Talk:Dark pool

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Dark liquidity)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Finance (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Sargdub (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Should Dark pools of liquidity be merged into Dark liquidity? Currently, this article (Dark liquidity) links to Dark pools of liquidity with the link dark pools, which currently redirects to Dark pools of liquidity. I'd just like to see this separation reviewed by an expert in the field. – Wdfarmer (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I found this article via googling "dark pool". The definition was exactly what I wanted. I am not an "expert" but an independent investor. (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)chistletoe
  • I am also not an expert in dark liquidity pools, but after reading both articles I believe they should be merged. The Dark Liquidity article provides the real explanation and the Dark Pools article just give a list of providers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Obviously they should be merged. They are about precisely the same subject. This article has a much more appropriate title for an encyclopedia article. Elroch (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I know well one of the independent pools suggested in the dark pools page. Having read through both articles, I believe they should be merged and also reference some of what the SEC proposed on October 21st 2009. Another phrase that should be tied to this article is 'Upstairs Trading' or the 'Upstairs Market' so that some historical perspective can be added to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course both the articles should be merged —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I support the merge of these two articles. The subject is essentially the same Dialectric (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I work for a company that operates a dark pool and agree that these two pages are discussing the same topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • May be they should be merged, but still the headline should be Dark Pool Liquidity —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment: google scholar shows 'dark liquidity' to be most commonly used, with 97 citations (18 in news); "Dark pools of liquidity" has 79 citations (2 in news), "Dark pool trading" has 46 (4 in news) and "Dark pool liquidity" appears in only 15 sources. Dialectric (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I would like to see some commentary about how this market is regulated compared to open markets. Kevink707 (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Section merging required[edit]

Seems like a few of the current sections would benefit from a bit of M&A action, but also I wondered if there are any active editors that would like to discuss how to add content about the controversies or arguments against this form of exchange. This piece in WSJ recently for example highlights some of the problems that seem to have cropped up in the course of running dark trading houses. I'll add the information and later it would easily be manipulated or rewritten or whatever. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed sections[edit]

Some of this seems to have been written by a young professor who has drank too much coffee. No footnotes. Constant references to the second person. Let me just drop in here the sections that I'm removing and we can decide later what to do with them. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

David Adam Kess (talk) 7:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


Dark_liquidity is not funny

gpu based strategy[edit]

hft private equities funds is gpu-based according to

my edit sentence has nothing saying about lawsuit, nonsense reason for revert — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dark liquidity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Trade? Or order?[edit]

Article currently says (near the top)

some market participants are disadvantaged as they cannot see the trades before they are executed

I am far from an expert on this so somebody please clarify: should this refer to orders instead? One party makes an offer to sell, another to buy, but neither of these are "trades" until they execute, right? So what would it mean to see a trade before it executes? If this should say "orders" please correct the article. If "trades" is the correct word, please explain (in the article) what it means to have a "trade" that has not yet executed. Thank you. (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Sargdub (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No opposition, and seems entirely reasonable.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Dark liquidityDark pool – The article is mostly about dark pools themselves and this is the more common name. The liquidity is covered in the article and is obviously a key part of dark pools. There has been some previous changes but I feel the most appropriate name for this article now is dark pool after its development. There had been a previous changes and even a merge from Dark pools of liquidity which is also a common name for this concept. I feel that given the development of the article and a lot more references to this from its use in high frequency trading, it now makes sense to change it to Dark pool again. This will require an administrator as dark pool, and dark pool liquidity have been used in the past and are now redirects. Sargdub (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Sargdub (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a view on whether of not this should be changed but if it is the lead needs to be changed since the term dark pool is not mentioned.-- (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.