Exemptive relief

AdvisorShares is one of three companies to get exemptive relief from the Investment Company Act of 1940. It does not have promotional adjectives and is unbiased. I do not understand why this page cannot be published when others with extremely similar content or more outrageously promotional are allowed to remain. EquitiesMagazine (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Court case

Can anyone find the result of this court case Fund.com Inc. v. AdvisorShares Investments, LLC, Index No. 650321/2012, (11/27/12) (Schweitzer, J.). ? Does Fund.com still own a majority stake in Advisorshares? http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/comdiv/lawreport/Vol15-No4/Vol%2015-4-website.pdf Fedayeen5768 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow funds lawsuit

What happened to the sections on the Arrow Funds lawsuits?Fedayeen5768 (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know but here are the links:
http://www.sec.gov/comments/812-13488/812-13488-1.pdf http://globaldocuments.morningstar.com/documentlibrary/document/e8eabe0904cd39870db08865768486d1.msdoc/original http://www.nybusinessdivorce.com/uploads/file/Arrow.pdf Jigsaw574 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more case that needs to be mentioned. Esposito Securities LLC v. AdvisorShares Investments LLC http://archive.recapthelaw.org/txnd/226152/Chow4563 (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye out for edits by a particular user

User with IP address 50.242.249.233 has made repeated edits. They are replacing material with citations from reliable sources with unsourced marketing language. They also seem to want to cover-up some of the company's history, particularly litigation that it was involved in. User could be related to the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigsaw574 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph has many biased statements that need to be edited or removed

The last several sentences are biased in favor of a particular investment product, actively managed ETFs. Also they aren't sourced. They state opinions as if they are facts.Jigsaw574 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User account named "AdvisorShares" should be deleted

It is against Wikipedia's rules to have an account with a company's name. Also, it is usually against the rules for a paid employee of the company (which this account seems to belong to) to edit their own company's Wikipedia page. Etfcanadian (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User "UserNameUnderConstruction" editing the AdvisorShares page needs to blocked

For the Advisorshares article, this user keeps writing advertorial content and seem to be related to the company. This user seems to be the same person as a previous user who was blocked because the had the user name "AdvisorShares". Before that they didn't use a user name and the ip address traced back to the town in Maryland where AdvisorShares is located. It seems more than likely that this person works for the company, is trying to make their page into a biased free advertisement and is not disclosing this, in violation of Wikipedia's rules and procedures. ETFeditor 17:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etfcanadian (talk • contribs)

It is clearly against Wikipedia's rule for company employees to edit this page for the sole purpose of self promotion. This is from the Wikipedia Companies project page that is mentioned above:
Self-Promotion/Conflict of Interest; As Wikipedia's popularity has increased, there have been instances of companies or individuals working at companies creating or modifying articles in order to make their company appear more favorably. This practice is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines and is frowned upon by the community in general and this WikiProject. If you are one of those persons, you are asked to read WP:BFAQ, which will help you to understand why this practice is an issue. ETFeditor 18:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Asking why one can't include the controvies surronding the firm's fouding in this article

@Jytdog: Was the court case between AdvisorShares deleted by you because it wasn't from a primary source or because it was irrelavant? I'm not trying to cause trouble but I think as a matter of principle, transparency is good and people should be able to find out about the truth. All I'm putting down are the facts and people can make their own decisions. The case was relevant because since the beginning of AdvisorShares there were disputes over ownership of the intellectual property with Arrow Funds. Please tell me, why am I wrong?Icelandicgolfer (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SYN. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the OP has been banned as a meatpuppet and the SPI was closed here. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AdvisorShares. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories