Jump to content

Talk:The Motley Fool

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:9:900:95f:2535:ed0c:7bc6:a72a (talk) at 04:08, 11 February 2015 (→Bias). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

They are indeed similar to the Beardstown Ladies and DO NOT BEAT the market. They claim to on thier site but independant research by investorhome.com proved them wrong. As a matter of fact one of thier portfolios was closed after losing over 50% of its value in six months. Those guys also don't mention the correct returns. For instance they leave out taxes; they also preform considerably less than an indexed fund. The fools claim they invest long term, but actually they normally sell 6 of 10 (average) stokes in thier portfolio. In short the Fools are just as much of a scam as the Beardstown Ladies and exist just to make money, not to educate people because there is a lag gap between thier actions and thier words. PS going to the Motely Fool website will not provide an accurate view of them. It will be slanted and include half truths or outright lies Outside Center 03:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside, you do realize that study ( http://www.investorhome.com/fools.htm )is from 1998 right? Yup, 9 years ago, think its still relevant?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I have looked and LOTS of times they have beaten the market. Anyways why are you guys comparing them to the Beardstown Ladies? The Beardstown Ladies were about a LONG time ago. The Motley Fool has good stock picks, smart leaders, and I bet that they make their customers happy. Spacex (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

WHY do you KEEP USING capital LETTERS? I am not so happy with MF. following ALPHA, which should have lead to 15% annually (avr.) and meanwhile it's about 14.5% LESS then S&P... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oqimta (talk • contribs) 08:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I cite a book in Norwottuck Rail Trail Bridge, or you could just check Template:Cite book - Denimadept (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a full list here Wikipedia:Citation templates. There optional, but they do tidy up the code. I'm going to replace the existing ones with them in the article at some point. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 00:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've given the article a quick copyedit and did not come across them, so I assume that someone has fixed them and forgotten to remove the tag, which I removed. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

How come this article does not address the fact that the Motley Fool promotes itself with really dubious ads? Complete BS like "The End of the PC: What Bill Gates Doesn't Want You to Know!" is designed to prey on naive users. They're no better than all the worthless bodybuilding supplement companies that advertise online. -66.41.19.135 (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that would not be in accordance with WP:NPOV, perhaps? Oscroft (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be good to mention it, though, without necessarily commenting on the veracity of it. While on HowtheMarketWorks.com for a school project, I saw no fewer than three different Motley Fool ads, each proclaiming the end of a company (Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and McDonald's) and offering to let the reader in on the supposedly expanding companies poised to beat the giants. Ugh. 71.243.223.65 (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually feeling inclined to see if somebody hasn't written articles on their advertising, see as how lately I've seen ads from them claiming that "if insiders are right" people will be rushing to buy iPhone 5s...and also referring to Apple as a "stealth stock". Yeah, that seems legit. 163.231.6.71 (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I came here was to see if there was any mention of this fraudulent viral marketing. It's such obvious garbage and one wonders how it doesn't hurt their supposedly respectable reputation. 142.166.190.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting WP:NPOV "the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view". That means that you should state facts about their ads.

Recent updating

The recent updating by a new editor could use some help from an experienced editor. Six of the nine references original references were removed in the process, two primary sources were added, leaving only two independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The enthusiasts run the site?

The History section of the article uses "enthusiasts" in a way that makes no sense. A site's "enthusiasts" have no power to move the site to a new domain. Founders? Owners? Administrators? but not "enthusiasts". A site's enthusiasts are the people who urge their friends to visit it, or who base all their investment behavior on its advice. They do not take it off AOL to fool.com... --Haruo (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. 86.171.0.119 (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No criticism at all? Pushing Greed?

Is there no criticism? I only ever see them push a lot of marketing propaganda. Like some 15 minute run on video blabbering incessantly about how this is such a super "rule breaker" stock and how you gonna make millions in it, and what promise this guy makes to put 117k into this stock, and and and. This looks very shady to me. But nowhere do I see criticism? Pushing stocks? Pump and dump? 108.216.129.51 (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Ikr...Not to mention their shady ads all over the internet, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Motley_Fool&oldid=646600377"