Talk:Systemically important financial institution
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Systemically important financial institution article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Systematically
editHow can I edit the title as it should be Systemically Important not Systematically Important?
- technically you don't edit titles you "move" the standing article to a new title. However, title here is already Systemically. Rick (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Merge
editI have merged the article with Global systemically important banks, by hand. Sorry for the crudeness of the method but I thought it quicker, all the more that both articles had a short history and had largely the same content. I also removed the notability tag : a concept that features proeminently in international macroprudential regulation (Basel III framework) is notable per se as soon as it is the basis of major capital requirements that will soon be enacted. Bokken | 木刀 09:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete Global Systemically Important Banks
editIf this was already merged, could somebody delete the specific article on Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs), coz it is super redundant. I already updated the corresponding part on Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) here. Alternatively, we shall just say in this article that there are 3 types of systemically important financial institutions and put the context in those separate articles... this way is a mess. --Wikijasmin (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- This would also required to kill the article on financial utilities and move it here. Or then to basically kill this article and just provide links to the 3 types with separate articles.--Wikijasmin (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- see Radical layout change seems counterproductive on talk page here Talk:Global_systemically_important_banks The actual current listing pages are VERY IMPORTANT and should not be deleted. This is a dynamic area. The financial market utilities are only "first cut". ALSO you don't have the largest hedge funds yet identified ... but that is coming. FORCING DETAILED LISTINGS of Banks, Insurance companies, market utilities and hedge fund all into this main article would be very cluttered. Rick (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
"Too big to fail"
editSurprised that this phrase doesn't occur anywhere in the article. It's how the general public is familiar with this concept... AnonMoos (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)