Talk:BNY Mellon/Archives/2018

Edit request: Founder
Hello, I'm here to offer an update to list an additional founder of BNY Mellon. My edit was submitted as part of my work at Weareroast, who are currently working with the BNY Mellon EMEA team. The change suggested is as follows, listing an additional founder of BNY Mellon:


 * founder           = Thomas Mellon

Please message me here if you have any questions regarding this suggested edit.

Many thanks

Matth075 (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

NYSE
I spent a few hours (!) the other day looking at serious histories of Wall Street and the NYSE (not tossed off garbage webpages that just parrot myths) to see what was actually traded when the NYSE was founded and what the first "companies" were whose securities or stock were traded. Surprisingly vague information in the refs I found. Still looking and would be very interested to see serious sources brought by anyone else. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, firstly is there any sources which you feel contradicts that the Bank of New York was not the first company to be listed? On the archive of NYSE, under firsts and records it does state First listed company: Bank of New York, traded under the Buttonwood Tree, 1792. The Bank of New York Mellon's timeline on the website also claims it was the first company to list in 1792 and discusses about the Buttonwood tree. So the information from the exchange is that BNY was the first company listed which matches the claim from the company. From having a quick search on google I also did not find that much detail about the history which is a bit surprising perhaps, but from the available sources I have found they consistently state it was the first.
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20100310203354/http://www.nyse.com:80/about/history/1022221392987.html
 * https://www.bnymellon.com/us/en/timeline.jsp

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkong22 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please actually read my note above and be responsive to it. The Buttonwood tree is also a myth. See for example
 * Please sign and thread your posts. See WP:SIGN and WP:THREAD. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't see anything provided by Jytdog which would contradict it. I don't see what has not been responded? All you asked for was serious sources and I have commented about the available information for not only Jytdogs benefit, but that of any other interested user. From what I can see it does appear to be a straightforward fact that it was the first company listed. There is no serious evidence (as yet provided) which contradicts this Hkong22 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please thread your posts. Please see WP:THREAD and  WP:TPG and know that I will not bother responding to you further, if you cannot be bothered to learn and follow the basics of talk page etiquette, which are as fundamental as please and thank you.
 * With regard to the substance, what you did was grab two websites. Please go to the library and find some serious sources.  Wikipedia is not the blogosphere.  There is a lot of mythology around the early days of Wall Street and we are not here to repeat myths. I'll be happy to hear from you when you bring serious sources and use the talk page properly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

New headquarters
Hello, I saw that Y2kcrazyjoker4 updated the infobox with BNY Mellon's new headquarters at 240 Greenwich St. (formerly 101 Barclay St.). Is it appropriate to also update the Operations section, which still contains the company's former headquarters at 225 Liberty St.? Unfortunately, there has not yet been strong secondary sourcing to detail that this move has in fact taken place, and that the address for the new headquarters has changed. There is, however, this Wall Street Journal article that notes that BNY Mellon would move from Liberty Street to the new location (then addressed 101 Barclay St.) this summer. What would be the best way to proceed to update Operations with the current address given the lack of secondary sourcing? I'm happy to come back later with a request once there's sourcing, if that's preferred, or if it's better to update now so that there's no confusion, I wonder if editors would go ahead with the edit based on the WSJ source.

I am posting this request for BNY Mellon as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I keep my Wikipedia contributions where I have a financial conflict of interest on Talk pages rather than directly edit entries. Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 for adding BNY Mellon's new HQ. Danilo Two (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Request: Historical data
Hello, I'm here to ask for the removal of the Historical data section and the three accompanying graphs. In my discussions with editors on this Talk page last year, editors stressed their preference for information that does not need to be constantly updated. In order for detail on assets, liabilities, and net income to be useful for the Wikipedia readers, this section would need continuous updates. That does not appear to be happening, as the current graphs show historical data from 2000 to 2008, meaning the detail is between 10 and 18 years old. There does not appear to be any inherent value in the arbitrary graphs; even as historical data, there's no context to this time period and no reason why this particular 8 year span is particularly interesting or helpful to readers. (For instance, the graphs end right at the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and don't show the impact of this.) While it is WP:OTHERSTUFF, I've noted that other banks do not seem to have these types of graphs in their articles.

Are any of you available to review this request to remove the Historical data section?

I am posting this request for BNY Mellon as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I keep my Wikipedia contributions where I have a financial conflict of interest on Talk pages rather than directly edit entries, so I am hoping editors will review and make this update if it seems reasonable. Please ping me here if you have any questions. Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be very happy to have 3 more graphs covering the same things but for the period from 2008-2017. This would bring the record through the banking crisis and out the other side. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Noting here a couple of concerns I wanted to raise with regards to providing updated graphs:
 * First: These graphs were not provided by BNY Mellon, but a third party, moneyeconomics.com. The link referenced takes readers to a page saying the site is under maintenance. However, readers can follow the links to this report. Even if these graphs could be used, there would be an information gap between an unidentified point in 2008 and September 2009, and between the end of 2016 to the present.
 * Second: My main concern is that this would also become another portion of the article needing continuous updating, which would need charts published by a third-party on a consistent basis.
 * I have also pinged editors at WikiProject Companies for more comment. Danilo Two (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My contact at BNY Mellon has pointed out to me that the graphs at bankeval.com are composed of data for FDIC insured banks. This is an important distinction because the data shown in these graphs is only for "The Bank of New York Mellon", which is the company's New York state-chartered bank and an FDIC-insured depository institution. This is different than BNY Mellon, the consolidated parent company that is the focus of this Wikipedia article. Therefore, these charts reflect old data for BNY Mellon's largest bank subsidiary, not the whole company. With that, I would ask if you could reconsider if these are appropriate. I would love to hear feedback from others on this issue, too. Thanks again for your time! Danilo Two (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first point, is arguing that an independent source is not as good as a dependent source. That is not a valid argument; we prefer independent sourcing. Please see your talk page with respect to this argument.
 * Yes time passes and historical data needs to be updated. This is at least encyclopedic and describing trends, and is much better than point data.
 * We can deal with your clients' objection that this data represents a portion of the bank's business by stating that limitation. Not hard. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'm not arguing against using independent sources. To clarify what I meant: I was simply pointing out that these graphs were created by a third party, and therefore the availability of continuously updated graphs relies on that third-party creating them and being willing to release them for use on Wikipedia (the updated graphs are marked as copyright to Money Economics here). At the very least, per your suggestion, an explanation should be added that these graphs represent a banking subsidiary of BNY Mellon, not the parent company. Finally, I do understand your point about graphs being more helpful than point data to show trends and represent historical data, my issue with the existing graphs is what readers are meant to get from this information in an encyclopedic sense: they're only seeing a brief snapshot for part of BNY's business, this seems more confusing than anything. I'd like to open this discussion up to more editors to see if others have any thoughts on how to approach this section (especially given the issue that updated graphs are copyrighted, as noted above). Thanks again. Danilo Two (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You specifically said These graphs were not provided by BNY Mellon, but a third party. That is  exactly an argument that primary sources are preferred. It is invalid.
 * Discussions are always open to other editors. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I posted an RfC below to solicit comments from others. Danilo Two (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Request: Operations updates
Hello, As I wait for more feedback to my request above, I think it makes sense to continue to post suggested updates to this article. This time I'm here to ask for updates to the introduction, Business, and Leadership portions of Operations. Simply put: This material is outdated, and current detail that readers would find useful in gaining an understanding of BNY Mellon is mixed with detail that is no longer relevant information about BNY Mellon's operations. Examples: This section should say where BNY Mellon's headquarters is without going into detail about when it moved there, and what happened to the old headquarters. The subsection on leadership should not begin with excessive detail on the previous CEO's career and retirement.

I drafted revised updates below, yet I will also outline my changes to ease the review by volunteer editors. Ideally, this draft streamlines the information, making for fewer updates needed going forward.

This is what I've done in my draft, based on secondary sources I found in my research:

Operations introduction
 * Removed the outdated employee count. The current figure is already listed in the infobox, and this will make for one less thing needing frequent updates
 * Removed "As of 2015" from before BNY Mellon's current headquarters. This detail is superfluous in Operations
 * Removed "as the former 1 Wall Street building was sold in 2014". This detail is already listed in History

Business
 * Rewrote this section to give a streamlined, current description of BNY Mellon's businesses based on secondary sources
 * Removed detail on Pershing LLC and BNY Mellon Markets to retain a high-level overview of the company. Also, these entities are mentioned in History
 * Updated percentage of Fortune 500 companies that are clients of BNY Mellon
 * Replaced the outdated numbers of endowments, pension and employee benefits funds, life and health insurance companies, and top universities served by BNY Mellon with updated figures for the top broker-dealers, investment managers, pension and employee benefit funds, life and health insurance companies, and banks

Leadership
 * This section should focus on the current leadership. As such, the following material about BNY Mellon's former leadership can be moved to History: In July 2017, the company announced that CEO and Chairman Gerald Hassell would retire at the end of 2017. Hassell had been Chairman and CEO since 2011, after serving as BNY Mellon's president from 2007 to 2012 and as the president of the Bank of New York Mellon from 1998 until its merger.
 * Streamlined this section by offering detail of only the current CEO and chairman and updated the board of directors. It also seems unnecessary to include past executives, as they are no longer members of the company's leadership

It's worth mentioning that I am also working on updates to Company culture, Recognition and rankings, and Sponsorships. Taking into consideration the effort it takes to review these requests, I will suggest those edits following review of my proposals outlined here.

I am posting this request for BNY Mellon as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I keep my Wikipedia contributions where I have a financial conflict of interest on Talk pages rather than directly edit entries, so I am hoping editors will review and make these updates if all seems reasonable. Please ping me here if you have any questions. Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You appear to be trying to make this into a webpage reflecting BNY's current interests and businesses, and not an encyclopedia article about the company. None of this is aimed correctly. Please also see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's certainly not my intent. I'm attempting to make the sections of the article that are typically focused on current information less outdated. Certain information that is presented as being about how the company operates at present is not incorrect. For example, in Business, the article discusses the percentage of revenue generated by its Investment Services and Investment Management businesses, but these figures are based on a report more than three years old.


 * I've also proposed removing the number of employees, as you have suggested previously lessening the amount of detail that needs continuous updating. I understand the burden that puts on volunteer editors, and I do not disagree with you on that point. That's exactly why I proposed removing the outdated Historical data section. It is incomplete and would be very difficult to maintain to ensure it has enduring value.


 * Can you clarify what details you feel should remain, and what is OK to update? I want to ensure that the information readers get at this page is the best possible based on Wikipedia's guidelines and community expectations. Thanks! Danilo Two (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I collapsed my request here and will refocus my proposed edits at a later time, following editor feedback. Thanks! Danilo Two (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comments on Historical data section
Should the three graphs covering data for 2000-2008 in the Historical data section of the BNY Mellon article be removed or kept?

As background, the Historical data section's three graphs show data which relates to "The Bank of New York Mellon", which is the company's New York state-chartered bank and an FDIC-insured depository institution, not BNY Mellon, the consolidated parent company. More context can be read here, and I'm opening this RfC to invite other editors' voices. Disclosure: I have a financial conflict of interest as I am here on behalf of BNY Mellon as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I look forward to your comments. Thanks! Danilo Two (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The RfC as originally posted and as tweaked is not neutral and is invalid; it still presents a reason provided by the bank for wanting the data removed (not the first reason given by Danilo).  The bank has been glad to benefit from "Bank of New York Mellon" branding otherwise so this is mere sophistry in any case.  But no reason based in Wikipedia's mission nor its policies and guidelines has been provided for removing this historical data, which is part of the scant  info here about the bank around the time of the financial crisis.  So retain.  Of course.   Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal there's no context for the graphs, they're ten years out of date, and there's no reason to have data for just the 2000-2008 period in the article. If the graphs were from 1900-2008, being out of date might be OK. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to have these graphs in the first place. Danillo, say hi to Beutler for me--according to some dude in Pakistan he still owes me a ton of money, haha. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Drmies quite surprising. Not to have financial information on a bank, leading up and just into probably the most intense time in recent banking history. But sure let's just turn this page into selling BNY's current business and erase the past. I am finding the responses here just so strange.  I will unwatch this descent of yet another page into yet another cum-stained mattress in the crackhouse neighborhoods of our project. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I love you like a brother but you're getting kinda stupid here. I've not actually seen such graphics in any article here, and I've been here a while. Did you read power~enwiki's comment? Makes sense to me. And I really don't know about crack and cum. I mean, I guess I understand why in the stereotypical "drug house" you don't have sheets, cause you don't have a washer, but I remember well how I got my IKEA mattress from my aunt when I moved out to go to college, and just having people spooging on it, without a sheet and all, no--the very thought! I suppose we should be glad Wikipedia isn't scratch 'n sniff. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I figured you were robust enough for some salty language. :) I do not favor removing historical data, generally. And gee, there is some problem with historical  data, in a historical data section?   Fill in around it, fine.  Why do you think the bank wants this data gone? Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, what I've seen of Beutler (which may be less than you've seen) is that he likes a clean article, and I think those three little graphs in the middle of nothing look pretty bad--that's my guess. And I really don't see much of a point for these numbers; I think people who are looking for that kind of information won't go to Wikipedia for it. (BTW, 1500 million dollars in net income? Do "bankers" actually have to do anything for that kind of money?) Drmies (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do enjoy your ability to turn a phrase. Perhaps you could use some of that talent to write some articles?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * (invited by the bot) I'd say drop the charts. No biggee either way, but there's a section with no with no text, and historical data charts typically end with the present, not 10 years ago.  North8000 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * back, briefly -- btw it just occurred to me that people are  apparently not actually looking at the charts and thinking about what they say. They show that banks assets and liabilities roughly tripled in the few years leading up to the financial crisis, and its net income fell by 50% during that same time.  That information is no where else in the article. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. It should be possible to find some reliable sources commenting on these figures, with the graphs providing a helpful visual review. For example, it is likely a business magazine, or even a book on the financial crisis, has analysed the performance of BNYM over this period. I will go and look - QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove or replace - I am not familiar with consensus around these bank articles, but using primary sources provided by the article's subject seems questionable, especially when they are incomplete and out of date. Why isn't the conflicted advocate suggesting more current data like this? Also, graphs without interpretation by reliable sources are lame. A good business journal source would probably moot this rfc. If there is no such good secondary source perhaps the data isn't notable. (invited randomly by a bot) Jojalozzo (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove As they stand, the three random charts in a subsection of their own are completely uninformative. If there is something to be said about these graphs, it should be explained in the historical data section. I would also advocate for proper sourcing and have them updated. Right now, the source link takes you to a "site maintenance" page so I could not verify the quality of the source. As a side note, I don't think that these charts will be very informative even if properly sourced and updated but that may be a separate issue. Dryfee (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I came here from the ANI thread. Remove - out of date graphs. I am in agreement with Dryfee and Jojalozzo. There is no context to these graphs especially for the lay person who might not be able to interpret them. I would suggest removing them or adding up to date ones with explanation so that lay people can understand what they are suppose to represent. Further, I see no problem with this RFC. Yes, there is a requirement for RFCs to be neutral, however that should not prevent an RFC. If we were to seat and wait for an RFC's wording to be neutrally phrased, we will be waiting until the end of the world as that might not be achievable. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The graphs might be arguably "out of date" but the period they illustrate was the prelude to one of the most significant worldwide financial crises ever. So, the obvious course here, according to the primary function of Wikipedia, is to Retain the graphs, albeit updated with the most recent information available. (Which should be, typically, an ongoing practice in such matters - and the reason why Wikipedia is always one step ahead of paper encyclopaedias.) If no data after 2008 can be found, which is highly doubtful, the current graphs should not be removed since they offer a valuable  historical perspective. And just like notability in Wikipedia, historical importance is not temporary. -The Gnome (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. If we had data, and therefore also graphs, for an American bank for the period 1920-28 and nothing after that, we would most probably retain the data (in graph form) since the Great Depression that right after hit the banking sector and the whole of the western world was a hugely significant event, by any standard, including Wikipedia's. Well, the Global Financial Crisis of 2007/8 has been an event of at least equal significance. -The Gnome (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of updating these graphs with information up till 2016. The final graph I have come up with combines information from the first Net Income graph (showing the years 2000 through 2009, but whose ref link is a dead url) with information from the same source for the years 2009 through 2016 but with an active URL. I need to know, would combining the two graphs be considered WP:SYN? Please advise.  spintendo   10:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Closure request Legobot removed the RfC template on September 1 and it has been a while since any new comments. I have requested an admin review the discussion and close, if appropriate, at Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure. Danilo Two (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * While we wait for a formal close of the RfC, I'm wondering if it is possible to adjust the formatting to your new graphs so they stay contained within the Historical data section? As they are, the graphs are bleeding into Operations. Just an idea. Thanks for putting these together.


 * Also, can we add a brief description of what these charts represent? The data is specifically for FDIC insured banks and "The Bank of New York Mellon" in these graphs is the company's New York state-chartered bank and an FDIC-insured depository institution, not the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, the consolidated parent company. Would it be possible to add in a caption or introductory sentence that says something like: "The data in these charts is for the FDIC-insured depository institution, The Bank of New York Mellon, not the consolidated parent company." Thank you in advance for considering, Danilo Two (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Another thing which no one has pointed out before is that from the years 2000 to 2007, Mellon and The Bank of New York were two separate banks. The website where I got my figures from clearly says BNYM from 2004 through till 2016. So who's figures do the years 2000 through 2004 represent, Mellon's or BNY? I suppose only the author of the original line graphs knows for sure. The Websites give us a clue, stating "The Bank of New York Mellon was established in 1851 and headquartered in New York, NY. The Bank of New York Mellon became an FDIC insured institution on 1934." This must be the Bank of New York they're referring to, as Mellon didn't open a bank until 1869, and that one was ostensibly located in Pittsburgh.   Spintendo   22:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)