Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance & Investment

HomeDiscussionFeeds & open tasksRequestsAssessmentResourcesTemplatesParticipantsMailing listDrives

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)

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)

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)

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)