Talk:Daniel Ivandjiiski/Archive 1

Daniel Ivandjiiski
Overhauled the Zero Hedge wiki article and decided to upgrade Daniel's wiki page from a re-direct to Zero Hedge, to a proper BLP in itself. There are now enough independent material and sources to be able to properly cross-reference a good number of facts about him. Britishfinance (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

FINRA sanction for insider trading
It is possible to get confused about the details of Daniel's FINRA ban for insider-trading and some newspaper articles have done this (never mind the junk on the wider internet). He was not banned while in Miller Buckfire, he was in Wexford Capital when the sanction was applied (the NYM article makes out that he was fired from Wexford capital, and that his leaving Wexford had nothing to do with the ban, which is an unfair positioning). Also, the ban was only for USD 750, and Dan decided not to appeal it (which he can still go back and to under FINRA regs). By the time he got the ban, Lehmans was about to collapse and the world - for traders - was about to end. A few weeks after the ban, Daniel started ZH. To avoid speculation and unfair conclusions, I wanted to give more detail on the FINRA ban and cite the FINRA ruling (as you can link to the FINRA website where all the rulings are listed) and the chronology. I had a discussion with an admin editor,, who felt this could be getting close to being primary, but given the source is FINRA, and the situation, feels that it probably should be kept in. Leaving this note however for others as reference.Britishfinance (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this and I see there is no response to the above. However, having more experience in this area I understand even better user:Salvio giuliano's concern, but I think the fact that the source is binary (e.g. FINRA either list you as banned or not), and high quality (e.g. it is the main regulator), is a good result. Ensuring that we also include the full FINRA text (and not a selection), as we have done in the article also limits any potential to above the FINRA source.  Thank you for that Salvio guiliano, very educational for me, and I think the process of discussing this reference is helpful to the article.Britishfinance (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

GEROVA compliant case
There is also confusion over this 2012 litigation, which I sometimes see referred to incorrectly as evidence that Daniel was successfully sued for using ZH to manipulate market prices (some references even state that the GEROVA litigation was the SEC, and not an investor in GEROVA, prosecuting Daniel). The complaint case also listed a lot of details about Daniel and his father, Krassimir Ivandjiiski, which are unsubstantiated and taken from a compliant's view. Ultimately, the SEC never took up the GEROVA complaint (which is what the complaint, Noble Investments, were hoping for) and it was dropped. In fact, the SEC did the opposite, and ended up proving Daniel and ZH correct regarding GEROVA, and sent several investors and executives of GEROVA to jail in 2015-2016 for market manipulation. I also wanted to cite and reference the details of the 2012 GEROVA case but feels that it is very primary, and getting into OR, which I can see is a fair argument.  My view is that there are so few articles on ZH (and which are fair and balanced), that it is worth listing the facts of GEROVA and the complaint (which, while being primary, and possibly OR, are inspectable online, and come from a filed legal document). The subsequent 2015-16 SEC prosecutions can all be sourced from secondary sources (Reuters etc.), so it is not a complete primary affair (although those secondary sources on the 2015-16 SEC prosecutions do not refer to the earlier 2012 attempt by Noble to sue Daniel). However, we would like to hear what others think.Britishfinance (talk)
 * Seems there is no response on this from user:Salvio giuliano's concern. However, now that I understand more on this issue (three months is a long time in WP when you have less than a year of experience), I think Salvio giuliano is spot on.  There is no way that a complaint could be used as a source in a WP article (even more so given that the document itself is by definition advocating a particular argument).  Am I right however in saying that it is okay for a WP article to acknowledge that a complaint existed and the parties involved (but without discussing contents etc.)? thank again. Britishfinance (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)