Talk:Collective investment scheme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collective investment scheme is within the scope of WikiProject Investment, an effort to improve the quality of articles relating to investment and the personal investor. If you would like to participate, please edit this page and become a member.
[Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Project template]

Current Collaborations: Exchange-traded fund

Contents

[edit] Aim of this Page

Many types of collective or pooled investments exist in different countries. The aim of this page is to reflect the many similarities these scheme have to avoid needless duplication on pages for individual schemes.

I have tried to keep an unbiased POV and to keep the generic information as just that.

Please add further country sections where you have the information. Simon West 23:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The content of fund types may need to be addressed

These include:

Hedge fund

Mutual fund

Pension fund

Provident fund

Insurance contract --- pseudo fund???

Also, is this article a duplicate one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_fund

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 13:37, 30 October 2006 (talk) 222.64.55.53

Investment fund was merged with Collective investment scheme. A unit-linked or with-profits insurance policy certainly sounds like a collective investment scheme to me, and I see someone added them to the UK section. Please feel free to expand and globalize where appropriate. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logical Extension

If any one of the three is failing, then because each is non-correlated (i.e., behaves independently), by logical extension at least one of the other two is doing well.

That's not logical at all. 216.191.217.90 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. You should have been been WP:Bold and removed it as I have. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Series

I have added this article to the SERIES {{Financial market participants}} in place of Mutual fund, as it gives a more global perspective. Any objections? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, that seems correct to me. Art Markham (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of references

This has to be one of the most unreferenced articles I've seen. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It has three inline references, and most statements are fairly uncontentious, so don't need references by the Good Article guidelines. Mostly it is a signpost article, to help a reader find articles on specific scheme types - so it probably won't ever be nominated as a Good Article. Signposts don't really need references. For these reasons, I don't think the {{Citations missing}} banner is justified, but I agree to the extent that more references would definitely make it a better article. At the moment, there are no contentious statements tagged with {{fact}} or {{dubious}}, but that doesn't meant there isn't one. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Your policy is at odds with WP. There must be loads of books on investment which can be used as sources. As it is, this lack of rigour has allowed POV statements. GA has nothing to do with it - this is about fundamental WP policies and guidelines. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
John, I don't have a policy of my own, and I didn't delete the banner, even though I think it is over the top in this case. I really do wish people would add references every time they add statements to the body of an article — but Wikipedians have allowed each other, by policy, to add unsourced statements as long as they were verifiable and not harmful to the articles. I have done that myself, probably too many times. It seems that is how most of our million (?) articles still look today.
Regarding your 2 reversions of mine and Simon123's edits, I thought I was right to restore Simon123's edit because the lead should have a paragraph that reflects two major sections in the body. Simon123 did not add unsourced statements to the article - he merely summarised existing unsourced statements in the lead. It is not great that the unsourced statements are there (at Collective investment scheme#Generic information - advantages) and disadvantages, but they are fairly neutral so I guess that consensus editing allowed them to stay.
I personally would like to see {{fact}} and {{dubious}} tags against those unsourced statements that are particularly problematic, so that editors can address those first. A fully sourced article, signpost or not, is far better than an unsourced one in so many ways, so I don't think we are in disagreement there. We do disagree about what the intermediate articles on their way there should look like. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You said "we don't cite sources in the lead". That's news to me - I assumed it was your policy. Is it ? Or is it WP policy ?
Further, a small example of lack of compliance with Wikipedia - "If you believe it is possible to select the stock which will do well you will actively manage your investment buying and selling upon whichever principles you decide."
Given the time this article has existed, why hasn't anyone cleared it up, and told whoever adds it of the WP standards rather than to allow them to add more non standard entries ?
The same writing style and associated lack of compliance has occurred on a number of finance related articles and it is imo bad behaviour to expect others to do the work of working through them and making them compliant. Consequently, it's now time to, at least, stop further non compliant material being added.
The {{refimprove}} tag has been in place for 5 months without a noticible improvement. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

John, I don't think this article has any serious permanent maintainers - hence the banner has made no difference.

Active management - eughh - what a jarring break from house style. It should be referenced, and it should be third person. It looks fairly neutral - it just seems to be a clumsy attempt to define active management. I may fix it if I get a chance. As you said, clumsy style and lack of sourcing seems to run across dozens, perhaps hundreds, of finance articles. Looking at article histories, it seems the problems go back several years. The articles have become victims of much worse things - guesswork, errors, quack theories, content forks, lack of global perspective, and even walled gardens. Maybe the new WikiProject Investment will attract some help. Lets roll our sleeves up!

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than stopping the situation worsening, I don't have the time or inclination, I'm afraid. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations doesn't seem to be as strict as I remember it (for good reason). As of today it says "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." I stand corrected.
I am not sure I am keen on the approach you suggest for stopping the situation worsening. When someone adds something that is not compliant, but is not against the 5 pillars, tag it, ask them to fix it, but please don't revert it. We want people to write the encyclopedia. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
In my experience it is quite difficult to comprehensively reference finance articles. People don't tend to learn this sort of thing at school, so there are very few textbooks available. Most knowledge is just within the industry, in the heads of busy people who don't have the time or inclination to dig out obscure references from books that may or may not exist. For that reason this is never going to look like a science article or a history article, so I think we just need to a little more lenient than we might otherwise be - flag up problems and hope people fix them by all means, but I agree that we should just let people write the article. Art Markham (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)