Talk:AdvisorShares

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)

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)

Arrow funds lawsuit
What happened to the sections on the Arrow Funds lawsuits?Fedayeen5768 (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Asking why one can't include the controvies surronding the firm's fouding in this article
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)
 * Please read WP:SYN. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, the OP has been banned as a meatpuppet and the SPI was closed here. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217224351/http://www.rickferri.com/blog/investments/this-etf-is-bound-to-be-underwater/ to http://www.rickferri.com/blog/investments/this-etf-is-bound-to-be-underwater/

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

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

Unsourced information is being added to this page by suspicious editors
A user without an account, 2603:3003:703:c500:2907:fcb:ad77:cbea, said that the lawsuit by Esposito Securities against AdvisorShares was dismissed without merit. However, they never cite any sources for this fact. In fact, if you go to the citation at the end of their sentence, it is just an article about the original suit being filed. It says nothing about the resolution. I really think that this editor and UserNameUnderConstruction are the same person and likely paid employees of AdvisorShares. They keep adding information that I could not find online, such as the dismissal of this lawsuit and about the death of an employee of AdvisorShares.Zwx24f7 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits to this page by a suspicious editor possibly connected to the company in the article
User 96.231.39.34 had an edit at 19:22, 27 October 2021‎ saying that they fixed bad data. They didn't bother to cite the sources for their new data and just kept the existing references to what they referred to as bad data. At 19:29, 27 October 2021‎ they deleted a link to a publicly available website with information regarding a legal settlement that determined the ownership the company in the article and replaced it with a link to the company's own Twitter page. Their explanation for deleting the link to the website with settlement information was "Link not applicable to this company.", even though the link is almost certainly referring to the same company, AdvisorShares, that is the subject of this article. Libertyandjustice (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe take out some extra information from this page
The section on the AdvisorShares Global Echo ETF could be removed entirely or put on Philippe Cousteau Jr. Wikipedia page. The fund never raised much in assets and was shut down. It's not notable enough to put on this page when larger funds are not mentioned. Also, this sentence about the Arrow Investment Advisors court case could be deleted since it's not vital to the judge's decision in the case, "The judge seems to suggest revenge as a possible motivation for filing the suit: "And, although Hamman might be disappointed that he has been ousted from the management of a company he helped establish,"Libertyandjustice (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)