Talk:Contract for difference

message: Being of the opinion that Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, I have removed all the links at the bottom of the page - to my feeling they were meant more for advertising companies that trade in CfDs than in informing the public. None of them gave significantly more information than the Wikipedia article itself. - Andre Engels 13:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotional links

message: I have deleted the link to Share Select within the text.  A comparison of DMA and MM providers should be added to this site if required.  A link to an external website is not necessary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumbypants (talk • contribs) 11:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External promotional link

message: There was a lot of bias particularly towards the ASX CFD product.  Many of the statements were grossly misleading and in some cases incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumbypants (talk • contribs) 11:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias towards ASX CFDs

message: I get the impression that the "criticism" section has been edited by someone who likes to sell CFD's. I'd like to provide two examples: 
*", however prices of CFDs are based on publicly available underlying instruments and odds are not stacked against traders as the CFD is simply the difference in underlying price."
*"Although the incidence of these types of discussions may be due to traders' psychology where it is hard to internalise a losing trade and instead they try to find external source to blame."
Both sentences seem to be tacked on to mitigate criticism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.225.212.147 (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism appears slanted

message: 26 september 2007 - Nice to see the ASX taking so much time to advertise their new product on this page. a very one-sided summary of a product that hasn't even been launched yet! from a corporation that cannot even maintain it's own trading systems (i.e. the 'maintenance' of the SFE system at midday on the 16th August that stoppped futures trading for over on hour) - Anybody else agree that talking about benefits of cheaper transaction costs should wait until the ASX announces what they are?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.149.1.232 (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASX CFDs 

message: I wonder if there is an error in the following paragraph:-
'It was around 2000 that retail investors realised that the real benefit of trading CFDs was not the exception from stamp tax but the ability to trade on leverage on any underlying instrument. This was the start of the growth phase in the use of CFDs. The CFD providers quickly responded and expanded their product offering from just London Stock Exchange (LSE) shares to include indexes, many global stocks, commodities, treasuries, and currencies. Trading index CFDs, such as the ones based on the major global indexes e.g. Dow Jones, NASDAQ, S&P 500, FTSE, DAX, and CAC, quickly became the most popular type of CFD that were traded.'
In the second line the word   'exception'  is used. Should this read   'exemption' ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.192.45 (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my mistake I meant to say exemption, and have corrected it. 125.237.79.139 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect word

message: I think that we should explain the CFD before comparing it to other products and describing difference between OTC and exchange traded, so have re-organised the section accordingly.  I have put the example section first as this is the best way to explain it but I agree the example section is poor and somebody needs to make that better, might have a go at that sometime.
Exchange traded CFDs are a very small percentage of all CFDs and only specific to Australia and so seems out of proportion to have so much of the CFD page devoted to it.  Although there are no publish figures for OTC CFDs, the total volume traded by ASX since inception is about the same as one of the major CFD providers does each month and so is not significant when considering CFDs globally.  Therefore I have removed one section re ASX CFDs and added the only relevant fact, the number of brokers, to the history page.  I also think the section comparing OTC vs exchange is generic and mostly true for all financial products and not CFD related so I dont think it should be here at all.  It is also a bit of a sales pitch for ASX when in fact exchange traded has a very small number of products and represent a small percentage of the market, however I have left this section for now in case somebody disagrees but just moved it to the end.
Also changes the comparison section to other instruments from just talking about futures.  There are a few good points mentioned but again this section could so with a clean up.  I have separated out the facts for now, without changing the language, but might better as a list.  Might be worth taking each type of product that do similar things and comparing it as impartially as possible.  So futures, options, margin lending, warrants etc.
125.237.79.139 (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have expanded the comparison to other products and broken it down by product.  I have also added in two detailed examples, I have left the original example for now, although I think it can now be removed, does anybody have any opinion on this?  I also added in a section on CFD providers, initially to add a section comparing DMA to market market model which is still to be done, but a bit reluctant now as might be spam magnet. Sargdub (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reduced and consolidated the Australian exchange section to simplify it and add more balance, still think its too big a section for the amount of CFDs using this method, but will leave it at that for now.  Added a criticism section so there is a home for it and added the main concerns I know about trying hard to keep NPV. Also moved the limited comparison of MM and DMA that was under the Australian exchange section to CFD provider section and expanded it. Sargdub (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article structure

message: Obviously, it is impossible to say what would be "fair" here, but wouldn't it make more sense to have one of the two trading examples show a loss, so as to not give the impression that this is easy money?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.182.59.88 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: CFDs are not what was originally called traded options (TOs), as the article suggests. Having bought and sold TOs, I know that.
The important word in "traded option" is option. In an option, closing the deal is optional (you just let the option lapse), as the name implies, so you cannot lose more than you put in. With CFDs, potential losses are limitless.
Surely this is a very important distinction which should be made in the article. Don't pretend that CFDs are just TOs dressed up with a new name. They most definitely are not.
Marchino61 (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and have removed the statement. Sargdub (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  originally traded options? 

message: Removing the section Contract for difference#Trading is proposed for the following reasons. One, it contains exactly one link and is either under-referenced or unreferenced depending on your opinion of the source. Two, the source given is a trading website and is promotional. Three, WP:NOTHOWTO. Four, section amounts to original research. Five, per WP:WEIGHT, the mechanics of executing a trade are over-represented in the article, comprising approximately half of the content. - Brianhe (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings, Brianhe! Have you looked Contract for difference#CFDs compared to other products? What do you think? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayaguru-Shishya: Yes, I did read that section and added an OR tag to it. Hoping a motivated editor will improve the section. - Brianhe (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of trading section 

message: This article is a shambles with huge swaths of WP:OR and unreferenced material. Ordinarily I'd suggest starting over fresh but the criticism section actually looks like a decent start. Perhaps there are other alternatives.  as active contributors at Talk:Binary option, do you have an opinion on this?  - Brianhe (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd never heard of a "Contract for Difference". Since they're illegal in the US, they don't show up in finance here. It seems to be mostly a UK thing. So I can't say much about this.  John Nagle (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Did you call me? Oh, I can see apparently not... Anyway, yes I agree with you; the article mostly consists of  unreferenced, promotional, or WP:OR material. Cheers! 19:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to salvage this? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Contract for difference. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160423094214/https://www.nsfx.com/about-nsfx/risk-disclosure/ to https://www.nsfx.com/about-nsfx/risk-disclosure/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Contract for difference. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102211929/http://www.lchclearnet.com/media_centre/press_releases/2013-10-30.asp to http://www.lchclearnet.com/media_centre/press_releases/2013-10-30.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123180859/http://www.sfe.com.au/content/notices/2014/0231.14.03.pdf to http://www.sfe.com.au/content/notices/2014/0231.14.03.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is about CFD as a betting mechanism for financial traders.   But the UK government [and others?] uses them extensively as a project financing mechanism in the Private Finance Initiative (see e.g. "Floating wind projects would be eligible to compete for £557m of contracts due to be auctioned next year under a separate green subsidy mechanism, known as contracts for difference (CFD)": Financial Times, https://www.ft.com/content/270a5e2e-1331-11e8-8cb6-b9ccc4c4dbbb?desktop=true&segmentId=7c8f09b9-9b61-4fbb-9430-9208a9e233c8 [subscription needed]).  The article needs to explain how that works too (I can't do it as I don't know: that's why I came to this article originally).  Deipnosophista (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this, governments buy electricity CfDs from green energy providers, presumably at above market prices, guaranteeing a market for their electricity. I suspect the term 'contracts for difference' is mostly marketing ('making a difference'); such arrangements are more commonly referred to as futures in the energy sector. I'll explain it better in the article. Ardyr Ioris (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

text: I think this is a different meaning of contract for difference and should be handled by the normal mechanisms for different meanings of the same words, such as an article of their own and an cross reference "for the..." at the start of the original article.  -- David Woolley (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

text: I agree that the electrical portion should be split off. Other than the name, there is very little in common between the two. For now, I have elevated the electrical portion to a Level 2 header and grouped all electricity-related text together. Викидим (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  project finance 

message: I want to suggest to add few characteristics of the CFDs that seem to be important, but are somehow missing from the lead: 
# it is an over-the-counter instrument, unregulated. Currently it is mentioned deep in the text. The proposed source (better sources are welcome!): ;
# a very simple example can be borrowed from the same book (playing against the broker, );
# it is the instrument mostly for speculation  (primarily short term , no assets are actually traded); 
# link to total return equity swap, see .
I am placing this here for discussion instead of being WP:BOLD, as:
* I do not know much about the subject (see the cause of my interest in the section #project finance), so feel free to correct me;
* The sources look very simplistic, if there are grown-up books with the same statements, please point me to them.
Викидим (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Items missing from the lead