Talk:List of asset management firms

Inclusion criteria
In general, the inclusion criteria for list articles are pretty simple: The subject must fit the category (in this case: be an asset management firm) and have its own article. Absent any consensus to the contrary, those are the working criteria here. While it is possible to develop other inclusion criteria, we often run into a problem with the arbitrary nature of the criteria. For example, if we establish a cut-off based on assets under management, the cut-off we establish is based on the unverifiable idea that those slightly above the cut-off are notable and those just below it are not.

If an asset management firm is "a small small small company that doesn't deserve its place here", it probably shouldn't have an article. So long as the article remains, however, the company should as well. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Defunct inclusion
, if we leave defunct companies in this list, it could easily explode to 10x the size - especially given the long history of asset management and the current trend of consolidation. How about we add a defunct subcategory to Category:Investment_management_companies_of_the_United_States? II | (t - c) 07:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , understood. We could add a separate section for defunct entries to improve the list structure. Or as plan B, just restrict the inclusion criteria to active companies to begin with ("Notable active asset management firms include:" on top of the list). Not sure which one is better, I'd be fine with either. GermanJoe (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems like you want to be able to see the defunct companies which can admittedly be sort of interesting, altho without context it seems less interesting. If we add defunct ones, how about adding in parentheses when active? Also I screwed up my wikilink to categories above which is another way to explore defunct investment companies. But really, the list is rather long - 3,500 funds file a Form 13F. I think around 5,000+ companies file a Form ADV. And that's just the US. Plus there's holding companies which are arguably asset management firms such as Berkshire Hathaway. II  | (t - c)


 * Adding the active years for defunct entries seems like a good idea (brief relevant info in parentheses is almost always fine, as long as it doesn't distract from the basic list). Honestly, for now I don't feel the list is too long - that's probably subjective. But you are right of course, if the list blows out of proportion it needs to be organized better and/or trimmed with better inclusion criteria. GermanJoe (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is Charles Schwab not on this list
According to the Wikipedia page on Charles Schwab it has the 5.9 trillion dollars in terms of the assets that it manages, which would put it the second highest in the world according to the companies on this list. Is there a reason why it's not on this list?- PotsDamRelative

Expand list?
20 seems a bizarre number to land on. Surely 25 or 50 would have made more sense? It would also eradicate some of the issues for listing other firms in regions without any real criteria for having them on there at all.RosenborgBasement (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)