Talk:Johnson Matthey

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This section seems out of proportion to the whole article. Would it be better to create a separate article for the case and summarize it here? Pterre (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Well not actually, but the above comment is no longer valid now. --BjKa (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been Johnson Matthey which made losses in the 1970's when a customer failed to produce a margin call in silver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.189.26 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was in about 1973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.189.26 (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says "Most of JMB's business was sold to Mase Westpac". Now this is not very helpful, inasmuch as 1.: Nobody knows who or what a Mase Westpac is, unless someone describes it further, and 2.: It seems that Mase Westpac has in the meantime been bought by Republic New York, which in the meantime has been bought by HSBC. Now does this mean that JM is now a full subsidiary of HSBC? Who now holds JMB's seat on the London Goldfixing? --BjKa (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the amount of focus given to Johnson Matthey Bankers in this article is inappropriate given how long ago it was and the lack of relevance to the business today. Perhaps it would be better in its own article?

talk) 18:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Opening a discussion on conflict of interest. Please add any areas where it is felt there is a conflict of interest here. Jgwing (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You agree that Johnson Matthey press releases are too subjective, proceed to add them anyway and then wonder why people might see a conflict of interest here? I'd strongly advise you not to edit the article directly but to suggest specific improvements here on the talk page. Huon (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the potential concern for conflict of interest and that is why I am opening comment on any areas that may be seen in that light. However, the article was previously very patchy and in some areas inaccurate (three business divisions). There are also some areas where I am unable to find an alternative reference. For example, details of the Sustainability 2017 programme – where would a better reference exist? Is it better to have no references than corporate website references? I would have thought a corporate website reference is better than none, given the encyclopaedic nature of this site. Your advice on this would be appreciated! Jgwing (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This page is very outdated. As I am an employee of Johnson Matthey, in the interests of transparency I am suggesting improvements on here rather than editing directly. Johnson Matthey underwent a re-brand during 2017/18. I have removed the old logo but cannot add the new one as I am a a new user. For the 'Operations' section, the company's structure has now changed - internally JM now structures itself under the four sectors mentioned here. I feel it would be valuable to add other information such as the markets JM are involved in and JM's locations.