Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance & Investment/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

CME Group Chairman Content Changes Request

The page for Terrence A. Duffy, Chairman and CEO of CME Group (the derivatives marketplace) has some warning tags indicating that it needs to be improved. I've put forward a request on the Talk page to start making an inroads into the improvement process, suggesting some details that can be trimmed. I work for CME Group and have a conflict of interest. I won’t be making direct edits to articles where I have a conflict, which is why I posted the request. Although I "tagged" in the editors who had flagged the page, I've not yet been able to find someone to review and would really appreciate any feedback or assistance. Can anyone here help?

Thank you, Lbischel (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

April Newsletter Draft, needing comments

Hi! I finished a draft of the April newsletter, which you can read at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment/Newsletters/April 2022. Comments are welcome. I plan on sending it to project participants on the first of April and then send it only to those who sign up to receive future newsletters. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I also came up with a points system for the Drive, which you can see at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment/Content drives/Awards. I thought giving points for both article improvement and maintenance cleanup would address some of the ideas BuzzWeiser196 gave in the layout update thread. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Octopus card

I have nominated Octopus card 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. (t · c) buidhe 03:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Bond (finance)

An article that been involved with (Bond (finance) ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (List of foreign currency bonds). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Review

Hello! I'm Matt. I've created a Wikipedia account to represent the company Lightbox (India) and propose changes on the article's Talk page for editors to consider. I've submitted two requests to correct existing text. I've used the edit request template but haven't received any responses yet. Are any editors here at WikiProject Finance & Investment able to take a look? Thanks! Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lightbox_(India) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattroger (talk • contribs) 12:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Remitly AfC Draft Review

Hello! I am a Remitly employee here to ask if any editors at this WikiProject, especially ones who have experience editing finance company pages, would like to review my AfC draft for a page for the international money transfer company, Remitly. Ideally, I would like to get the draft approved, but given the feedback I've received so far, I know that's probably a long shot. I'm afraid that my COI combined with past failed Remitly article creation attempts have caused editors to regard my work with heavy skepticism. While that's fair enough, the feedback I've received has been too general about the draft being promotional and needing to be based on independent (but not routine) sourcing. Aside from one financial figure sourced from an SEC filing, every claim in the draft is backed up by material from one or more independent publications, and I have been careful to write in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Obviously, I'm coming at this from a biased perspective, so there may be some things in the draft that I am missing. I hope editors at this WP will see that I am genuinely trying to assemble a solid Wikipedia article that provides accurate information about Remitly. If I've failed to do that, I would like to know in what ways, specifically, I have fallen short of the mark. The draft is linked here. To anyone who takes a look and gets back to me: I deeply appreciate your time and effort. Thank you! JM at Remitly (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@JM at Remitly: First of all, thank you for declaring and following all the proper procedures on Wikipedia. You can check Remitly now. I've cut out the more promotional parts and cleaned up awkward wording. I do a lot of research on international remittances, particularly from North America to lesser-known African countries, and have created a few related articles myself, such as Azimo. We do need more Wikipedia articles on how ordinary Africans send and receive cross-border transactions. The problem is that these articles often look as if they're written for potential investors and are overly promotional, thus often leading to deletion. But if they are neutrally written, they are generally good to go. Let me know if you have any other questions and concerns. MSteinburg (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Bond

I've now split off List of foreign currency bonds from Bond (finance). Feel free to add to either article! — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

CME Group Chairman/CEO Request

I've posted here before to seek help for CME Group Chairman and CEO Terrence A. Duffy's page and I'm back as I have a new request to help fix the page content. The newest request on the Talk page is to rewrite and better source all of the early life and career information. Again, I work for CME Group and have a conflict of interest and I won’t be making direct edits to articles where I have a conflict. Can anyone help?

Thank you, Lbischel (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Credit theory of money the same as the credit creation theory of banking?

I'm thinking of writing an article on the latter, I am just curious if they are the same (i.e. the second article would be redundant). In my opinion they aren't, since credit theory of money relates to the perception of money and debt, whereas the credit creation theory of banking refers to the creation of money itself, namely by individual banks. Are they the same or different? Thank you X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 01:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that these are different things. The credit theory of money is a theory of money generally. The credit creation theory of banking seeks to explain how some money is created in the process of bank operations. John M Baker (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks John M Baker. I'll get onto it. X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 20:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Good luck, X-750! If you want another editor to assess the article or want a peer review, you are more than welcome to ask the project for help :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Help needed to split Citadel Securities from Citadel LLC

Hi, a split discussion has determined that Citadel Securities should be split from Citadel LLC. COI editor Amandaatcitadel has prepared a draft here: User:Amandaatcitadel/Citadel Securities. On first impression, the draft seems workable, but I won't have the time required to give it proper attention over in the near future. If anyone has the time to take a look, it would be appreciated. I'm also notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies. JBchrch talk 22:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, it's been  Done. JBchrch talk 17:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Future Drive

Hi! We won't be organizing a content drive next month but will do so in June, what topics would y'all like to see as the theme of the drive? — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

BuzzWeiser196, John M Baker, X-750, and Mx. Granger: is there any topic that particularly interests you that you'd like to see? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 04:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see creation and expansion of articles about exchanges (Guangzhou Futures Exchange, Nasdaq Stockholm, Korea Exchange, Tokyo Commodity Exchange, Buenos Aires Stock Exchange, Thailand Futures Exchange, etc.). A number of them are listed at List of stock exchanges and the articles it links to. This topic potentially has broad appeal as it's relevant to a variety of countries and types of financial instruments, and it doesn't require specialized knowledge to contribute. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Ixtal, John M Baker, X-750, and Mx. Granger: I'd like to see us reduce the number of articles that lack citations to reliable sources, and reduce reliance on low-quality sources such as Investopedia, obscure websites and companies' SEC filings. There are too many articles that were written in the early days of Wikipedia that don't adhere to the more rigorous standards we have today. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we could alternate months similar to the GOCE blitz/drive plan but have content creation drives and maintenance template blitzes? That seems like a good way to encourage both. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

BuzzWeiser196: While this is in concept an excellent idea, I'm not sure how practical it is for a content drive. It seems more like the kind of thing we should be doing all the time. Content drives, as I understand them, tend to focus on creation or improvement of articles in a particular subject area. But I am open to others' views on this. I would also note that, while SEC filings are primary sources, they tend to be a rather good quality of primary source, undergoing extensive review and with potential legal liability attaching to errors. John M Baker (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

John M Baker there is nothing against using primary sources at all. They have to be used with consideration and sparingly but these kinds of public company disclosures are reliable for statements of fact regarding the disclosures made. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Cheque, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

GAR for UBS

UBS has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities

In my humble opinion, it deserves its own article. Right now, it's just a section in United States treasury security. There are plenty of articles on stock brokerage firms' web sites (Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, PIMCO, Raymond James, etc.), but those are potentially tainted by commercial motives. I'd like to see more references to textbooks, peer-reviewed articles and the financial press. Clearly, inflation is upon us once more. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised TIPS don't have their own page, BuzzWeiser196. I encourage you to boldly split the section into its own page. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 06:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Will do. In doing so I hope to add citations to some different sources. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Question about flags

Hi again, as I've posted here before, I work for CME Group. I have a conflict of interest and I've been making some requests to fix issues on CME Group CEO Terrence A. Duffy's page. A few editors have been very helpful providing feedback and making updates, and the page is now in much better shape. The editor who most recently helped with the updates added the Paid contributions template to the page to make visible to readers that there has been involvement from an editor with a financial conflict. I understand that point. However, the Paid contributions template specifically says that the page may still need cleanup, even though editors agree that the page is in a good place. This feels confusing to readers, and to other editors who might come across the page.

What I'm curious about is if anyone here has seen a template like this to flag paid contributions that also does not indicate that the page still needs improvement? Any suggestions would be appreciated! I'm more than happy to be transparent about contributing to the page, but I can't find other examples and the indication that the page still needs cleanup feels problematic.

Thank you, Lbischel (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Letting editors here know, I received some helpful responses from Wikiproject Templates and an editor also shared thoughts at the Terrence A Duffy Talk page, so this question has been answered.

Thank you, Lbischel (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Help with a rewrite?

Is there any editor who can take a crack at rewriting the lede of Goodwill (accounting) to avoid copying or closely paraphrasing ASC 805-20-55? Unless I'm mistaken, the definition provided by the FASB is copyrighted I'm pretty sure I'm certain I can't provide a clean rewrite without butchering the meaning. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No coverage of continuation funds

I'll add it to the requests tab but in case y'all are not watching that page, I think we are sorely missing coverage of continuation funds as an aspect of private equity investment vehicles. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 16:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Sequoia Capital: Request for review

Hello! I recently posted two requests to the Sequoia Capital article Talk page that I'm hoping experienced editors can review.

The first one is regarding a Senior leadership section that was recently added to the article. I'm not sure that this section is necessary, and other editors appear to feel the same way but have not yet taken any action. The second one is regarding a proposed revision of the article introduction, which I recently reposted following editor feedback.

Due to my conflict of interest (I work for Sequoia Capital) I will not make any changes to the article myself. Instead, I’m reaching out to editors active on the Sequoia article and in relevant WikiProjects.

Any comments or guidance you can provide would be much appreciated. Thank you. VS for Sequoia Capital (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Net worth, High-net-worth individual, and Ultra high-net-worth individual

Wealth management lead me to the above articles, which seem pretty terrible? They mostly seem built on weak sources, and as these sources make clearer than the Wikipedia article itself, these terms are not universal or refer to the same categories when used by different organizations and firms. They mostly seem to exist to have lists of rich people per country (unsourced, and certainly out of date.) They both need to be heavily rewritten, regardless, but anyone have any objections to merging these to Net worth, which is currently a stub and feels like it'd be a more useful place to put this information in context? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No objections to merging from me. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've proposed the merger on the talk page here, as an FYI. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

LendingClub History request help

Hello! I'm dropping by this WikiProject to ask if I can get some help with a pending edit request on the LendingClub Talk page. I'm an LC employee, which means I can't edit the company page directly and have to rely on other Wikipedians to review my requests. I thought this might be a good place to find an interested editor.

As you can see on the LendingClub Talk page, I have put together a revised and updated version of the article's History section, which doesn't currently have much information on the past couple years of company activity. For ease of reference, here's a link to the the full revised History draft, which I have posted on my user page.

Any editor feedback I could get on the request or the draft would be awesome. Thanks! EFlynn at LendingClub (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing help

Afternoon. I have an article here, Kapital Bank, which is in dire need of sources; I'm not finding anything acceptable in a Google search. As I'd rather not AfD the page without making sure that absolutely nothing usable exists is it possible there are offline sources about the bank? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Dan Wagner article update

Hi. Editors of this project might be interested in suggestions to update the article about Dan Wagner a well-known British tech entrepreneur. The proposals are here: Talk:Dan Wagner#Request Edits April 2022. Since I have a COI, an independent editor or editors should review these. Thanks.W12SW77 (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Douglas Leone requests

Hello there, WikiProject members. I recently posted two requests to the Douglas Leone article Talk page concerning proposed revisions. I have a COI so I'm hoping to get an experienced editor to review what I've put together. I thought I would try pinging here since Doug's career is obviously closely tied with Sequoia Capital and venture capital.

The first request involves a very straightforward update to the infobox. The second request involves changes to the article introduction (updating his title), Career section (lightly restructuring and updating existing claims), and Personal life section (adding one additional claim). Again, due to my conflict of interest I will not make any changes to the article myself so I'm hoping someone else can look over my requests. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. VS for Sequoia Capital (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The shortcomings of Investopedia as a reliable source

Greetings Wikipedians! In my humble opinion, we should avoid overreliance on Investopedia as a reliable source for our inline citations. My advice is to use it if you must, but don't make it your sole source. Reasons are as follows:

1. Investopedia claims its authors are experts, but I am suspicious that their standards aren't very high. For example, check out the bio for Jason Fernando, who wrote the Investopedia article on yield to maturity.

2. Investopedia offers articles and courses that carry a short-term or fad investing focus, like Best Online Technical Analysis Courses, Best Online Gold Dealers and How to Trade Orange Juice Options. Their business model seems to be to advertise financial service products aimed at individual investors and advisors who cater to them.

I have more trust in financial journalists who write for prominent publications like The Economist, The New York Times, Barrons, Associated Press, Reuters and Institutional Investor's web site. Peer-reviewed academic journals, or at least published academic papers, are even better. A 1-year subscription to The Journal of Finance costs only $39 (free if you're a student). Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of adding it to WP:RSP tbh. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Ixtal - It's already mentioned on WP:RSP, where it's classified as a tertiary source, with text that says no consensus exists. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a new RFC there is necessary? Last thread on the topic had barely any participation. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we should have our own view before going to WP:RSN. The noticeboard often is interested in and gives at least some weight to the views of the relevant WikiProject. My own impression is that Investopedia's quality is uneven, but I would not want to bar it altogether. Maybe something like: May be used as a source for uncontroversial statements, but prefer a more reliable source when available. Thoughts? John M Baker (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As a test, I just looked at a couple of articles on Investopedia to see how they did in addressing subjects I'm familiar with. First, I looked at Mutual Fund vs. ETF: What's the Difference?. It's a bit simplistic and overlooks some of the factors I would consider important. Still, I did not see much in the way of outright inaccuracies. The article has a named author and indicates who reviewed it and who fact-checked it. I would not be upset to see this cited on Wikipedia, although there are better sources available for someone willing to take the trouble to find them.

Second, I looked at What Is a Hedge Fund?. There are three errors in the opening sentence alone. The named author is "The Investopedia Team"; there are also a reviewer and a fact-checker, although the latter did not seem to know what she was doing, and in fact her bio implies that she has good experience editing but not so much in finance. An article like this is obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia, and it leaves me wondering if my suggestion that Investopedia "may be used as a source for uncontroversial statements" is too generous. John M Baker (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Where is the boundary between options strategies?

Hello! I recently started completely rewriting the Strangle (options) article, but I've run into a problem: I plan to eventually rewrite most options articles but I fear that a large amount of content will simply be duplicated between articles. Should we really maintain separate articles on various strategies with small differences between them (I.E defined and undefined risk variants of strategies)? For instance, I don't see any functional difference for readers between the articles Strangle (options), Iron condor, and Condor (options)... obviously professionals will point out various esoteric differences in how the greeks work for each, and slight differences in management, but I don't really know if these small differences warrant dedicated articles, as opposed to one larger article. But the problem is, where would we draw the line in merging such articles? Straddle options are synthetically similar to each of the strategies i've listed, but that probably (maybe?) warrants its own article.

Clearly I think we should have some articles on options strategies, but I feel like many of the articles we already have duplicate each other substantially. TraderCharlotte (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I think in some cases an obscure strategy can be discussed in a section of an article about a closely related strategy, like in Straddle#Straps and strips and Butterfly (options)#Butterfly variations. But in general I agree that it's not easy to merge articles about different strategies. A condor is sort of like a strangle, sort of like a ladder, and sort of like a butterfly, but probably wouldn't fit comfortably as a section of any of those articles. Also, if we try to combine descriptions of a variety of strategies to completely remove repetition, I suspect the result might be so abstract it would confuse most readers, especially non-specialists.

Could you give some examples of information that's duplicated? Maybe that would help in thinking about solutions. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Sure! For instance, the content in the section "short strangles" would all also pertain to Iron Condors. Is there a way to include the content of part of one page in another, with a single word changed (i.e changing "strangle" to iron condor")? Maybe a creative use of transclusion could fix some of this? TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

With transclusion, I could write generalized sentences and paragraphs in some parts of the article with transcluded content, and then get to more specialized content with custom article-specific content in non-transcluded paragraphs. Template:Excerpt seems to support this. I'll try implementing this on some of the articles. TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I've tested this on iron condor (I will add references later). TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

For instance, the content in the section "short strangles" would all also pertain to Iron Condors. That's not true – unlike a short strangle, an iron condor is a limited-risk strategy. I guess you noticed this, which is presumably why you added the code <noinclude>un</noinclude>limited losses to the strangle article. It's a nice effort, but I don't support this approach. I think it's likely to be error-prone, especially if applied to more than two articles. It's also hard for other editors to maintain and improve – editors who want to change the articles are likely to have a hard time understanding what is going on with all the "noinclude"s and "includeonly"s, and might easily introduce errors. And this approach is hard to reconcile with WP:V – a source about strangles can't be used to support content about iron condors, unless it happens to discuss both strategies. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

In general I think the requirement for verifiability will make it hard to reuse content about different strategies. Information about a strategy can only be verified by a source about that strategy – a source about a different strategy doesn't work. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks! I'll just edit them separately then. TraderCharlotte (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TraderCharlotte. I've seen you around on some of the finance articles lately, which is great. I know what you are saying about the options articles being frustrating at times. I had the impulse to consolidate all of them, then some of them, when I started editing. I decided not to even try, for the reasons that Mx. Granger describes, that sourcing different strategies is going to require, well, different sources, and more concerning, that future editors might find it daunting to try to make any revisions if the options articles are um paramaterized using transclusions. Although that is a clever idea! Keep up your good editing work!--FeralOink (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Immunization article

Nobody has taken this on yet, so I today I took the first step towards improving this article. More to come. See Talk Page. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Ixtal - My work on this article is complete. I welcome any comments or suggestions. Regards,BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:BuzzWeiser196 I will go have a look at what you have accomplished! --FeralOink (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

LendingClub Merge Request

Hello! I'm popping into this WikiProject to ask for help with a merge request. The basic issue is this: LendingClub absorbed a bank last year. That bank previously had its own Wikipedia page, which has since been renamed LendingClub Bank. But that entity doesn't really exist. LC offers banking services, but there's no arm of the company or subsidiary called "LendingClub Bank." It's all part of the same unified whole.

I'm a LendingClub employee with an obvious COI, so I don't get a vote on the issue. I'm just here to call attention to it. I went to the Proposed Article Mergers page and posted a request, but haven't yet received any feedback. Would anyone here mind reviewing my request? I'd be very grateful for any help I can get with this. EFlynn at LendingClub (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Grayscale draft help

Hi editors,

I'm Ben and I work for Grayscale Investments. I wanted to create an article about Grayscale but my draft was rejected from Articles for Creation. Due to my COI, I was hoping someone here might be able to offer some feedback on the draft. I reuploaded it into my sandbox here if anyone has any tips! I've tried posting some other places as well but so far have not received feedback. I'd greatly appreciate any tips you could offer in hopes of resubmitting the draft! Thank you in advance for your help. BenViagas (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Merging in to Economics

Hi! I don't think there's enough activity here such that a separate WikiProject is beneficial. What do y'all think of merging with the Economics WikiProject? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Bankruptcy of FTX assessment

As an active project member, I altered the importance assessment of Bankruptcy of FTX article from "Low" to "Mid". -- FeralOink (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Tulip mania

I have nominated Tulip mania for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Panic of 1907

User:Buidhe has nominated Panic of 1907 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis

2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of CNET

This is a notice that per WP:RSN#Beware: CNet running AI-generated articles, byline "CNet Money", there is consensus that CNET is no longer considered a reliable source. Thank you for your attention. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Investopedia, 2

Hi everyone! This website has been discussed before on this board, see here. Yesterday, I created a thread on Investopedia over at WP:RSN, see here. According to SimilarWeb.com, the website has over 50 million views per month. Google often puts it in its results when searching for financial terms, so a lot of people encounter it when researching financial subjects, myself included. A lot of users will try to cite Investopedia in the future, so we better put some sound advice at WP:RSP#Investopedia.

The current entry at WP:RSP#Investopedia reads:

“ Investopedia is owned by Dotdash (formerly known as About.com). There is no consensus on the reliability of Investopedia. It is a tertiary source. See also: Dotdash. ”

A poor description, imo. I propose changing it to something like this:

“ Investopedia is a tertiary source on financial content. Its quality is reportedly inconsistent, and should be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is advised to cite Investopedia only on aspects for which no other source can be found. ”

This is not really a thread, more like a notification. To keep the discussion in one place, please comment here. Thanks! - Manifestation (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Inverted yield curve

I posted this on the Inverted Yield Curve talk page 10 days ago. Nobody reacted, so I'm posting it here before I start editing the article. As it stands now: 1) article lacks a straightforward, understandable explanation of WHY a yield curve becomes inverted; 2) there is no mention of the expectations theory; 3) the reference to a liquidity trap is awkward and confusing, and 4) we can do better than to rely on Investopedia. I'll volunteer to craft some changes. Preliminary thoughts:

i) One explanation for the inverted yield curve: expectations theory holds that long-term rates depicted in the yield curve are a reflection of expected future short-term rates which in turn reflect expectations about future economic conditions and monetary policy. Applying expectations theory to the yield curve: investors expect economy to slip into recession, which at some point in the future would cause monetary policy to transition from tightening to easing. In that scenario, expected future short-term rates fall below current short-term rates. Result: the yield curve inverts. (Federal Reserve paper at https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/epr/08v14n1/0807rose.html)

ii) A variation on this theme: when [investors] anticipate recession and lower interest rates, they try to lock in long-term yields, which drives up prices of long-term bonds, reducing expected long-term interest rates to the point that they are less than short-term rates. Result: the yield curve inverts.

Both of the sources meet the test for reliability. I can probably find more in college finance textbooks. Any thoughts? Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC) BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it seems like it would be helpful. John M Baker (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll move forward with this. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Good luck, BuzzWeiser196! — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Rewriting of index (economics)

Hi! As this is seemingly the most-viewed article in our WikiProject I would appreciate if y'all helped rewrite/improve the article. There are a number of problems with the article, with some maintenance tags being there for almost 3 years, and the more editors knowledge in the field working on the article the better we can make it. I'm currently working on finding some academic sources/textbooks that dive into the subject. I would appreciate if someone more educated in the field could help with the index number section as it is somewhat more technical. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Edgar Speyer

User:Buidhe has nominated Edgar Speyer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Merged Banks maintaining old banks as trading brands

Greater Bank and Newcastle Permanent Building Society have merged to form Draft:Newcastle Greater Mutual Group, but are currently retaining both original brands, and trading under those. This means there isn't much coverage in reliable sources for the merged entity. I'd like feedback on whether or not it is a good idea to start a page for the merged group. Newystats (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The holding company is not inherently notable, so I'd advise against it unless there are enough sources for its own page. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for James Hood Wright

James Hood Wright has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking for feedback

Hi! I'm a new user who recently contributed significantly to the banking lobby article. I am looking for feedback on how I can improve this article. Thank you! Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Replied on user page — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

CME Group request

Hello there, WikiProject Finance & Investment members. I have posted a request to the CME Group Talk page concerning confusion in the article about the distinction between CME Group and Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The article introduction correctly identifies CME Group as the parent company, but then the History section conflates the two.

I have a conflict of interest as I work at CME Group, so I'm hoping that an experienced editor can review my suggestions and implement them if they seem like improvements. Thank you. ~~~~ Lbischel (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Assistance requested at BlackRock

Hi, I work for BlackRock and thus have a COI, which is declared in the relevant places, and I will not be directly editing the BlackRock article or any article relating to it.

A little over seven weeks ago I posted an edit request at Talk:BlackRock, consisting of three fairly uncomplicated edits (Talk:BlackRock#Edit request). There has been no activity on it thus far. I'm wondering if someone here might have time to take a look at it? If so, thanks. KM2BR (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Black Monday (1987) is currently in FAC.

Black Monday (1987) is currently in FAC.  § Lingzhi (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

CME Group Request

Hello! I recently posted a request to the CME Group Talk page and I'm hoping an experienced editor from this WikiProject can take a look at it. Last month an editor who has since been suspended made some rather substantial edits to the article, including cutting out the entire Mergers and acquisitions section. I think the intent here was a good one, as the article did feel bloated. But the end result is that there's now considerable confusion throughout the text about the distinction between CME Group and Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

As such, I put together a proposal that would correct this issue by splitting claims about contemporary operations into a new Operations section and putting historical claims into a restored (but streamlined) Mergers and acquisitions section. I also have a few other minor suggestions in the proposal that address the same core issue.

I have a conflict of interest as I work for CME Group, so I won't be making these changes myself. I am hoping, though, that editors can review what I've put together and provide feedback or simply implement these changes if they seem like an improvement. Lbischel (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Closed-end funds

Greetings Wikipedians! I've made substantial additions and modifications to this article, which I just noticed is classified "high importance." Comments are welcome. I have no conflicts of interest. I've long been fascinated by closed-end funds, dating way back to the 1980s. It was an odd corner of the market, and remains so. My best to you. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Inverted yield curve article

I've just completed significant text edits to this article. Comments are welcome. More work needs to be done (see the article's talk page). The topic is particularly relevant at the present time because the U.S. Treasury yield curve has been inverted for months - a very unusual (but not unprecedented) situation. Take a look at this 10-year data from the Federal Reserve: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• My work on this article is done for the time being. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Internal rate of return article

Greetings Wikipedians! I've made some improvements to this article, mainly aimed at strengthening citations to reliable sources. My work on this article is done for the time being. But as always, comments are welcome. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Seeking independent editor review of NerdWallet Administration draft

Hello, I'm a NerdWallet employee working as a COI editor on behalf of the company. I currently have a post on the NW Talk page where I've proposed some edits to the company article's Administration section. You can view that post, which contains a detailed summary of my suggested edits, by following this link To provide a basic summary: the current version of the section has some outdated information, which I'm hoping to remove, as well as confusingly worded language about reorganization and layoffs that happened in 2013 and 2017. I'm not trying to sweep those events under the rug. I just want to render the description of them a little bit easier for the average reader to follow.

Any help I can get with making these updates, or feedback that may improve what I've proposed, would be deeply appreciated. Thanks! KB at NerdWallet (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Need to overhaul the page stock forecast

I believe it's highly important to overhaul the page stock forecast:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_forecast

There are many traditional stock price/volatility prediction techniques, like moving averages and ARCH models, and more recently, machine learning or other data science methods. However, those traditional and novel stock price forecasting techniques are never included in other Wikipedia articles regarding finance and investment. I believe it's appropriate to place that information on that page considering the importance of those knowledges.

There are lots of academic research papers that can support this idea, such as:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9068850

However, the page has been marked as a disambiguation page. I want to rewrite it as an article but don't know how to do it. Can I just remove the disambiguation tag directly from the page? Benjamin Ceci (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say that we do not really need a disambiguation page for this topic, so yes, you can just remove the tag directly from the page and rewrite the article. For the more typical case, where a disambiguation page actually is needed, see Help:Disambiguation. John M Baker (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I see, thank you Benjamin Ceci (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ownership field in Infobox central bank

Hi. I'm questioning whether the field is appropriate. Please take a look at Template talk:Infobox central bank#"Ownership", thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Seeking independent editor review of NerdWallet History draft

Hello, I'm a NerdWallet employee who has visited this WP before asking for input on my proposed edits to the company article. An independent editor has already reviewed and implemented my Administration section request, so my post above can probably be archived.

I'm here now because I have assembled a History draft for the NerdWallet article. It adds some details about notable events in the company's history, lightly rephrases a couple passages so that they are a little easier to understand, and removes one redundant sentence. You can the full text of my draft on the NW Talk page by following this link and, a little further down the page, I've detailed every change I'm requesting, line-by-line. Please give both the draft and the table a close look, if you're reviewing. I want to make sure that everything I'm proposing measures up to the site's content standards.

If anyone can help me with this request, I would be immensely grateful. Thanks! KB at NerdWallet (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Should an stock market index page have an annual returns chart?

I removed the annual returns chart from PSE Composite Index since it seemed to take up a lot of space and not be very informative. It seems to me that a narrative discussion of historical returns would be more educational and better understood. Afterall returns by calendar year are a bit artificial. A fellow editor pointed out that other indices articles have similar charts. Was I wrong? Should we put the chart back? See discussion at Talk:PSE Composite Index. Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Seeking editor review of NerdWallet Products and services updates

Hello, I'm a NerdWallet employee looking for independent editor help with some updates I'm proposing to the NerdWallet article's Products and services section. I'm aiming to add information about a couple of relatively recent acquisitions the company has made, which have significantly expanded its services. You can see more on my NerdWallet Talk page post, which I'll link to here. If anyone has feedback for me, feel free follow up either on that Talk page post or this one. Thanks, KB at NerdWallet (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Jim Goetz

Hello, a few weeks ago I offered a suggested addition to the Jim Goetz article using its Talk page. If someone finding this message is willing to review it, I would be grateful. I will not edit the page myself, I have a financial COI as he is a client of my firm. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of private equity and venture capital

History of private equity and venture capital has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ELN § Templates being used to embed external links into articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ELN § Templates being used to embed external links into articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Dispersion trading

A draft on Dispersion trading has been submitted for review. There is currently a redirect from dispersion trading to correlation trading. Should the draft be accepted? Do this draft and the article explain how dispersion trading and correlation trading are either similar or different? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Dispersion trading focuses on the volatility difference between an index and its individual stocks, typically by shorting index options and going long on options of the constituent stocks. This strategy seeks to exploit discrepancies in volatility. In contrast, correlation trading centers on the relationship between two assets, aiming to profit from changes in their correlation coefficient. It often involves a wider range of financial instruments and can be applied to various asset pairs, not just stocks and indices. Dispersion trading is a more specialized form of volatility trading, whereas correlation trading deals directly with the correlation variable in asset pricing. Dispersion trader (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Large edit at European Central Bank

Can someone please have a look at this 74 kb edit to European Central Bank? At first glance, it seems to be well sourced, but note this message I left at their TP about a giant url. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for review at Cboe Global Markets

Hello, Wikipedia editors. I work with the corporate comms team at Cboe Global Markets. I'm flagging a request that I have made for the Cboe Global Markets article, to remove unreferenced information and add more encyclopedic content. This WikiProject is listed on the Talk page, so I wanted to see if editors here would have an interest in reviewing. If anyone is curious and has the time to review, the link is here. Let me know if I can answer any questions. Spencer at Cboe (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Sean Jackson (basketball)

I have created Sean Jackson (basketball). I have found a 2010 non-WP:RS that states: "he was director and analyst with SunTrust Equitable and a decade ago (2000) he published the securities industries' first comprehensive research piece on Internet security. He several times won The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Street award, and was repeatedly highly ranked among software-sector analysts." Does anyone here know how to document this content from a WP:RS. Please comment at Talk:Sean Jackson (basketball)#Non-RS content if you do.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sourced a mention for one year, but the above source says repeatedly. Help wanted.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The Line, Saudi Arabia

Could you please check that page? There is a mixture of US$ and SAR; it would be nice to have one currency first and conversion to the other.-- Carnby (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)