Talk:Stock option

Sept 2006

Please review the changes I have made to options. Everything on this page is repeated there now. I have read the objections below, but time has passed you by. Everyone has been using and adding to the option page. I will redirect this page to there unless......Retail Investor 00:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says

in the passive voice,

It is estimated that over-reporting of income by an average of 25% by American corporations was one cause of the Stock Market Downturn of 2002.

.. but I would like to know whose estimate that is, and where the 25% figure comes from, and which companies are being described - is that S&P 500 companies, or NASDAQ companies, or nutty startups, or little 5-person S-corps, or what? Should this read "Companies who over-reported income did so by an average of 25%?".

Stock option repeats much of the general discussion that is in Option and some of both should perhaps be moved to Option (Security) as a better title. Stock Option is un-usefully specific, as there are many types of securities options that have other underlying instruments besides stocks. Taxman 05:04, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there is some overlap. If you choose to merge stock option into option, you should probably be consistant and merge all the specific forms of options (such as interest rate options and swaptions) into the general category as well. But if you think that reasonable articles can be written on the sub-categories, then it would be better to keep them all as seperate articles. If you choose to merge the subcategories into the root options article, make sure that you retain the titles as redirects because these are the terms that people will typically use in a data search. mydogategodshat 15:53, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly urge against merging all those things into one topic, a lot can be said unique to each, even if we haven't quite reached that amount of detail yet. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. mydogategodshat

Stock options can be a separate page

The stock option market is much more organized and liquid than that for other types of options. For instance, there are six separate option exchanges in the U.S., as well as hundreds of companies that specialize in trading these contracts. I think stock options should remain a separate topic so that additional information on the market structure can be explored. (unsigned)

Yeah, I agree now that I think about it, but then this article should focus only on the unique features of stock options in comparison to the general idea of options. - Taxman 12:51, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

In the section on employee options, this article claims: "Main article at Employee stock option", but almost all of that content is replicated here. Would it be acceptable to remove the duplicated content here with "See Employee stock option"? --Jarsyl 01:27, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Article on option strategies?

I'm in the process of learning about trading options... It would really help people like me if there was a Option strategy article (possibly just a disambig thingy) listing all the different option strategies. (like straddles, covered calls, spread trades and other stuff I don't really understand yet) Or possibly there already is something like that and I'm using the wrong terms/words to find it. --Nerd42 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt we've got it. It's an area where, in my experience, we are generally weak. I think each of these ultimately deserves an article of its own; what should bring them together is a category, probably Category:Options trading as a subcat of Category:Derivatives. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been nibbling around the edges, i.e. I just added stubs for conversions and reversals. Yes, I think a page dedicated to stock option trading strategies would be great. Ronnotel 15:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the trouble with wikis is you always end up providing the info instead of recieving it most of the time LOL. I will write one if one isn't written by the time I consider myself option-savvy. --Nerd42 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the "bibliography"?

The heading "Bibliography" is normally used in Wikipedia only for the works by an author who is the subject of an article. So what is the section here? Were these used in writing the article (in which case it should "References")? Or not (in which case it should be "Further Reading" or, if available online, "External links"). - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]