Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespoke portfolio

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no agreement on what to do with this article. There seems to be some hint of agreement that perhaps the article needs to be re-titled and re-focused in some way. The argument that this article is a dictionary definition is not particularly convincing. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 02:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bespoke portfolio[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Bespoke portfolio" has nothing particularly to do with synthetic CDOs, it's any portfolio that is bespoke, that is, custom-tailored for the client. In any event, this is a dictionary definition without encyclopedic content. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a home for spurious unsourced neologisms. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per WP:ATD-R. Upon further reflection, I have removed the content and changed it to a redirect to Synthetic_CDO#Characteristics which I am in the process of rewriting and sourcing. There are a number of problems in this subject matter that need clearing up. Bespoke CDO has now been redirected to Single-tranche CDO but in fact Single-tranche CDO is a synonym for Synthetic CDO and the two articles badly need to be merged into one. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digression "... in fact Single-tranche CDO is a synonym for Synthetic CDO ...". The Reuters financial glossary says "Synthetic CDOs are usually divided into tranches based on the amount of credit risk assumed." FinCAD says "Most synthetic CDOs do not have a cash flow waterfall structure, .... Synthetic CDOs without a cash flow waterfall structure are sometimes called single tranche CDOs." Investopedia says "Synthetic CDOs are typically divided into credit tranches based on the level of credit risk assumed." There appears to be much disagreement with your equation synthetic = single-tranche. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We used issue multiple "single tranches" from a single reference portfolio - in fact, it was desirable as a way to manage down risk of loss on the reference entities. However, each "single tranche" was written under a separate credit default swap confirmation and thus stood on its own, even if the several tranches were marketed together. The main reason that the two Wikipedia articles would be better as one is because they don't explain the subject matter consistently and this a reader, reading both, would be more confused than enlightened. On your last point, almost all synthetic CDOs were constructed without cash flow waterfall structures, though a tiny minority had waterfalls - probably a dozen out of some 50,000 rated synthetic CDOs. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We used issue multiple "single tranches" from a single reference portfolio" gives me the impression that you are planning to write up the topics to reflect your own practice. Please be sure not to do that. As for "almost all"—well, then, the fact that they aren't inherently one and the same means that they aren't synonymous! Anyway, this is all a digression, not pertinent to the question about the viability of the "bespoke portfolio" article as written. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We used issue", as you may have noticed, is past tense. As to the second point, that is why I digressed on your digression. There is a tiny subset of Synthetic CDOs that aren't single-tranche CDOs so they are not synonymous.Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fiachra10003 has added a bunch more material to the article but hasn't remedied the fact that "bespoke portfolio" is not a thing that is defined entirely in the context of synthetic CDOs. Perhaps this material belongs in an article titled Bespoke portfolio CDO, but not in an article titled Bespoke portfolio. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you check wikipedia you will see that the phrase arises only in one place not clearly related to CDOs and that is Climate Care, where the sequence of words doesn't appear to be a defined term or defining a term. Googling the phrase without mentioning CDOs does throw up the word combination several times, but mostly in the context of people trying to market something. "Bespoke portfolio CDO" really doesn't mean much and simply adds to the complexity of the articles - we already have Single-tranche CDO and Synthetic CDO as discussed above.

Perhaps a sensible fix might be to create a disambiguation page.Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I check Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a reference to what can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia.

I explained to you on 15 July what I found when I Googled "bespoke portfolio". The vast majority of uses of the term are in contexts that have nothing whatsoever to do with CDOs. It's immaterial how often the phrase is used in marketing material: bespoke portfolios are what they're marketing! But it isn't even really a term, just an ordinary phrase. It means no more than "a portfolio that's bespoke", just as "red car" means no more than "a car that's red". I see no evidence to the contrary.

The evidence indicates that the idea that bespoke portfolios go hand-in-hand with CDOs and that the concept is defined in terms of CDOs is your own invention or misunderstanding. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"your own invention" ... Sir, now you're being offensive. I will draw your attention to the fact that discussions in "good faith" are one of the first principles under which Wikipedia proceeds. I see your entry now on the Talk page but you specifically asked that discussions be conducted on YOUR Talk page. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it neutrally, hence "invention or misunderstanding". You are claiming something that is belied by ample evidence. I didn't mean it to be offensive and am sorry it came across that way. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do so quickly, this term is used for all sorts of portfolios and means little more than the two individual words. Even applying to other meanings of the word portfolio. Even searching for the two terms together provides limited evidence of usage in this context. SPACKlick (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into consideration Largo Plazo and SPACKlick's points, I tested something in google. "Bespoke portfolio" and CDO generate "About 1,370 results". "Bespoke portfolio" alone, in parentheses, generates "About 14,100 results" - thus, simplistically, the use of the expression in the CDO context is about 9.7% of the total. I could argue that many of the other contexts in which the phrase arises are spurious, like "bespoke portfolio boxes" - i.e. portfolio boxes that happen to be custom-made by English bookbinders. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the phrase arises in contexts other than CDOs.

Would it make sense to do a WP:MOVE to a new Bespoke portfolio (CDO) title? I think this title would be least ambiguous and most intuitive. Bespoke CDO isn't formally right, because the portfolio is bespoke, not the CDO. In any case Bespoke CDO has already been redirected to Single-tranche CDO. Bespoke CDO portfolio isn't really right either, because specialists in the world of CDOs generally (though not always) talk of "bespoke portfolios" (again recognizing that the phrase arises elsewhere) or "reference portfolios" - and reference portfolio doesn't seem suitable either, given the objections already raised. Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way you have the article now, virtually all of it is about the CDOs, not about the portfolios on which they are based. And you yourself used the term "bespoke CDO" three times in the article and the term "bespoke portfolio CDO" four times. If bespoke portfolio CDOs are what the article is about, then Bespoke portfolio CDO is what the title should be. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. I recognize that this is an unusual relist, given the number of participants to date. But, I see that the article has changed drastically (it's essentially a new article) since the AfD began, and most of the comments are prior to the big change. My best guess for the outcome if I closed it the way I really want to close it is that it would get dragged to DRV, overturned, and end up back here, so cutting out a week of process wonkery and giving folks another week to discuss it here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable - see The Oxford Handbook of Credit Derivatives, for example. The title of the page is reasonably consistent with WP:CONCISE and the claim that this is a mere dictionary definition is absurd. Andrew (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the page, as written, is about bespoke portfolios in the same way that the article on New York City would be "about France" if its content was only about Manhattan and if it defined New York City as a municipality on the island of Manhattan. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this jargon has only been documented in a reliable source since 2011. It's too new a technical term to be well-documented. Bearian (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sources which pre-date 2011 - see Frontiers of Risk management for example. And WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not policy, and seems mainly concerned with movies, not technical topics. Andrew (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, 2007. It still appears to be a synonym for a single tranche. Am I mistaken? Bearian (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites sources from 2005 to 2013. The earliest "bespoke tranches" that I can document is 2003, (Correlation Trading "A New Asset Class Emerges" Merrill Lynch 26 November 2003) and the term certainly didn't exist prior to 1999 (The JP Morgan Guide to Credit Derivatives. JP Morgan 1999 doesn't mention it). But as you will see from the article and its citations, hundreds of billions of dollars of the stuff were issued, beginning around 2001-2. It's not a synonym for "single-tranche CDO". There are two types of single-tranche CDO - index tranches and tranches on bespoke portfolios. The "single-tranche CDO" article needs work, as does the "Synthetic CDO" article = both are of very low quality relative to many of the other complex derivatives based articles. I hope to get to work systematically on the "single-tranche CDO" article once we've all improved this article to a satisfactory standard. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move - For clarity, I've going to strike out and reiterate my current thinking on the article title. Would it make sense to do a WP:MOVE to a new Bespoke portfolio (CDO) title? I think this title would be least ambiguous and most intuitive. Bespoke CDO isn't formally right, because the portfolio is bespoke more than the CDO (indeed, the CDO's documentation was usually completely standardized). In any case Bespoke CDO has already been redirected to Single-tranche CDO. Bespoke CDO portfolio isn't really right either, because specialists in the world of CDOs generally (though not always) talk of "bespoke portfolios" (again recognizing that the phrase arises elsewhere) or "reference portfolios" - and reference portfolio doesn't seem suitable either, given the objections already raised.Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to you above, under the previous incarnation of your question that you've now struck out, is still my answer to this. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.