Talk:GAIN Capital

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Previous Delete

Note a page with this title was previously deleted on 13:27, 14 October 2006 Firsfron (talk | contribs) deleted "Gain Capital" ‎ (It is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).)

I recreated page based on recent IPO by Gain Capital and press stories about regulatory actions, giving some notability. 11:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Sargdub (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stay away from forex.com

This company has horrible software. Their customer service is good, but whose isn't in the forex world? So not really a selling point. They have wider spreads than Oanda and the same maximum leverage (which by the way, is by default set to 50:1...), so no good for scalpers. They put out a laughably simplistic "preview version" of a book on currency trading on their website that their CEO wrote. It's one of those "... for Dummies" type of books.

Also, the first part of the article itself sounded more like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:47EB:CF9:21B:77FF:FEAD:46DE (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory issues

I made some edits to the Gain Capital page and you reversed them. I was wondering if you could tell me why. I'll be honest in that I work for Gain and I was just trying to make our page in line with what our company offers and equal to what other brokers have on their pages - many brokers who have had regulatory issues do not have them detailed on their Wikipedia page yet we do. Everything I added was purely factual and completely objective, if you disagree please let me know. by 83.217.121.98 (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2013‎

The main reason I reversed the changes to the Gain Capital page was that you removed notable items that had been referenced without explanation, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and the regulatory issues were notable for Gain Capital. The list of regulators does not add any useful information, if there was some contextual information about the regulators that would be more interesting. However I agree that some other articles do have them and I have no objecting to those in themselves but I would think about what value they add to the article for the reader. As for other articles that dont reference regulatory issues, feel free to add them if you can reference any, many articles do mention these as often that is what makes a company notable enough to be included in wikipedia in the first place. There are a number of guidelines on wikipedia and one is that everything should be written from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and if as you say you are employed by the company you may have a conflict of interest and you should have a look at the WP:COI. If you feel you can follow neutral point of view feel free to add content, but if you want to remove information, please explain why and to avoid getting your edits reversed you can also start a discussion on the talk page Talk:Gain_Capital to get some opinions before you do so. Sargdub (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested updates to the company Infobox

Full disclosure: I work for GAIN Capital. To avoid potential conflicts of interest and ensure a neutral point of view, I would like to suggest the following updates here on the talk page in the hopes another editor may implement them:

1. Can the name field be updated to the full official name of the company? "name = GAIN Capital Holdings, Inc."

2. Can the key_people field be updated to include additional members of the executive team? "key_people = Glenn Stevens (CEO)
Samantha Roady
(President, Retail)
Nigel Rose (CFO)
Jeff Scott (COO)
Mike Lear (CIO)"^[1]

Thanks GAIN Capital (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reply:

1. yes I have done that.

2. It is normal to keep this list as small as possible and just have key people down to CEO level. It is not normal to list the executive team unless they are notable in their own right, have a look at Template:Infobox company to get more info. Sargdub (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://ir.gaincapital.com/Tearsheet.ashx?c=241648

Suggestion for this article to be rated Mid-importance under WikiProject Companies

Full disclosure: I work for GAIN Capital. To avoid potential conflicts of interest and ensure a neutral point of view, I am using the talk page to suggest the following rating change for this article rather than editing it myself:

On the Importance scale for WikiProject Companies, it states "Companies of a mid-level importance are large, profitable corporations which exist on a regional level; Or they may be national companies which mainly function in the background and aren't commonly known outside of financial circles."

Under the second definition, the GAIN Capital article seems to qualify for a Mid-importance rating, since it has been cited on several financial news sites including Bloomberg as "the Biggest U.S. Retail FX Provider".^[1]^[2]^[3]

GAIN Capital (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that it probably does not meet mid-level importance, but I am not a member of Companies project and project rating is not particularly important. If you feel strongly I suggest change it and see if anybody in the project objects. Sargdub (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Acquisition by StoneX

This article should probably be rewritten as GAIN Capital doesn't seem to exist anymore following its acquisition by StoneX. Vgbyp (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, have updated the article to make it historic. Sargdub (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://ir.gaincapital.com/Tearsheet.ashx?c=241648

[2] ttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-24/gain-capital-to-take-top-slot-in-u-s-retail-fx-as-fxcm-exits

[3] ttp://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/breaking-us-retail-forex-weathers-fxcm-storm-deposits-flat-mom/

[4] ttps://smnweekly.com/2017/04/06/us-retail-client-deposits-feb-2017/

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]