Talk:IEX

Source

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

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

Merge proposal

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

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

Point of view

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

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

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

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

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

Conflicts of interest between IEX and its major equity owners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quality sources

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

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

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

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

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

OK so looking at the current content,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND

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

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

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

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

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