-5

You have the Personal Finance and Quantitative Finance sites. One seems to be designed for finance question of the general public, while the other focusses more on the quant level/PhD level.

When I asked a question from CFA curriculum, it was put on hold, and I was told it was not "quantitative finance" because it wasn't mathematical enough.

You can't get more finance than CFA since it is the industry standard. So where on Stack Exchange could I ask such finance questions?

8

There is no particular guarantee that a given question will have any site on SE that it can be asked on, either 1) because topic definitions don't cover it, or 2) because of various quirks that make the question unsuitable for most/all SE sites. (SE sites are not designed to cover every possible topic between them with the most efficient set of sites possible, but rather to ensure that each site is as healthy and sustainable as possible, which usually means a fairly coherent definition that proves to bring a sizable community together.)

This appears to be the first of those reasons: there may well be no existing site that covers this specific topic. However, Financial Markets might accept this if it ever launches, or you can start a new proposal on Area 51, although the previous attempt doesn't seem to have done very well.

|improve this answer|||||
  • You guys need to get your act together and consolidate finance into one site. I don't see economics divided into economics for the average plebeian, mathematical economics and another just economics. – Ben Oct 29 '15 at 5:36
  • 4
    @kuromusha: I have no dog in the fight, since I'm not a member of any of those sites. But from what I can tell, there's no obvious reason all three sites must be joined, and that pattern is repeated on a number of other SE sites: MathOverflow and Mathematics, Theoretical Computer Science/Computer Science/Stack Overflow, and so on. You cannot force a site to answer questions on just whatever you think they should; if a site community decides X is off-topic, it's off-topic. (You can try to make a case for allowing it, but I doubt that this particular example will go anywhere.) – Nathan Tuggy Oct 29 '15 at 5:39
  • Quantitative Finance is not as active as any of the sites you mentioned, there is no point for such specialisation. They should have one personal money help. The other one as finance, and everything in finance. – Ben Oct 29 '15 at 5:51
  • 7
    @kuromusha: Take that up with them. But "you guys aren't doing much anyway" is, FYI, not a particularly great basis for arguing for an increase in site scope. Scope is generally set based on the expertise of the community, not the volume they're currently handling. – Nathan Tuggy Oct 29 '15 at 5:52
-2

There does not seem to be a specific site for what you are looking for. You may, however, be able to re-phrase (or translate) your question into something suitable for one of the available forums. You could call it a domain-translation. You might be able to mathematize your question even if, for example, your question is a financial ethics question. Or consider what aspect of business this finance relates to. Is it the finance of human resources, or project management...? If so then you can do the opposite and de-mathematize the question and up the department-type component and put it in the appropriate site for that department.

The Workplace site is one of the more broadly defined sites on here. You might try forming it around the concept of workplace. Workplace is often about management, why not about finance too?

|improve this answer|||||
  • 2
    I'm not a regular at TWP but are you sure they are open for questions that are reworked in such a way they fit their site? – rene Feb 9 '17 at 19:25
  • 1
    The workplace may be broadly defined, but pure finance questions are probably off topic there, reworked or not. – Magisch Feb 9 '17 at 19:48
  • All questions w are "worked" on this site x, where w is the result of the effects of x's parameters. X's parameters are defined by j and n, where j are the rules k, l, m from the governing document, and n is the precedence set on j by the comments and answers. No question is therefore not w, as all questions exist as a result of x. Why not use mathematics to express something not traditionally used in everyday math? Honestly I don't think they are open to it, but that does not mean they are following their own mandate. – Ootagu Feb 9 '17 at 20:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .