Talk:American Funds
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Company edited?
editThis article sounds like it was written by the company. Previous editions of this article in the history show (with reference) that, for instance, '[American Funds] is one of few major Fund families to escape unscathed from the recent SEC crackdown on the mutual fund industry' is misleading. Also notice that the person that did the editing for this page is anonymous and did editing for Capital Group Companies. I'm going to include that previous version with the reference to counter what is in the many edits already on the January 6th entries. andye 01:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This is brainless advertising 84.56.115.238 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.115.238 (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the biased sentence ("What Makes Us Different" page on the company's own website is quite far from a neutral source) and added some references requirements. Let's see if American Funds' PR people jump out... EIFY 08:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This profile also contradicts information regarding Fidelity, which has statements suggesting it also has over $1.5 trillion in assets under management; in either case, without further definitive documentation, neither company can claim the title of "largest." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.123.173 (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The difference between the Fidelity and American "we're number one!" is that Fidelity does have more assets under management, but a huge chunk is in their money market funds. American's claim to number one is based on dollars that are actually invested in stocks and bonds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.209.39 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The Realities of Mutual Funds Especially but certainly not limited to American Funds:
American Funds with 1.4 Trillion Dollars under management, boast to investors an (aggregate) compounded annual return over the last 5 and 10 year periods of 7.6% and 5.9% respectively. Although only very average, is unfortunately very much overstated. After consideration of fees and expenses, these 5 & 10 year returns would be reduced to 6.14% and 4.77% respectively and that is before income (capital gains) tax. Furthermore they may claim a 12% return to investors since inception (56 years) which after fees and expenses turns out to be 8.76% versus a return for the for the S&P 500 of 11.1%.(http://investmentcogitator.blogspot.com/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Investmentcogitator (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. It is a sick advertisement for the American Funds rip-off way of investing. It reads like a company brochure. It is a shame that this consumer rip-off is allowed to exist as an article on Wikipedia. First of all, the article needs to be re-written in a much more neutral tone. Secondly, the article is in dire need of a criticisms section. American funds pays rich hidden commissions to independent sales people. These commissions slice off 1% of your mutual fund return every year. So for a $1M portfolio, that is a whopping $10K per year. --Westwind273 (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)