Talk:Option (finance)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Top | rated as top-importance on the assessment scale |
[edit] Old discussion
The archive contains the talk page from Option, from before this article was moved to Option (finance). I moved it because I'm moving Option (disambiguation) to Option, and that talk page was in the way, not to mention it didn't match the article it was attached to. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Option page Redirect
Whoaaa! The discussion page has disappeared, I can't find it! Perhaps just as well. Anyway, I think this is a good resolution of the discussion over financial options, and how the reader can better understand now the subject of all options, and where to look. Certainly I'm happy with it and I think all reasonable participants should be too. So thanks to whoever did this. JohnClarknew 20:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- NP, John. BTW, the old discussion page can be found here: Talk:Option. I've set up a redirect on what was the old option page. Here's a trick: type Option in the Wiki search box and hit go. At the top, click on the link that says (Redirected from Option). That prevents the redirect and let's you get back to the original page. Ronnotel 20:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] OCC
I believe the OCC only settles stock and index options for the US and some Canadian exchanges - not the CBOT, CME or any of the European exchanges. I think the description in the first paragraph is misleading. Anyone else with more knowledge care to comment? Ronnotel 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I made a bit of a change in the intro, including the OCC. The intro is quite technical now in a pretty picky way. I'll suggest people try to keep up with it, in that a small change seems to affect all the different parts. Perhaps an easier way would be to make it very simple, and leave the technical stuff for later.
- I think the whole article could use a bit of a tune-up or tightening up. It seems a bit flabby and hairy, e.g. the quotation and symbols section seems (to me) to be rather unimportant. Cutting a bit here and there is probably most important as there are tons of related articles. Does anybody mind if a try? Smallbones 16:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- please do. Ronnotel 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
