and seems to have written as a WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "Futu initiated with a Neutral at Goldman Sachs". The Fly. 2019-04-02. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

     The article notes:

     Goldman Sachs analyst Weicheng Tang initiated Futu with a Neutral rating and a price target of $18.30. The analyst is positive on the company's position as a "major player" in a "niche" internet-driven brokerage platform market that offers online stock trading services to Chinese retail investors and holds a 22% market share in terms of trading volume. Weicheng Tang also expects the offshore online stock trading market to "continue to grow thanks to asset diversification demand from Chinese households and an increasing number of Chinese companies going for HK/US listings." However, with shares trading at 50-times and 22-times his expected earnings for FY19 and FY20 respectively, the analyst contends that the high earnings growth potential for Futu is priced in.

  2. Linnane, Ciara (2019-03-11). "Futu is the first big Chinese IPO of 2019: 5 things to know about the online brokerage". MarketWatch. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  3. Zhu, Julie; Fioretti, Julia (2018-12-18). Sarkar, Himani (ed.). "Tencent-backed broker Futu confidentially files for up to $500 million U.S. IPO: sources". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  4. Tse, Crystal (2019-03-08). "Tencent-Backed Online Broker Futu Rises in Trading Debut". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  5. "富途將成中國互聯網券商海外IPO第一股 騰訊持股30%" (in Chinese). Sina Corp. 2018-12-29. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Futu Holdings to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

  There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

  According to the company's website at https://ir.futuholdings.com/financials/analyst-coverage^{Internet Archive}, Futu Holdings has received analyst coverage by:
  1. BOCI Group's Yiwen Zhang
  2. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.'s Daphne Poon
  3. Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C's Weicheng Tang
  4. UBS AG's Kelvin Chu
  In the reliable sources I listed above, I included a summary of a Goldman Sachs analyst report written by Weicheng Tang.

  Cunard (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortunately the topics in all the sources above provided by Cunard are considered trivial coverage by NCORP and therefore don't establish notability. It ultimately doesn't matter what a Goldman Sachs analyst rates them as, it's original research anyway, or how much capital they raised in an IPO. All that stuff is pretty run of the mill and could apply to any company. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: FUTU is the largest securities firm in Hong Kong which strongly contributes to notability.

  From Sina Corp in 2019 (translated using Google Translate), "At present, Futu Securities is the largest securities firm in Hong Kong with a customer base of 380,000, far exceeding its peers." The source:

  鄭瑋 (2019-01-06). "富途證券擬赴美上市 無中國大陸業務許可存監管風險" [Futu Securities intends to go public in the U.S. without the risk of regulatory oversight of business license deposits in mainland China] (in Chinese). Sina Corp. Archived from the original on 2020-05-26. Retrieved 2020-05-26.

  Cunard (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says that "analyst reports" are example of sources that can be used to establish notability. Wikipedia:No original research says that Wikipedia editors cannot perform original research. The policy does not prohibit Wikipedia editors from using reliable sources (like analyst reports) that perform original research.

  In addition to the analyst reports from BOCI Group, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and UBS, here is a 27-page report from Capital Watch:

  Cheng, Honglan; Frank, Peter; Xu, Mingyi. "Capital Watch: Futu Holdings Limited" (PDF). Capital Watch. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-05-26. Retrieved 2020-05-26.

  The report offers a disclaimer noting that Capital Watch could have a conflict of interest with the companies it reviews and notes:

  This report is the outcome of a months-long investigation, research, and analysis of Futu Holdings Ltd. and China’s online brokerage industry by 27 professional journalists and analysts from JPM Media Group across its Beijing, Silicon Valley and New York offices. It differentiates from investment banks’ reports by focusing on media reports and providing analysis from the perspective of the media.

  It collected and isolated relevant information from an extensive range of reports on Futu Holdings and China’s online brokerage industry, conducted in-depth analysis through investigations, verified the information authenticity from multiple channels, and analyzed data from unique media perspectives.

  I also found this column from iResearch:

  陈纪英 (2019-06-12). "非典型券商富途，疯狂投入技术研发到底值不值？" [Atypical brokerage Futu, is it worthwhile to invest in technology research and development?] (in Chinese). iResearch Consulting Group. Archived from the original on 2020-05-26. Retrieved 2020-05-26.

  Here is a quote from the article: "On the track where financial licenses are strictly regulated and the Internet experience is integrated, Futu seems to be inconsistent with the industry's laws, but it is actually using R & D technology to build strong industry-leading barriers"

  Cunard (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that NCORP says things like earning forecasts is trivial coverage. I assume that would include analyst's reports. It matters what information you are taking from them to establish notability. Not everything in an analyst report is gold just because "analyst report." It's still on us to determine if specific facts in them are usable or not. Maybe its worth starting a discussion about on the Notability (organizations and companies) talk page if you disagree though. If you think every little detail in an analyst report no matter how mundane or run of the mill should be usable for establishing notability, that's on you to justify and get the guideline altered based on. In the mean time though, I'm just going off of what the guideline says. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations specifically says "analyst reports" can be used to establish notability. Analyst reports like the Goldman Sachs report discussed above contain analysis about a company's performance and the risks it faces. Cunard (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the key word there ""analyst reports" can be used to establish notability." I never said they couldn't be used. Just like news articles, academic research papers, etc etc can be used to establish notability. That doesn't mean it's automatic or that context and what information your using doesn't matter for any of those sources though. So, I don't know what your arguing about. Can analyst reports be used to establish notability, sure. Do they always automatically no matter what, no. Nothing does and no where does the notability guidelines say they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Cunard is correct - analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are considered "Independent Content". Earning forecasts, on the other hand, are company announcements and run-of-the-mill. Analysts upgrading/downgrading based on earnings are also trivial and run-of-the-mill. But an actual report where the analyst describes the company in detail and discusses their business model or whatever, thats not trivial. There's more than enough analyst reports provided above and the two links to specific report provided by Cunard are to references that meet the criteria. Topic meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.