Talk:The Motley Fool

Missing parts of the story

I think we are missing parts of the story here. From what I gathered browsing fool pages the last 6 years I think their motives did not really change but they moved more in to a mode of making money.

More and more newsletters appeared but all of them are geared to making money: from individual small cap stocks to safer high dividend stocks and into even less risky funds and retirement planning. All of them are still trying to and actually beating the market indexes.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.174.194.59 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 2006 March 1 (UTC)

Also, who keeps trying to compare them to the Beardstown Ladies? The Ladies erred in the way they calculated their returns, not in the way a particular investment method was backtested.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.141.91 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 2006 March 7 (UTC)

Yea I agree. I added missing parts of the story but they were erased. Go to the Motley fool's website to get an accurate account of what the Motley fool is all about.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.215.213 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2006 April 1 (UTC)

What are you guys (above) talking about

I also forgot to mention that they are famous for recommending Iomega because it dropped from 27.50 to less than 4.00 when they decided to change thier recommendation to a sell. It should not be mentioned in the same sentance as the AOL pick because that was one of thier few good decisions. Outside Center 03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

They were also famous for recommending At Home as well as Aegis Communications in their portfolio. They were also famous for backing a Cyprus resgistered company that shipped used cars from Northern Europe to West Africa. All of these went bust. Most of their gains came from their early stakes in AOL and Amazon and Iomega. Everything their 'portfolio' purchased after these initial stocks was less than spectacular. Their site did little more than help fuel the dot com bubble. Felixleiter 20:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree totally. Sciencegabe11 22:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I cant see how anyone could EVER dislike the Motley Fool! They almost ALWAYS beat the market with their picks, they have one of the most amazing buisness models, create a great, fun and interesting working enviorment and

This page is grammatically disgusting

Spelling errors and incomplete sentences abound. No one will take you seriously when you write like a highschool sophomore.

I made significant grammar, diction, and spelling corrections to the History section (if there's still any left please correct). For example:

• Changed generic noun "fools" to proper noun "Fools."

Also deleted: "but because of short-term capital gains taxes you would have been better off investing in an index anyway" since it is extraneous; the mentioning of how only one of the seven portfolios out-performed the market is already clear enough to get the message across.

Also deleted: " - proving that companies can ride on past success despite overall bad results" because this is opinionated. --Walamaking 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That was in there to show that it honestly didn't outpreform averages and to show the irony of thier quote.Outside Center 00:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

citation needed

How do you site a book on this site as opposed to a website? I've never seen a book cited here before so I don't know the proper format. Outside Center 00:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Tone

The sentences at the lower part of the first section regarding the brothers are very informal in style. A change in tone would improve the article. --GentlemanGhost 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)