Talk:ING Direct

message: I noticed that the investment section on ING's website has changed. It no longer gives the breakdown for the conservative, moderate, and growth funds (formerly conservative, moderate, and aggressive portfolios) in terms of its nine original funds (15 funds now). It is my understanding based on this page breaking down the funds that the portfolio concept has been gotten rid of and instead 3 funds have been added in what I assume is the spirit of the original 3 portfolios. The original portfolios used be just percentages of their nine actual funds and the portfolios would have something like 30% of Fund A, 20% of Fund B, etc - where fund A, B, etc are all ING funds. But now that information is no longer available. I went over  the prospectus which gives a breakdown of the maximum percentage of each strategic allocation fund to be invested in: Domestic (US) Stock, International Stock, Fixed Income, and Money Market. It also gives the optimum levels of investment (assuming neutral market conditions) in: the Russell 3000, the Morgan Stanley Capital International Europe, Australasia and Far East Index, the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index, and the 91-day U.S. Treasury Bill Rate. This all strongly suggests to me that the strategic allocation funds are investing percent wise in other indexes and not back into their own funds.--Zanzor 17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic allocation funds 

message: I removed the bias flag because the procedure at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_check suggests that you have to explain the reasons for it on this Talk page, and the editor who added the flag did not do so. I think it's reasonable to revert in cases like this - my feeling is that if the editor adding the flag couldn't be bothered to check its rules or justify its use, they have by default failed to make any case. 82.45.248.177 10:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed bias flag 

message: :Image:ING direct logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ING direct logo.gif

message: I don't know much about ING Direct...are they insured. Can I loose my money?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.4.227 (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the US it is FDIC insured.  Not sure about elsewhere.--JKeene (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: You can always lose your money !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.111.49 (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the pitfalls of ING Direct 

message: The text in the section ING Direct Australia reads like it was pulled direct from an ING website. Would someone be able to give it a polish and make it more objective please? Sentinel75 (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ING Direct Australia - subjective wording 

message: The ING Direct banks are legally separate entities in different countries so a minor rewording was done to the introduction. Chergles (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: minor technicality

message: Do we need to have the level of per-country detail that currently exists for this article?  While I could understand listing account types on a per-country basis with general descriptions, we now describe:
* How there is a "2% foreign transaction fee" in one case
* How the Electronic Orange "checks" work (implying you lose the money if no one cashes the check?)
* The opening dates of current and some potential future ING cafes
* What ING's recommendations for certain funds are in addition to what they invest in
* etc.
The resulting article almost feels like an ad to me for ING Direct in the United States, while barely having any level of detail on ING Direct in other countries even though ING has spread the ING Direct concept pretty well globally.  Cerlyn (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If almost feels like Wikipedia has not spread globally the concept of editing local ING Direct information.  -- SEWilco (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level of Per-Country Detail