Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance & Investment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

SME Rating Agency of India

Can I request a few volunteers help me develop the article SME Rating Agency of India. It would be highly appreciated.

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:08, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Ticker symbols

In most articles about companies, there is a list of ticker symbols. For example, Teliasonera lists Nasdaq Stockholm: TLSN. The thing is that there are now two different stock exchanges in the Nordic countries, and OMX is only one of them. Should there also be a link to Burgundy? Note that the Wikipedia article contains various outdated information.

Microcredit

---

More information must be provided regarding access to institutional and informal financial services among the world's poor. The Microcredit article cites "...a recent Forbes rating" as an indicator of the success of Microcredit. Not only is Forbes not an authoritative source, but the entire article seems the ignore that fact that women make up the majority of recipients of "microloans." Indeed, the idea of providing financial services to the poor was pioneered by Muhammad Yunus as a means of empowering women. The Microcredit article does not mention the gendered impact of microfinance institutions, and paints unbalanced picture of the complicated issue of microcredit. Not only would the inclusion of how microloans affect help one understand the original theory behind microcredit, but also develop a more nuanced representation of Microfinance. As the major means by which the poor interact with global financial systems, microcredit deserves to be represented in an equitable and thorough fashion.

Massive Cleanup required

I will attempt to do some of this myself, but really the only way it can happen is if a large group of people do it.

1. There are a lot of duplicate articles which need to be merged: Modigliani-Miller theorem vs Capital structure irrelevance principle is a case in point. They either don't cover what they're supposed to in the title, or they cover exactly the same material.
2. Inter article links need to be much more strong, i will use my finance text book to push this point. While Corporate Finance is good, it really needs to feed better into other articles.
3. There needs to be way more graphs illustrating many of the concepts, especially in the Capital structure pages. I find the graphs greatly ease understanding. Unfortunately, i dont' really know how to do it myself, so if someone would offer to teach me, or else do it themself that would be great!

Thanks Suicup 10:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Things to do

What is the first step? Is it to fix the page List of finance topics --DrewWiki 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Finance Revamp

I am cutting and pasting a convo I had on Transhumanist's talk page because I think it works through most of the questions and allows for someone to see exactly what I am talking about

I saw that you had weighted in on the deletion decision for list of finance related topics and I am looking for a more experienced wikipedian than my self for guidance about a finance related issue.

I also agree the list should stay, but finance on wikipedia is in a terrible state, very un organized and haphazard. I am trying to fix this and have struggling for days to come up with a way to do this. This is what I have come up with:

Rework all finance related templates, and split them into two groups: Top layer topics, which will be templates on the right hand side (like Template:Finance sidebar), and Sub layer topics which would be listed on the bottom of the screen type templates (Template:Financial markets). The over arcing structure is taken partially from the list of financial topics but re-worked so that it makes more sense. The following would be the upper layor break down: user:drewwiki/sandbox1 Then each of the second row topics would have a template that goes one level futher, see user:drewwiki/sandbox2, user:drewwiki/sandbox3, user:drewwiki/sandbox3, user:drewwiki/sandbox4, user:drewwiki/sandbox7, user:drewwiki/sandbox6

After this, for the topics that have even more levels and sublevels, the system would switch to the bottom type template. Ie Template:Financial derivatives The Financial deriviates page would have the financial deriviatives subpages on the bottom and the Financial markets template on the right. This way a user could move within finance on the right and within financial derivitives on the bottom.

If I implement this, there would be lots of editing, lots of template creating and lots of time and energy, I want to make sure that this system makes sense. I would appreciate any advice or comments you would have. I tried to create a wiki project finance so I could ask them this type of question (Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance but there it was unable to really get going.

--DrewWiki 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

They look too much alike. Change that picture if possible so that the templates are easier to tell apart. Like a skyscraper for the corporate finance, etc. The Transhumanist 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, yeah the images there were just for show, like a beta, but is the concept solid? --DrewWiki 16:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm browsing the finance section now, and your templates, to get a feel for the whole project. I should have an answer for you in less than 2 hours. The Transhumanist 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got a financial markets template which goes on the right, and then there's another one named the same thing that goes on the bottom. Why 2 styles for the same template content? The Transhumanist 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight: sandbox1 would only go on the article Finance? Then the main subtopics of finance (call these the 2nd tier) would each get their own sandbox, and each article that was a subtopic of the 2nd tier would also display the same sandbox as their 2nd tier parent? Do I have that right? The Transhumanist 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I probubly was not clear when I wrote originally. The only thing I created was sandbox1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. All of those would be Right side Templates. Sandbox 1 lays out the section of the FINACE section as a whole( In my opinion, finance consists of: Financial Markets, Financial Market Participants, Corporate Finance, Personal Finance, Public Finance, Banks and Banking, and Regulation. Each of those section will have its sub right side template. These templates you see as sandbox 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (and then 7 and 8 later). They, essentially just show 1 level deeper. After this level, all sub levels would be of the bottom template type, (I havn't made any yet but they would look like the one I mentioned earlier, that one is currently existing). Here would be an example, for the page exchange traded derivatives, you would see on the right hand side the template that is The Financial markets, (user:drewwiki/sandbox2) then at the bottom of that page would be a template very similar to Template:Financial derivatives. Does that make more sense?--DrewWiki 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So, the (right side) templates would each be for one article (of the same name), plus lists of that name as well. They would not be displayed on subtopic pages. That's not generally how we use templates here, but I'll reserve judgement until I've learned more about the bottom templates you envision. Tell me more about those please. The Transhumanist 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Let me build a few more, and a test page on my sandbox area, I'll get back to you tonight probably --DrewWiki 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it took a lot less time than I thought to put together a mock up of the basic structure. Let me walk you through it.

Go to user:drewwiki/finance: This is the top level page on Finance, on the right you see the Finance sub topics. Imagine you clicked on Financial markets (from the template), it would look like this user:drewwiki/finance1 Notice that the template on the right is one level lower. Now image, from there you click on The Derivatives Market (in the template on the right) you would see User:Drewwiki/finance2 Notice on this page the template on the right leading you to the sections on the Financial market, and the fiance world in general, but at the bottom, you see the entire Derivatives world. Any page within the derivatives world would have BOTH of these templates thoughts?--DrewWiki 18:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thus providing lateral and vertical navigation options. Extremely cool. My advice is to differentiate the side templates by giving each its own picture, and then as soon as you've done that, move forward: placing what you've created so far in the various articles (renaming the "sandboxes" to templates, of course), and developing them further in place so that readers may benefit immediately (as long as nobody objects). As you do so, update the list of templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance, and provide instructions on how to apply them to the subject of finance as a whole on Wikipedia. So far, so good, and keep up the excellent work. The Transhumanist 00:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll start work now, I'ts going to take a while, and i'll stage it all so I can do it all at once when there done on my sandbox --DrewWiki 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User template

Took the liberty of creating one. It looks like this:

This user is a member of WikiProject Finance & Investment.

I chose gold coins from Venice, as this was one of the first organized bourses. --Leifern 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Banner template

Started futzing around with it, but needs more work. See Template:WikiProject Finance. I really want to start adding these to all the articles that are included and also start rating them, at least for importance. --Leifern 23:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates - Objecting to their irrelevance in articles they are placed in

These templates that are popping up all over accounting and financial articles are just eye candy. How do they improve the article? Why should a corporate finance template be place in the accountancy article? Someone else placed an accounting template in the same article which I removed. There would now be two irrelevant templates in the article. There are link sections at the end of each article where required. These templates do not relate to the articles and are not turning wikipedia into something that looks nice but has irrelevant links and will confuse the reader with the enormous amounts of links which are not directly linked with the article. NilssonDenver 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)NilssonDenver 23:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to have both verticle and horizontal navigation abilities. So your interested in finance, specifically your interested int he bond market, so when you go to the bond market page you will see, in a template on the bottom all the articles pertaining to the bond market, but in addition, you can move vertically to any other market, or for that matter back to the top, to any other finance page. If you feel it would be best i'll take out accounting --DrewWiki 01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are making assumptions that the links you make are relevant to the reader and the ones you leave out are irrelevant to the reader. How close or far an article is linked to another article is on a template is subjective. You could have a huge number of links and I feel these reduce the impact of the article. These navigation templates are dominating the article. The article should be the main attention of the reader anything else is secondary and should not distract from the article.

We have links in articles to other articles, we have links at the end of an article, we could then have multiple templates within an article, where does it stop. NilssonDenver 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not wedded to the format I am trying, and I am interested in your commments. I was trying to address a huge problem I saw within the finance related articles, in that there was no easy way to navigate through from one to the other keeping the whole structure in your mind. Maybe a portal is the best way to do this, but having links just in the article is not enough, IMOP. When I am reading about the stock exchange, I want to see where this relates to the whole world of finance. A year a go, before i was a contributing member of wikipedia, I looked up structured finance, and asset-backed securities, and was thoroughly confused by where they fit in finance, and what they were in general. Now that I have been doing these things professionally for a year, I wrote those articles, but I still wanted to fix the main issue i saw. I would be very interested in any ideas you have. I was not convinced this was the best way either, and that is why i consulted a more experienced wikipedian.

About templates dominating articles, the bottom templates definitely do not dominate the articles because they are at the bottom and people rarely scroll all the way down there, however if, because they have looked at other finance articles, know that it will be there and let them know what else is in finance, they will scroll down. About the side templates, These i dont' feel, dominate to too much of an extent, they give the reader perspective and I don't feel, hurt the aesthetic too much. But that is IMOP. Certainly not doing these templates would give me LOTS more time to fix up the articles. Can you please propose some alternatives that would give readers an idea of where a page fits within --DrewWiki 03:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC) finance.

PS would you like to join the wiki project finance?

What is the criteria for a "Finance" Article. My knowledge is on the Accounting area rather than finance. I will support any project that improves any section and will write and actively take part in any section I can offer help to.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business_and_Economics is being relaunced and rather than set up a separate project, make this a project within the Business and Economics category. Also there is a push on now on the accounting section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business_and_Economics#Major_Overhaul as a project within the Business and Economics category. NilssonDenver 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I already categorized this project as party of the Business and Economics project, and you'll see that we're trying to minimize disruption to that area. I think we'd define "finance" for our purposes as "the commercial activity of providing funds and capital...among organizations, as opposed to finance in the broader sense. --Leifern 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional templates: Concepts in finance?

I'm wondering if we should have an additional template and structure covering concepts and theories in finance, ranging from simple time value of money articles all the way through to arbitrage topics. What do others think? --Leifern 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure can you map them out on the main page first? ALso, I need a lot of help implementing these templates and distributing them to all of the finance articles DrewWiki 20:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Topical structure of finance

I am uncomfortable with using templates as the primary means to provide topical structure to the finance area. I understand the need to get a handle on the various finance related articles, and I'm impressed by the hard work that has gone into creating these templates. However, I wonder if we can explore alternatives, particularly the use of summary articles and the category namespace.

We could provide a topical framework just as easily by

• associating articles with appropriate categories
• providing links to those categories in the see also section
• when relevant, writing summary articles for high level subject areas

Among my concerns:

• Usability. Templates take up a lot of precious screen real estate and crowd out other images. This presents a difficulty to some readers (mobile) and to article editors. If an editor has found an image that is specific to the topic and is, in their opinion, more suitable for the introductory paragraph's side bar he will be forced to make a choice between our templates and the integrity of his article. I don't want to put anyone in that position.

• Point of view Templates run the risk of over emphasizing the association with finance at the expense of other business disciplines. Many finance related articles are in fact related to more than one business topic. A good example is Business plan. Of course, business plans are important in finance. However, a number of other management disciplines also consider planning essential and the financial plan is only one part of the business plan. I love the idea of a finance project, but I don't think it should overshadow other parts of business.

• Anyone can edit. Templates as a primary organizing method gets in the way of the ideal that anyone can edit.
  • They require a much greater learning curve than inserting references to categories, e.g. See also: [[:Category:Foo]] or [[Category:Foo]].
  • People are much less comfortable being bold with someone else's template than they are with adding links and categories. It is hard to separate the content from the syntax and so mistakes are more likely. Most people are sensitive to that even when they are comfortable with the template syntax.

• Maintainability. The list of sub-topics related to a field is dynamic. If categories are used to provide a topical structure, the structure is self maintaining. Also more people can get involved because the learning curve for categories is minimal.

• Automation. It is much easier to create bots that walk category trees than it is to create bots that parse links embedded in templates.

• Best use of time. Designing and maintaining templates is time consuming relative to managing categories. Anyone who can do this clearly has strong analytical skills that might be better used evaluating and improving articles. See User:DrewWiki's comments above.

Egfrank 09:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello, there I'm new to the project, but don't you think you should have a section on the Wikiproject Finance page that shows a picture of your userbox. Just thought I would ask. The Random Editor 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But, note: don't just insert the template. This particular template also adds what ever page it is on to the participants category. You'll need to copy the template code and remove the lines that add the project to the categories.

In general, if you think it is a good idea and it is not a major change of direction for an article just do it. It is part of the wikipedia way: see Be Bold! for more information. Egfrank 06:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:FINANCE

Hello, I have added my name to the participants' list today. I'd like to help out Wikipedia with its financial content. I just created a shortcut for this WikiProject: WP:FINANCE (I hope I did it right). I see that this project is kinda sleepy, hopefully it will not be long. Cheers, Crzycheetah 05:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

hello wp finance i would like to ask a question that u rgiving all the information related to the field of finance theoyy but it would be more better and it would be more understandable if u would quote some live examples or incidents in the world of finance but over all this project is very good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.149.31.232 (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

Here is the new template I created for the Federal Reserve System. Questions, Comments, & Concerns? --Random ^{Say it here!} 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Money is this week's WP:GACo - your help is needed!

I am here to inform you that the article on money has just been selected as the Good Article Collaboration of the week. This is one of the most important articles in Wikipedia, and certainly of utmost importance within the topical scope of this WikiProject, but unfortunately it is in a very poor state as of now. The selection for COTW makes for a good occassion for a concerted effort to improve it, and I am really counting on the members of WikiProject Finance, with your knowledge and expertise in the field, to help other users involved bring it at least to Good Article standards. In particular, I hope you could provide some gravely needed sources, as well as help make the article summarize the most important aspects of the phenomenon discussed. PrinceGloria 17:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Public finance

The Public finance template or variations of it are under discussion at WikiProject Taxation. Morphh ^(talk) 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Technical analysis

This group may want to know that THF has tagged technical analysis with the WikiProject Finance template, and given the article a "Start" class rating. I see no evidence that THF is a member of WikiProject Finance; he has placed the template while in a POV dispute regarding the article. Thanks for your time and attention.--Rgfolsom 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Newbie Request

I think it would be useful to have some treatment of historic versus implied volatility for the volatility entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITVGuy20000 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

all of the volatility articles that I checked address this. Feco (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by the request to be honest. I have worked very hard to ensure the distinction was clear. If there was more detail we would find out what was confusing. Ronnotel (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Accumulator (structured product)

Accumulator (structured product) has been listed on AFD. I don't know if this is a significant term or not. Can anyone from this WikiProject offer input? --Stormie (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments please, possible merge of Currency correlation

A debate is in progress about what to do with article Currency correlation and one of the proposals is to merge it into either Currency pair, Technical analysis or Exchange rate. We'd appreciate any suggestions of where the best place for it is. To keep the conversation in one place, please respond in Talk:Currency_correlation#Fallout_of_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FCurrency_correlation. Thanks – John (Daytona2 · talk) 20:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Graph Requests

I have some experience making finance related graphs (see my user page). I use Adobe Illustrator for conceptual graphs that don't have to be precise. I use gnuplot for more precision. I'd be happy to create graphs to fill specific needs in finance articles. Feel free to post requests here or on my user page. Feco (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WIkiProject Investment

I created a new WikiProject related to Finance but with a much tighter scope: WP:INVESTMENT. This project seeks to improve the quality of investment articles in particular. It is a subset of WikiProject Finance ignoring the banking and credit industry and related topics. My goal is to improve articles for the personal investor and democratize the markets with access to information. Please consider joining if you are interested. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

SWX Swiss Exchange

Please check SWX Swiss Exchange. Thank you! --Foggy Morning (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Beta Decay

Anyone heard of the term Beta Decay in relation to finance? It is related somehow to the decay of the Beta coefficient. I haven't found much about it online but I know it is in use and I think it could make a good article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Beta decay (finance). And help me build this article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 10:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

DataTreasury

There is some discussion and editing going on over at DataTreasury and it would be very helpful if others could take a look and offer advice and opinions. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Finance

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review new article I created

Please review Clearing House Automated Transfer System and let me know how it can be improved. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Morgan Stanley could use update

Morgan Stanley could use update in light of recent developments. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Credit Default Swap

Please help improve the lede of Credit Default Swap. We had several requests on the talk page saying that the opening section is not very comprehensible. I tried but I can't seem to find reliable sources explaining this nicely. Also, please comment at Talk:Credit default swap#First paragraph, Wiki Fascism or just an Ass?. Thanks, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

New Template on "Current Market Crashes"

I've created this template to deal with a problem that we had on Jan.21 and Sept.30, 2008. Some people may panic at times of market volatility and create articles saying "This is a crash," "This is the big one" etc. I don't think that this type of article has any use to anybody, and may cause or contribute to significant damage - something like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

The purpose of this template is really only to warn readers that we can't call crashes any better than anybody else, and to help delay any of these types of articles until the next day when solidly reliable financial news sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and probably the New York Times, can give a reasonably calm assessment of the situation.

Any comments, editing contributions, etc. welcomed.

Also if you see any such panic-pushing articles, please apply the template.

Smallbones (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Collateralized debt obligation and Gaussian copula models

Can somebody with some knowledge of the subject have a look at Collateralized debt obligation and the discussion going on there? An editor tried to remove a section about the Glass-Steagall Act because it mentioned Phil Gramm, and the replacement of this section brought forth some questions about the section. NJGW (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Naked short selling

Ditto for naked short selling, which I've just placed under the roof of this Wiki project. I'm hoping that there may be some expertise brought to bear. JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Assessments

Hello all. I have started going through Unassesed Finance articles and adding assessments... however I am a little unclear on the procedure for doing this. For example, the article Accountancy has been rated as an A-Class article by the Wikiproject Business, however it has no rating from WikiProject Finance. How do I go about getting the proper number of reviews for this article to be rated as A-Class by the WikiProject Finance as well? Just ask for comments on the talk page, or does this wikiproject have a more specific process? Thanks! --Aka042 (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Data in an encyclopedia?

Hi, If we consider various indices related to NYSE, Nasdaq, DAX, CAC 40 etc. there are pages for them in Wikipedia. But the basic historical data for them is not available. The data can be freely obtained from sources such as Yahoo, etc. And I have checked the legal issues, and since it is factual data, it is considered public domain, based on Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 1991 e.g. see [1].

Why not include such data within Wikipedia? I would vote to include a few years, and a few charts, since such data/facts border on being financial knowledge. And it will make it easy for people to get to the data as well as the other financial facts. I can add a few years of daily data for the basic/key index types. And others can then add other datasets. But let us have a discussion beforehand, and agree on a data format anyway.

I am not sure of the legal status in the UK based on their "sweat of the brow" concept, although I have never seen much financial sweat in data collection - the only recent financial sweat has beenn during data observation as the indices have dived. Anway, comments will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Structure of Late 2000s recession/region articles

Could somebody review this for me? I don't remember the details, but maybe there should be a separate section. Ottre 06:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Document stamp

Hi, folks!

A brief question - what would the official name be for the revenue stamps that are placed on documents in order to legalize them - eg. documents compliant with stamp duty in the UK; marriage certificates; official translations of legal documents, etc? A suggestion has been made that "documentary stamp" is used in the US, but is this also the case for the entire english-speaking world? please place your answers here, as this question has been asked in several wikiproject pages. Thank you! (the discussion that led to this question can be seen just above the link provided.) BigSteve (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The term I've seen in books on stamp collecting have used the term "Fiscal stamp".

For many years (1881 to 1967), some values of British postage stamps bore the words "Postage and Inland Revenue" (or contractions such as "Postage Revenue") to indicate that they were dual-purpose. Such values were often printed in doubly-fugitive inks as a security measure. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Core article improvement on financial crisis and its associated issues

I'm not a member of this project, but I have experience improving articles and I am very curious/angry about the financial meltdown. I do not think it is explained well in Global financial crisis of 2008–2009, Financial crisis of 2007–2010, Subprime mortgage crisis, or 2000s energy crisis. Although the citations appear to be in order, the structure does not allow for layman understanding, links to integral concepts are not explained, and articles are filled with insider jargon. Actually, links may be explained, but the jargon and writing is so confusing that I'm not getting it. I'm willing to make an analogy between these articles and medical articles because the language is so inaccessible that folks who do not have significant experience in economic issues will be lost.

On a more esoteric tangent, I think it is a disservice to keep the articles so enigmatic that readers are unable to understand them. Ignorance fosters poverty.

I've overhauled articles before (it's what I do, in fact), but I'm usually able to teach myself the concepts within. With these, I need help just to understand what the articles are saying. If anyone is interested in getting these articles to GA or FA, they certainly belong there. I do not think it would take much: a couple weeks of discussion on how best to present the material simply yet still be accurate and use the best sources available. So, I'm asking if anyone is interested in taking one of these articles to start with, and working with me to get it to GA. I think all four should be improved, and possibly more. Let me know. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you just said. Seeing as you initiated this discussion, you should go ahead and choose the article we begin with. We have quite a few articles on this. I haven't edited articles in a while but I'll try to spend some time to help with whatever you choose. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement, Zain Ebrahim111. I started a discussion at Talk:Global financial crisis of 2008–2009. --Moni3 (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Uptick rule

I see from the talk page of this article that it is supported by Wikiproject Finance. Well, caballeros, support is needed. People with market expertise may wish to review issues pertaining to possible POV and original research, as pertained to charts and sections that have been subject to recent reverts. cheers, JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Asset-backed commercial paper

I'm no expert, but I believe the entry for "Asset-backed commercial paper" is a mistake Made in Québec. In the province, the term is used ubiquitously by the press to designate what are more correctly Collateralized Debt Obligations and other Asset-Backed Securities. At any rate, the text for the entry is poor and tenuously (and erroneously) referenced. If anything, there should be an entry explaining the incorrect use of the term. 132.216.227.157 (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)cmaguirre

Notability of Ponzi schemes

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Notability of Ponzi Schemes, which I just created. Could interested parties help decide which Ponzi schemes get their own article and which ones only get mentioned at List of Ponzi schemes? Please leave your responses at the other WikiProject, because a fragmented debate could create contradictory consensuses. Jesse Viviano (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Attention parameter on Finance template

The WikiProject Finance template looks like this: {{WikiProject Finance |class=Start |importance=high |attention= |peer-review= |old-peer-review= |needs-infobox= }}

When would an editor be justified to make the parameter "attention=yes" in this template on a talk page? Finance and economics terms such as Moral hazard, Systemic risk, Systematic risk and Too Big to Fail policy are widely used on TV and elsewhere, but readers who come to Wikipedia may not find a good and current explanation of these terms. The WP:BB principle was overcome by caution, so here is an opportunity to say when the "attention=yes" parameter is justified. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Asset allocation

Is a cell phone an asset? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.162.114 (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, provided it has monetary value and can thus be sold for cash. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation

The section on naked short selling, while improved somewhat, still reads as something of a mishmash of lawsuits and allegations. Some experienced hands would be helpful.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Loan modification articles

Mortgage modification and Loan modification in the United States seem to be about the same thing and need cleanup. -- 67.98.206.2 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

I have requested a list of popular pages for this project at [2]. --78.111.169.38 (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IShares DJ Euro Stoxx 50

There is an ongoing deletion discussion about a finance-related article here. Your contributions to the discussion would be appreciated. Neelix (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fibonacci retracement

The article titled Fibonacci retracement needs a lot of work. In particular to work on the article itself, there's the question of which other articles should link to it. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

...and now there are eight articles that link to it. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, someone's deleted it as a copyright infringement. So we need to create another version that does not infringe on any copyrights. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

...and now someone's done that, but it very very stubby. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• A quite famous quack theory. See WP:Fringe for reason why we shouldn't include it. Smallbones (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

dude this is believed by almost anyone that works in finance that i've ever talked to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.107.1.165 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Finance to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stats, thanks very much. I had no idea Bernard Madoff was just "mid" importance. I also had no idea that the Category:High Importance page had been vandalized for quite some time! Heh.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

Since this is probably several Wikipedia-Books are finance-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP Finance people can oversee books like Options (finance) much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone for/against this? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

New editor needs help with financial articles

A new editor needs some help with financial articles. See User talk:Davidwr#Locstein Asset Management, Talk:Locstein Asset Management, and User talk:Laurenfindley. Any help you can give is appreciated. Feel free to jump into the conversation that's on my talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD of interest

The members of this wikiproject may be interested in the AfD discussion for this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co.

Pending a decision on the AfD noted above, it would be helpful to get assistance in the article talk space from members of this project. The discussion in Talk:Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co. concerns the notability of the article, whether there are other related articles that may be created (there is no article on a much bigger and more significant defamation suit), and whether cuts to the article should be restored or retained. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Book:Derivatives

Please give feedback on the title of this book on the book's talk page. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Book:Options (finance)

Please give feedback on the title of this book on the book's talk page. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Quantitative fund

If anyone here has some time, Quantitative fund is badly in need of a cleanup from someone who is knowledgeable about hedge funds. thanks, LK (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Volatility

DominicConnor (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC) The vol page has no citations and is flagged, so unless someone objects, I'm going to add references maybe polish a little

Also, the bios for the well known are too brief, often without citations/references, and frequently not there at all for some people who really ought to be. I'm also DCFC so it's not so much hassle for me to get this info, though the "no original research" rule gets in the way a bit.

Rounding errors?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business#Rounding in examples. New user Peter du Marchie van Voorthuysen has identified some likely errors in financial articles. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Money Market savings

Kind of a general question but perhaps worth including in the Money market deposit account article. MMAs as I originally understood them were low-risk investment accounts subject to market risk. However when I look at account types today I see a lot of online banks offering "high-yield online savings", "high-interest savings", and "money market savings", all of which seem to be interchangeable terms. The higher interest yield is usually attributed to the online nature of the account, rather than to any market risk. So it's not clear to a layman like myself, whether these are really savings accounts, or investment accounts, e.g. whether or not there is market risk in these accounts. 99.153.217.93 (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Bollinger Bands?

A discussion has begun here on my user talk page, about the appropriate title for an article that I moved to Bollinger band. Should it be

• Bollinger band, or
• Bollinger bands, or
• Bollinger Band, or
• Bolinger Bands ?

WP:MOS says article titles should be singular with certain exceptions. One exception is for terms used only in the plural. Another (actually the only other one that I recall) says the plural should be used when the article is about a set of things, e.g. Cauchy–Riemann equations or The Beatles. (One may say that Paul McCartney is "a former Beattle", using the singular, but the singular word "Beattle" is not the appropriate title, and one may speak of the second Cauchy–Riemann equation (out of a set of two), but again the singular is not the right title.) Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting opinions on external link

A discussion which may interest members of this wikiproject has been started at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#davidandgoliathworld.com. Comments at that discussion would be appreciated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Investor protection

What kind of protections exist for investors affected by non-market events such as fraud or broker insolvency? The impression I get is that investors are actually taking two risks with their money: a risk on the market and a risk with the broker or firm that is handling their money. Of course market risk is just part of the deal, but what happens if, for example, a fund manager decides to cash out everyone's money and flee the country? It doesn't seem like anything would really stop this from happening. Are investors really that vulnerable? Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Investors get some protection from broker frauds and insolvencies via SIPC. John M Baker (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Investors accounts with a Broker/dealer are insured up to $500,000 by law with a maximum of 100K of that being held in cash. Every investor is charged a marginal fee yearly ($2-4 bucks or so) and that pool of money is kept by the SIPC to hopefully cover any defaults up to that guaranteed amount and more if possible.(brich) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.126.42 (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:

• Book:Finance (problems)
• Book:Financial Derivatives (problems)
• Book:Options (finance) (problems)
• Book:Risk Management in Finance (problems)

The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)

Also, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Finance articles should have covers.

If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Magnetar

I don't know if anybody will respond to this, but there's a new article that can use some help. Following last weekend's reports from This American Life and others, the hedge fund company Magnetar Capital has come into the public view and now has its own article. Reports accuse it of being a major player in constructing especially high-risk CDOs, which it would then short-sell with credit default swaps, amplifying the damage of the financial crisis. It appears edits from the company's domain might be attempting to remove some criticism and I invite the contributions of those more experienced in this field. ——Rich jj (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Too Big to Fail

The definition in the article's second paragraph is not accompanied by any citations. Can someone please hunt down a source that either verifies or refutes the claim? If the claim is wrong, a source that labels it as a "popular misconception" would be ideal. Thanks. 128.59.180.241 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Too Big to Fail refers to a term coined during the Mortgage Meltdown of 2008. It refers to entities that are so big that the failure of the entity would have widespread ripple effects so severe that the entity must be kept afloat. The saving of this entity at any monetary cost is deemed to be the lesser evil of allowing the entity to fail. This can be seen with banking institutions in the USA during 2008 and currently with Europe in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.126.42 (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-functioning templates

Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance#Templates Created:

I'm not a real go-go template guy. Could we get rid of some of the non-functioning templetes listed below? I don't see that the purpose of the project is to create more of this things. 2 or 3 seem fine with me. Smallbones (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnm (talk • contribs)

Three advanced white soldiers

Can anyone translate this financial gobbledygook into English? I tried a copyedit, but I'm not familiar with financial charts so it still needs attention and sources. Ditto Three Black Crows. Fences&Windows 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll make edits for readability and see if I can find charts that will give visual clarity to the articles. "Three Black Crows" is the correct title for that article, but the other needs to drop "advanced" and be "Three White Soldiers."

Rgfolsom (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this article accurate? It talks about reversal from a bear market to a bull market. But I think it just refers to reversal of a downtrend, which could be short term. Figureofnine (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked two respected sources -- Greg Morris (who I quoted) and Steve Nison's Japanese Candlestick Charting Techniques -- and both emphasized the long-term implications of the pattern. Note that I did say "It... suggests a strong price reversal," because of course it's wise to include a hedge word when discussing the future. You can check what Morris says in Google Books, please do let me know if you read him differently.

Thanks. Rgfolsom (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Expert needed

Can someone take a look at Transactional funding to see how it can be improved and/or deleted? This same author created Flash cash (and now several other redirects), and I'm not sure if this is a promotional account or not. I'm no expert on this subject matter. — Timneu22 · talk 18:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The article in its present form is just blatant spam. John M Baker (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the spam aspect. It's in Google under more than one commercial affiliation. Figureofnine (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The article's only source and external link were to a website for transactional funding. I deleted those as obvious spam. Perhaps the topic would be suitable for an article, if suitable sources could be found. John M Baker (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the sense I get, based on the Google hits. Here's something in Google News: [3] Figureofnine (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I would want to see more than that one blog post.

A separate question: Is Transactional funding within the scope of this project? We don't seem to treat other real estate articles that way. John M Baker (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the blog post. To me, that just indicates that this is a real subject. I added it as a source to the article, but I am not sure that it meets wiki criteria on sources. Figureofnine (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

CfD discussion that needs additional input

Help is needed in reorganizing Category:Markets at this discussion. If you can help, please place any comments there. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

FPR

Business and economics has been nominated for a featured portal review. Portals are typically reviewed for one week. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Debtors Prison Article

Here:

http://www.startribune.com/local/95692619.html

This article provides an excellent overview of how debt collectors are going around loopholes to arrest people for not paying their debts in the state of Minnesota. For now I am reading they are going to jail because they did not appear in court when the hearing for the debt took place so essentially they are taking warrants out for their arrest using the police as their free "rent a cops" to arrest debtors. If anyone finds anymore excellent information , especially this recent, please post it here. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

money market accounts

Twelveyrs (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Financial adviser

The general article Financial adviser could really use a going over. While Investment adviser is a redirect to this article, there is also a separate article, Investment Advisor, which should probably be merged. Or something. Yworo (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

if there is a difference between financial advis[o/e]r and investment advis[o/e]r i don't know what it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.137.19 (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Finance articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Finance articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard discussion regarding Penny Pritzker and Superior Bank of Chicago articles

FYI, see:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Penny Pritzker and other Pritzker family articles (permanent link)

The edits of concern involve subtle issues about business disputes within the Pritzker family, major stakeholders in the the now-failed Superior Bank of Chicago; it would be good to get additional eyes and opinions on the subject.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Lockbox

Author Jeffrey Archer refers to a "Lock's box" on page 237 of Paths of Glory. Does he know something or is he misinformed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.182.173 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Silver_as_an_investment page edit and link removal

I received this 'new message' when logged on:

"...one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed...Thank you. futuresoption.com is not a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QQujt" Hidden categories: User talk pages with Uw-spam1 notices"

Can anyone tell me what was it about the external link that did not comply as I see the format used in other areas of Wikipedia.

Who or by what criteria could have been used to arrive at the assertion that futuresoption.com is not a reliable source? It is a very well established site.

I added (under 'Derivatives, CFDs and spread betting'): "As well as being traded on Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT)."

QQujt (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

futuresoption.com is registered to Westworth Management LC which owns 1300 domains. Other domains include NukePower.com, RadioPhamaceuticals.com, AtomCars.com, Fusionsales.com, etc. It's a domain farm for income from Google ads. They have no expertise in any particular subject and there can be no presumption that the information contained on this sitefarm is in any way reliable. Yworo (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

stock option

How can I find the exercise price of a stock and also the time to maturity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.48.184 (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Try these articles

• Strike price
• Option (finance)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. I hope s/he hasn't been watching this page this whole time hoping for an answer.... --DudeOnTheStreet (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hedge fund regulation

For anybody who may come across this, I have written a draft section for the Hedge fund page about regulations in the U.S. and abroad (that version here), with the aim of bringing the current section (the current one here) up to present day. Right now it's definitely out of date, in fact it doesn't even mention the Dodd-Frank rules going into effect. Because my day job involves me in the financial industry, I'd like to get someone else's view of it, before I consider moving it myself. And since the hedge fund article falls within the purview of this WikiProject, I figured I would ask here (as I will ask at others) in case anyone has thoughts to share on the subject. Please respond to my post on the Hedge fund Talk page, if you like. Thank you. --Bryant Park Fifth (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:RMB

{{RMB}} usage is under discussion, see Template talk:RMB . A related discussion is at WT:CHINA. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for May 2011

Wall Street, a page within the scope of this project, has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for May 2011. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can also vote for next months article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Credit Score Calculator

Hi i recently added an external link to the Credit Score page that has been removed, it was referencing a credit score calculator that available to the general public. As many of you will know credit scoring in the UK feels very much like a dark art practiced by banks and credit lenders alike. A lot of effort and research has gone into the development of this calculator that is designed to help people understand what effects a persons credit rating/score.

If you like i, feel that this calculator would make a good addition to the credit score (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_score) page on wiki would someone please add the reference or assist me to add the link in a mannor that follows the spirit and guidlines of wiki.

Link in question: http://www.obligo.co.uk/free-credit-score.html

Best,

RossB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.48.83 (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles on the history of banking

In the last couple of weeks, I've been working on a set of articles related to the history of banking. Frankly, I was shocked at the weakness of our article on Banking in the United States as well as the lack of an article on the History of investment banking. I have worked on improving Banking in the United States. In addition, I created History of banking in the United States and History of investment banking in the United States. There are several stub sections in History of investment banking in the United States and I would appreciate help in fleshing those out. I would also appreciate comments on how to improve these articles.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Request input from Wikiproject

A user has proposed changes at Talk:Rent-to-own#Minor reorganization, MOS cleanup suggested -- thoughts? and is seeking input from others. I'm posting here as a courtesy for them to get input from a related Wikiproject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

China Stock Frauds also can use attention from this project. Figureofnine (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments Please: Dow Jones FXCM Dollar Index

Dow Jones Indexes, the providers for the Dow Jones Industrial Average, as well as other indices, has recently released a new US Dollar Index in collaboration with currency broker FXCM. This has been featured in the media, such as the Wall Street Journal.

I have written a wikipedia reference entry to provide some background on this index. I invite Wikipedia editors to review and make suggestions: Dow Jones FXCM Dollar Index

DFXwiki (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I glanced at it and, for a starting article it looks reasonable, however it is a stub. I tagged the article as only referencing primary sources (it references Dow Jones sources and only one third party source, Bank for International Settlements). I also removed the reference for geographical diversification and replaced it with the citation needed template, because per WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and WP:Attribution/Examples#Unacceptable sources, referencing other Wikipedia articles is not acceptable practice. However, you were correct in linking the US Dollar Index in the See also section. I should think that this new index has aroused attention from mainstream financial news sources (perhaps Bloomberg, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, etc.?), so you should be able to find more third party sources discussing it. Also, despite it's such a new index, you might search for peer-reviewed research papers published in academic journals (you could perhaps search a subscription database at a University library or public library, or perhaps Google Scholar). I would try to add as much third party support for the contents of the article as possible, and you will likely luck out and find some gems in reliable sources that prompt you to make some noteworthy additions to the article. Best wishes, John Shandy` • talk 04:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, these notes are helpful. I'll see about adding secondary sources. DFXwiki (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Can a few people pledge to help me out on this article please?

I feel like making an article about locals. I am a local myself so feel like I can spew enough out ;)

Anyway it's a massive subject and I would like some fellow collaborators to pledge to help before I start. Anyone with me? Egg Centric 22:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Locals? What do you mean? John Shandy` • talk 23:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he means something like a market maker except in futures markets - are there any left? Smallbones (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently another name for floor traders, although I've never heard them called that myself. John M Baker (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Kind of. Floor traders can be anybody on the floor. Many floor traders work for large brokers, trading on behalf of clients. There are a number of floor traders who purchase their own individual exchange memberships and get out there on the floor to trade on their own accounts, rather than on behalf of clients. They are called "locals". Floor traders, while largely gone in equities, are still common in open-outcry futures exchanges, such as the NYMEX, COMEX, CME, CBOT, and others. DFXwiki (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting. Is there enough for a separate article, or does it make more sense just to add a Locals section to the currently quite short article on floor traders? Also, "local" strikes me as a hard term to search for in order to find more information. John M Baker (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Baker. There are heaps worth of finance articles that are stubs or otherwise very short, and many finance articles are already plagued by a lack of notability and verifiability. I think it's probably best to write "Locals" as a section of Floor trader, if searches manage to turn up any good sources. John Shandy` • talk 22:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well my point is most locals are now off floor, they are on screen. In fact in Europe with the exception of about 2 at the LME all are using computers... mostly in arcades/prop shops. Companies like Schneider, Kyte etc actually do more human volume than banks on Eurex/LIFFE etc...

Which is why I didn't think putting it on floor trader would work. Locals certainly used to be on the floor but pretty much excusively now aren't. Egg Centric 07:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Would a local then be akin to a Day trader, at least enough to warrant a section in that article? John Shandy` • talk 13:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Started Off

I've started out by jotting down some stuff here. If anyone is interested please feel free to edit this to any degree, right up to being an article, there's a lot that could be stuck in.

Finding reliable sources may be an issue. The CFTC does define "local" and "E-local" in this glossary. John M Baker (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Progress Report 13 August

Sorry, I've been either busy (99% of the time) or otherwise interested in other parts of Wikipedia (to a large extent that is because market conditions have taken up so much of my day the last thing I've wanted to do is write about them in my free time). So, er, that's 0 progress then. However I am still interested in getting this off the ground. I may be, er, talking my book (does that count as a pun? is it even recognisable as word play? ) but things seem to be calming down a bit now on the exchanges... John and John, any interest? Anyone else?

Requesting feedback on recently improved international finance articles

Recently I have had a bit of a personal mission so to speak, to slowly and steadily bring many of the international finance (and international economics) topics up to Wikipedia standards (preferably up to Good Article criteria, but for now just critical improvements). Many of them are inadequately referenced and contain lots of original research, conjecture, and pure nonsense. Others are just blatantly unencyclopedic and useless to a layperson, diving straight into equations with no explanation or context whatsoever. The following articles are the first three I chose to tackle these past two months, and I even made images for some of them too. They still need work, but I think they are drastic improvements and since they hadn't been receiving much attention before I dove into them, I wanted to show them off and get feedback (all suggestions welcome!). I have many more sources (mostly peer-reviewed journal articles and textbooks) to add to these as I find time to read them and work them into the content.

Forward exchange rate

Current

Essentially new, as it was a redirect to forward price (which itself is unreferenced and not very comprehensive).

Interest rate parity

Before | Current

Triangular arbitrage

Before | Current

If any of you care to read through these (I've done my best so far to make them as reader friendly as possible for a person completely unintroduced to these topics) and post your comments (either here or on those articles' corresponding talk pages), I'd certainly appreciate it. You can read a little more about my current project on my user page, and if you care to work with me more closely on tackling some international finance articles, feel free to drop me a message at my talk page. John Shandy` • talk 02:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Standard deviation vs. downside risk

I was looking at pages on topics related to risk and many seem to use the concept of the standard deviation as risk. But in topics in risk measurement, this is specifically not a risk measure. In academic papers on the subject that I read the standard deviation is never used as an example, but I do know in the "real world" it is. If we could form a consensus on the definition of risk to apply to pages I think this could be of use. My opinion is that risk should be synonymous with downside risk (a page that does not at present exist). What does everyone else think? Zfeinst (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I know just enough about uncertainty quantification to be dangerous, but I'll wade in anyway. On technical topics Wikipedia consensus should follow scientific consensus. To my knowledge the "right" definition of risk is one of the big unsolved problems of the field, and this is not a question we should try to answer on researchers' behalf. Meanwhile, as you note, the "real world" buzzes along with standard deviation and other crude risk quantifiers, even if they're not risk measures in the technical sense that most practitioners may not even be aware of. My own thought is that we should use your edit to Sharpe ratio as a model: don't use an ill defined term like "risk" when a reliable source specifies a risk quantifier like standard deviation or whatever else. On the other hand, sometimes we mean "risk" in the nebulous sense, and in those cases we should say "risk". We should also temper our zeal to think of all risk as downside risk, since with most derivatives (and arguably with all trades) one party's upside is the other's downside. Lagrange613 07:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. When I come across writing I'll try to stay to this rule of thumb. Thanks. Zfeinst (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lagrange's suggestion as a good rule of thumb. In technical topics, we're kind of forced to use extreme specificity. John Shandy` • talk 13:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

SEC filing and forms

The forms listed at SEC filing are given generic names and show a very US-centric approach. One has to wonder how many forms D there are available in the word, and one would think maybe at least another one or two. It would be very use that these forms were given a specific name that indicates their source, hopefully something with a naming nomenclature. Such a renaming would also allow the the elimination of {{globalise/USA}} on such articles. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Securities and Exchange Commission is an agency of the U.S. federal government, so one would expect an article about it to be U.S.-centric. Lagrange613 16:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree with Lagrange here, I don't see a material issue with the current names. I think the context of the SEC filing article is a clear indication of what Form D means to the reader. Further, each filing's own article starts out with Form ___ is a report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which... or some variant thereof, which I think makes it clear to the reader what the form is. If a need to disambiguate arises, I should think it would be undertaken on a case by case basis, in which if another notable form carrying the name Form D was written about on Wikipedia, then the appropriate course of action would be to rename Form D to Form D (SEC filing) and the other article to Form D (____) and then create a disambiguation for Form D. This should even be the case if the Nigerian Securities and Exchange Commission operates a Form D of its own: Form D (Nigerian SEC filing) or what have you. John Shandy` • talk 18:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment requested regarding Moody's

Over the past several months I have developed well-researched replacement material for Wikipedia's current treatment of Moody's Corporation, Moody's Investors Service and Moody's Analytics. Currently there are two pages: Moody's and Moody's Analytics, but both are under-written, poorly organized and generally neglected. It is important to note that I am working with Moody's on this project, so I wish to be very careful in obtaining community consensus and following Wikipedia's COI guidelines. In recent weeks I have begun seeking feedback from editors, primarily on the Moody's Talk page, regarding three separate drafts for what I intend to be high-quality, non-promotional and well-rounded articles on these subjects. I would like to invite anyone who is interested to review this material and weigh in on the Moody's discussion page, and/or on the Moody's Analytics discussion as well. I welcome any and all helpful comments. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Financial regulation

{{Financial regulation}} has been nominated for deletion as being unused. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by domestic debt

Another question. I am looking into the "debt issue" more and more thoroughly and I realized that we are missing "List of countries by domestic debt" (should the article/list exist, I beg your pardon). This list addresses "the total quantity of credit, denominated in the domestic currency, provided by financial institutions to the central bank, state and local governments, public non-financial corporations, and the private sector" (World Factbook). In short, how much credit-money there is in each country. See World Factbook list. Does this list fit Wikipedia? Wronguy (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A guideline you might want to look at is WP:LISTN. I imagine there are sources which discuss the domestic debt levels of various countries as a set. Can you locate such sources? I think the data is in the public domain, so there's no copyright problem with using the content in Wikipedia. – Pnm (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There are datasets available at the IMF, Eurostat et. al., but then you have to create the ranked list yourself. And most and every national statistical bureau keep this data online. A note: Remember "domestic debt" must not be confused with "public debt". I also imagine that the list would include domestic debt / GDP ratio and also domestic debt per capita. Also if think an article on domestic debt is needed (with sources), the list should not have to stand by itself. Wronguy (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg Professional Service - Question About Scope

Hello- I have been looking at the Bloomberg Terminal article and wanted to address the current scope of the article. Presently, the article focuses on the physical hardware that was originally created by Bloomberg known as the Terminal. The primary purpose of the Terminal was to deliver financial data, news and other services that were bundled into a subscription based software known as Bloomberg Professional Service. The Terminal hardware itself has not been universally distributed to subscribers since 1993, but Bloomberg Professional Service continues to be sold by subscription and is now accessible by almost any computer. For example, this Western University refers to this as "Bloomberg Professional Service" in their library research materials: link here. Because Bloomberg Terminal is only a small part of the entire Bloomberg Professional Service package, I would like to propose that its scope be developed to focus on the software service as a whole rather than the Terminal itself. The name of the article would be rewritten to Bloomberg Professional Service. Sections would be created to detail the types of services provided, the service’s impact on Bloomberg L.P. etc., as well as a historical section to touch on the origins of the Terminal so that the integrity of the original article may remain intact. I believe this change in scope would improve the clarity of the article.

Can other please weigh in to let me know if they agree?

If it seems appropriate I can return with a draft of the article with my proposed edits. Thanks --RivBitz (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds appropriate to me, and so perhaps Bloomberg Terminal should be reduced to a mere subsection of Bloomberg Professional Service, or otherwise be addressed in a history subsection of the article. John Shandy` • talk 03:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will return with a draft that keeps these points in mind.--RivBitz (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Project Finance replaced with Project Private Equity

The default for joining WikiProject_Finance was erroneously set twice.

• For those who wished to join, in the instructions to click Here, which redirects to the Watch page button
• For inviting others to join WikiProject_Finance

Both were labelled or displayed as WikiProject_Finance
Yet both actually directed to WikiProject_Private_Equity
I realize there is a great deal of enthusiasm and interest in technology, web start-up's and venture capital. However, Private Equity is merely one small, high risk subset of Finance. In the context of this WikiProject, be aware that a thorough understanding of Finance is necessary before studying/understanding Private Equity. I am not implying this was done deliberately! I would only urge caution about something so important. I nearly failed to catch the error, and the same could happen to others. --FeralOink (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for calling this to attention, I hadn't noticed it either. John Shandy` • talk 17:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured picture

File:Twintowers of Deutsche Bank Headquarter in Frankfurt a.M..jpg

The Deutsche Bank Twin Towers, the headquarters of Deutsche Bank, in the banking district of Frankfurt.

This photo is now a Featured Picture. I'd like to suggest that this photo could be put on WikiProject Finance's main page. Pine^talk 07:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice photo. I don't know what the criteria are for images on WikiProject pages, but it this meets them, I think it would look very fine on the WikiProject Finance main page! --FeralOink (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've added the photo. Pine^talk 08:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

reverse mortgage

if a home's mortgage is more than it is worth [underwater]can a reverse mortgage still be negotiated at the fair market value.?98.248.130.229 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)--98.248.130.229 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, this isn't the place to ask this kind of question. Here we are discussing only WikiProject Finance and editing the articles within its scope. Pine^(talk) 02:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, the right place to ask the question is the Humanities Reference Desk. However, I will short-circuit the process and point out that, if the home already has a mortgage for more than it is worth, then there is no equity to support a reverse mortgage. John M Baker (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible abuse / ads citing "world pensions council"

Hi. Some 9 pages related to economics cite views of "world pensions council", but they always read "Think-tanks such as the World Pensions Council". It's at least weasel words, making WPC's opinions look as if they were general.

But that's not all. At least one article, commodity, is misleading, and possibly giving biased advice. This 2012-03-11 version says that investments to "commodities and commodity-related infrastructure" has risen recently, citing this source, written by co-founders of WPC, but the source only mentions infrastructure, not at all to commodity in general. (This section is added to commodity in the last 2 edits.)

It's also followed by a passage "commodity prices could remain ... high levels". But Wikipedia is not for offering investment advice! Does the cotributor (IP) try to manipulate the market? (Maybe not. The cited references are not so new, but it's irritating.) And as a reference, it's not adequate enough. In the reference, that view is not corroborated by any evidence. (Search for the word "Pension" to spot it.) It's cited to argue the future of the Greece related recession.

User_talk:StatPak#JTW_Article_on_Chinese_economy and User talk:Solferino seems to be related issues. The last paragraph of the former says N Firzl, a WPC's founder, runs sock-puppet think-tanks. (Hmm, it's User:Will Beback who said so, and s/he was banned recently...)

I don't have enough background in ecomomics / finance, so I'm not well suited for dedicated research on this issue, and I'd be glad if my report here could help someone to improve Wikipedia. (First I asked this at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests, and one person kindly advised me to come here.)

To list, the related pages are: Commodity, Treaty of Lisbon, Financial regulation, Capital Requirements Directive, European Fiscal Compact, Basel II, Credit rating agency, European Central Bank, European sovereign debt crisis. Thanks. --Ahora (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this but, at face value, it sounds like the World Pensions Council may have been given undue weight or lacks adequate notability. John Shandy` • talk 17:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of the World Pensions Council, but its website and its work with the OECD suggests to me that there's nothing wrong with it as a source. It sounds to me like this is just an inexperienced editor, and the respective articles need to be cleaned up. Note that think tanks usually advocate a particular point of view (though if the World Pensions Council has one, I don't know what it is) so, while I see no problem with citing it, its views should not be given undue weight. John M Baker (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear all, I just came across comments left by Ahora earlier today re: the World Pensions Council (WPC), notably in the context of the Wikipedia article on Infrastructure- where they’re quoted. Being based in Europe, I can confirm the WPC is one of Europe’s leading think-tanks dedicated to pension investment research- their research (clearly specialized in focus, but the TOPICS IN QUESTION ARE VERY TECHNICAL/REQUIRE SPECIALIZATION) is cited by the likes of AP/Dow Jones Financial News, Reuters, Global Pensions magazine, The INSEAD School of Management (generally regarded as Europe's N°1 business school), Aviva Insurance (UK), Old Mutual (South Africa), etc.

Frankly, I don’t see anything misleading, biased or “weasely” (??) in the section of the article on Infrastructure Ahora refers to: quite the contrary actually… ++ I’m not even sure Ahora has effectively taken the time to (fully) read the two sources in question:

The first source quoted (published jointly in France’s Revue Analyse Financière and Turkey’s JTW) clearly mentions “[primary] commodities” (1st and 2nd paragraphs) and energy-related infrastructure assets such as “power generation” and “power grids” (9th and 11th paragraphs).

The second source quoted (Euromoney magazine published in London) mentions specifically “commodity-rich” sovereign institutions (paragraph 14) active in the field of “oil and other commodities”, and, more generally, “energy” and “energy infrastructure”.

Bottom line: The article in question states the (rather mainstream) perspective of a prominent European think-tank (albeit, specialized in focus), backed by refs to mainstream financial (Euromoney, Revue Analyse Financière) and political science (JTW) journals, published in three leading European countries. Cordially, BJA --B.Andersohn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

I agree with John Baker: the World Pensions Council is clearly a legitimate source & there's nothing wrong with it. However, the said articles may need a little re-formulation to avoid any ambiguity: writing "The WPC..." instead of "Think-tanks such as the WPC..." makes sense. --Despues (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear the WPC sources are genuine. John Shandy` • talk 18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Archiving this page

This talk page is getting lengthy. How about having a bot archive all threads that are older than 3 months? Pine^(talk) 20:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've configured MiszaBot to auto-archive this talk page. No telling when it will make its first sweep, but it will archive all threads that have been inactive for 30 days or more. John Shandy` • talk 06:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Finance in the news

Is it time for more regulatory enforcement of personal financial advisers' professional ethics? http://www.smartmoney.com/invest/stocks/financial-advisers-flunk-undercover-sting-1333374512622/ Pine^(talk) 20:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What did you have in mind, with regard to Wikipedia? John M Baker (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought that this article might be of interest to participants in this Wikiproject. I don't have a specific proposal in mind for Wikipedia at this time. Pine^(talk) 04:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

loans

i would like to know if a small loan company gave you a loan and you mixed payments because you o longer had a job and they took you to court you showed up but they didnt what actions can they take after that. can they take a warrent out for your arrests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.225 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that the WikiProject Finance talk page is for discussions related to the WikiProject or the finance and economics articles that fall within its scope. I should also stress that if you require legal advice, you should seek legal counsel. Wikipedia is ultimately not the best place to get advice that adequately and appropriately addresses your situation. John Shandy` • talk 01:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Title of the financial crisis article

Hello folks,

We're currently having a discussion on what should be the appropriate title for the article about the financial crisis, which is currently called 2007–2012 global financial crisis. To summarize the discussion till now, most of us agree that the "crisis" ended sometime between 2009 and 2011 - which should be reflected in the title. Our main problem seems to be gathering conclusive sources.

I was wondering if people here have any inputs regarding this. Kindly contribute your thoughts and suggestions to the discussion: here

Thanks, SPat ^talk 15:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Help reviewing drafts for commodity trading articles

Hi there, I'd like to ask if any members of this WikiProject could help with some new drafts of articles I've recently prepared, since it would be helpful for someone with a good understanding of financial topics to review them. The drafts all relate to commodity trading: specifically, they're new drafts for the Commodity Pool Operator, Commodity trading advisor and Managed futures account articles, which are all underdeveloped, poorly written, and have few (if any) citations.

I've researched and written the drafts on behalf of the Managed Funds Association, an association representing the alternative investment industry. Because of my conflict of interest, I do not intend to make any edits myself to replace the current articles with my drafts, and would prefer for neutral editors to review them and move them if they wish.

All three drafts are in my user space:

• User:WWB Too/Commodity Pool Operator
• User:WWB Too/Commodity trading advisor
• User:WWB Too/Managed futures account

I've explained my draft for the CPO in more detail in a post on WikiProject Cooperation's Paid Editor Help page. If you're able to help, please consider responding there. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have commented there, and encourage others to do so as well. Pine^✉ 08:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Globalization proposal

Hi WikiProject Finance members, Several of us are trying to get a WikiProject Globalization up and running. Members of this project would work together to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia on Globalization, global issues and related topics. If you're interested in globalization, please come by and check out our proposal. We'd appreciate feedback about our ideas, and of course your support if you were interested in lending it. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Second look at commodity trading articles?

I'd posted here a few days ago looking for editors to consider three drafts I had prepared on subjects related to commodity pools, as described at WikiProject Cooperation. The current articles are mostly unreferenced and even stubs; the drafts I had prepared won early support, then found some objection from one editor. I have since updated my drafts with a mind to resolve these issues, and have posted a further explanation here. My thanks to Pine for commenting previously, however it would be great to get some additional views, particularly from an editor with expertise in this area. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Globalization

The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject Finance members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Reminder about Good Article nominations

WikiProject Finance has only 17 articles which have successfully been ranked as Good Articles. While many of us are working at improving the project's articles, there's another side to helping our articles: GA reviews. Just this May and June alone, four articles have popped up as Economics and business GA nominations. Fleetham nominated Special drawing rights and I nominated International Finance Corporation. Anyone interested who has GA reviewing experience is encouraged to help. I don't consider myself experienced enough of an editor to review other articles or I'd knock out some of these myself. John Shandy` • talk 01:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation: WikiProject Globalization

Hello, WikiProject Globalization is a new project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. We would like to make a special invitation to WikiProject Finance members to join this effort in strengthening articles related to economic globalization, the global financial system and other transboundary finance topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Thank you, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Regulation S-K

I just got through copyediting this article, which was rather unclear in many spots as well as having very much the wrong tone for an encyclopedia article; there are multiple places needing particular checking, plus please check to make sure I didn't misunderstand it and introduce errors... thanks! Allens (talk | contribs) 19:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Allens - great work on S-K. That thing is a beast no? I've been doing a deep dive on the JPM and wrote an article (outline at this point) 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss. Parts of the JPM probe dips deep into S-K. One of the biggest hassles is going from "Item" to CFR to the full copy of the actual regulation in full text. For example here is whats going to need to be cited (as they will be deeply probed at JPM):
  • S-K Item 305 (17 CFR 229.305) Quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk.
  • S-K Item 402(s) (17 CFR 229.402(s)) Executive Compensation
  • S-K Item 303 (17 CFR 229.303.) Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
  • S-K Item 503(c) (17 CFR 229.503(c)) - Risk Factors disclosure requirement
  • Exchange Act 1934 - Rule 12b-20 (17 CFR 240.12b-20) – Additional Information
  • GAAP FASB 133, 161 (FASB ASC 815-10-50) Derivatives and Hedging
• One particular challenge is 17 CFR 229.402(s) - that (s) provision is new. CFR is published annually. so the cite for 2012 is http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title17-vol2/xml/CFR-2012-title17-vol2-sec229-402.xml
• Note how the YEAR is embedded in that. If wikipedia could create a dynamic link, using the current year, your cross references to the actual full text of the reg could remain that much more persistent. Wikipedia could perhaps(?) automatically update the year in the URL to remain current.
• CFR 229.402(s) is a another good example. Note how "trivial" that tiny (s) provision seems? You do a broad internet search and very little comes up. However you get in the CFR for 2012 and you finally read it. You probe a bit deeper and find http://law.case.edu/journals/LawReview/Documents/Angott.pdf Then, on to case law... The general standard of materiality, set forth in TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.,68 is whether there is a “substantial likelihood that the disclosure of [an] omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available.” and academic work, all related to that little (s) http://law.case.edu/journals/LawReview/Documents/Angott.pdf

Rick (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeking HELP! Need editor / WikiPedi policy expert

I'm looking to publish more on investment topics on WikiPedia. My expertise is :

• investments
• accounting
• large banks/brokers
• SEC (Reg SK etc.)
• some / limited CFTC regs
• swaps - interest rate, credit default, index, etc.
• financial economics
• trading communication protocols (particularly algorithms)
• category:systemic risk (including category:Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk
• market infrastructure change brought about by regulatory change

I'm not an academic and have no publishing agenda. I'm not connected or allied with any large firm in the finance space. I see there is some strong competition for investment/finance coverage on commercial wikis:

• http://www.marketswiki.com
• http://www.investopedia.com
• http://www.wikinvest.com
• etc.

Looking for editorial help - my knowledge of the very best expression, grammar and syntax is not the best. I'm also very interested in help from a WikiPedi policy expert to help ease me into the rules, procedures, best way of doing things on WikiPedia specifically, perhaps some help using more advanced, polished features, etc. I'd much rather source material and hammer it into relatively plain language for a wide audience. I need help with the editorial polishing, publishing and WikiPedia specifics. Feel free to send me a note on my talk page. THANKS! Rick (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding editorial help, you might want to inquire of the Guild of Copy-Editors once you've created an article, gotten it well-referenced, etc. Regarding WikiPedia policies and mentorship, you should probably inquire of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Allens (talk | contribs) 01:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Allens, will look into that. Could use S-K help too. At one point I knew it better. Seems that the contributions in 1980s and past have been very shoddy workmanship vs. when it was first drafted. Rick (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Rick I'm very happy to provide you with grammar and syntactical input i.e. copy editing help. However, I noticed that you've already served multiple tours of duty on Wikipedia (that is meant humorously), having put in an impressive SIX years here. Of course that doesn't preclude getting help to use advanced features, but you probably are more familiar with the rules than most others! Are you certain that you need assistance to "ease me into the rules, procedures, best way of doing things on WikiPedia"? I will stop by your talk page and offer my help regarding the copy editing, and a few advanced features, and maybe you will help me become better behaved in procedural matters? --FeralOink (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks FeralOink. Will respond more on talk

• Update. 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss is the project of the moment. Extremely multifaceted and absorbing most of my time.Rick (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Article request- bill of lading

Hello there. Currently, bill of lading leads to a subsection of Securities market, and that only gives what is essentially a definition. I don't have a background in finances, but I know that the bill of lading is credited with influence on important periods and movements. Again, I don't really have the background to start a separate page, but bring the request here. IMHO (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind creating a separate article for it, but it may be a little while as I am currently working on revamping another article. I've actually been meaning to tackle some things like bill of lading, letter of credit, and other things related to trade finance. John Shandy` • talk 22:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why the current discussion of bills of lading is part of the securities market article. Bills of lading have nothing to do with the securities markets. Your focus on trade finance is more to the point: Bills of lading are more related to warehouse receipts and letters of credit. John M Baker (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same exact thing when I looked at it earlier today. John Shandy` • talk 05:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Me too! I noticed that awhile ago, that there was a path (so to speak) linking bills of lading to Securities markets! Bills of lading do NOT pertain to (financial) securities markets. They are related to trade finance, but unlike a letter of credit, do not have significance as a term in securities or investments. My suggestion here (other than just providing validation and support to the three of you ;o) is to request that if letters of credit are written about, that you keep in mind that they have a variety of meanings, and are sometimes part of securitizations such as CDO/ CLO's (I think) thus part of securities markets as well as trade finance. --FeralOink (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I will of course take those considerations into account if and when editing letter of credit. I have written a bill of lading stub and removed the irrelevant section from securities market. John Shandy` • talk 09:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

clarity

Sorry but, in the spirit of Occupy, Transparency & the 99%, this article is about as clear as mud - I see words, they tell me "blah blah blah" - surely the point of the text is to explain to the uninformed as well as the informed? I have read computing software articles where the afficionado explains in english speak as opposed to legalese / financese

To explain, I dropped by looking for info on the London Whale - and yes I have tried using the dictionary and frankly many wouldnt bother trying to understand what it is you are trying to tell us that hard so we never get to ask "and exactly what is wrong with all of this?? "

For example the note on Credit Default Swaps - arghh - having been in debt, having been harrassed bu debtors, I assume this means Guy A owes Guy B £100 Guy B needs some money, and sells Guy A's debt to Guy C for a reduced sum, promising that if Guy B does not pay up by MM/YY then Guy B will buy back the ??remaining?? debt . meanwhile Guy B does not care if Guy C sends dogs over to Guy A to make him pay up if Guy A is not aware of his rights

It seems to me that reporters are missing the point How much for how much and how much less to buy the debt back - and did this exchange create bonuses and to whom for for how much?

Else it all sounds like a fairly reasonable IOU to put cash into the economy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.44.41 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow your post. It may help if you take as much time as you need to write your posts, and make sure that the words you've chosen are the ones you intend. If English isn't your native tongue, Google Translate might be somewhat helpful.

Now, if I understand your question, you're asking for clarification on credit default swaps. Let me try my hand at explaining them. Perhaps the easiest way to understand them is to think of them as insurance policies on a debt-backed security (usually some type of derivative instrument). It's meant to be used as a risk management tool, such that someone who holds a debt-backed security can hedge against the default risk (the risk that the person responsible for the debt part will default and not pay off the debt). However, they are also used for speculation and for arbitrage. If the debt isn't paid off, the security can quickly become worthless. But, credit default swaps can pose significant risks. Derivative securities make it difficult enough to measure risk, especially when traded over-the-counter (and not tracked on a securities exchange), because they derive their value from an underlying asset (or pool of assets) for which quality information may not be available or accurate. Further complications for measuring risk can then arise if credit default swaps are used. If a great number of derivatives (such as mortgage-backed securities) fail and start rapidly losing their value, the institutions who are supposed to honor the credit default swaps can quickly face a serious problem and may start hemorrhaging cash. For these reasons, they were quite harmful to the liquidity and financial performance of investment banks and other financial institutions during the global financial crisis. Many economists and journalists have reported that the difficulties involved in evaluating their risk, and arguably the lack of regulations over how they're used (and traded) led to their misuse, causing financial losses from mass defaults of mortgage-backed securities to be exacerbated. I am by no means an expert on derivatives or credit default swaps, so if anyone would like to speak up or correct me, feel free. John Shandy` • talk 08:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Need an expert

Is this edit correct? Rcsprinter (state) @ 08:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's right, although the article is wrong in saying the interest rate is a "record high." It just happens to be higher than anyone else at the moment. John M Baker (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2012

Yet another financial crisis name change RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis #How about "Global_financial_crisis_of_2008"?. This time we are considering multiple choices at the same time. We don't have to have a consensus right away but it will be good if we could drift towards one in finite time. Yaniv256 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I.P.O. article needs attention

The Initial Public Offering article has many problems, some of them basic factual errors e.g. reference sources to size of top five largest IPO's in history aren't consistent with the article content. There are plenty of other problems too, which are mentioned quite adequately already on the article page. I will try to clean up some of the article's grosser (EDIT: Sorry, I meant that as "larger", not slang, as the article is not "gross" per se!) shortcomings.

I also suggest that the topic be included as at least mid-range importance in both {{WikiProject_Finance}} and WikProject Investing. At present, it is designated as "unknown importance" to both WikiProjects. --FeralOink (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to give it some attention when I can, but at the moment I have a number of article revamping projects in my pipeline and am trying to stick to somewhat of an itinerary. Someone else might be interested in tackling it. I notice that it has an extensive Further reading section which contains quite a number of good reliable sources, but they're not referenced - those would be a place to start. I agree that this is a rather important topic, so I've updated the WikiProject banners. On a side note, the last I checked, WikiProject Investment was rather dead... it probably doesn't help the already-small community of finance editors to have that as a separate project. John Shandy` • talk 07:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that IPO has been improved over the past month. Intro and History have been expanded. Other sections edited or consolidated, with improved links and references. While there is more that can be done, I believe the article is a decent piece of work at this stage.Gulbenk (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about whether Stone Key Partners meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

I happened to see an article on the boutique investment bank Stone Key Partners while looking at the talk page for Txcrossbow ( User_Talk:Txcrossbow#Submission Declined - Stone Key Partners ).

Does the article meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)  ?

My thoughts are that under the policy it does. The New York Times, Reuters, and Bloomberg would all be reliable secondary sources, and the stories referenced are about the bank.

However, I looked at a list of boutique banks found here:

Equity-Research.com: List of top 200 investment banks and boutiques | Equity-Research.com

I did queries of about 4 or 5 of 150 Regional/Bontique Banks on the list and none of them had independent articles on Wikipedia (although there was one Janney Montgomery Scott for which I found a redirect to Penn Mutual -- Janney Montgomery Scott has over 50 offices nationwide).

In doing Google news searches I think that many of them would meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (or at least the ones with more offices).

So maybe it is just the case that nobody has added them:

• Duncan-Williams, Inc. (google news query)

• First Southwest Company (google news query)

(there are some name collisions for each of those queries)

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• After reading the Stone Key Partners article at AFC and reading all of the external links in that AFC, my opinion is that Stone Key Partners has enough coverage in reliable and significant news sources to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and the article's tone isn't blatantly promotional. Pine^✉ 07:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources are good quality newspapers with national and international reach (NYT, Bloomberg, Reuters) and it cites a good number of them. I speculate that those who were declining the article did so because they felt there should be some kind of tie between the company and some other significant event or entity, but that's not necessarily a requirement of Notability (organizations and companies). I would seek out more sources to add new content to the article though. Is there anything particularly interesting about Stone Key Partners that might strengthen its notability? John Shandy` • talk 08:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than the news stories already in the article I don't have anything else. One can get a list of the transactions since Stone Key Partners started in 2008. (list of transactions)

I just added a brief comment about Urfirer and Bovin's work with Sal Innuzzio, and then approved the article, so that it is now in the main namespace.

By the way -- for those who may not already know -- any registered Wikipedia user can work on reviewing articles, and can make comments, decline them, accept them, etc. One just has to visit this page, and follow the instructions:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions

It looks like about five to ten new articles are submitted through the script per hour.

Template:AFC_statistics

At some point -- I wonder if there is going to be some facility so that articles submitted through the script could be forwarded to particular subject experts -- perhaps there is something like that which is already going on behind the scenes.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Biggest indices moves

Would anyhone support the idea of having a List of biggest stock market indices moves for global markets? I was thinking to use percentage (As absolute is deceptive). That came to me after todays 21% VN drop (and previously the Sensex increased almost 20% in a day)Lihaas (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a stand-alone list would be all that informative. One day, or short-term moves? Long-tern trends, or market indices moves over (say) 1-3-5 years would be interesting, if laid over other data sets. Something like a commodity-to-producer (stock price) comparison chart, or index-to-U.S./U.K./West German/Japanese GDP chart for the 1950's. Probably not what you had in mind...I'm just throwing out a few thoughts Gulbenk (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Money trust and the Pujo Committee

These articles came up on the fringe theory noticeboard recently and were identified there as possible content forks of each other. Is there some possibility that someone from this wikiproject could take a look at them and give us some help? Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for Speculation article

Recently, I've started to work on a few improvements to the Speculation article, with and on behalf of the Managed Funds Association. Since this topic is part of WikiProject Finance, I wondered if anyone here would be able to review the initial changes I've prepared. These changes focus on the Regulation section, where I've proposed including details of recent regulation and removing information that is not about current regulation. My edit request on the article's Talk page provides the full details of these suggested changes. If you're able to review the request, please reply there. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Daily U.S. Gainers, Losers, Volume

Hi all I was thinking of how the sports articles on Wikipedia have every seasons daily recaps going back decades. Then I though about adding this information [4] [5] to Wikipedia. One problem I see is the sourcing (citation) since Yahoo! at least wipes each days list. Any thoughts? Marketdiamond (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Update to the Real Estate Investment Trust Page

Hi I've updated the Real Estate Investment Trust page on my sandbox here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jlance3/sandbox. I was hoping someone would review my changes and find a consensus. The changes were made to the opening, history section, United States section and the External Links. I am getting involved at the request of the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts. Thank You Jlance3 (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Good to see someone taking on this task. My limited experience in this area involves RELPs more than REITs. So my comments are more from the viewpoint of the casual observer. Taxation should probably mention any pass-through aspects. Probably, also, different types of REITS and their associated risks (thinking about Mortgage REITS during the recent sharp downturn). History detailing the evolution of REITS since the 1950's. Maybe a compare/contrast with RELPs. More on why investors buy REITS...touching on fees, marketing, yields, liquidity, diversification (or concentration) of assets in (perhaps) an advantages/disadvantages format. Just a few initial thoughts. Gulbenk (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Jlance3, I have had a chance to compare your sandbox, side-by-side, with the current public version. Here are some thoughts: (1) You probably won't be able to achieve consensus on this talk page, because of the low traffic here. A better venue would be the TALK page of the REIT article. (2) Your edits are not that extreme or extensive. Why not just post them? The community will accept/reject your work through subsequent edits. (3) You really can't sanitize the article by ignoring the effect that the recent economic downturn had on REITS. That must be addressed, as part of a properly balanced review. (4) If the current "History" section is correct, REITS date back to the late 1800's...but only achieved their current status in 1960. Why delete the pre-1960 history? Hope my comments are helpful. Gulbenk (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gulbenk, thanks for the input, I am working on updating my edits. I have left this message on the REIT Talk page an the investing project talk page, but you are the only person who has responded so far. Again, I really appreciate your feedback, it has been very helpful. Jlance3 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have started working on the REIT page and I have implemented my first set of edits. I have take the advice from and editor, Gulbenk. Input from other editors would be much appreciated. Thank you Jlance3 (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Demand Note FAR

I have nominated Demand Note for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 20:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for Shadow banking system

Following my previous note here, regarding suggestions for the Speculation article, I've also offered some suggestions to improve the Shadow banking system article. Once again this is on behalf of the Managed Funds Association, so I'd like to have editors review the changes I've suggested. The first changes that I've proposed are for the lede, to clarify information and replace some incorrect figures. The full details of the changes are in an edit request on the article's Talk page; alas, two weeks have passed without anyone else weighing in. If you're able to review the request, please reply there. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Finance portal

Would anyone be interested in starting a Portal:Finance? The French have a finance portal at fr:Portail:Finance. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to roll back wholesale undiscussed changes to Short (finance)

I realize this WikiProject seems only minimally active, but in case anyone is watching, I'd like to point out that an unregistered IP editor in France has been deleting significant parts of the Short (finance) article—entire sections—then adding in a long, thinly sourced, arguably unencyclopedic discussion of the pros and cons of restricting short-selling. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is also heavily weighted toward the EU and France in particular. Another editor (L2blackbelt) had previously reverted similar changes this week, although that editor seems to contribute only occasionally.

For your convenience, here's L2blackbelt's rollback and here's the IP editor's latest. Obviously, I would like to see the previous version restored. Similar to my other posts on this Talk page, I believe I have enough of a conflict of interest to stay out of direct edits on this article. If this request is still up, it means the request is still open. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Another editor I had reached out to has fixed this (for now!). Meanwhile, I had posted a request on the Talk page last month (about a partial reorganization) that received some positive feedback, although little has happened in a few weeks. Here's the discussion, if anyone here is interested to get involved. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Peer Review Request

Peer review has been requested and reviews will be appreciated for the article Globalization. Meclee (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Deposit

Moved from project page:

Wiki Deposit Disambiguation page currently does not adequately disambiguate the confusing nature of the word deposit where the meaning of deposit has become obscured by the practice of converting deposits previously held at a warehouse bank to the modern practice of them becoming assets of the bank, where the customer gets a different type of money as 'their funds'.

Placing a deposit with the bank now involves a money conversion when you get the so called deposit in your account.

I tried to disambiguate the word deposit and about 6 people arrived on scene to tell me they did not like 'the movie'. The page was then quickly deleted and my edits totally removed from the deposit page. The deletion process was began by an editor who regularly reverts my very well cited edits.

Earlier on wiki i had several other editors, who are maybe economic students or graduates who regulary revert my edits telling me that a depositor is not an unsecured creditor of a private firm. Which was just odd. Wiki finance tends to suffer because people who should know better do not.

Is there a way to progress this so that ordinary people can understand what a deposit is? Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Illia Connell (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk: Market Cap

In the article about market cap the author states that "(market cap) is the total value of the issued shares of a publicly traded company; it is equal to the share price times the number of shares outstanding". The author then states that shares outstanding do not include the shares that the company owns:

"(outstanding shares) are purchased by investors and are held by them ... they are distinguished from treasury shares, which are shares held by the corporation itself".

However, market capitalization reflects the value of the company as a whole, including shares held by the corporation. Ergo, there is no differentiation between treasury and outstanding shares when evaluating the market cap of a company. The article seems to imply a false piece of information, either deliberately or accidentally.

Best regards,

Liyals1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liyals1 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a good question, but Investopedia agrees with the definition that you're quoting from the article. I think that the word market here implies that the only capitalization that's being considered is the value of the shares being held in the market, which would exclude treasury shares. If you can point me to an authority that says otherwise I'll be happy to take a look at the link. --Pine^✉ 20:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right that market capitalization reflects the value of the company as a whole. The value of the company as a whole does not include treasury shares (i.e., shares held by the company itself). Economically, treasury shares are no different from unissued shares, and you certainly wouldn't include them in market cap (or market cap potentially could be an infinite number). The idea is that, to buy all of the company, you would only have to buy all of the outstanding shares - you wouldn't need to also buy the treasury shares. John M Baker (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Called

Someone with a 7 digit fiure in their bank account is a millionaire. What is someone with a six-digit figure called? Pass a Method talk 21:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that we have a word for this in English. --Pine^✉ 20:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Forced/Free rider problem

Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO are making and/or supporting edits on the free rider problem and the forced rider problem which do not reflect what the reliable sources have to say about the topics... Talk:Forced_rider_problem#See_also_items_removed. But I might be wrong. It would be great if any outside editors could evaluate how well their edits match the reliable sources. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Cypriot crisis terminology and topics

Hi, there are a few articles related to the Cypriot finance crisis that could do with some involvement of more editors. Please see WP:ITNC#2012 Cypriot Financial Crisis levy on savings EC ECB IMF, 2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis, Bank deposit levy, bail-in, Haircut (finance), etc. There is also a note about the Cypriot deposit insurance at Deposit_insurance#European_Union. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Net present value example has issues

I just noticed Talk:Net present value#Example needs an overhaul with which I agree, but I don't feel confident enough to try to address. Can someone else please re-do Net present value#Example? EllenCT (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Rjlabs is on it! :) EllenCT (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not create the original example but did verify the calculation was O.K,. but the example was a bit awkward. I changed the periods to years (from months) to make the 10% interest rate per period more relevant. If there are any corporate DCF guys or gals around to look it over it could use some "real world" enhancement and additional precautions. I avoided discussing using a different rate across different projects or relating the discount rate to to the perceived riskiness of the projects. Might be interesting to have an DCF (capital budgeting) example like this one run under 3 different "prescribed" economic environments (sort of like the Shell Oil scenarios). Anything to introduce some level of sensitivity analysis to it or a modicum of "stress testing." From the CFO's prospective are we "betting the farm" on this single project, or is it only one of a 1,000 well diversified and uncorrelated capital projects committed to each fiscal year? Rick (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Payday loan

I'm not sure if anyone here is in a position to assist, but I came across some job ads looking for editors to modify the Payday loans article in order to provide a pro-payday loan editorial skew. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly knowledgable about the field, so I can't evaluate the article, although I did return some recently removed criticism that seemed worth keeping. At any rate, if anyone has the chance, it might be worth going over the article with a more experienced eye. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you post a link to one of the ads? John M Baker (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and dig it up again, but it was on Elance. The ad asks editors to make changes, mostly by formatting and references, but warns that the article is editorially skewed and "isn't exactly neutral" and thus only editors willing to work under those circumstances should apply. Like normal, they don't specifically state what the article was nor what the edits would be, but I was able to track down the other information through different channels. - Bilby (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Credit rating agency

For anyone who may be watching this page, I am seeking the help of a volunteer editor to assist with help updating the article Credit rating agency. I work with Moody's Investors Service, a firm covered by article, so I would very strongly prefer to find an editor without a COI perspective to look at my suggestion. On the discussion page of this article (here) I have recently made the case for replacing the current section with one I have prepared. Any editor willing to assist would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

For anyone who finds the above message, please also find this one: another editor has answered my request. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Interest Rate Risk, and more generally, Sensitivity to markets risk

If there is a finance student, professor or risk management pro with time to do some integrating historical research, I have an interesting area for you to consider looking into. It's in the very trendy area of risk management - assessment of interest rate risk. I was updating the CAMELS rating system for "S", the (S)ensitivity to market risk, and the more I dug the more I found. I made a list of documents issued by financial regulators around the topic of sensitivity to market risk. (see sensitivity) It was an eye opener how much was known and well above the radar of financial regulators well prior to the 2008 large bank failures, really back to the 1990's. Yet the CAMELS system (and state of the technology in use to asses sensitivity to market risk) was wholly inadequate to forewarn or prevent the 2008 crisis! When you look at the technology in the 90's, 20 years later not much has really evolved or been changed. Look at the 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss with an eye on Root cause analysis. It seems to be a failure in application of well known knowledge. Perhaps it illustrates complexity issues in implementation, too much of a hodge-podge of financial regulators, failure of field examiners to to fully understand and apply what was known centrally at the regulators, and institutions so large that even they are unable to maintain internal control and practice good risk management internally? A history of interest rate risk / sensitivity to market risk, with a clear demarcation at the 2008 point would show up system wide weakness and gaps in understanding. Has the 2008 crisis informed improvements in regulatory approaches, auditing, etc.? There has been sufficient time for regulators to respond since 2008. Has that response been deadly on target? Or is it all pretty much the same old, same old? Rick (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lankan notes

A large number of Sri Lankan banknotes are up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_April_21 -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

List of business and finance abbreviations

Didn't see the link to this portal in the talk page. Also, it is mostly of acronyms vs. abbr. Wasn't sure if this group was aware of this page. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Cooperative WikiProject

WikiProject Globalization, with assistance from Outlines WikiProject, has drafted an Outline of globalization. We welcome your input, additions, and comments. Meclee (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Global financial system at Articles for Improvement.

Dear members of the WikiProject Finance WikiProject. This notification is sent from the Articles for Improvement team to let you know that the article Global financial system, which has been tagged as part of the project, has been selected to receive community improvement. Users and members of the project that are willing to help, may do so in the article's entry on the Articles for Improvement page.

Regards. Meclee (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Virtual currency"

The usage of Virtual currency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk:digital currency -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Carr–Madan formula

Carr–Madan formula is a new article. I've done a bit of cleanup on it and tagged it a "stub". It suffers at least these two deficiencies:

• It is a stub. It lacks essential information; in particular it doesn't say what the mathematical model actually is.
• It is an "orphan", i.e. no other articles link to it.

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Barclays bank cheque 1955.jpg

image:Barclays bank cheque 1955.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Credit cards

File:MasterCard Logo.svg and File:Former Visa (company) logo.svg are up at NFCR, see WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Angel CoFund

Hi I'm wondering if anyone could give suggestions to the followin article Angel CoFund. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Thanks. --IP7942 (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if someone could help review this page Angel CoFund. Thanks --IP7942 (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Financial management

Hello business people! The above article has only one reference, and it is a link to a site that sells financial management courses. If I delete it the article will be unsourced. Can someone here replace it with a less promotional source? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that we should just let this be a disambiguation page and give up on the idea of it being a broad-concept article. John M Baker (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There are also a number of articles about "Money management". Is this different? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss

Hi,
Would anybody like to have a look at 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss? I'm concerned that it's just a huge unstructured pile of synthesis, but my edits were reverted. Does anybody else have any other views on the article? bobrayner (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That is the worst-written article I think I've ever seen. I've seen many mono-paragraph stubs on Wikipedia that I think are better. First of all, there doesn't appear to be any writing going on, just literal copying and pasting save for a few actual paragraphs. In at least several sections I skimmed through, editors appear to be pasting a bit of legal text from the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute website, verbatim, but then introducing quotation marks to give the appearance of direct quoting, and the paraphrasing is sparse and weak. (I don't suppose it's plagiarism to copy actual public domain legal code, but is Wikipedia at risk of copying other material from Cornell's site? I don't know, but the question is probably worth answering.)

I know the notices at the top warn readers that the content is preliminary and being dumped into the article in a bulleted list format. However, there are numerous articles for current events (much more recent than April/May 2012, in fact) that are currently still under investigation or in court phases with emerging details, for which we have Wikipedia articles of much greater quality (e.g. 2012: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Delhi gang rape case, 2013: Boston Marathon bombings, Hurricane Ingrid, Washington Navy Yard shooting). There's probably a fair amount of synthesis going on too, but efforts should at least target basic things like actually writing paragraphs that convey a meaningful story of the affair to readers, which I think could fix 80% of what's wrong with the article. This article simply does not appear useful to prospective readers. Readers would find a more coherent summary and characterization of the events by just reading relevant news articles and biographical sketches. I am busy with real life and preoccupied with revamping another article, but this one is in dire need of support.

Wikipedia's core content policies should never be sidelined for speediness and convenience. John Shandy` • talk 02:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I hope if anyone sees copy-and-paste material that is copyright that he or she will delete it right away. If someone wants to save material to put in an article later, I'm sure he or she has a computer with a word processor. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The notice at the top of the article about rapidly-developing news has been there since May 2012. The article has got worse since then, not better. That notice isn't encouraging improvement; it's an excuse. bobrayner (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

How can we fix it? bobrayner (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The only way I see the article getting fixed and staying that way is to get the article's most passionate contributors (which appear to be two editors responsible for most of this month's edits) on board with addressing these concerns, unless we magically find someone with the interest in the article and the time to tackle these challenges. You made one attempt at explaining some issues and asking some questions about turning lists to prose, but they never really addressed your questions and instead talked about how the event is sparsely covered and still unfolding. I don't recall off-hand what noticeboards or "requests for _____" are appropriate for drawing community attention to this article (beyond, of course, this WikiProject). John Shandy` • talk 13:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the opportunity is now, since the global settlement was today. The Federal Reserve press release has links to the other regulators' announcements too. The most detailed account seems to be that in the SEC's order. John M Baker (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Google-Wallet-logo.svg

image:Google-Wallet-logo.svg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Solvency II Directive

Since the plenary vote is on the 22 October and the legislation is due to come in force on the 1 January 2014 I think this page requires some urgent attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe Lindesay (talk • contribs) 11:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Implications for costs of retirement and long term infrastructure investment as well as all sorts of other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe Lindesay (talk • contribs) 11:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Would be particular good if anyone knows of concerns being voiced outside the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe Lindesay (talk • contribs) 11:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

VPIN

Hello there. Would anyone please look at the VPIN article? It seems to be the subject of an embarrassingly long-running edit war involving a whole bunch of SPAs that keep pushing opposing viewpoints. It would benefit from the involvement of someone knowledgeable in the area.  — daranz [ t ] 22:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions on your mortgage fraud entry.

My name is William K. Black. I am an Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. I am a former federal financial regulator and a white-collar criminologist. The page reads like it was written by the Mortgage Bankers Association. It attributes the lies in liar's loans as solely by borrowers and treats appraisal fraud as if it originated with individual appraisers. Neither claim bears any resemblance to reality. The entire article ignores "control fraud." You can check out my congressional and FCIC testimony or hundreds of detailed blogs in New Economic Perspectives for an alternative view with extensive data and citations (and analytics).

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:426:EF01:20F4:5A3F:F132:74D1 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

VPIN

Hello there. Would anyone please look at the VPIN article? It seems to be the subject of an embarrassingly long-running edit war involving a whole bunch of SPAs that keep pushing opposing viewpoints. It would benefit from the involvement of someone knowledgeable in the area.  — daranz [ t ] 22:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions on your mortgage fraud entry.

My name is William K. Black. I am an Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. I am a former federal financial regulator and a white-collar criminologist. The page reads like it was written by the Mortgage Bankers Association. It attributes the lies in liar's loans as solely by borrowers and treats appraisal fraud as if it originated with individual appraisers. Neither claim bears any resemblance to reality. The entire article ignores "control fraud." You can check out my congressional and FCIC testimony or hundreds of detailed blogs in New Economic Perspectives for an alternative view with extensive data and citations (and analytics).

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:426:EF01:20F4:5A3F:F132:74D1 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Structured Deposit

Hello finance experts! This abandoned draft will soon be deleted under db-G13. It appears to have some references. Is there anything here that should be saved? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's gone... —Anne Delong (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Pershing Square Capital Management Stub

The last paragraph of the "investment history" section has a sentence that reads "The fund was betting on the company to go bankrupt, but because GGP had more assets then debt ($30 billion in assets vs $27 billion in debt) and that the company problems were not their assets but with refinancing maturing debt in frozen markets, noting that shareholders will be rewarded after the bankruptcy."

The last clause does not make sense in the context of the rest of the sentence, and appears to perhaps be missing some words, but I can't determine the author's original intent or meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.87.188 (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Revised, based on the article's cited source. John M Baker (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Created new article on Chicago Options Associates

• Chicago Options Associates

I've gone ahead and created a new article on Chicago Options Associates.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Experts needed at Gold Wars

Hi all, please take a look at the newly created article Gold Wars, and offer any suggestions. It appears very POV, and even if not could use the eyes of some experts to improve the tone and accuracy. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that this project be merged with Wikiproject Investment. There hasn't been a lot of activity at Wikiproject Investment, even historically. The investment project has around 800 projects in it's scope, as opposed to this project which has over 4000. Ultimately, there is a fair amount of overlap between the two topics; for many random Investment articles I clicked, they were also already tagged as finance articles. The new project could be renamed Wikiproject Finance and Investment, and would benefit from a conjoined editor pool, and the Investment articles would benefit from the enhanced participation of Wikiproject Finance expertise. Finally, it would make things easier for editors tagging articles, who now seem to be tagging articles in an ad-hoc fashion as either finance, investment, or both in some cases. Overall, I think this simplification will improve the wiki, and the cost from combining the two projects will not be that great nor will the expansion of scope hamper the ability of the project to further its goals. This has been discussed before in the archives, but no movement was made, so I'd like to see if we can get consensus to make this happen.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• This link Category intersection of Investment and Finance articles shows the intersection between finance and investment. Currently, around 575 articles are tagged by both projects. Investment only has 811 articles, so there are only 236 additional articles which would be added to the mix if we merged these projects together.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I've long felt that there was too much overlap between the two WikiProjects, and only enough manpower for one WikiProject at best. John M Baker (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense to me to merge them. -DJSasso (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support; why keep inactive & overlapping wikiprojects on life-support? bobrayner (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support I think it makes good sense to merge investment into this project. I'm not sure it's necessary to rename this project, however. John Shandy` • talk 00:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Yes - with a very warm welcome to those who have contributed to either project. I have worked a little on both projects, and feel that with short hands, it is now time to make common cause. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Flash Crash Should Have Its Own Wikipedia Entry

Hi All - I believe the phenomenon of "flash crash" is serious and unique enough to merit its own page. High-frequency trading is its own phenomenon, while "flash crash" is the result of a combination of factors, including high-frequency trading. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyhsue (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the background: Beland added a tag to the Flash Crash article, suggesting it be merged into High-frequency trading. Beland did not give any reasons for the merger or start a discussion. I have removed the tag and left a post on Beland's talk page. I have my own doubts as to whether we really need a Flash Crash article beyond the 2010 Flash Crash article, but an orphan tag doesn't accomplish anything. John M Baker (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, tags are there to mark pages for future work, and to start discussions. Flash Crash seemed short to me, and possibly closely enough related to high-frequency trading that it could be covered as a symptom thereof (in the same article), but I'm not an expert in the field. If other folks think they should be separate, that's fine with me. -- Beland (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone with a username "AdvisorShares" is editing the Advisorshares wikipedia page

1. REDIRECT Advisorshares

This is against several rules. Accounts that have corporate names are supposed to be deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BFAQ#ACCOUNT ETFeditor 18:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up numbers in the infobox

Would someone who is better at reading a corporate balance sheet than I am please read http://www.northerntrust.com/documents/earnings/2013/q4-2013-northern-trust-quarterly-earnings-release.pdf?bc=23216761 and correct the numbers in the infobox of the Northern Trust article? Thanks. BMK (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The infobox currently says $63.6 billion net income in 2013, but the source says $731.3 million net income in 2013. At first I thought "Eh? Why is there such a huge difference?"

A bit of digging found this edit. The first step is to revert it, since slightly outdated numbers are better than completely wrong numbers. Will update using that source... bobrayner (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Financial economics

Financial economics - just "completed" a major re-write. Please review the article, as well revisit its quality-rating. Fintor (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.160.150.196 (talk)

Question regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Long Term Care Benefit Plan

Hi All

I previously worked for Life Care Funding and had attempted to make some material available to the Wiki community regarding Life Care Funding's funding program, their 'long term care benefit plan.' I tagged it as 'COI' and I completely understand why it was declined both times (once for a weak source, the other because parts read a bit like marketing material- which I was hoping would be edited out by the community as I was clearly too involved in the topic).

What I am inquiring about now is: would a Project Finance editor be interested/feel it is appropriate to put a blurb about this program on the Life settlement page? My rationale is that their program fundamentally is a life settlement with a twist- the settlement goes into an irrevocable bank account in the seller's name for long term care funding. For this reason both Medicaid and VA&A programs deem Life Care Funding's transaction as a qualified spend-down. Why I think this is notable in the life settlement industry is that the Life Care Funding program is designed to help the middle class, it works with policies much smaller than a typical life settlement. I know this because I now work for a life settlement provider and we still send cases that we can't service over to LCF. In fact, I just read an article which says insurance agents and brokers are now offering LCF's program to their insureds (www.roughnotes.com/benefitsereport/archives/v41_march2014/page32/page32.htm).

And to be clear, I'm not asking that 'Life Care Funding' be put on the Life settlement page; I am suggesting that the community would benefit from learning about this 'new twist on a life settlement' that is protecting Medicaid and Veteran's benefit eligibility while also reducing the pressure on the very same federally funded welfare programs.

For those interested, I wrote a rather lengthy exegesis regarding further notability on the Articles for creation/Long Term Care Benefit Plan Talk page.

Thank you for your time and consideration! Burnsdrake (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking for community support on a new grant proposal

The Global Economic Map project (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Global_Economic_Map) plans to build a bot that will upload economic/corporate/financial data into Wikidata and systematically display the data in articles such as this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States. Our goal is to make an article for every country that looks like that one. The economic/corporate/financial data uploaded into Wikidata as part of this project will be usable for Wikipedia articles as well. We are looking for community support and people who want to get more involved with this Wikidata project. We would love to get more involved with WikiProject Finance and hear your input. If you are interested to hear more please send me a message, write an endorsement on the grant page or ask questions below. Thank you Mcnabber091 (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Global financial system nearing readiness

I'm not quite ready to nominate Global financial system for Good Article review, but I'm very close. I would like to get some initial feedback if possible. There will always be room for improvement on that article and it is definitely an article I will continue to monitor far into the future, but I am essentially done with my revamp of it.

Please note the depth of the improvement:

• Previous (before revamp)
• Current

I am particularly interested in thoughts and suggestions regarding the lead. John Shandy` • talk 23:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User "UserNameUnderConstruction" editing the AdvisorShares page needs to blocked

For the Advisorshares article, this user keeps writing advertorial content and seem to be related to the company. This user seems to be the same person as a previous user who was blocked because the had the user name "AdvisorShares". Before that they didn't use a user name and the ip address traced back to the town in Maryland where AdvisorShares is located. It seems more than likely that this person works for the company, is trying to make their page into a biased free advertisement and is not disclosing this, in violation of Wikipedia's rules and procedures. This is from the Wikipedia Companies project page that is mentioned above:

Self-Promotion/Conflict of Interest

As Wikipedia's popularity has increased, there have been instances of companies or individuals working at companies creating or modifying articles in order to make their company appear more favorably. This practice is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines and is frowned upon by the community in general and this WikiProject. If you are one of those persons, you are asked to read WP:BFAQ, which will help you to understand why this practice is an issue. ETFeditor 18:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etfcanadian (talk • contribs)

Hollywood accounting

Would any of you like to look at Hollywood accounting? I'm concerned that it's a mishmash of different examples, out of context, and with a large dose of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I doubt the content is due to deliberate misuse of sources; more likely a consequence of editors not understanding the topic they write about. For instance, this source is used to make a general statement about how some concrete concept called "hollywood accounting" turns commercially successful films "into a net loss". We have problems with primary sources, too - if some celeb complains on a talkshow that they didn't get enough money out of some venture, this article blames it on Hollywood Accounting. bobrayner (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Finance At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata: Economics task force

Wikidata: Economics task force

Mcnabber091 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Bitcoin exchange" redirect

The Bitcoin exchange article is a redirect that conflates:

• bitcoin exchange, an organized market matching supply and demand for the digital currency with
• bitcoin exchanger, a market maker

I propose to cancel the redirect to disambiguate these two. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I noted that a few articles had directed Bitcoin exchange to Digital currency exchanger, I think Bitcoin exchange is becoming notable enough in its own right to warrant an article, so created the article but set it as a redirect to Digital currency exchanger for now as did not have enough time to create an full article yet. The redirect is not ideal but is what was happening anyway. As for Ladislav Mecir comment, I do agree that there are two different concepts here but I note that in common usage the same name is used for organisations providing either a trading facility or an exchange between Bitcoins and Fiat money or both. His separation, although correct, does not seem to reflect common usage. It seems that its being used in the same way as foreign exchange which covers both trading facilities and physical exchangers of currency. My feeling is the best solution is for or somebody to create a full article on bitcoin exchanges, which can cover both concepts. Sargdub (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please help assess a draft at AFC

Draft:Mesbah point is about a concept in Islamic finance, please evaluate whether it is potentially notable and should be included in the 'pedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Could anyone look into this instance of probable paid employee editing on AdvisorShares and Fund.com pages?

I came to find out about this originally by looking at the history of Phillipe Cousteau Jr.'s wikipedia entry. It seems that UserNameUnderConstruction (and other names like ETFinvestor that may be sockpuppets) has only been editing pages related to AdvisorShares and all of the edits the user makes are to get rid of factual information that may reflect negatively on the company and replace it with marketing language. Other users have suspects that this and confronted the user, but the user never denies working for the company and instead tries to go after those accusing him/her and get them banned from wikipedia and asking admins to protect the pages so they can´t be edited to change the marketing language.Icelandicgolfer (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Icelandicgolfer. Suspected sockpuppetry should be reported at WP:SPI and allegations relating to editor behavior should be reported to WP:ANI. The WikiProject Finance talk page is geared toward discussion of the project's scope and article contents. You may not receive attention from administrators by calling editor behavior into question on this talk page. Nevertheless, I've alerted an administrator to your post here. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 19:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Icelandicgolfer is a sockpuppet of a user who has disrupted these articles.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong:I can understand why you think that. But why are you so certain? What proof do you have behind these allegations? I mentioned in my original post that I found some of my ideas from other users (although not ETFCanadian). I looked and realized that some of these users were banned for copying from ETFCanadian. However, I am just a crazy viking from the middle of nowhere Iceland and have no conflicts of interests with anyone. If you can look me up and find that I am not, do so and prove me wrong. Anyways, I don't want to get into too much of a confrontation over this silly issue. I thought that there was a freedom of speech in the USA and that the internet was supposed to be open transparent. ETFCanadian might have broken some rules, but I am not Canadian. I am just a crazy viking and you have no proof otherwise. Have a good day! I mean it. We vikings don't hold grudges.Icelandicgolfer (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop pinging me with the yo template and end the "I'm a crazy Viking" spiel.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

ok, sorry. I wasn't aware that that the yo template was "pinging" you. I just saw other people use it to address those who they were responding to. I will try not be negative towards you, like you are towards me. The viking thing is a joke, I do not know why it offended you. Have a great day!Icelandicgolfer (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a bad joke and you should be blocked already considering the disruption caused.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong:, it appears to me that you are currently a very angry, negative and bitter person. Maybe the viking thing was a bad joke, so you tell me a better one. Maybe it will make you smile and feel better for a few seconds. Why should I be blocked? What disruption did I cause? You are the one who is obsessed with conlfict and fighting with me. You have made a response to everyone of my posts. Your sock puppet accusation is false. You do things that I believe are technically against wikipedia's rules like reversing edits without explanation and constantly bullying a new user who is unfamiliar with the rules. On jytdog's page, you falsely claimed that I was banned from Wikipedia. I have been polite towards you even though you are angry at me, supposedly for my bad jokes. I am not going meet your fire with fire. We should be friendly. We both are supporters of preserving the oceans; I assume you are from your Wikipedia page. I don't dislike anyone. However, I would like to suggest that you try to relax and look at the world from a different perspective. All of this anger must be bad for your health. Have a nice day, or night as it is here in Iceland!Icelandicgolfer (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Then why are you obsessed with the same subjecst as other inappropriately created alternate accounts that had been used to disrupt the subject of Cousteau Jr and these companies? Why have you jumped straight into this dispute?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Note, the OP has been banned as a meatpuppet and the SPI was closed here. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)