Talk:BATS Chi-X Europe

Second ref for Linux use

Hello,

I am editing this page to point out that Chi-X itself announces on their website that they use Linux. That renders completely useless the link by Vaughan-Nichols. That article is an anti-Microsoft propaganda by that person. The LSE has NOT announced they are dumping Windows. They simply said they are considering options, but NO such decision have been made as of today.

May I ask why is somebody restoring such a link in this page to quote that Chi-X runs on Linux? That article is more than that. The Chi-X's page is the official and only necessary page to get that information from.

Please don't restore that link.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.223.211 (talk)

There is no reason not to have two references for this information. If you read WP:V you will find that text in articles should be supported by sources that are independent of the subject, not company websites, wherever possible. The second ref should be included as it provides independant verification of what the company claims, regardless of your own dislike for the writer or his subject. - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason: there is absolutely NO reference in such article from where they are giving that information. That's something huge. There is no such "verification" (that Chi-X is running Linux). Moreover, that person is outright lying about LSE dumping Tradelect. I challenge you to provide ONE press note, one single article that corroborates that the decision has been made. There isn't. That's more than just me disliking the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.223.211 (talk)

You are completely missing the point - the article is used as an independent ref to show that Chi-X is using Linux, nothing more. If you don't like this article then find another independent ref that shows it, to replace it with. - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are understanding. You keep saying that I like or dislike things which is something subjective. I am stating objective reasons why such link shouldn't be included: First, the article is providing misinformation. It's like me creating a webpage which simply states: "The earth is not a planet, and Chi-X runs on Linux". According to what you are saying that would be a valid source of information because it's independent. However, that's clearly wrong. Second, if you look at that article there is no verification that Chi-X runs on Linux. The author does not say how or IF he verified that. He might as well be quoting the Chi-X page. That has nothing to do with what I like or not. Instead of addressing those concerns you are attacking me: you are saying that I deleted the reference because I didn't like the author but are ignoring the reasons I am putting forward. I understand the point but it would be ideal to have an independent verification of the company claims, but the deleted article provides NO such verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.223.211 (talk)

Please change article title to "Chi-X Europe"

Hello,

Since Chi-X Europe is independently owned and operated from the Chi-X Global businesses (Chi-X Canada, Chi-X Japan, Chi-X Australia, 50% of Chi-East, Chi-Tech and Chi-FX), the title "Chi-X" is ambiguous. Since this page is clearly about Chi-X Europe, please change its title to "Chi-X Europe", at which point I plan to create a "Chi-X Global" page.

MarkWDowd (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay I can do that, which will turn Chi-X into a redirect to Chi-X Europe. I would suggest that when a second article is created that the Chi-X redirect be changed into a disambiguation page instead. - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Logo

User:SCL2010 has now twice removed the logo from this article saying it is out of date, Checking the website for the organization shows two logos, including one that is identical to the one that was in use in this article. Which one is the current logo and where does it say that? - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation text

In examining the large edit and text dump made by User:SCL2010 here I have discovered that this is all taken from this website. The text there is released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2, but the terms of that licence have not been complied with, meaning that the edit turned the whole article into a copyright violation. I have reverted to the last clean version of the article, even though that means that some other editors' edits have also been reverted. This article is a complete mess and needs to be rewritten from scratch to avoid this problem in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi,

this entry is not a dump but deliberate. Listing the same information on Marketwiki and Wikipedia ensures consistency in the corporate message. This is standard procedure in external communications and external directory listings. The current Chi-X Europe entry has been approved by Chi-X Europe's legal and compliance team.

The entry is not an advertisement or sales material, it is an accurate description of the company and the services it offers. This is what the company does. It is not a solicitation of business, which would constitute an advertisement.

The logo is not the red logo, but the new one, with the color blue / purple. The website clearly states that a re-brand is about to be implemented and the new logo is listed on the website. I have deliberately removed it and am still reading through the vast amount of information about how to add the new logo.

The information added to Wikipedia is factual and can be checked with the legal and compliance team at Chi-X Europe.

I hope this information will suffice in order to maintain an accurate description of the company on Wikipedia - which is the current entry. Reverting to an old entry simply because the current changes are not deemed appropriate is not acceptable, as the older information is completely inaccurate and misleading. Reverting to misleading information is not in the interest of Chi-X Europe and not in the spirit of Wikipedia, which is meant to be factual.

If you have any tips on how to add the new logo or improve the referencing, feel free to share. However, I would kindly ask that the current company profile not be messed with as it is accurate.

Thank you very much.

SCL2010 (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A few points: first, you don't own the article, so you cannot insist that it not be messed with. Second, it is not a "profile", it is an article in an encyclopedia - Wikipedia does not exist as a free advertising outlet for you to spam for your client, please read WP:COI. Third, we don't do "consistency with a corporate message" and we really don't care what the company's management and legal department have approved - Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reports what primary and secondary sources have said about a subject. Fourth, we cannot accept copyrighted materials without an appropriate license - please see WP:IOWN. Even if an appropriate release is forthcoming, text from company sources will 99% of the time be too promotional to be used without rewriting. Fifth, please read what Wikipedia is not, you seem to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is all about. – ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new logo as an update to the old one, so that is taken care of. Otherwise User:Ukexpat is exactly right: Wikipedia is not here to present corporate images the way corporations want them and we can't use copyright violation text as it is illegal under US law. If you are connected with the organization which is the subject of the article then I suggest you read WP:COI and restrict yourself to posting requests for changes to the article here on the talk page, where other editors who are not in a conflict of interest can evaluate them and see about incorporating them or not. - Ahunt (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ahunt and Ukexpat, this version is totally unsuitable for wikipedia. Smartse (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Unfortunately we disagree on a number of points. The entry was a description of what the company is and what it does. You current description is incomplete and inaccurate on a number of levels. However, in keeping with your suggested content, please refer to the Chi-X Europe website in order to accurately describe the markets traded. Chi-X Europe is trading in 15 markets and over 1,200 instruments. Please note the corporate structure is inaccurate - as pointed out by Mark Dowd above. Chi-X Europe is owned by a consortium of shareholders - details can be found on the website, section 'who we are'. Just as it is your job to ensure accuracy, it is mine as well. If Wikipedia lists inaccurate information is it my job to point out and rectify, to ensure consistency of message. We do care about consistency and accuracy, hence I am providing you information generated in-house and not generated by third parties. Finally - I am very happy to have a conversation with you about this content. It is not in my interest to mis-use Wikipedia. It is in my interest to have an accurate article. And the reason we are having this debate, is that it was not accurate and we tried to rectify this. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is part of the reason as to why there is confusion in the markets about the corporate structure of the organization. And because Wikipedia is a trusted reference, it is paramount that is it accurate. As much as I see the merit in your efforts, I hope you see the merit in mine. I hope we can come to an agreement. How do you suggest we progress? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.167.242 (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, let me spend some time today working on the article using the company website as a ref and see how it looks then. I'll post a note back here when I am done, hopefully within 24 hrs if my internet connection stays connected today! - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have added a bunch of text and refs from the company website and cleaned things up, added an infobox, etc. I think it is looking a little better, but we are going to need some good third party refs along with some criticism to turn this into a viable article that will pass WP:N. We aren't quite there yet, so any suggestions would be welcome. - Ahunt (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I found some independent sources and managed to add some more balanced text to the history section. Clearly the company has had a short, but somewhat colourful history so far, at least in terms of personnel departures and this is now captured. From my own searches there is no doubt that there are lots of independent third party refs on this organization to establish notability to the standard of WP:CORP. I think there are now enough third party sources and that the text is balanced enough to remove the three tags that were on the article, but I would appreciate another editor reviewing this. - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to amend the page. I will go over it and give you feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

12:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I promised to review and get back to you.

Everything you listed is accurate, bar one thing in the last sentence. There are no negotiations with a third party in place . There has been a formal indication of interest (which means, a written letter) from a third party and the inquiry is being currently reviewed by the board. The statement to this effect is on the website, if you wish to refer to it. I would be good to amend this sentence as it is not accurate.

Overall, there is a lot of emphasis on who left the company. Which is all accurate, but doesn’t quite reflect what the company does and how it is challenging the industry.

Here is some more information. I do not wish to go against the Wikipedia rules so I have provided external, third party references which I think would enrich the article.

The company was the first to introduce pan-European trading, and others have followed suit over time (Turquoise, for example). As you would expect, with new trading venues coming to market, some of them survive and some don’t (as per the article you referenced). Chi-X Europe has always maintained that only about 4-5 of these pan-European venues would survive and we have seen consolidation in this space.

Re markets shares: In order to showcase the changes that happened in Europe since the introduction of MiFID (financial services regulation introducing competition in pan-European trading) and Chi-X Europe’s success in Europe, I want to point you to the Fidessa Fragmentation Index. This is an independent industry index showcasing market shares for all exchanges and multilateral trading facilities in Europe.

This will also help provide more accurate data re market share. What you have listed was accurate last year, but since then, market shares have changed quite significantly. Go to: http://fragmentation.fidessa.com/europe/ - make sure you are on ‘Europe’ // Go to ‘indices’ and click on FTSE 100 You will see a chart that shows you exactly how much of the total trading in FTSE 100 stocks is traded on Chi-X and other, smaller venues. This information is updated every week. Currently, over 25% of trading in FTSE 100 stocks is taking place on Chi-X Europe. If you carry on with the major European markets – click on CAC 40 (France) – you will see that over 20% of trading in French stocks are being traded on Chi-X Europe. AEX, DAX and BEL 20 are all over 20% as well. This information fits well before the end section which talks about profitability, because Chi-X Europe is operationally profitable because it had such success across Europe.

Can I suggest the following sentences – please reference as you see fit:

Somewhere at the beginning: “Chi-X Europe was the first multilateral trading facility to launch in anticipation of MiFID (Markets in Financial Instruments Directive), which came into force in November 2007 and paved the way for the introduction of alternative trading venues in Europe”. (Note – there is a whole MIFID page on Wikipedia that can be linked into. Note – the next multilateral trading facility to launch was called Turquoise and launched 18 months after Chi-X Europe). I think this will provide the regulatory context under which multilateral trading facilities came into existence.

Towards the end: In September 2010 over 25% of all trading in FTSE 100 stocks took place on Chi-X Europe, and over 20% in trading of AEX, DAX and BEL 20 stocks we also traded on Chi-X Europe.

I hope this is acceptable. Anything else you’d like to add, let me know and I can put forward suggestions / references. And I think that will be it. That will be a very accurate and up-to-date article. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestions, I agree the article is a bit unbalanced right now, just based on what refs were found. Let me have a read though the refs and see what I can do to add some more material along the lines you have indicated. - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have incorporated your suggestions there along with some refs I located on the regs. See if you think I got it right! I think we are making good collaborative progress here on the article. Do you think there is anything else that should be added, within the scope of an encyclopedia article? - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is great. thank you.

There is another hot topic and a 'fight in the media' between incumbent exchanges and MTFs - because MTFs increased their market share and the traditional exchanges lose market share, they often suggest publically that MTFs are not as tightly regulated, which is completely untrue. Such comments come mainly from continental European exchanges. So perhaps a sentence or 2 on regulation might be an option.

There is another hot topic: all MTFs combined are trading almost half of all FTSE 100 stocks; yet the FTSE 100 index gets calculated by the trading taking place only via the markets of listing (the incumbent exchanges). So the current calculation of the FTSE 100 is missing out just under half of the data, because just under half of these stocks are traded on the new trading platforms, the MTFs. For example, in tjhis weeks data from the Fidessa Fragmentation Index, 42% of all FTSE 100 stocks was not traded on the LSE.

I would like to return to both these topics and perhaps we can add further down the line. Will find independent sources to reference this.

Thanks again and perhaps we can work on another entry as well, as you know exactly how to do this. - 86.146.167.242 (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem - collaboration on Wikipedia works! Those topics all sound good as long as we can tie them to Chi-X Europe as a subject then if you can find refs then we can come up with some useful text for the article. Feel free to post any refs you find here and I'll do what I can with them. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Regulatory environment

Hi, I have some additions about the fact that Chi-X Europe, as an MTF, is regulated in the same way as traditional exchanges, with references from the FSA website (UK regulator). I would suggest the following wording – probably at the very end of the article:

Chi-X Europe is authorized by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to operate a multilateral trading facility (MTF) for the trading of pan European securities. Chi-X Europe meets the same level of regulatory standards as traditional exchanges and receives the same level of supervision, even though MTFs sit under a slightly different legal regulatory regime.

Reference: FSA document, page 11, section 2.10 – 'How we approach market regulation'. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/markets.pdf

I hope this works. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, this article collaboration method seems to be working well! I thought this subject would make a better new section, see what you think!

Also the article is getting a bit dull with just text, I was wondering if you have a photo that could be added to the article, perhaps an external or internal shot of the head office, showing the company sign or something else appropriate? (I guess there isn't a traditional trading floor, is there?) I thought it might just dress the article up a bit. If you have a photo, but don't know how to upload it let me know and I can talk you through it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

+++

Hi, that's a great new section, thanks for that. Chi-X Europe have recently moved offices and they sit in a corporate glass box, shared by a number of companies over quite a few floors. They are in the process of 'personalising' the office, but there's nothing yet worth adding apart from the logo. There will be a stock ticker sometime soon, which would be good addition. Will get back in touch about that. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.34.85 (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ahunt I notice changes on the Chi-X Europe page, which are not accurate and I wonder whether you’d be happy to put things right. There has been an agreement that BATS Global Markets will purchase Chi-X Europe but the deal has not gone through yet. As it happens with all such deals, the Office of Fair Trading needs to give the deal clearance. In this instance, the Office of Fair Trading has referred the deal to the European Competition Commission, to examine whether the merger of BATS and Chi-X Europe will reduce competition and whether this is a good thing for the market place. The press release on the OFT website can be found here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2011/67-11 The Competition Commission is expected to report on their decision in December 2011 (see notes to the editor in the press release). Until such time, the two entities will continue to exist separately. As a result – can you please amend the ownership status in the right hand box? Chi-X Europe is owned by a consortium, and not by BATS Global Markets. Thanks very much. SCL2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Hi - I understand it is quite urgent to rectify the ownership facts in the right hand box as the Competition Commission is monitoring both BATS and Chi-X over the next few months, while making a decision. If could could prioritize amending this (I don't have access to amending that box), that would be much appreciated. thank you very much. SCL2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I formatted your cited ref and added that info to the box. Have a look and see if that adequately covers the current status! - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

hi, thanks for formatting. only slight change if possible - under owners, in the right hand box. it should be 'subject to Competition Commission review'. The OFT (Uk government) has referred this to the competition commission (European level) in June and the decision is now with them. We expect an answer in Dec 2011. thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and clarifying that. Have a look now and see if that is better. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks very much. I will check back in with updates when the Competition Commission has issued their statement. THanks SCL2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Updates: Ahunt - Hi - we need to update this page now that the 2 companies have merged and the technology integration is complete as well. Can we collaborate? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs)

Sure, what needs to happen? Do we have refs that explain the changes? - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

great, thank you. I am gathering references from Reuters / Bloomberg and will pass on. Basically, the new combined entity has completed the technological integration of the 2 trading platforms; the joint market share statistics have changed; there is also management change; and we should add basic history on BATS Europe - who have bought Chi-X Europe, otherwise it would be a bit lob-sided. will come back with suggestions. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs)

File:BATS Chi-X Europe logo.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BATS Chi-X Europe logo.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Updates after the acquisition of Chi-X Europe by BATS Global Markets

Hi there Ahunt, thanks for agreeing to collaborate to update the page. So here we go. Please find my suggestions below. They are factual updates, to update existing information on the page. Please let me know if you need anything else / have any questions and also if there is anything you suggest leaving off / adding etc. And when we are done with this page, can we collaborate to update the BATS Global Markets page (the parent company)?

John Woodman is no longer Chairman. Since the merger, Mark Hemsley, CEO of BATS Chi-X Europe, is also fulfilling the role of Chairman. Done

Para 1 – fine as it is. One small type – it should say ‘exchange traded (not trades) equities’. Done

Para 2 – can we include something like: Initially two separate entities, Chi-X Europe was the first pan-European equities exchange to launch in 2007; BATS Europe was launched in 2008. Note – the Chi-X launch reference is already a source. The BATS Europe launch can be referenced with this article http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/31/bats-europe-idUSL3112064920080331  Done

Para 3 - would suggest pulling the para about the sale of the business up – so we provide the current state of affairs first, before going into history. In February 2011, BATS Global Markets agreed to buy Chi-X Europe for $300 million.[10] The deal was referred by the Office of Fair Trading to the Competition Commission in June 2011 for further investigation to "determine whether a substantial lessening of competition is probable as a result of the anticipated merger." However, the Competition Commission approved the transaction in late November 2011, leading to BATS closing the deal on 1 December 2011. Correction: the deal was completed on Nov 30th (the press release went out 1 Dec). Institutional Investor have recently written about the parent company BATS, and also mentioned the European acquisition. The article is long, but the information is there. http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Article/3024813/Trading-and-Technology/BATS-Tries-to-Reboot-Its-IPO.html?ArticleId=3024813&p=3) Done

We should also add: In April 2011, BATS Global Markets confirmed that Mark Hemsley, CEO of BATS Europe, will be appointed CEO of the combined entity following BATS’ acquisition of Chi-X Europe. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/12/mpbats-chief-executive-idUSLDE73B1DV20110412  Done

Para 4: By April 2012 the technology integration between the two platforms was complete and Chi-X Europe customers were migrated onto the BATS Europe platform. Note: this can be referenced by different articles. Financial News (needs subscription) and The Trade (no subscription needed) and Wall Street Tech (no subscription needed): http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/electronic-trading/232901228 http://www.thetradenews.com/newsarticle.aspx?id=8773 http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2012-05-01/bats-europe-completes-chi-x-integration  Done

Para 5: correction - The joint entity – BATS Chi-X Europe - now covers 1,800 stocks, in 25 indices and 15 European countries. Note - I don’t have a reference for this apart from the BATS Chi-X website. So we can take this section out; as you advise. And we can probably remove the reference to Chi-Delta here as well (or include in the Chi-X Europe history).  Done

Para 6: we should include something on the size of the joint business here – the source for this is the Federation of European Stock Exchanges (FESE). They have their own methodology of calculating volumes on all European Exchanges and publish monthly statistics. Follow this link – see sheet one EOB - and see the ‘trades’ and ‘turnover’ columns. http://www.fese.be/en/?inc=art&id=81 To date, January – April 2012, BATS Chi-X Europe has been the largest pan-European equities exchange in terms of value traded.  Done

History – can we provide some history for BATS Europe here as well, and separate the two, so we have Chi-X Europe History and BATS Europe History: Done

BATS Europe BATS Trading Limited (BATS Europe) was established in 2008 by U.S. exchange operator BATS Global Markets. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/31/bats-europe-idUSL3112064920080331 In April 2008, BATS named Mark Hemsley as chief executive officer and Paul O’Donnell as chief operating officer. http://www.securitiestechnologymonitor.com/issues/19_58/22294-1.html BATS Europe was launched later that year on October 31, 2008. http://www.securitiestechnologymonitor.com/news/22944-1.html By 2010, BATS Europe was the second-largest MTF, behind Chi-X Europe. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/31/us-exchanges-summit-bats-markets-idUSTRE62U27420100331 http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2010-10-04/bats-europe-raises-the-stakes  Done

See also: Turquoise – this MTF was acquired by the London Stock Exchange a couple of years ago. Not sure if relevant here anymore. Done Chi-X Global – under the new entity, there are no more links at all with any Chi-X Global businesses. But I guess we can leave this in, to avoid confusion. Done

External links - can we please amend to: BATS Chi-X Europe: http://www.batstrading.co.uk/  Done BATS Global Markets: http://www.batsglobalmarkets.com/ Done

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay I incorporated the changes you indicated, as checked above. Have a look and see if I got it close. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is great, thank you very much for your help with this. I have read it all again and would have 2 more suggestions. The market share we list is for December. While we are updating, we could use the April figures. the BATS Chi-X Europe pan-European market share was 24.6% in April 2012 (slightly down, but still the largest pan-European exchange). Here is a reference link from the Kansas City Business Journal: http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2012/05/02/bats-sees-market-share-jump-in-month.html And the second is this: I would probably pull the para under 'Bats Chi-X new entity' further up, to include after the information that the sale is completed. then we have the mention of the CEO of the joint entity there as well. Not sure it needs the extra subheading 'Bats Chi-X new entity', but will leave to you. thank you again for this. We will start gathering the same sort of info for the BATS Global Markets page. Can I come back to you once we are done, to update the parent company page too? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I added the "24.6% in April 2012" data and the ref. The three sub-sections in the history section were arranged in chronological order. Do you think it makes sense to take them out of that? - Ahunt (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, post a merger the chronology is always a little out of kilter. that's why I was thinking that the best structure is to present the current state of the joint entity and then provide history on the 2 separate entities. also, the 2 lines we currently have under the joint entity, sit very well further up - because they relate to the completion of the deal / integration and the management / CEO. It is not vital we move the section up, but it would provide the full current picture up front and would make more sense from my point of view. thanks again for your collaboration. Can I contact you again to update the Global / parent page when we are ready with the info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved them up, see if that works for you! - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi - yes, happy with that. the structure works very well. thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi ahunt. would you be happy to help update this page? there are 2 significant developments this year and I think the page cold do with an update. the firm now has RIE status and can offer listings; and also agreed to take a 25% stake in a European clearing house.

So we have this: BATS Chi-X Europe, a subsidiary of BATS Global Markets, is a London-based, order-driven pan-European equity exchange, or Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF). etc etc

Can we please change this to say: BATS Chi-X Europe, a subsidiary of BATS Global Markets, is a London-based, order-driven pan-European equity exchange. It is a low latency, low cost alternative to exchange traded equities and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that are listed on primary exchanges such as the London Stock Exchange, Frankfurt Stock Exchange, Euronext and OMX.

Previously a Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF), BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE) status from the Financial Services Conduct Authority (FCA) in May 2013, and is now authorised to operate a Regulated Market for primary listings alongside its existing business.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-09/bats-chi-x-europe-gets-recognized-exchange-status-in-u-k-.html

Can we please add in the history section: In March 2013, when Europe's two largest cash equities clearing providers have unveiled plans to merge this afternoon, BATS Chi-X Europe announced it would take a 25% stake in the new entity, which will be called EuroCCP N.V.

http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/press_releases/EMCF-EuroCCP_sale-and-purchase_agreement-17-July-2013.pdf http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2013-03-14/euroccp-emcf-combine-new-clearer?ea9c8a2de0ee111045601ab04d673622

thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement tagging

An editor tagged this article as written like an advertisement. In reading it I am cannot see that the tag is justified. The text seems to be all factual and neutral in nature and does not use a promotional tone or language. A explanation of exactly where the problem lies is required so it can be addressed. - Ahunt (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay a week has passed with no explanation as to why this tag was added, so I will remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahunt - would you be happy to collaborate on the BATS Global Markets page? It needs some updates and a correction. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure I can help you over there. I am watching it now, so let's take the discussion over to Talk:BATS Global Markets, so other editors can see what is going on. - Ahunt (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

that would be great, thank you. I will start a discussion there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.193.161 (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

hi Ahunt - I have started on the BATS Global Markets page, many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCL2010 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)