Misplaced Pages

Talk:IEX

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sophie.grothendieck (talk | contribs) at 07:07, 1 June 2014 (→Point of view). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:07, 1 June 2014 by Sophie.grothendieck (talk | contribs) (→Point of view)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNew Jersey Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Misplaced Pages feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Categories: