This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't this be a list of Investment Management firms? These terms seem to be used interchangably: financial asset management, investment management and asset management.
Perhaps we should use the Asset Management disambiguation page to make the distinction, and be consistent thereafter? OceanKiwi ( talk) 10:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
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. - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
@ GermanJoe:, 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)
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
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)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't this be a list of Investment Management firms? These terms seem to be used interchangably: financial asset management, investment management and asset management.
Perhaps we should use the Asset Management disambiguation page to make the distinction, and be consistent thereafter? OceanKiwi ( talk) 10:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
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. - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
@ GermanJoe:, 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)
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
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)