Talk:List of exchange-traded funds
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Criteria
What are the criteria for listing? I see the US list is already limited to the top 21 by assets under management, as we can't list all 600. Should we set an assets or a trading volume threshold for the other parts of the list? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- We absolutely need some objective criteria. Originally this list seemed to mostly be populated by people posting their own favorite etfs, which seemed to work of for the time being. Recently the list was flooded extensively by another company blatantly promoting their own products including phone numbers where users could call for additional information about the products. Volume thresholds may be a solution, but I would like to maintain examples of many different kinds of etfs.
- I also think we need to organize the etfs by exchange, and (this being the english wikipedia) we should prioritize the etfs based in english speaking countries; etfs available on foreign exchanges are not typically of interest to domestic investors. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Agree with all of that except your suggestion to prioritize on English-speaking markets. That can lead us into reinforcing WP:Systemic bias. We should have examples of each significant type of fund, and also of securities authorized in each major trading centre (Zurich, Mumbai, HK, Shanghai, Tokyo ... ) but we should not, if we can help it, have funds with only a few million dollars cap, or only a few 1000 shares daily volume, or funds that are just copycats of bigger funds (even an iShares/Vanguard S&P 500 are uninteresting to me in an encyclopedia - though I would probably look them up on Morningstar.) 20 to 30 funds from the US sounds about right. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
