Talk:Kenneth Fisher/Archives/2019

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Fisher. 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/20131106163333/http://www.humboldt.edu/redwoods/chair/ to http://www.humboldt.edu/redwoods/chair/

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) 09:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Reversing deletion of section on Controversies
I see that the entire discussion of controversies related to Fisher's firm was deleted by a mystery user with no other recorded edits(!). No rationale was provided. The discussion deals with matters of reasonable public interest and is sourced to Bloomberg, which presumably is regarded as a reputable source. I have reverted the deletion. Nandt1 (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC) The same (new) user has again deleted this whole section. I have left a courteous message at their Talk page asking them to make the case for proposed changes at this Talk page. Nandt1 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. The same undiscussed edit, this time by an anonymous account. Sock puppet? Nandt1 (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And again...... Nandt1 (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And yet again.... This piece has been turned into a shameless promotional piece, with all critical material yet again purged..... Nandt1 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The same material was again deleted, with the patently misleading explanation that the section was "irrelevant"". Reinstated......  Nandt1 (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I see the IP used to make the cut is registered to Fisher Investments. Nandt1 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet another attempt was made recently to delete almost all the content of the section on the arbitration award. The previous cut was made from an IP associated with Fisher Investments.  This time the cut came from a brand new account just established on Wikipedia (but which, of course, does not make it possible to determine any link to Fisher Investments).  The basis for the cut this time was said to be undue weight.  The very brief account of the award that was left was written from a perspective favorable to Fisher Investments.  Undue weight seems a questionable basis for deleting the basic facts of an arbitrator's adverse finding about Mr. Fisher's firm's management of a client's account, when this article includes a lengthy discussion of Mr. Fisher's interest in Redwood Trees. Nandt1 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you insinuating that I am from Fisher Investments. I wish I was, but unfortunately I am not. I have read 2 of his books and am on my 3rd. I cleaned up the article after coming here and seeing that no one has updated the article with all of his books. So, accuse me of what you will, but the cleanup I did was a little bit more than what you mention. You seem to focus on the arbitration award as opposed to the formatting of the references, adding of additional content and sources, and overall cleanup of the article so that it looks more like a Wikipedia article. I left information in that section about the arbitration award but obviously you seem to want to make the entire article about it or at least emphasis it in a form of an WP:ATP. If you look at the edits, it was recently removed in its entirety by an IP editor and added it back the way that I updated it to include information about the award. Frankly, this is one thing that has happened to him that is so miniscule compared to all of his accomplishments that it probably doesn't even belong due to Wikipedia's police on WP:WEIGHT; however, I read the talk page comments prior to cleaning up and thought that leaving the information in under a more abridged version was more neutral. Sorry that I do not agree with you more, but I am more about seeing a neutral page as opposed to an attack section or even someone blanking the content (which seems to have been done quite a few times). --Markus1Kemp (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As will be seen, I have reverted this, the latest of successive edits which fully or largely removed the reference to the arbitration award against KF's firm, as explained below:
 * First, I cannot accept the suggestion that it is a "minuscule thing" when an arbitrator concludes that a major player in the investment field has failed in his fiduciary duty to an investor. It is all the less minuscule if the arbitrator further argues that, while advertising a claim to tailor its investment recommendations to individual investors' needs, the firm has in fact displayed a more general pattern of applying a single formula to the overwhelming number of its clients.
 * Second, far from wishing to turn the whole article into an attack piece, I have left untouched the great bulk of the article, despite my personal feelings that the self-congratulatory nature of much of the piece (whether about KF's writings on investment theory or trees), to put it no more strongly, pushes the limits of NPOV discussion. If you look at the history here, you will also see that some time ago I removed language from the article that was critical of KF but that failed to meet WP tests of documentation by credible sources. My goal is a credible, documented and balanced piece in line with WP standards and policies: neither an attack piece nor an exercise in hagiography.
 * Thirdly, the article as most recently edited, in the very brief discussion of the award that survived, conveyed the impression that it was only the client's claim that Fisher Investments had failed in its fiduciary duty. That statement was misleading, given that the professional arbitrator found in the client's favor.  So, it was not just the client's claim, but -- crucially -- the arbitrator's conclusion, which I should not need to point out has a very different connotation than a client's claim in isolation. Nandt1 (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't think it makes sense to have the controversy section. Every Investment firm has clients that were upset about losing money in the 2008 crash and blamed their broker for not acting as a fiduciary. Just look up Morgan Stanley and Merril Lynch on https://brokercheck.finra.org/. I don't think a VERY minor arbitration adds to the article. Something like insider trading or embezzling client funds would be appropriate. Rachelskit (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This article seems like it was written by Ken Fisher's marketing department. I am going to add information about his now closed Purisima Total Return Fund and see if it gets deleted. Nofway (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t an encyclopedic article. This is a promotional piece. Cmon mods. Police the facts. And where is the entry on such a visible public company? Seems like an insider is using Wikipedia for its own goals. Imflyboytoo (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody add a factual entry on Fisher Investments, the company? Imflyboytoo (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)