Talk:The Vanguard Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pennsylvania (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philadelphia (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Investment (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

NPOV Dispute[edit]

Can someone substantiate the claim this article "is written like an advertisement"? For the most part, the content seems quite factual with few POV statements. If no one can provide multiple specific instances of POV language, I will remove the tag within a week. Rtcpenguin 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Vanguard funds are awesome, safe investment choices for nearly everyone. But there are no negative or opposing points of view in this article! I think Vanguard is great, so I am not the right person to write about the negative aspects.
Also, there is a ridiculous lack of references in this article. There aren't even sufficient references to corroborate some of the claims, not even on Vanguard's own website! Which isn't the appropriate place to source an encyclopedic article to begin with. I am trying to address some of this, as I am repeatedly referred to this Wikipedia article by people regarding the supposedly mutualized nature of Vanguard as a company, despite the fact that Vanguard itself doesn't make such claims, not explicitly. --FeralOink (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, also, the NPOV tag was probably removed at least five years earlier. I am not taking it upon myself to replace it, though I won't argue with anyone who might chose to do so. --FeralOink (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"Empirical evidence for the Efficient market hypothesis."[edit]

I have removed the sentence

This is empirical evidence for the Efficient market hypothesis.

since it is untrue.

I do not doubt the accuracy of the empirical evidence. However, the fact that 75% of fund managers are unable to "beat the market" does not logically entail the truth of the efficient market hypothesis. All it suggests is that 75% of fund managers are unable to "beat the market". This could be for any number of reasons, inter alia, they are incompetent, they do not have access to full information, EMH is true, etc., etc.

Soobrickay 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Another user added back an similar sentiment, without an edit summary, and still uncited:
These findings are consistent with the Efficient market hypothesis.
So I followed your example and removed it. After all, these are not findings of cause and effect, merely observations based on hindsight. It could mean simply that fund managers have the same valuation of stocks as retail investors and pension funds. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

References[edit]

Hello. This article has some external links but it was unclear where and if they are the sources for the article. So I added a "noreferences" tag. OK from my point of view to change or remove the tag. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vanguard logo.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Vanguard logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewording[edit]

I've reworded the opening sentences of the History section to address what I think are inaccuracies. I don't have time to track down citations now, so if you really think it's necessary slap "citation needed" but please don't revert back to an inaccurate wording.

First, you can't invest directly in an index. Not then, and not now, and this disclaimer usually appears in so many words in the prospectus and descriptive marketing material of any index fund. The first Vanguard index fund didn't even invest in all 500 S&P stocks, and even today "total market" index funds use sampling techniques.

Second, John C. Bogle and his colleagues did not invent the index fund or create the first index fund. What he created was the first index fund sold to individual investors. Index funds were relatively new at the time, to be sure. They were institutional products available only to pension funds. Bogle was an innovator, not an inventor. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)