lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Business acquisition

message: I've stripped the merge suggestion for now. Couldn't find any discussion thread on it, though. My thinking is that A.) That page is focused on large-scale corporate mergers and B.) It's bloated as is, and needs lots of work of its own. This has the potential to be a good page on how businesses change hands in practice, taking SMBs into account as well. I'll try and return to this page soon for more editing.
Mxheil (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergers Merge
Talk:Prediction Company

message: This is clearly a stub, or barely more than one; less clear is its importance: I rate it as High, because of its importance as an empirical datum for the very important issue of the efficient market hypothesis. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 14:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First stab at assessment

message: The "Prediction Company" article is clearly a stub, more than 5 years after the company ceased doing business. That, in itself indicates insignificance. I searched Bing and Google and found no substantive references, except a reference to the company's closure and links to this Wikipedia article. I checked https://www.crunchbase.com/hub/predictive-analytics-companies , home page for a database that purports to be a list of 3000+ companies in the field of "Predictive Analytics". The home page does not list the "Prediction Company" specifically; I did not search the database. Even if the Prediction Company is listed in the database, I would consider one company, out of business, of 3000 in the field as insignificant. Therefore, I suggest that the company does not qualify for a separate article under WP:GNG. If the article is retained, it should definitely be demoted to Low-importance. Wcmead3 (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second first stab
Talk:BiosGroup

message: Search for "Bios Group" on Google Scholar returns only several uses of the term that have nothing to do with the entity described in this article. I suggest that this article be deleted. Wcmead3 (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd nomination for deletion
Talk:Cerro El Muerto

message: I'm not the author of this article but I don't think this passes for CSD. This is a real place. Berserkerz Crit 01:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not CSD material

message: Leaving aside the confusion in the article as to peaks and ranges, the continent of South America is only some 4,000 miles long from north to south, and cannot therefore contain a mountain range 5,000 miles long. The range which runs inland from the Pacific Coast is normally called the Andes.--Anthony.bradbury 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The revised article satisfies all of my comments.--Anthony.bradbury 00:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not possible 

message: In the article are included sentences extracted from Summitpost site, but changing the sense of the statements. Maybe these sentences should be deleted from the article for the reason given above and moreover because might constitute copyvio. I'm not the most suitable for fix it. Jespinos 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Talk:Outstanding claims reserves

message: I think this is referring to what I know as IBNER, incurred but not enough reported.  This is a common term, at least in North America, maybe should add. -KaJunl (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RBNS 

message: Should we merge this with the loss reserving article? -KaJunl (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The definitions seems slightly different to me, given that the 'outstanding claims reserves' requires that the losses much have been incurred. However, as Outstanding claims reserves is a subset of a Loss reserve, and as both pages are small, a merge seems reasonable. Klbrain (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Agreed and  Klbrain (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article merger
Talk:Default (finance)

message: Added Sovereign strategic default part.
--Valent (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereign strategic default 

message: The article on Argentine debt restructuring says that Subsequently, though Argentina had money enough to pay their bondholders the judgment made Argentina unable to do so, and the country was declared in selective default by Standard & Poor's and in restricted default by Fitch. The words selective default are linked to here, but the term is not explained here. 
So could someone please add explanations of the term selective default, and also restricted default? Dirac66 (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective default? Restricted default?
Talk:Standard of deferred payment

message: I got lost at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph at "This is distinct from the store of value function (computers have functions?)((which relates to)) the saving, storing, and retrieval of value, and from the unit of account function ((which requires)) ((fungibility)) so accounts in any amount can be readily settled."
By gosh, this looks fungled up. If that's a word. Nastajus 18:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Mandatory frequency airport

message: Isn't this mostly the same as a CTAF in the United States? User:David Jordan 3/7/2007.
:No, a CTAF in the U.S. isn't ever mandatory (as far as I know) — it's the equivalent of an ATF in Canada.  You're required to call an MF just like you're required to call a tower when flying into a class B or C airport in the U.S.; the only difference is that you talk to an FSS specialist instead of a controller.  In Canada, pilots have been fined or had their licenses temporarily suspended for flying into an MF airport without using the frequency. David 12:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Haircut (finance)

message: I'm no finance expert, but I'm not happy about the statement in the first paragraph: "The lower the haircut, the safer the loan is for a lender.". Isn't this back to front? That suggests that a low haircut makes a loan safe for the lender. But isn't it the other way round? Either a safe (low risk) loan can have a low haircut, but a risky loan is made safer for the lender by having a high haircut?
I won't change it because it's not my field, but if anyone else can word it better, that would be nice!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.18.136 (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I (an economics major) had an identical conclusion. As a novice Wikipedian, I'm adding a citation needed flag thing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.110.6 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead paragraph
Talk:Net worth

message: I moved the "no references" warning to the top of the page - since this is where it is at one other pages.  I might actually come back to fix this, doesn't sound too hard to find references on this subject... Hendrixjoseph (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No references 

message: Wikipedia misses a main article about list of net worth by country and a list of net worth per person by country. It's a main thing in economy. net worth in country =(Public worth+private worth)-(private debt +public debt). Incerdible you miss it.151.40.66.201 (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Net worth by country (list)

message: How does Net Worth differ from Equity (finance)?
There is no material difference. Hence, I will add this link.--Herbert81 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equity 

message: The article is certainly not suited for a merge with "wealth" because net worth is a technical term in its own right (see reference no. 1). Therefore, I delete the merge mark.--Herbert81 (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Wealth 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Worth (word). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Worth (word)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I don't find the current definition here adequate. Sure, at a very high level, value of assets minus costs of liabilities is ok. Thing is, it doesn't define any of these terms clearly (or at all). For instance, let's say I own 100 shares of XYZ Corp and have no debts, and currently no liabilities. If I sell them I will have a capital gain or a capital loss, short term or long. My tax liability will certainly be different depending on my tax bracket - which will depend on income rather than asset value. And of course, there are some jurisdictions which have value/wealth taxes. Another example: Say I own $100,000.00 in stock and if I sold it all at once I'd have $30,000 in tax liability, but if I sold $10,000 per year for 10 years I'd have zero tax liability, then which is my "net worth" - $70,000 or $100,000?? (ceteris paribus). What if I have future liabilities? etc. etc.174.130.49.98 (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  vague & poorly constrained 

message: As per this, suggesting that High-net-worth individual and Ultra high-net-worth individual be merged here. The classifications are arbitrary and fluid, and a lot of the information is redundant or better in context. The major issues with out-of-date information can also be addressed in the process. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Given this uncontested counterproposal, I've merged the other two pages to the target indicated. Klbrain (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge high/ultra-high net worth
Talk:Pre-approval

message: "...many consumers will see it and believe it means they have already passed the approval process when in fact they have not"
I like to imagine that whoever wrote this was declined a credit card and was bitter, so they went on wiki and edited this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.70.59 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Twist
Talk:Rate of profit

message: 100 € for “equipment” (life span infinity)....For “equipment” there is no depreciation expense, because, in this example, it is assumed, that equipment hold forever, there is no wear and tear for equipment.There must be some conventional depreciation period any way, isn't it?--Piyavkin (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Equipment" with infinite life span is included to include in this explanatory example this theoretical border case. --Alex1011 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No depreciation - is it possible?
Talk:Ritz Brothers

message: They are referred to in this book in the setting of Balanchine getting them mixed up with the Warner brothers and complaining he would never be able to teach the latter how to dance. Chapter 6.
100.15.127.199 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Tycoon
Talk:First Strike Ration

message: The text of this article was taken from http://nsrdec.natick.army.mil/media/fact/food/FSR.htm, which is a work of the United States government and therefore public domain. ... discospinster talk 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the original source was a hardcopy flyer produced by the Natick Soldier Center which I obtained at the Pangborn Sensory Science Conference in 2003. If you look closely, you'll subtle wording differences from the page you mention above. But anyway, it is still a work of the US Govt and thus should be in the public domain. Jeh25 12:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it isn't an encyclopedia article. I have tweaked it some, but it needs more style changes. Sumahoy 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Domain
Talk:Irrational exuberance

message: The paragraph on Fedspeak and Greenspeak, while well written, isn't exactly encyclopedic in tone, and veers dangerously close to opinion. We need to source it. I'll look at the sources from those two articles to see what we can use. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing needed

message: Another issue I see with the article is that one section says that Greenspan's comments had an impact in that three years later, the averages were way down, yet in another section it says that in spite of Greenspan's comments, three years later stock valuations were way up. The article can't be making both claims at the same time without explanation. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeming Contraction
Talk:Prepayment of loan

message: This page should be either rewritten so that laypeople can understand it (i.e. homebuyers) or have a section that is pertinent (and understandable) to homebuyers. This may help homebuyers understand the advantages/disadvantages of making a prepayment of a mortgage.
Zylorian (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to understand for laypeople
Talk:Art finance

message: Within the WikiProject Visual arts, this article fits into an Art Market category -- Sctechlaw (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article should be merged into the Art valuation article. If no one objects, I volunteer. Sctechlaw (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal
Talk:Restricted stock

message: This article is inaccurate and partial.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.201.185.142 (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Money management

message: Money Management is NOT JUST investments (unless you have a conflict of interest). <BR>
For most humans, Money Management is first and last, time management, so plan your life carefully.  Periodically think about what you want for your future self.  You only have about 4000 weeks (52x80) to get it right enough, so periodically think about balancing it better.  <BR>
You must use your time to gain money; work in exchange for pay, or manipulate others and their money, to get a portion of it (commission, marriage, or fee). <BR>
Once you have more money than you need to keep body and soul together (or whatever your life style is), you have investment capital.  Then you must use some spare time to manage that investment capital for maximum Return On Investment (ROI) during the rest of your earning life, constantly (or periodically) adjusting the balance between the time you spend earning money, and the time you spend managing the money you continue to invest.  <BR>
: Most people foolishly hope to work for 30 years at a job, and then quit (retire). <BR>
At the point in time you can dependably earn sufficient money as ROI, that you don't need to earn any more, you can stop working for money, and continue working with your money.  At another point, when/if you can be confident that you will have enough dependable ROI that you can set it on "autopilot" and never worry about money again, you can stop worrying about your money.   <BR>
Go back to the beginning of this plan, and add a 5 year revision schedule.  Be sure to include the obvious life milestones, and the ages at which you (guess that you) will be able to physically do what you do for work and fun.  Plan for the time and the odds when you will not be able (accidents, injuries, infermity, death), factors that you can guess better than the insurance companies.   <BR>
You should periodically adjust your life insurance so your dependents can live on their inheritance until they are no longer dependent.
Your health insurance should include a disability rider, regularly adjusted for whatever you expect to earn for the rest of your life. <BR>
Wikidity (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT JUST investments

message: This article is just plain ugly.  Without even considering the content, organizationally it is pretty bad.  Good luck, WP:FINANCE. RideABicycle (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot of work.
Talk:Project finance

message: I'm putting hyperlinks to relevant, encyclopedic, public domain sources on a lot of talk pages, since you can just copy-and-cite the content. (In a few days I will list all such talk pages on my User Page; until then, if you'd like to help assimilate the content, you can find these pages at my contribs page.)
here's yours, please pillage:
*http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_AIRPORT_FINANCE:_A_BRIEF_OVERVIEW%2C_June_26%2C_1998
*other CRS Reports at http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS_reports_by_date
:PS if you know of a better talk page for this material, please move it there or create the appropriate new page. I am doing this work en masse and may make mistakes   Agradman talk/contribs 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  encyclopedic, public domain source(s) (please assimilate content ...)
Talk:Experimental finance

message: Alternatively, it might be worth merging with Experimental economics. Certainly, there's not enough here yet to support its own article. (But maybe it should wait until experimental economics itself gets better developed.) CRETOG8(t/c) 23:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge again 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Behavioral Finance: Investors, Corporations, and Markets By H. Kent Baker, John R. Nofsinger. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Merchant account provider

message: This article is inaccurate and misleading as to what a merchant account provider actually is. The common  merchant account providers section was completely full of payment gateways which are not MAP's. Additionally, there are still several sites listed under the MAP section that are not MAP's they are 3rd party processors. The overview is on the right track, but the rest of the article is junk. --Jestep 13:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate and misleading
Talk:Demat account

message: This article needs better articulation
Needs history of Demat accounts 
Need to de-indianize
Needs grammar corrections
Link to RBI other interesting sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.150.94 (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Article says, "... in the last 15 years ..." with no reference to a specific time. Snezzy (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications 

message: Somehow, this article has both a section on the advantages of Demat accounts and on their benefits. These clearly need to be merged, possibly with the section on Demat accounts' disadvantages. Jats (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy
Talk:Forfaiting

message: I'm not sure where you get the idea that there is any requirement that a buyer of financial assets (in this case "Receivables") must acquire all of the said category of financial assets ("Receivables" in "Factoring") in order to acquire any portion of the financial assets in a "Free Market" purchasing arrangement such as a "Factoring" transaction.  Please see the Receivable Factoring article in Wiki for both the correct discussion and the appropriate references/independent cites that indicate and verify the actual technical aspects of the Factoring transactions arrangements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmwki (talk • contribs) 06:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Statement about "Factoring" 

message: Just came across this term while looking at forfeit.  "Forfaiting" seems to have no actual usage - even in articles which are discussing factoring receivables where one would expect it to be present.
The Internet presence of the word seems to be only from many financial term glossaries that are merely cutting and pasting from each other.  I am guessing this is a term from the 18th or 19th century that's just been copied from older sources to arrive here in Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the word forfaiting by the organisations referred to in the professional associations section of the article is testimony to the actual use of the word. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the same time, the word does not seem to appear in (real) dictionaries (tried SOED, Merriam-Webster Collegiate). There is a link to Wiktionary, but that entry does not include an "English" headword, only French, Italian and Spanish, and the first definition given is "crime, infamy". Would help to have an explanation of the supposed etymology: is it just a respelling of "forfeit"? How is it pronounced (if it is ever pronounced by someone with an hourly income low enough to tell us)? Imaginatorium (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual usage of this term
Talk:Line of credit

message: انا انسحب مني فلوس لوحده  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.33.79.100 (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

message: Not so long ago credit cards that offer users a revolving charge account did not exist. In February 2016 revolving credit card debt was $940.6 billion. That’s $0.9406 trillion. http://useconomy.about.com/od/demand/a/Average-Consumer-Debt-Statistics.htm<ref> This wiki article should discuss the birth to death process of credit card loans. This should be done with the clarity and specificity of the document, ‘’Modern Money Mechanics’’, which details how the “loan” money comes into existence, what it does to the money supply, and shows that the principal is “extinguished” upon remittance of payment of principal plus interest, while the interest is counted as income to the “lender” and remains in the money supply.
This is important because ordinary folks are led to believe that when they are granted a “loan” from an institution regulated by the Federal Reserve it is like a loan from a friend or family member. In that kind of transaction money is not created, and repaid principal is not “extinguished”. Instead, the lender grants the borrower a sum of money that already exists in the money supply, whereas in a bank “loan” the sum advanced to the borrower is new money created by the “lender” out of thin air. 
If credit card debt is like a bank loan, then it increases the money supply when created. This effect was a prerogative of Federal Reserve member banks ONLY previously, and control of the nation's money supply was vested solely in the Federal Reserve through discount window interest changes. 
Do credit card “lenders” lend or do they “lend” (using the distinction explained above)? It’s important.
Lobdillj (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the “lenders’ right to create money out of thin air like the Federal Reserve member banks do?
Talk:Novated lease

message: Before my major edit of this page, this section was simply listed as "benefits" and appeared to have been lifted more or less directly from the advertising of a salary packaging provider.  In order to make the section more NPOV, I added to and clarified several of the statements about benefits - especially where IMHO the benefits are inflated or dubious.  However it has been pointed out to me that this may make the section more like advice than encyclopedic fact.  I'm not sure how to approach this, as I think the inflated/misleading/confusing claims of salary packaging companies should be brought to the attention of consumers. B adger1 (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits and pitfalls section