Talk:Investment fund

message: Many types of collective or pooled investments exist in different countries.  The aim of this page is to reflect the many similarities these schemes have to avoid needless duplication on pages for individual schemes.  
I have tried to keep an unbiased POV and to keep the generic information as just that.
Please add further country sections where you have the information.
simonthebold 23:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aim of this Page 

message: These include:
Hedge fund
Mutual fund
Pension fund
Provident fund
Insurance contract --- pseudo fund???
Also, is this article a duplicate one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_fund
--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 13:37, 30 October 2006  (talk) 222.64.55.53 
:Investment fund was merged with Collective investment scheme.  A unit-linked or with-profits insurance policy certainly sounds like a collective investment scheme to me, and I see someone added them to the UK section.  Please feel free to expand and globalize where appropriate.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The content of fund types may need to be addressed 

message: If any one of the three is failing, then because each is non-correlated (i.e., behaves independently), by logical extension at least one of the other two is doing well.
That's not logical at all. 216.191.217.90 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. You should have been been WP:Bold and removed it as I have. -- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical Extension 

message: I have added this article to the SERIES  in place of Mutual fund, as it gives a more global perspective.  Any objections? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, that seems correct to me. Art Markham (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 

message: I think there is not enough information on standard fees/charges charged by the funds.  I came to wikipedia for information on dilution levies but there's nothing.   I'd suggest adding a section, but I'm unsure of whether to put it under this article or one of the other similar ones - mutual funds or OEIC  etc.... thoughts?  Whitehatnetizen (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  My thought would be that it belongs in all of them (in much the same way as information on climate belongs in continent, country and city articles.)  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the section.  Hope you like it. simonthebold (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the discussion fails to distinguish between the sales charge, which may be a front-end or back-end load, an asset-based charge, or some combination of the two, and the investment management charge, which in every example I can think of is some form of asset-based charge.  John M Baker (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi guys,  I've just updated the fees section to clarify what a dilution levy is.  I generally suck at encycopedic-style writing so feel free to change it arround but I think the person who put the section on dilution levies there may have misunderstood what they are for.  perhaps, if we are going into this level of detail, there should be more information about what a box is (a reserve of units held by the fund itself and not allocated to any particular investor in order to provide a buffer, reducing the need to go to market (and  incurring a dilution levy) to aquire or sell assets if there is a surplus of buy or sell orders during a particular trading period.)  but I don't know where to put this. info Whitehatnetizen (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fees/Charges 

message: The article begins, see Section 1 with:
:"The term "collective investment scheme" is a legal concept deriving initially from a set of European Union Directives to regulate mutual fund investment and management. The Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directives 85/611/EEC, as amended by 2001/107/EC and 2001/108/EC (typically known as UCITS for short) created an EU wide structure, so that funds fulfilling its basic regulations could be marketed in any member state. The basic aim of collective investment scheme regulation is that the financial "products" that are sold to the public are sufficiently transparent, with full disclosure about the nature of the terms."
The single source that is cited for that paragraph, specifically the last sentence, is a book published in 1932. It even says that in the references! The European Union obviously did not exist in 1932. If the basic aim of collective investment scheme regulation was established in 1932, then it CANNOT be "a legal concept deriving initially from a set of EU Directives to regulate mutual fund investment and management".
Next, in the United States, the U.S. SEC specifically EXCLUDES both hedge funds and private equity funds as investment companies:
:"private investment funds with no more than 100 investors and private investment funds whose investors each have a substantial amount of investment assets are not considered to be investment companies even though they issue securities and are primarily engaged in the business of investing in securities. This may be because of the private nature of their offerings or the financial means and sophistication of their investors. For additional information on these types of private investment funds, please refer to Hedge Funds..."
See my note above for additional details. I have edited the article accordingly.
As others have mentioned, there is a very dire need for adequate sources in this article. If it is legally valid outside the U.S.A., that's great, but an indication of geographic locality is essential.  --FeralOink (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Severe problems with this article

message: I think it is high time we moved this article to a new name that better reflects a worldwide view of its subject.  Tentatively, I would suggest the simplest term, "Fund," with the existing Fund article moved to "Fund (disambiguation)."  I would also be open to "Investment fund" or "Collective investment vehicle."
I don't think there should be too much argument about the unsuitability of "Collective investment scheme."  It does not reflect a worldwide view of its subject, being used only in the United Kingdom and a few other Commonwealth countries.  In the United States, which is the largest fund market, it is an entirely unknown term, with pejorative connotations.  Even in the United Kingdom it is somewhat obscure.  I ran a search in the London Times, 2001 - 2008, and "investment fund" was used 2478 times, while "collective investment scheme" was used only 206 times.  John M Baker (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved as proposed, by DGG on 15 July 2014.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: I added a section in this sub topic about the advantage of not having to spend personal time investing, if an investment fund is used. For most people that have a primary job, this seems like a large advantage. Arty32 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 4	Generic information—advantages

message: The redirect 3c7 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 06:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:3c7]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]