Talk:Ameriprise Financial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

I am sad to see that this most crooked of financial firms is now writing its' own entry. caveat emptor—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.28.86 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a client of Ameriprise and have been very happy with the advice I have received, but can you direct me to where it states that Ameriprise is the most crooked of all financial firms? Which firms are not as crooked? 209.134.142.140 15:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, The salesmen from Ameriprise keep deleting the information about the regulatory actions. How dishonest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.8.213 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It is sad to see that wikipedia is being used as a hate site.

I agree, why Macca?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buttmunch101 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Its sad that wikipedia has become just another place for people to hate.

This should be written like an encyclopedia not a hate site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buttmunch101 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One 'hater': 66.32.30.178 from Georgia using Earthlink DSL.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silver101 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Ameriprise salesmen have been warned to stop changing this site. And, I'm betting you are an Ameriprise salesman.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's play nice

Hello. It seems that there's a struggle between two POVs here. You all should be discussing things here on the article's talk page, but the above commentary borders on a violation of the No Personal Attacks policy. Keep things civil and try to reach a consensus that everyone can be satisfied with instead of just edit warring. Oh yeah, and remember to sign your posts here on the talk page by using four tildes (~~~~) or hitting the signature button on top of the edit box. Thanks! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 17:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NASD Brokercheck

I removed the sentence that was referenced with that source. The URL listed led to a search page. When you click on search you're brought to this Terms and Conditions page that says:

The information provided through the NASD BrokerCheck shall be used ONLY for your own personal or professional use, and in accordance with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement:

• to assist you, your clients or your organization in determining whether to conduct or continue to conduct securities or commodities business with NASD member firms or their associated persons;
• to assist you, your clients or your organization in judicial proceedings or arbitration proceedings relating to securities or commodities transactions; or
• for non-commercial purposes consistent with the promotion of just and equitable principles of trade and the protection of investors and the public interest.

I suppose the third point might be applied to use on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure about it.

Once you accept the agreement, and then search for Ameriprise, you're brought to a page where you can click on a link where you have to fill out your full contact information (name & street address required in addition to email), and they say they maybe will mail you something in a couple of business days.

To me, it seems like way too much to go through for one tiny sentence that adds very little to the article. That sentence needs to be left out until a better citation can be found. —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is simply not true. NASD does not say that 'maybe' they will mail you something. It says "By selecting the Deliver Report option (at the top of the screen) any disclosure information available WILL be forwarded to you within approximately 2 business days." I suggest you go back and take a second look.

Therefore, the information posted is verifiable.

If you think that having 36 regulatory actions against a firm is not important, then you have no understanding of what is happening in the investment industry and the importance of checking into firms before using them. Both governmental and private agencies highly recommend using NASD Broker Check before selecting a brokerage firm.

Please do the right thing and put back what you have deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "maybe" is directly from the website and is their own emphasis, I did not add it. Look on the left column of the page before you click the envelope at the top of the page. Also, I have a problem with giving them my full name, address, etc. while I could arguably be violating their terms & conditions by using the information for other than my personal use. The argument could be made that use on Wikipedia could be justified by the third point, "for non-commercial purposes consistent with the promotion of just and equitable principles of trade and the protection of investors and the public interest.", however my opinion is that since under the GFDL Wikipedia material can be re-used for commercial purposes we wouldn't be in adherence with that clause. I don't mind going to look something up in a library, if you can't find an online reference, however this one is too much for too little, in my humble opinion. As for your accusation of my ignorance, I suggest that you read the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Also, please sign your posts by using four tildes {~~~~) so people can know with whom they are conversing. Thank you and have a great day. —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. The 'maybe' refers to disclosure events - that 'maybe' the firm has disclosure events. Not that 'maybe' you will receive a report. Did you click on 'maybe'? If you do you will see that you are taken to a page that explains "Disclosure Events Disclosure information MAY exist for this brokerage firm."

That YOU don't want to give your name and address to NASD is meaningless in this context. I would hope Wikipedia is not based on your personal opinions. Or are you Jimbo Wales? The bottom line is that the material is highly relevant to Ameriprise and the material is verifiable and from a highly reliable source.

Again, please do the right thing and put back what you have deleted.

And again, if you think that having 36 regulatory actions against a firm is not important, then you have no understanding of what is happening in the investment industry and the importance of checking into firms before using them. Both governmental and private agencies highly recommend using NASD Broker Check before selecting a brokerage firm. If you think this statement of fact is a personal attack, then that's your opinion. It is not. Most people have no understanding of what is happening at brokerage firms and they have and are paying dearly for that ignorance.

I would think that Wikipedia does not embrace ignorance.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about the maybe, however it is indeed poorly phrased on the page; but of course these are stock regulators, not English majors.

I would like to hear your rational in terms of the licensing issue. My opinion is that it would be a violation of the NASD's terms and conditions to use the material here on Wikipedia. It's obviously not for our own personal or business use, and the third clause's "non-commercial" language conflicts with Wikipedia's GFDL licensing— articles from Wikipedia can be, and very often are, reproduced for commercial purposes.

If you have a reliable secondary source, as preferred per Wikipedia:Attribution, I would be happy to cite it and include the material.

Regarding the issue of personal attacks, you could very easily have gotten your point across by writing, "People need to understand what is happening in the investment industry and the importance of checking into firms before using them.", rather than aiming the statement specifically at me. That does indeed make it a violation of WP:NPA, but don't worry— I'm not angry. You should, however, be more careful in the future because other editors are not so patient as myself.

Of course, my response to the statement about checking into companies is that I most certainly agree. But I would add that anyone who makes investment decisions based upon an encyclopedia article pretty much deserves whatever they get.

Again, please remember to sign your posts. Be safe, be well, and have a great day! (I know I am, I'm meeting a lovely young lady for dinner and a show!) —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 18:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not 'poorly worded'. It clearly states "Disclosure Events: Maybe". Additionally, the 'maybe' could easily be clicked on for further information.

I am not cutting and pasting any material from the NASD site or report to use here, so I have no idea what you mean by 'licensing issue'. I am truthfully reporting 36 regulatory actions against Ameriprise (very important information) and providing verification via the link.

Please do the right thing and put back what you have deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay... their use of the word maybe and the sentence it's used in is the acme of English prose, my eyes were dazzled by its beauty and awesomeness upon my re-reading of it. My mouth was agape and I was short of breath for the sheer ecstasy of just seeing it. I don't know how it could be possible to misunderstand it, it must be all the heavy drinking I've been doing lately.☺

Licensing: NASD obviously considers the information itself to be proprietary because they make you agree to terms and conditions before you can even search for it, their website won't positively admit whether or not there even are disclosure events for any individual company (only that there maybe disclosure events and that you can get them emailed to you if there are any), and they send the results only to registered users via private email rather than making the results available on their website. They're going through a lot of effort to see that the information itself is not generally available. That's the way it seems to me, but I could be wrong. If you like, I could get a third party to comment, but I'd rather not escalate this if we can settle it amicably here.

Regardless, I have made an addition to the page that I hope will be satisfactory to you without having to escalate this to an RfC. Take a look at it and let me know it it's okay. And again, please sign your posts, I'm getting a little weary of doing it for you. Thanks! —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have rationally countered all of your arguments to no avail. I'm sorry that I cannot convince you to do the right thing. I am very sad that you had to resort to such sarcasm simply because I corrected your errors.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The facetious remarks were because I had already conceded that you were right about the word, "maybe" but that you continued to harp on it. I have found that editing on Wikipedia requires a sense of humor to avoid getting frustrated with things.

As for errors, could you please type ~~~~ after your posts so I don't have to keep doing it for you? It's very tiresome.

As for "doing the right thing"; as mentioned above I did make an addition to the article and asked for your thoughts, so what are they? —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 03:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not harping. I was telling you that there was no poor wording, as you claimed. My thoughts are that you should replace what you deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.109.64 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Call it what you will, it has nothing whatsoever to do with this article anyway, lets move on and address the issue. I placed a modified statement about NASD usercheck at the foot of the section, are you telling me that it is inadequate? It addresses the point you brought up that people need to check on a company before they invest. My opinion is that the actual number is not only something that will quickly date, but it is also meaningless without context. Without knowing how many actions there are against other companies, having Thirty-six could actually be interpreted as a good thing by some people because it's a relatively low number. Most people do not know what the NASD is or what it does and may interpret regulatory actions in terms of something they understand, like lawsuits, which any company of size has hundreds going on at any time. This, plus the fact the information is difficult to obtain, difficult to cite properly (how do you cite a private email?), and questionable legally to use make too much for too little, in my opinion.

Tell you what though, I'm going to change the language of that last edit to the article to make it a little more specific towards Ameriprise. I'm trying to work with you here, okay?

Also, I'm going to put a template on your talk page showing you how to go about signing your posts. Please read it. Thank you. —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)