Talk:IEX

Source

Here is a source that might be useful for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

And another. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal

• Reject. There is more than enough notable stuff in Katsuyama's bio to warrant a separate piece. Lfstevens (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Katsuyama's article isn't very well fleshed out now, but there is enough information in Flash Boys for a substantial article that isn't just about IEX. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Brad Katsuyama profile reads like a description of IEX. I agree that he has his own bio. It just does not refelct in the article. Anyway, i removed the merge proposal. Hopefully it will be rectified int he future Jazi Zilber (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Point of view

I believe there are multiple issues with this article in its current form. I closely followed the news regarding Flash Boys, IEX, Micheal Lewis, the HFT debate connected with it, and given the overall reception I think the newly added section Criticisms is unbalanced and largely undue.

Furthermore, I think there are profound issues with almost all edits done by Sophie.grothendieck and would like to invite her to explain how her additions fit into the Wikipedia rules. For example, if I look at this edit I have to wonder how justified the added text is since it appears poorly sourced, not to say manufactured. The edit claims that Katsuyama agrees that this practice is unfair to non-broker participants, but concedes that they cannot do anything about the core issue unless the IEX had "100% of the [trading] volume" in United States. Yet when I actually watch the video link, I get this:

Interviewer: "Is that fair though to the other folks who are getting jumped of ahead in line?" Katsuyama: "Well I think if we were the only market out there, if we had a hunderd percent of the volume, I could see the case against it, saying that it favours bigger brokers."

Katsyama answered the question in hypothetical subjunctive, i.e. he does not see the case agains it, which clearly means he did not agree. It pretty much turns out that Katsyama said the opposite of what the edit claims he said. Also the language concedes that they cannot do anything is completely undue and reveals a strongly negative point of view.

I also have technical issues with the added article text. It should be possible to explain how broker participants as claimed in the edit are able to jump ahead in line, thereby disadvantaging non-broker participants such as regular retail investors. As it turns out, IEX states that it will only have brokers as subscribers. So how does a "non-broker participant" even become a "participant"? Unfounded and factually wrong criticism is rarely encyclopedic. KristinaChi (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest between IEX and its major equity owners

This sub-section is original research as far as I can tell. It keeps using phrases like Several investors fear and critics have pointed out and the same critics contend that without ever specifying who those people are. No reference is provided for either these dubious people nor was I able to find the public debate about that alleged conflicts of interest. KristinaChi (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed some of the added material, partly per the comments above, and also because some of it is unsourced. I left in "Critics point out..." since I'm on a train and can't watch the video at the moment; I assume it says something to that effect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's implicit to most native English speakers from the interview that Katsuyama agrees that this is an unfair practice, but rather expresses a powerlessness to do anything about it. Sophie.grothendieck 03:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

INTERVIEWER: Is that fair though to the other folks who are getting jumped of ahead in line? KATSUYAMA: Well I think if we were the only market out there, if we had a hunderd percent of the volume, I could see the case against it, saying that it favours bigger brokers.

Also, I think that it's very irresponsible to revert my changes, including the change that correctly identifies IEX as a dark pool rather than an "American exchange". Reporting requirements for dark pools and regulated exchanges are very different, and this is based on objective criteria mandated by the SEC. Please see for instance this independent source.

Here is an article from Scott Locklin that states most of the points in the "Conflicts of interest between IEX and its major equity owners" section. Scott Locklin is a well-known personality in quantitative finance circles, are his views not reflective of the views by at least a portion of the public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophie.grothendieck (talk • contribs) 05:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sophie.grothendieck, IEX was correctly identified as a dark pool before you made you first edit. Your "implicit" as you say interpretation of a primary source is original research. Scott Locklin has no Wikipedia page, which may suggest a lack of relevance. Locklin's personal opinions that he posts on his wordpress blog are not encyclopedic. Reliable, published sources are needed to add such content. KristinaChi (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it was called an "American exchange" before I edited the article, and the edit history shows that you reverted it to that version until MrBill undid your edit. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, Mike Christie - please bear in mind that KristinaChi's account appears to have been started solely to revert my edits and the great lengths (longer write-up than the edits I made, in fact) he/she has taken to defend IEX appear to suggest that KristinaChi may be an insider. I work at a buy-side firm and you can carry out a reverse-lookup of my IP address (see the edit history of this talk page) to verify this. My firm engages in a mix of quantitative trading in global asset classes in various time horizons (including long-term macro trades) and we do not engage in U.S. equities trading. As such, I am writing these views with an independent assessment of the facts. On the other hand, KristinaChi deliberately started his/her account with a name impersonating one of my colleagues at MIT and claims to be a "professional trader" (my colleague would not call herself a "professional trader" as we all originate from mathematical research backgrounds). I urge we contact an administrator for suspected sockpuppetry and criminal impersonation. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

KristinaChi, I do not know what personal affront you take with either my firm or my colleague, but I think it is incredibly rude that you are impersonating and implicating the reputation of someone uninvolved in this. If you are involved in IEX in any way, you have my attention and I am willing to put this trespassing behind us to have a fair and reasoned debate here with you. But this is between us and has nothing to do with my colleagues. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sophie.grothendieck, is your firm doing HFT? KristinaChi (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

As I've mentioned, we carry out a mix of quantitative strategies in various time horizons. I cannot make a qualifed statement if we are "doing HFT" because I do not believe there is a general consensus on the definition of that term. We do focus on developing bleeding-edge technology to protect ourselves against predatory practices from certain high-speed traders. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to rephrase the question I just asked before. Does this defintion apply to your firm? KristinaChi (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that's an accurate description of what I consider to be "high-frequency trading" but if that is the definition that you go by, then no, we do not meet those criteria. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears to me you may be dodging my question. I'll rephrase again: how much does your firm spend on infrastructure, i.e. colocation, direct exchange connectivity, data feeds etc. per month approximately? KristinaChi (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• If one believes an editor may have a conflict of interest the appropriate step is to post a message to their talk page asking them to disclose any conflict of interest. If the response is unsatisfactory the next appropriate step is to take it to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. This is not appropriate content for this talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Quality sources

I was looking for published sources that cover conflicts of interest regarding IEX, here's what I got:

"IEX emphasizes that to avoid conflicts of interest, its ownership consists of buy-side asset managers and that anyone that trades directly on IEX (i.e., broker dealers) cannot be owners of the alternative trading system (ATS)." Barrons

"IEX avoids this conflict of interest by not engaging in proprietary trading or having any “prop trading” affiliates. Investor-owned only – In order to avoid any perceived conflicts of interest, IEX is owned only by investors (individual and buy-side institutions) who first need to hand their orders to brokers. IEX does not permit any entity that could trade directly on the exchange – such as a bank or brokerage – to take a stake in it." Forbes

"To avoid conflicts of interest, IEX doesn’t let brokers or traders such as Virtu own stakes. Only money managers such as Brandes Investment Partners, David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital Inc. and Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management LP are owners." Bloomberg

As it turns out, reliable sources publish the opposite of what the sub-section currently says, whereas the section's alleged conflict of interest isn't attributable to its references, save for the wordpress blog link that reads and looks like a smear. The cited Herbalife article is not about and doesn't mention IEX or conflicts of interest. KristinaChi (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

OK so looking at the current content,

"Several investors and finance experts, such as Scott Locklin, fear that there are significant conflicts of interest between IEX and its major equity owners."

This is not supported by the source. Where does the source say "several investors and finance experts" seems there is only the one, Scott Locklin himself. The source is not reliable. Its just a blog post that isn't referenced by any secondary source. There is no support for referring to Locklin as an "investor and finance expert". No WP page for Locklin. Does he have multiple publications in the academic press? Has a notable reliable source referred to Locklin as a finance expert?

Short version. Content has to go, no RS, not supported by poor source given.

"Most dark pools, such as Liquidnet and RiverCross Securities, are independently-owned and therefore only facilitate trades, and do not trade against their own customers."

No reference given this sounds like original research, has a reliable source said this, or is it the synthesis of a WP editor. Has to go.

"On the other hand, critics have pointed out that large buy-side trading firms own a significant stake in IEX and could pose a problem." This doesn't appear anywhere in the source given. It has to go.

"These include Bill Ackman's firm, Pershing Square Capital Management, which was notorious for shorting $400 to $500 million of stock in Herbalife." First this in unclear is Pershing one of the critics? Nothing in the reference says anything about IEX. Pershing's activities that are unrelated to IEX have no place in this article. If a reference doesn't discuss the subject of the article in any way, it's not a reference for content in the article.

I am going to cut this content and await a suggestion of content based on the reliable sources which actually discuss the subject given above. I welcome other editors to read these sources and evaluate their overall description of, evaluation of and position on IEX. In other words make sure there is no cherry picking going on and if there is further material in these articles which could be used to develop content for the article. Thanks for everyone's interest and contributions to WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

KristinaChi is probably a meatpuppet for IEX based on the previous dialogue and his history of edits and I undid his edits as downright removal of content appears to be an action based on personal agenda and motivations rather than an objective assessment of the truth. Most of the content in this article seems to come from the Flash Boys narrative and IEXCommunications and is lacking in neutrality. Unless we can replace the criticism sections with stronger points, it makes most sense to keep it in the present state. 64.150.44.98 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No it does not make sense to keep content that contains original research. This is a violation of policy. Nor content that misrepresents sources, again clearly against policy. Nor content from sources that make no mention of the subject of the article. This content has to go. Unless rewritten to comply with policy, I will remove it. If it is reinserted I will advance dispute resolution (not likely to go in favor of those who edit against policy despite discussion). Keep in mind that disruptive editing has consequences. My preference is that criticism/critique/evaluation from secondary sources can be found and included in keeping with policy. If I remove the content I may also tag the article with NPOV, primary sources or advert. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

General suggestions

The article seems to be written from a fairly advanced understanding of the subject. This has lead to substantial unclearly sourced content. As an uninvolved editor I would suggest a greater reliance on the published secondary sources. Basically follow what published sources say about the subject using primary sources only to provide uncontroversial details. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind help! As per your suggestion, I'd say the interpretation of a two days old television interview is more on the primary sources side, perhaps even into original research territory. It's certainly a delicate matter and from my understanding, until there are additional published sources supporting the controversial content, that content should get a time-out. As it stand now, Google already finds the newly added sections that in my opinion are not ready for prime time. KristinaChi (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in line with MrBill3 views that we should rely on published secondary sources as far as possible. I have hence included more citations from Wall Street Journal, PRNewswire and CNBC that summarize the views of industry experts (Cliff Asness, Bill McNabb). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophie.grothendieck (talk • contribs) 06:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple quick notes. Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Take some time to learn how to properly format references try taking a look at Help:Referencing for beginners. PRNewswire is not a reliable source for much at all it is a press release service. Unrelated examples are not appropriate nor is puffery. I suggest everyone cool off, find a good comprehensive secondary source and propose (here) concise and encyclopedic paraphrasing. Discussion on this talk page should focus directly on improving the article (content not editors). As several editors seem to have knowledge of this topic it would be great if this article clearly explained the subject to a reader not familiar with the subject and then presented the discussion of the subject from attributed high quality reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophie.grothendieck (talk • contribs) 07:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Take better notes (sign your comments). I removed content that was not supported by sources, contained original research, was not related to the subject or was poorly sourced. In doing so I removed the following reference (well not a formatted reference but anyway) that has some discussion of IEX. It is kind of tangential and extraction of clear encyclopedic content will take some work but someone may be interested in doing so. Here is the reference.

Asness, Clifford S.; Mendelson, Michael (2014-04-01). "High-frequency hyperbole". The Wall Street Journal.

The following reference has McNabb supporting HFT, but has no mention of IEX at all. I am just preserving it here in case someone wants to use it to support a contention that there is some support for HFT (as balance for the view of it presented in this article) or include it at the HFT WP article.

Foley, Stephen (2014-04-25). "Vanguard chief defends high-frequency trading firms". CNBC. Retrieved 2014-06-01.

Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'll help to extract the relevant content from the above sources. I elaborated my position in your talk page as Twosigmainvestments. I think both are great sources but I've removed mention of Scott Locklin. Thanks for the contributions on this article.

Cheers 207.181.197.4 (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just improved on the explanation about the 350 microsecond delay to elaborate IEX's main innovation. I think it should be clearer now. 207.181.197.4 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND

Greetings! WP is not a battleground! It seems two involved editors may each have some conflict of interest in relation to this article. If that is the case it would be appropriate for each of them to place a declaration of this on this talk page or their user page(s). Discussion on this talk page should concern improving this article not the editors of the article. This talk page is also not a forum for discussion of the subject of the article. Legal threats are expressly against policy.

With that out of the way, what would be great is if this encyclopedia article presented the subject clearly to a general reader. Think of simply, clearly and concisely explaining what IEX is to a college freshman with no special background in finance/accounting/applied math/the stock market in plain and neutral terms. Then an explanation of the reasons for such an enterprise, followed by sourced attributed evaluation of the enterprise. See the simplified ruleset and the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Once that is accomplished an intense battle on the due weight of these evaluations based on policy and supported by reliable sources can ensue.

Short version, own up to your interests, leave each other alone and make an encyclopedic article out of this.

Thanks to all for their interest and contributions to WP. I hope the skills that could be developed are used to improve a variety articles with the knowledge editors bring to a range of topics. Might I suggest checking in at WP:WikiProject Finance. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree and this is exaclty the reason why I asked my questions. KristinaChi (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Content not supported by sources re inserted

A subsection "Conflicts of interest between IEX and its major equity owners" starting with a assertion from an unreliable source, followed by original research and wrapped up with content that is not in the source provided has been reinserted. This content is subject to removal as unverifiable. Re inserting without discussion here first is edit warring. When removing this material substantial explanation was given diff.

Another subsection "Higher transaction costs" has also been reinserted. It contains the assertion "widely believed" this is quite a claim and requires substantial sourcing (if something is widely believed is should be clearly reported by very high quality sources as widely believed, otherwise on WP we say who believes it). Then unclear content "publicly spoken in favor of this view". What did he actually say, to whom? Clear and accurate reporting of what someone said is the standard not the supposed support of a purportedly widely held belief/view. Then follows "Due to...it is believed..." with no source at all. This is more original research. Going on "For example..." wait how is the execution size of a competitor an example of larger costs? This simply makes no sense. Not only that it is original research supported by a press release. No source given says LN's volume is X times larger, more OR. Continuing "Such facts" what facts this isn't clear in any way "have led...to question the value of IEX" this is a misrepresentation of the source in two ways. Asness train of thought should be paraphrased directly not asserted as being led by facts presented in a WP article. The facts are not clear in any way but regardless if putting forth someones opinion the construction of concepts they use should be accurately paraphrased. Second where does Asness "question the value of IEX"? He seems to question if the hyperbole in discussion of HFT but not the value of IEX. His direct statement on IEX is "These big, traditional investment managers represent a business opportunity to anyone who can offer them new market venues, like IEX, that might conceivably avoid the perceived ill effects of high-frequency trading. We wish them well in that effort, and if they succeed these new exchanges and their clients will benefit. But let's allow the issue to be decided by open competition, not by politics, demagoguery and rules born of crony capitalism." He does state, "IEX hasn't yet generated a lot of interest." but that is not "questioning the value".

Content that is not verifiable is subject to removal. Original research is against policy. Misrepresentation of sources is against policy. Reinserting material that has been clearly identified as unverifiable, original research and misrepresentation is against policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Outstanding effort and consideration given to this content. As per the comments above, I will remove the sections that were re-inserted despite being thoroughly identified as breaching policy. KristinaChi (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I support the removal of the content. I would hope my efforts might inspire some work to contribute to WP in general and this article. I think the reference given above (the WSJ article) could be used to provide some context/criticism of the subject of this article. Perhaps as a show of good faith/demonstration of NPOV an editor who might be seen as supportive of IEX could provide content based on that article.

There is plenty of work to be done on WP in this field (see WP:WikiProject Finance) and I hope those who have come to the project through interest in this article bring their knowledge and talents to other articles. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Again you are too kind. I appreciate your suggestions, the last days made it clear to me I have to learn more about WP and its standards to become a better editor. There may also be opportunity to broaden the existing Criticism section with a Reuters article that discusses broker priority. The WikiProject Finance looks interesting. Thank you for your guidance and best wishes to you too. KristinaChi (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:WL

Hello. It seems that this article is plagued by an excessive attempt to justify removing certain sections by a user who seems to have personal conflict of interest and has not come forward to declare his or her position after the request. Wikilawyering hurts the community efforts to improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.150.44.98 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. First please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes ~~~~. Second the removal of unsourced material, misrepresentation of sources, and original research improves WP and is fully within policy. I agree COI should be disclosed if it exists. Third as the sources are preserved here I welcome an editor to provide an accurate paraphrase of the critique and evaluation of IEX.

I tend to agree with an editor who pointed out this article relies heavily on primary or biased sources which seem to present the subject as "heroic". I think this should be toned down and balanced with content based on secondary sources' discussion of IEX. I also think the article could be made more clear and explanatory.

As a note providing a clear explanation of the need to accurately reflect sources, not engage in original research and support content directly should help the community improve this article, apparently explicit examples were needed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Delay clarification

The term "delay" is too generic and unclear as many components (network, software etc.) add up to total delay in a trading system, and there are two different ways to describe "delay": one-way or round-trip.

In most cases, traders only care about round-trip delay (e.g. the time between placing an order and receiving the response, time between receiving data and placing an order etc.). Round-trip is the most meaningful and only measurable number from the perspective of the trader. Hence, most "latency" numbers are quoted as round-trip delays instead.

For example:

• Spread Networks is the most highly-regarded optic fiber route between the two largest trading venues in the U.S. by notional dollar volume and on their webpage, they quote delay by round-trip.
• CME Group, the largest derivatives trading venue in the world, also describes the delay in their order entry system (iLink) in terms of round-trip time (see page 11 on this CME Group release)

Hence, I have added "round-trip" to describe the generic phrase.

If necessary, I hope other editors will verify the above statements with other secondary sources. Thanks!

Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Liquidity criticism

@Sophie.grothendieck: The IP who has been removing the criticism that IEX will suffer lack of liquidity asserted that the video used as a citation makes no reference to this. Can you say how far into the video is the support for this statement? Since it's a point of debate here it would be good to get the text we're relying on clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the section. I couldn't find a reference. Bhny (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

user Sophie.grothendieck continuously re-inserts this section, bu this user does not provide a proof that such critics are supported in the source it tries to add. Several users pointed out that they could not locate such contest in source. Case of vandalism by sophie.grothedieck? Why this users does not simply mention to which part of the source this user is trying to refer and avoids to provide the facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ph1234 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for your attention to this topic. This part of the article seems to have been put together by @FEICNNA:, @Oknazevad:, @Jianhaogogogo: and @Jameskoul:, I have not reviewed the source and presumed the paraphrasing was properly managed. The source was cited previously and I agree with the earlier conclusion that it is difficult to use the content because it is a primary source. Instead, I recommend to replace the reference with the following collection of secondary sources (Wall Street Journal, Reuters, TABB Forum, Bloomberg) instead as they drive at the same point: and Larry Tabb has been a vocal critic against 'high-speed trading' (the contentious topic here) and neutral voice about market reform, and it is credible that he sets his usual criticism aside to make an objective statement on this:

While intermediaries do step in the middle of investors’ trading strategies, speculators/intermediaries do serve a true purpose: They facilitate price discovery – meaning they provide quotes. That is a very important (if not the most important) function of a market: determining the price. A market without price discovery becomes an expensive and illiquid market.

— Tabb Forum

This discusses the point on 'speed':

There are different ways for market makers to manage risk. First, they need to be quick. If market makers are slow to react, they will be taken advantage of. If the price of IBM should really be $191 instead of $190, then either the market maker’s order won’t trade (if it is out of the money), or worse, it will trade disadvantageously and the liquidity provider will take a loss. And if that quote is for 10,000 shares, the loss could be significant.

— Tabb Forum

I think we should also remove the term 'colocation' from the article, because if I understand correctly, the broader notion of fast market connectivity is the real crux of the criticism, and 'colocation' is not necessary for fast market connectivity. For example, many "high-speed traders" do not directly colocate at Mahwah, NJ for NYSE, but rather connect at Secaucus, NJ to improve their proximity to Mahwah. This still constitutes fast market connectivity, but doesn't qualify as colocation. Certain trading venues don't even offer 'colocation' to their clients but nevertheless have many high-speed trading clients who will try to find a geographical, proximity advantage (e.g. at Interxion London, in Nordic and Central Europe, Tel Aviv etc.).

The article that I have referenced also discusses the point on market connectivity (more broadly) along the same lines as the Wiki content:

Second, they need to be connected. Market makers need to be connected to markets where liquidity either resides or will reside. If speculators are not connected to markets, it becomes harder to trade. They may be able to go through a third party to get to an unconnected market; however, if time is important, connecting via a third party will be latency-prone.

— Tabb Forum

The IP who has been removing the criticism also seems to insist to refer to the particular group as "high-speed traders". However, "high-speed traders" compose a very niche and specific subset of the entire group ('liquidity providers') that is affected, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to single them out among all of the other liquidity providers, e.g. market makers, specialists, broker-dealers, order matching entities; anyone who uses a limit order is affected, as my reference explicitly points out:

Orders move from investors to brokers, to broker algorithms, to dark pools, to exchanges. Placing limit orders across these markets gives liquidity providers (not necessarily HFTs) the ability to create a Tsunami early warning system.

— Tabb Forum

P.S.: I don't understand why the IP user seems to think that I inserted this source. It was put together by 4 other users. I accepted the IP user's revision to the "gender discrimination" criticism as that part does seem like an unfair allegation, but I think repeated attempts to blank an entire section without explanation is politically-motivated and exhibits a conflict of interest.

Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bhny: Please take a look at the revised wording using the new references and let me know what you think. I have tried to preserve the other 4 editors' point while paraphrasing to adapt to the new reference. Thanks! Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sophie, the material you cite above addresses questions of speed and liquidity, but are these framed as criticisms of IEX? The phrasing in the article makes it appear that these comments have been made in direct response to IEX and Flash Boys. Is that the case? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Mike, yes, it is the case as far as I can tell. Even the title of the FIA collection of articles, "Opinions published in response to Michael Lewis' Flash Boys" directly addresses "Flash Boys". I believe any criticism of Flash Boys in the context of those articles also synonymously refers to IEX (this is implicit, as the majority of the book appears to promote IEX). Most of the articles in the FIA collection also use Flash Boys and IEX almost synonymously, e.g. Cliff Asness's op-ed on Wall Street Journal. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bhny: @Ph1234: Any thoughts about the revised phrasing at all? I will include it if there isn't any objection.

Point of order. I had no point to be made in my edit. I just did some gnoming to adjust the text in line with our manual of style, as one can see in the diff of the single edit I made to this article. I made no substantial edits to content, and wouldn't call myself a major contributor to the section under discussion. I see no reason for me to have been pinged here. oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

To all involved editors: please stop reverting edits. It doesn't matter if the article is temporarily wrong; the right answer can be worked out on the talk page. If there are more reverts I will request full protection which means nobody will be able to edit the article until the protection expires. For any future changes on the controversial sections please discuss here first, regardless of how egregious you think the error is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I propose this version, which simply paraphrases the points in the cited articles:

Michael Lewis' book Flash Boys focused on the new trading platform, arguing that it was better than other exchanges since it created an equal playing field for investors by slowing down trading. Critics of the book argue that liquidity-provider firms need speed and direct market connectivity to manage risk, and a market that limits speed, such as IEX, would be illiquid and expensive for price discovery.

I invite the other editors to review it and discuss amicably. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We should delete the criticism section completely as per WP:CSECTION Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms.... Just integrate notable things into the article. Also it is hardly a criticism that a new exchange will be less liquid, or that it has different order flow, these are just things that can be noted in the body of the article. Bhny (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I think that the criticism is relevant and unique to IEX as the illiquidity arises from their unique decision to slow trading with a speed bump, rather than because they are a new trading platform. I am open to merging the "critcisms" to the general body of the article. However, it seems that the general body of the article is currently very disorganized (it has a collection of points that appear to be inserted by an IEX employee to promote the benefits of the trading platform, and those points are severely lacking in inline citations), and merging it in the current form will further increase the disorganization. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No one is arguing that criticism is irrelevant; WP:CSECTION is about article structure not article content. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Have a problem with a source

Hi all, I have a problem with [this source] about the criticism for IEX. The source article never discusses some of the issues discussed in the book Flash Boys. E.g. it does not refer to the issue of some brokers placing machines is exchanges, being able to collect data miliseconds before it is published, and notably being able to stand between buyers and sellers with a better price. Instead, it tries to convince that the ability to see prices faster (not by investors but by brokers) and the reducing costs of trade is more important. Can something be done about this?

"This practice encourages broker internalization, which reduces the transparency and fairness of the markets."

This line, particularly the fairness bit, needs a cite. a13ean (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that opinion very much needs a good citation. The section could also use mention that Canadian exchanges do use broker priority, and that this encourages brokers not to form their own private dark pools to do the same thing. That's covered somewhere in Flash Boys. The U.S. has many broker-based dark pools, and this prioritization is to give the same advantage (no fee) to the broker as their own dark pool, while adding the liquidity advantage of combined liquidity sources of an open exchange. One could say IEX encourages combined internalization and externalization, as opposed to existing US practice which encourages only internalization isolated in single-broker pools, thus fragmenting the available liquidity. I don't have a Flash Boys copy, and my quick check on net for other sources didn't find much (there is some TV interview with Katsuyama discussing this) to use as a source. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)