Talk:E-Trade/Archives/2012

Same Company?
from etrade:
 * E*TRADE Securities LLC and E*TRADE Bank are separate but affiliated companies.

Should some distintion be made in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.81.131 (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Beware sneaky charges
Discount brokers like E*TRADE do not make their money on the spread between the bid and the ask. They usually act as agents and are compensated by the commission they charge on orders. Market makers and specialists make the difference between the bid and offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogmusic2005 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

They actually make their money with sneaky charges on small accounts. CJC47 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Current wording says discount means "much larger fee"
The current article says "As a discount brokerage, it charges a much larger fee on each trade." It would make sense to say "As a discount brokerage, it charges a much SMALLER fee on each trade." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.68.254 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:E*Trade.png
Image:E*Trade.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Consensus to move --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

--- E*TRADE → E-Trade — Manual of Style (trademarks) recommends against "special" typeface, and explicitly mentions the very similar Macy's (i.e. not "Macy*s" with an asterix). —Tigeron (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Ugh. Support anything which changes this article title from "E*TRADE" to something more suitable for an encyclopedia than a sales pamphlet. Mcmullen writes (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:MOSTM. —  AjaxSmack   08:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a textbook MOSTM case. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Additionally to all this, I would like to tidy up the Etrade disambiguation page. E-Trade redirects there, while E Trade redirects here. Other spelling variations are sorted by the search box, AFAIK. Since there is only two articles, I'd recommend making "E-Trade" (and others either in all caps or with a capital T) a redirect to here. The remaining redirects can go straight to electronic trading, and we can use an otheruses template on each page. Does that make sense? Tigeron (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is the R. Lawandi mentioned as co-founder?
This is an unreferenced statement of tremendous import, and yet there seems to be no information to substantiate this. Anyone? 842U (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice that this area of the article keeps getting a name like "Raoul" added. I'm taking out the R. Lawandi citation as possible vandalism. 842U (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hidden Fees
I'm not a user of E*Trade myself, and I did a little digging before I signed up for the service (and closed my browser, which is on step two of application, immediately after that). I've read some complaints about hidden fees that weren't in the original contract, or that they weren't clear. I've not gone all the way to finishing the application but I have been reading every word including the fine prints, and I have not yet read anything about any fees with the exception to the minimum fees that you must keep in various accounts in order to avoid charges (just like the banks). However, most of the complaints lodged were fees coming from inactive accounts and non-activity quarterly, instead of fees incurred by not keeping a minimum deposit from various account. Personally I think in all fairness this should be mentioned somewhere, maybe in a controversy section. Passerby 01:03, 21 April 2008 (EST)

Here's the thing. This isn't a place to discuss anecdotal experience, rather to share reliable and verifiable information. What to do: find a reliable source that has vetted and reported the issue &madash; say in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times... then include that information here, with citations. 842U (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Monday
"However, Citigroup analyst Prashant Bhatia suggested Monday that E-Trade Financial ...". Duh? What Monday is that? This is written *VERY* poorly and Wikipedia-unworthy. Should be cleaned up ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.9.170 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

etrade baby
We need an article on the e-trade commercial baby. that thing is hillarious. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That's a huge pop-culture aspect of the company - possibly the most famous commercial of the 2008 Super Bowl. 165.123.227.183 (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)