Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Investment

Hi. Welcome to the project. Let us know if there are any articles out there that need our attention. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

SWX Swiss Exchange

Please check SWX Swiss Exchange. Thank you! --Foggy Morning (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Short selling - expert assistance needed

Please see this request for expert assistance [1] regarding short selling and help out if you can. Thanks! --Foggy Morning (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

References

This may not be the best place to ask this. What kind of material (online or off) are considered acceptable references for finance/investment type articles? One of the aims of this project would be to convert investment articles to GAC and FAC level and that can't happen without references (which are severely lacking in many investment articles).

For example, are study notes provided by the Institute of Actuaries or the CFA institute acceptable?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any issues with those sources. They seem fine with me and I think that for now we can go ahead and use them as a source. Greg Comlish (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Online Brokerages

Today I have been categorizing Online Brokerages. This was important because one of the first things investors need to do is choose a brokerage. I noticed two disturbing and related trends:

1. Many online brokerage articles are being deleted outright by vigilantes against "advertising".
2. Many online brokerage articles have serious POV issues.

We need to set some standards and guidelines. First, I think SIPC approval should constitute sufficient grounds for notability. Any brokerages with SIPC approval should not have their articles deleted. Setting up a brokerage is not like setting up a website. It's actually very difficult to get access/membership to all the necessary exchanges + SIPC approval. So people need to take it easy on the stubs.

Secondly, we need to take a clear stand against advertising and promotion. Flowery quotations, optimistic projections, and the like should not be included, even if verifiable. I'll write up some guidelines on this issue and incorporate them in our Project page. Greg Comlish (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Vigilantism is allowed at Wikipedia, as is collaboration :). I am with you in opposing promotion – optimistic projections from investment newsletters or even newspapers are not encyclopedic. By the way, I have seen a flurry of new company articles (not brokerages) that were entirely plagiarism. I asked admins to delete them and replaced some with stubs that I wrote. There is an essay somewhere on how to write a stub, but the most important things to avoid the vigilantes are:

1. Assert notability. Read WP:CORP.
2. 1 or 2 independent references, preferably major newspapers
3. Avoid promotion :)

Hope that helps.

Could you post a list of important brokerages that don't yet have articles (or were deleted and not yet recreated) on the project page? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Securities fraud

Experienced editors are needed to flesh out this article. Please help. It should be at least ten times as long and far more substantive.--Bassettcat (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated project banner

Greetings Investment Project personnel, just letting you know that per a notice left at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell, your project template has been updated with new code to allow for two parameters: "nested=yes" and "small=yes": the first allows for nesting within the aforementioned template, and the second allows for a minimal right-aligned box on talk pages. I'll add documentation shortly. I notice that you don't currently have a project image or any sub-templates for organisation, and as such did not allow for such in the template. If at any time in the future you create these things (or other features), please leave a message on my talk page and I'll be happy to rewrite the code to accommodate them. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Net asset value: Investment co vs normal company

This article needs serious help. I tidied up a bit and added a reference but before I do any more I'd just like to ask a question. At the moment, it tries (but fails) to make the distinction between the use of NAV in an investment company setting and in a normal company setting.

Personally, I don't know whether NAV refers to investment companies only although I haven't come across the term being used to describe the value (book or market) of the net assets of a normal company (but that could just be me). Should we use two articles or keep the one article but properly separate it?

All comments welcome. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I just realised that I have come across NAV refering to normal companies (I even contributed to that article). Found another [2] as well. So I guess we should keep the one article but make sure it does a good job of distinguishing between the two. Any comments regarding merging net assets into Net asset value?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this for an alternative?

• Merge Net assets and Ownership equity into Balance sheet
• Merge Net asset value into Collective investment scheme

Too radical?

After I wrote that, I found this Book value#Net asset value. Not so easy to tidy up after all :( --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with merging Net assets with Ownership equity but I think they deserve their own article separate from Balance sheet. I'm not sure about putting Net asset value into Collective investment scheme - that move may be met with some resistance because NAV is sometimes used in the context of non-investment companies. This is a tough one.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Although net asset value, strictly speaking, is just a special case of ownership equity, the terms generally are used in different contexts and I would be hesitant to merge them. Net asset value is used mainly in the collective investment scheme context. Specifically, "net asset value" implies that the entity mainly holds portfolio investments that are valued at fair market value. "Ownership equity" implies a wider range of holdings, typically valued at book value (i.e., adjusted cost) rather than fair market value. I would support a merger of net assets into ownership equity. John M Baker (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Our banner

Just wanted to ask why we have a link to the banner on the banner? Also, is the "current collaborations" necessary? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Current Collaborations" was inherited from the WikiProject Template. We can get rid of it or update it or maintain it as a to-do list. Either way. I think whoever cleaned up the banner decided to place a link on the project page. A lot of other projects do have the banner listed, but I have no strong feelings about it. Greg Comlish (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we're going to have "current collaborations," then we need to update them from time to time to keep them current. While I am perhaps biased, since I've extensively revised the exchange-traded fund article, I think that there are others that are more in need of work. John M Baker (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your bias is is not without merit. I think you did a great job. Keep it up!. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rigour in the introductory section

Hope this doesn't seem naïve, but I just wanted to know how much rigour (i.e. technical detail) to put into the opening sections of the various articles. Since we're all looking at the ETF article at the moment, I'll use that as an example. Here's the current opening paragraph:

An exchange-traded fund (or ETF) is an investment vehicle traded on stock exchanges, much like stocks or bonds. An ETF holds assets such as stocks, bonds, or futures. Institutional investors can redeem large blocks of shares of the ETF (known as "creation units") for a "basket" of the underlying assets or, alternatively, exchange the underlying assets for creation units. This creation and redemption of shares enables institutions to engage in arbitrage and causes the value of the ETF to approximate the net asset value of the underlying assets. Most ETFs track an index, such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the S&P 500.

The following are questions (not suggestions) that I thought about from trying to look at the article from a lay perspective. Actually, I am a layman when it comes to ETFs.

• Should we make reference to derivatives (like futures) or other complex securities in the introduction?
• Should we use technical terms (like "basket" or "creation units") in the introduction?

I fully agree that all the (notable, verifiable etc) information we have should go into the body of the article but I think that the opening sections should be as simple as possible. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be the first to say that I've never really felt all that comfortable with my ability to write a good introductory section. I just now tried to revise the exchange-traded fund intro to make it a little more user-friendly. I don't really think that "futures" or "basket" are particularly technical terms (though I did take "futures" out of the intro, since the concept is not very important there). There are more difficult technical terms, like "net asset value," but that one seems unavoidable. I moved the arbitrage discussion down to the third paragraph, so it doesn't immediately blow the reader away.

Speaking more generally, I think we do need to maintain rigour, but we should try not to overload the opening with technical detail. John M Baker (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to jump in here but I am new and not sure how to do it. I would like to have a crack at helping with the ETF introductory section to make it more user-friendly (can be modeled after Wikipedia intro). Should I draft something and recommend it here or insert it in the working page for ETF's Influencenyc (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you post something on Talk:Exchange-traded fund, where it will get attention from people who follow the article but may not necessarily follow this WikiProject. The article has been revised to make the first paragraph more reader-friendly, but I'm sure the intro could use further improvement. John M Baker (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the ETF talk page seems like a better home for that. I posted here originally because I wanted a general consensus and I used ETF as an example. Besides, most of us here have Exchange-traded fund on our watchlists anyway. Best, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

COI

We represent an online brokerage client and I created a user sub-page on thinkorswim (the logo has been orphaned) trying to understand how their article might be presented - at least from the company point of view. I know that this is a blatant COI and it is created for discussion and my education in learning what makes a credible Wikipedia article. Investools just changed its name to thinkorswim and there is no thinkorswim Wikipedia article. And if a thinkorswim page was created, what would/should happen to the Investools article? We would like not to repeat the mistake of the Investools article - with big questions about its usefulness and NPOV. Perhaps there is a way to improve the whole "Investment" section through this. I researched our client's competitors and their articles can use improvement as well. I am feeling my way around the Wikimedia world - would appreciate any feedback. I see how strict Wikipedia is about COI. On Investools they represent the company: thinkorswim Group inc. Inc. I tried to delete the redundant "inc." and they slapped me with a COI and put it back. Sheesh.

Above discussion by Influencenyc, moved to talk page by John M Baker (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I browsed the article history: it seems your trouble in deleting "inc." was accidental. I have fixed it.

To address your wider concern, there are vast numbers of companies that try to advertise on Wikipedia, and some of them are not notable at all. Therefore, the community tends to be quite trigger happy. I think many legitimate public relations professionals stay away from Wikipedia. So I applaud you for trying to understand the community and start a discussion.

Articles often change gradually over a number of years, so don't expect to have a polished article without "improvement tags" in the first month. Also, you have probably read the warning "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." but it bears repeating. Having posted your proposal on a user page, hopefully another member of the community interested in your company will select what they feel are the most appropriate bits, and incorporate it into the encyclopedia.

With the recent merger and name change, I suspect that the best thing to happen will be if someone moves (renames) the Investools article to Thinkorswim, then incorporates some of the material from your user page into the moved article. You can upload the logo again yourself, as long as you follow all the requirements listed at WP:NFC.

Regarding your question about credibility, my personal opinion is that your proposal is not bad at all. My personal opinion is that Charles Schwab Corp. E-Trade and TD Ameritrade are quite credible articles, though could do with improvement. In contrast, the banner on ShareBuilder highlighting substantial issues also looks appropriate. The bulleted list of thinkorswim products stands out in my mind as the most obvious clash with Wikipedia style.

Of course, ideally you could try to emulate any of these FA-Class Companies articles.

Hope that helps.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, that is very helpful. I see that Investools has been moved to thinkorswim. I deleted the bulleted list of thinkorswim products on my user sub-page for thinkorswim. So, I can ask that members of this group consider incorporating some of my suggestions in the thinkorswim article but I cannot do that myself since it would be COI?Influencenyc (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to WikiProject Finance

What should we consider the relationship between this project and WP:WikiProject Finance to be? It would seem that this is essentially a sub-project of Finance. Private Equity has a different approach that seems to work for them. Am I overlooking something? John M Baker (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is none. Both Finance and Investment wikiprojects are suffering from lack of participation. I think they should be merged. --Patrick (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We should perhaps move this discussion to WP:Finance or post a link to this there. My thoughts have always been that WP:Investment is a sub-project of WP:Finance. But with different objectives. The following is from Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance:

"The aim of this project is to make Wikipedia an authoritative, current, and useful site for anyone interested in better understanding the field of finance. It aims to make the world a better place by demystifying the workings of financial markets, its actors, and the underlying concepts."

The aim highlighted in the first sentence is clearly a vital aim that WP crucially needs. I don't disagree with this and I think that WP (with or without WP:Finance) is doing a good job in achieving that aim. But WP and WP:Finance have both failed dismally in achieving the aim in the second sentence. The following is from Wikipedia:WikiProject Investment:

"Ultimately this project is dedicated to democratizing knowledge of the marketplace and giving the small-time investor the background needed to make his/her own decisions."

WP generally has a huge issue with articles being too technical for casual interested readers and this project has, as its main aim, begun a process to try and fix this problem. So it is a sub-project but it's also very focused. Fwiw, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge After seeing the function of htis wikiproject, I agree that it should be joined together with WP:WikiProject Finance. Most investment topics are truly finance topics and by creating two separate wikiprojects doesn't this just divide and take away focus from efforts. • 20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay okay. The fact that this is the sixth edit in the last two months shows that we're achieving nothing here. I guess it's more important to have an active project than a focused one. So I would like to change my stance and also agree with a merge. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Naked short selling

If we look at the Wikipedia article traffic statistics statistics for "Naked Short Selling, we see that traffic increased greatly in mid-June. The problem is that the article is in a pretty bad shape. We could really need some editors, with knowledge on investments, (& who are NOT a sockpuppet of G.W.) to edit Naked short selling and the related articles. I´ll give a barnstar to the editor/editors who get this article presentable! Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:10, 3 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)