Talk:Datar–Mathews method for real option valuation

Copyright symbol

I don't like that the first sentence contains a copyright symbol. (Copyright DM Method)? Maybe this method is copyrighted and should be deleted from Wikipedia, or what is the meaning of this symbol? DM Method is not a trademark, and we usually don't use extra copyright symbols in the text? Ulner (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Boeing simply copyrighted the name "DM Method," distinguishing this work from other real option applications, as part of its licensing process. This facilitates the teaching of the method at universities and research centers, and its use in their published materials.ScottMathews (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright symbols should not be in the article per MOS:TMRULES AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. The copyright symbol is eliminated.MathewsSH (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)ScottMathews

Editing of Datar-Mathews method for real option valuation

AngusWOOF, you were the most recent editor of the subject article (November 16, 2019). I am so confused, I don't quite know where to begin. But let's get started.

To begin with there are two articles that are similar but different. So distinguishing between them: the first is the original article published by Wikipedia in the spring of 2012 entitled "Datar-Mathews method for real option valuation." The second is an minor revision of the original article plus extensive (3 sections) of additional materials containing formulas, graphs and images. The second article I submitted to Wikipedia as a Draft version on or about November 15, 2019. That second article represents about 6 months of work including external reviews by SMEs. Somehow all that new material is gone (deleted?) and replaced by a reproduction of the original article and accompanied by various alerts and warnings.

I don't know what happened. I was attempting to follow Wikipedia protocol in submitting a Draft clearly showing the new material for review by your editors. The imagined the review would correct any formatting errors and perhaps address the table/image sizes and positions within the article. Instead, the new material has entirely disappeared -- and replaced with the original article, but now with alerts and warnings. Here is what I propose:

1. Please recover the entirety of the second article including formulas, graphs and images along with the formatting I had used. 2. Help me correctly format the content of the second article. 3. If there is concern about COI, then of course I will answer any and all questions. However, I assure you there is no COI. 4. Finally, place me in contact with a person or persons with whom I can expeditiously resolve all these issues.

Thank you.

MathewsSH (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Scott H Mathews

MathewsSH, the 2012 article is already in the mainspace. If you are updating the subject matter with more recent findings such as the formulas, graphs, images, it should have been done directly to this 2012 article, and not drafted separately. If the method has radically changed since 2012, then you can make a section in this article called 2019 method and detail it there. Also, if you are indeed Scott H. Mathews, the author of the research work, then you have COI, and it would be better that you make your requests to change the article on the article's talk page, and have other editors not connected to your research edit in the changes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

MathewsSH, I've replaced the existing article with the newer draft from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Datar–Mathews_Method_for_real_option_valuation&oldid=926395805 Please note that COI still applies, and that it should not be a copy or close paraphrasing of your research paper. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

More on Editing of Datar-Mathews method for real option valuation

AngusWOOF

First, thank you for recovering the draft version of the article. I had spent a lot of time on editing, formatting and having it reviewed by SMEs.

I am sure you have deduced I am not much of a Wikipedia writer, and so mostly have to read howto articles. In spite of my caution, I obviously got off on the wrong track. I do now understand and will follow your suggestion of requesting to change the article on the article's talk page.

I am Scott H. Mathews, the author of the prior research work, which has been patented by my former company. The extensions I am inserting into the article represent new work entirely of my own and that other SMEs have found interesting and useful. The extensions attempt to make the findings published in the original article more understandable to a broad audience and simpler to apply.

I will submit to a COI overview of the work, but again I assure you there is no COI.

Thank you for your attention (and guidance) as I proceed. MathewsSH (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Scott H Mathews

The COI Issue

Let's start here on resolving this. I read through the Wiki materials on COI. I do not think COI applies to this work. Here is why: 1. The original article (from 2012) was published and no COI was flagged at that time. The article refers to me (Scott H. Mathews) and my collaborator, Dr. Vinay Datar, because we created this work which is owned by my (now) former company. At the time, this work was understood as a new contribution to this technical field of real options. 2. The extension (to the original article) that I wrote (and submitted in November 2019) is my own work and is not owned by any entity. It contains formulas, graphs and images all of which I created myself. The images I created are submitted to WikiCommons. 3. As in the original article, this extension refers to me as being creator of this work. However, the work is equations and algorithms and should not be interpreted as 'personal', but rather as generally enabling for individuals attempting to utilize the work to carry out investigations into external activities, such as the valuation of risky projects. This, of course, was the purpose of the original article. 4. I believe this article and its identification of me as the creator does not qualify as a conflict of interest. Please remove the alert on this web page.

Thank you. MathewsSH (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Scott H Mathews

I've started a discussion at WP:COIN AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Over this holiday I was able to find (using Google Scholar and other search engines) probably more than 100 references in multiple languages to the original article (Datar-Mathews method for real option valuation). From those I have selected about 20 that are especially relevant and will include many as additional references to the article. I do have a question however: the Datar-Mathews Method was patented (U.S. Patent No. 6,862,579). In the process of issuing a patent the USPTO performs a thorough investigation of similar work with the intent of discerning the unique elements of the patent application. A link to the USPTO easily reveals all the investigation results. Given the uniqueness of the patent finding, help me understand better the Wikipedia COI finding. Will the additional references I intend to place in the article help resolve the COI finding? MathewsSH (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Scott Mathews

This article is not too technical for most readers to understand

First, thank you for referring the COI issue to COIN. Now let's move on and address the next alert: this article may be "too technical for most readers".

1. The original article (from 2012) was published and no "too technical" alert has ever been raised. 2. The extension (to the original article) that I wrote (and submitted in November 2019) was created in order to help readers better understand the underlying concepts of real options, in particular the Datar-Mathews method, but the real options topic in general. Several subcategories in the article (Data patterns, DM Range Option) are intended to ease the burden of exacting calculations required for typical option valuation. The subcategory DM Option - Algebraic form in particular is intended to reduce the complexity of the related Black-Scholes option valuation, allowing more known variables such as standard deviation to be substituted for the more exotic "volatility factor", the latter of which is not available in business situations. 3. The Black-Scholes model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-Scholes_model) and Black-Scholes equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-Scholes_equation) are closely related but different from the DM Method. First the Black-Scholes model is intended for option valuation for financial traders, while the DM Method is intended for real option valuation used in business situations. These two methods are somewhat closely related but sufficiently different and sometimes require alternate variables. Furthermore, the Black-Scholes websites are much more complex than that of the DM Method. In fact the original intention of the DM Method article was to put forward a yet simpler implementation of the Black-Scholes formula that would be accessible to a much wider field of general practitioners in business applications (not financial traders). 4. In creating this extension, I relied on (and referenced) the mathematics and methods for Wikipedia sites such as Lognormal distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution), Triangular distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_distribution), and Conditional Expectation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_expectation) are equally if not more complex, and are particularly aimed to specialists in this field. 5. This DM Method article (the original and the extension) are not to complex for practitioners in this field. In fact, I would argue that is more readable, more easily implemented than alternate real option valuations such as the Black-Scholes. This alert "too technical" should be removed.

MathewsSH (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Scott H Mathews

Comply with Wikipedia's content policies/ neutral point of view

Thank you for reviewing and accepting (I think?) that this article does not violate COI.

WRT to comments on content and point of view (and "We need a mathematician" from COI conversation) -- my editor for this article has been User:Fintor, and has helped me on the original article (March 2012). Fintor is not only a mathematician but also works in the field of analytic finance, which is a perfect match for the subject matter of my article. Unfortunately Fintor is currently on vacation, and I've asked that he provide his expertise when he returns. Please wait for his return and he can provide the editing that is required.

Meanwhile, I will work on addressing the other issues that were raised such as additional references including third party references, of which I have located dozens. Now I simply need to select a few especially salient ones and list them as references.

As a separate note, I've just received acceptance to publish from a peer reviewed source (Francis and Taylor publishers ISSN: 0895-6308) another article that cites this material. This reference will be:

Scott H. Mathews, and Dr. Philip Russell, 2020, Risk Analytics for Innovation Projects, Research Technology Management 63(2) pp forthcoming.

Again, thank you for your patience as I work through the various concerns which I assure you will be answered satisfactorily.

MathewsSH (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Scott Mathews

Resolution of tag "excessive ... references to self-published sources"

When the original article was published in Wikipedia (March 2012), the described method (Datar-Mathews Method) was new. Outside of self-published articles, there were very few alternative references that could be cited. Now with the passage of time there has been considerable review resulting in numerous articles and documents referencing the DM Method. Today as I edit the extended version of this article, I have now added some 20 additional references that cite the DM Method. In my opinion this adequately addresses the subject, and therefore I remove the tag. MathewsSH (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Scott H Mathews

Resolution of tag "establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources"

When the original article was published in Wikipedia (March 2012), the described method (Datar-Mathews Method) was new. Outside of self-published articles, there were very few alternative references that could be cited. Now with the passage of time there has been considerable review resulting in numerous articles and documents referencing the DM Method. Today as I edit the extended version of this article, I have now added some 20 additional references that cite the DM Method. In my opinion this adequately addresses the subject, and therefore I remove the tag. MathewsSH (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Scott H Mathews

Resolving the tag "close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view."

To User:AngusWOOF: I believe I have made considerable progress in addressing the various tags that were appended to my article extension. This tag of "neutral point of view" requires a third party, such as yourself, to review whether the article complies with Wikipedia's content policies. I would appreciate your input on this subject, and if you believe it complies, then remove the tag. However if in your opinion the article still falls short, please explain how it might be remedied. Thank you. MathewsSH (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Scott H Mathews

MathewsSH, please have another neutral editor check over the article for neutrality and have them remove the tag. You can't remove the COI yourself. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks Use:AngusWOOF for keeping tabs on this effort. Following your recommendation, I will request the User:Fintor address this outstanding issue when he returns. MathewsSH (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Scott H. Mathews