![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It should be noted that WFG is simply creating compensation links in the traditional agency system where there previously were none. The industry as a whole requires that agents be full time, although history shows that it was built originally by part-timers, a concept that WFG embraces today for the purpose of leaving a stable source of income in place for people to see if this career is for them, without causing hardship to the family. An industry agent must start as a salesman, there is no clearcut career path. Many years later an industry agent may want to start their own agency, in which they will need to leave their current one. It is likely they will recruit new agents and they will receive a commission override on them, the more agents they hire the more money they make. It is the same system used in realestate, and mortgages, and has been around for hundreds of years. And, here the cycle repeats, and agents over time will leave to start their own agency, a system where agencies train their own competition (people who hire people, who hire people, who hire people). The problem is that, it is so slow, WFG just accelerated the process and has put a system in place where the new agent doesn't have to wait many years for an opportunity to own an agency. Since licensing is not required for the agency building portion of the business, a new recruit may start immediatly building his or her agency (it needs to be noted that all compensation on insurance and secuities products and services require appropriate licensing). Unlike the industry agencies that train their competition WFG agencies are encouraged to create additional agencies, to which a system is in place to support as large of a chain of agencies as can be built. It should also be noted that all distibution channels, including Walmart, are tiered in cost, and compenstion. Also, what happens on a personal level with other people at a company is not necessarily reflective of company policy or correct system execution. 70.56.50.123 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Drewbull reverted changes I made to clarify criticisms and make minor adjustments toward NPOV, as well as fix some typographical errors. Since Drewbull gave no explanation, I reverted it back. Honestshrubber 01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is continuing to happen. There is now a second user undoing my edits, still with no explanation and no discussion. Honestshrubber 08:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This time Ashboarder has left a comment: "WMA is a company that no longer exists and any articles critical of that company does not reflect on World Financial Group which is a member of the respected AEGON Group." As WFG was formed from WMA, I believe that WMA's record is indeed pertinent, and WMA is mentioned more than once elsewhere in the article. Indeed, World Marketing Alliance now redirects to this article. An earlier part of the article suggests that WFG may have improved significantly since its acquisition by AEGON, and I feel that this is as far as we can go; it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to judge the connections between WMA's actions and those of WFG, but simply to present the facts that pertain to each.
If anyone cares to debate this issue, please do it here instead of repeatedly undoing my changes. Honestshrubber 06:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Criticisms are focused on several issues, often including those commonly raised with other businesses based on multi-level marketing, such as recruiters who exaggerate the likelihood of profiting significantly from participation in the business, over-aggressive members (brokers in WFG's case), and brokers who are not paid what they think they have earned. Before being purchased by Aegon, WMA faced at least $3.5 million dollars in fines and payments, or restitution of losses by investors, imposed by regulators; furthermore, multiple claims were made against WMA by former brokers. [1]
Criticisms are focused on several issues, including specific agents that aggressively misuse the model. In particular, critics site an over emphasis in their personal experience on recruitment by particular agents and groups. Critics suggest the industry and marketplace are well served by existing business models.
I'm glad there could be a resolution. Best wishes Honestshrubber. Ashboarder 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Ashboarder
The statement "the more agents they hire the more money they make" is confusing. WFG recruiters do not actually make money at the sign-up process of a new recruit (which is where typical MLM organizations do). The concept of making money on new recruits actually stems from two activities in the recruiting process: 1) full collection of commissions by the recruiter if he/she is licensed on any products sold to the recruit or his market if said recruit is not licensed for the aforementioned product (otherwise, there would be a split in some circumstances) and 2) overrides on any business your recruit does (much less than other industries in the broker-agent relationship).
It seems to me that this article isn't reflective of what the organization actually is. NPOV is not the same as no criticism. The fact that this article does not even mention the phrase "pyramid scam" (or at the very least, a link to the Multi-Level Marketing article in the first paragraph) seems a clear indication that it has been scrubbed by interested parties, i.e. has a point of view. The company is a frequent target of complaints and often reported to consumer protection websites. If nothing else, the overwhelming abundance of these accusations are worth a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewwithanm ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Allegations of the company being a pyramid scheme are false. WFG is owned by Aegon which is one of the world's largest financial and insurance related corporations. Aegon has also been listed as one of the most respected companies in the world. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), (formerly the NASD) has regulatory oversight over the securities division of WFG and would not allow a pyramid scheme or scam to continue operating if that were the case. The facts speak for themselves. Your allegations are only your opinion. The so called consumer protection websites I believe you might be referring to are simply one-sided biased rant and rave websites that do not offer any verifible facts or allow companies to defend themselves. If you start typing in major company names, you find that practically every company have scam allegations posted against them. Therefore, according to your logic, every major corporation in the world is a scam as long as a few people get mad and call it a scam. By the way, every company in the world is a pyramid according to Donald Trump. FYI, I'd suggest consumers check out any company through the Better Business Bureau prior to doing business with them. Drewbull ( talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)drewbull
While opinions regarding WFG being a pyramid scheme or not is simply a matter of semantics, the fact remains that WFG DOES utilize MLM tactics, which themselves are publicly synonymous with the word "pyramid scheme". And while Matthewwithanm's opinion certainly is his(?) own, they are also the opinions of a fairly large number of individuals. As knowledge is cumulative and based on consensus, disincluding such opinions, which are quite common (do a google search, almost every discussion board or forum focused upon WFG has such opinions) from an article on WFG, is a misrepresentation of public opinion. Caraski ( talk) 01:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no proof that the alleged opinions Caraski mentions are "the opinions of a fairly large number of individuals". Any statements made in internet discussion boards and forums do not represent a NPOV and can not be verified as fact. There is no way to know if the people posting the slanderous statements against WFG, or any other company, are not posted by competitors or other persons with a vested interest in damaging the reputation of WFG. The possibility even exists that there are only a few people posting all of the slanderous statements found in a Google search. The truth is WFG is an AEGON company. AEGON is one of the largest and most reputable companies in the world. I do not know the exact source at this time but AEGON has been listed as one of the most admired corporations in the world, just as Drewbull mentions above. Have a wonderful day. Ashboarder ( talk) 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Ashboarder
I will bicker about this...I'm a she not a he Caraski. Have a sunshine filled day. Ashboarder Ashboarder ( talk) 07:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Haha! My apologies! Caraski ( talk) 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand why the recent edit regarding the legal classification of WFG as a multi-level-marketing-plan of business was removed. Its somewhat akin to posting a picture of a duck, referencing a dictionary.com entry defining a duck, and having the post removed since it constitutes 'original research'. The company is regulated in Canada as a legally defined multi-level-marketing plan. The term is not even my own, its written into the Canadian Competition Act, which was referenced on the page, clearly defining what constitutes a multi-level-marketing-plan. The WFG business model clearly and explicitly fits into the description. There is no argument whatsoever to remove that from the page. Its not even a controversial point. Caraski ( talk) 09:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm adding the section in question below. I ask that someone please enlighten me as to what sentence constitutes original research.
In addition, the 'multigenerational' [11], and recursive associate-recruiting based compensation [12] business model that WFG follows in Canada places it firmly under classification as a "multi-level-marketing-plan" of business, as classified by the Canadian Competition Act, Section 55 and 55.1, [13] and any company representative operating in Canada is subject to regulation under such classification. While the effects of this on the public perception of the company itself is a matter of debate, this is in line with its predecessor's business model. Caraski ( talk) 09:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If nobody comments on this, soon I will revert the above paragraph regarding MLM classification under the Canadian Competition Act. If it gets removed again, I will be requesting mediation. Rgds. Caraski ( talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree because the term "multi-level marketing" is a controversial term. I also disagree that World Financial Group falls into a category of multi-level marketing (MLM). If you label WFG as MLM then you could argue that other companies in the financial services, insurance, and real estate industries are MLM. In real estate specifically, a broker sponsors agents into their brokerage and the broker earns commission off the agent’s sales. There are at least two respectable nationwide real estate companies that even allow agents earn override commission off any new agents they introduce to the company. Both real estate companies explicitly state that they are not MLM. Likewise, World Financial Group does not claim to be MLM and there are no reliable sources that define them as so. I do know of other companies in various industries that actually put the team “multi-level marketing” in their business opportunity applications. In those industries you typically HAVE to recruit other independent business owners in order to make a substantial income. A World Financial Group agent does not have to recruit in order to make a living in their career. WFG agents may start out at a smaller commission structure than agents in some other financial services or insurance related companies, but there is no requirement to recruit and it is not necessary to do so in order to earn a respectable income. I actually work for a competing company that is larger than AEGON. I'm with my company because of it's higher commission structure and because of it's name recognition. Unlike some less than ethical people in the industry, I choose to not bash or try to damage another companies reputation for my own economic gain. The ONLY people I’ve ever personally heard bash WFG were other colleagues in the financial services or insurance industry. I believe that most of the negative comments on the internet are coming from those types of people. Possible a few were people that failed in starting a financial services career with WFG. That is their own fault and not that of WFG or any other company. Ashboarder ( talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Ashboarder
To qualify my position, I am an academic. I do not work for any financial organization and have no hidden agenda regarding WFG. Secondly, the two nationwide real estate companies you mention are not WFG, and WFG does not make an explicit claim to not be an MLM company. In addition, while MLM may have gained a certain amount of semantic baggage in the public sphere in lieu of it being closely associated in public discourse with the notion of pyramid scheme, this is not the underlying definition I'm proposing here (although this discussion is, unfortunately under the 'pyramid scheme' heading here, this is not an intentional association on my part). A company may not be fundamentally MLM, but a particular economic activity may still fall under classification under the Canadian Competition Act as a multi-level-marketing-plan of business, and WFG is no exception. The sections of the act in question are unambiguous as to the status of WFG, and as there have been no reliable sources quoted as explicitly stating that WFG is NOT MLM, my position does not fall under synthesis or advancing a point. Finally, WFG representatives, due to the stronger than average for the sector focus on a hierarchical and recursive compensation practices tend to be recruited with a comparatively low level of financial sophistication. While the company boasts its support and training courses, the fact is that they are neither mandatory nor all encompassing, and the end result of this is that a good deal of WFG employees are not qualified or informed enough to offer a degree of financial sophistication to meet the stated goals of the company. Keep in mind that this is coupled with the fact that there is a very narrow range of products offered typically by WFG employees. This lack of sophistication tends to translate into a poorer degree of service, and this is due to the MLM type of structure. Nevertheless be that as it may, the core issue at stake here is that WFG business practices are legally and unambiguously classified as a MLM plan in Canada. Regardless of the public construal of the term MLM, it is also a legally defined term, and the core purpose here is objectivity and NPOV. As "multi level marketing plan" is an explicitly legally defined term, the argument that it should be removed due to it being controversial is in fact not NPOV. Rgds Caraski ( talk) 04:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, if there are no SUBSTANTIVE arguments against this legal definition, I will be inserting the paragraph in question. We have reached consensus over at the list of MLM companies board regarding the evidence, and unless there are some strong arguments to the contrary, I see no reason that this should not be in the article. If you still feel it is controversial, I have no qualms about requesting mediation or arbitration. Rgds. Caraski ( talk) 09:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This along with the Canadian classification practically nails the case shut. There have been no substantial arguments against this at all thus far. Rgds Caraski ( talk) 22:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A couple related questions to all of this: (a) First, for all the broughaha about labelling WFG as a Multi-Level Marketing organization, I would wonder why Primerica is labelled in their wiki article [2] as a "referral marketer" for exactly the same marketing approach. It strikes me that a duck must be a duck. Thus, either both are MLMs or neither are. Given the pejorative useage of the MLM tag, and the failure to equally apply it, might I suggest removing it for now until the issue can be resolved? In this regard, note the discussion about NPOV/MLM issues on the Primerica discussion page. [3] (b) for all the chatter about WMA's contribution to WFG, it must also be noted that WFG and Primerica stem from the same roots - the A. L. Williams company, roughly 1/2 of whose agents went to Primerica, and the other half to WMA. [4] -- Cprael ( talk) 08:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The legal definition of the term might not be the same in the U.S. and Canada. If WFG is in Canada and meets the definition of MLM in Canada, then the article should say it is a MLM, "as defined by the laws of Canada", without implying that it is also a MLM as perceived by the average person in the U.S. If Primerica is only in the U.S. and does not meet the U.S. definition of MLM, then it should not be described as MLM. Similarly, if two companies sold cigars from Cuba, even if they used exactly the same approach, the one in the U.S. would be described as illegal, and the one in Canada would not, because selling Cuban cigars is legal in Canada and illegal in the U.S. A duck is not a duck if it is in a country where the word duck has a different meaning. 71.109.168.21 ( talk) 01:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I have removed an introductory sentence saying "World Financial Group is a Network Marketing company" on the basis that it redirects to Multi-Level Marketing (MLM), which is a misrepresentation. Within the first paragraph of the MLM page it states that such companies compensate the recruitier for bringing in a new representative - WFG does not do this. It is construed as a back-handed attack on the reputation of the company. As a matter of fact, if you go to the www.worldfinancialgroup.com website, it has a link to Join WFG directly without the need of a recruiter. While WFG does use direct selling practices, as opposed to online transactions due to the nature of the industry, but it does not serve the community to lump this organization in the same category reserved for companies that compensate reps for recruiting. Saureco ( talk) 19:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the Income Calculator, the sales of "teammates" appear to be a key factor in ones own earnings. What are "teammates"? If I click on "Become a WFG Associate" it asks me for the recruiter ID. Again, we're not here to decide for ourselves if this company is or isn't an MLM. But if your asking me to look at the available evidence as proof that it isn't, I don't think it's clear. Let's just stick with what reliable secondary sources say. Will Beback talk 20:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Undid an undeclared change by DivaNtrainin, who undid my removal of the MLM label in the introductory paragraph. Again, WFG reps do not receive compensation for recruiting. If you call it a duck, and observaion #1 shows it has no bill on its face, probably isn't a duck. Saureco ( talk) 23:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
As a former WFG agent who has left to pursue the more "traditional" financial industry in Canada I believe I can shed some light on the MLM structure label. I am not a disgruntled former recruit. I was with WFG for two years and I see the value of the system and the strong morals of many individuals within the organization. WFG as a company appears to have its heart in the right place. Every industry has its shining stars and bad apples. I left to pursue a different opportunity as the WFG structure was not one where my individual skills and personality could be successful.
As for the structure being referred to as a pyramid, this is a debatable point and borders on rhetoric. Corporate structure also forms a pyramid design by having fewer people (CEOs) at the top and more people at the bottom (sales for example). Pyramid scheme is a somewhat subjective term and should have no bearing on the positive or negative opinion of a company. This is of course just my opinion on how a "pyramid" should be conceived. I also believe it should not be included in this article. "pyramid scams" however are illegal and provincial insurance regulatory boards (such as the Alberta Insurance Council which I adhere to) would not allow any sort of scam to continue unhindered. WFG does answer to these provincial regulatory bodies.
In my time with WFG I had access to the advisor online login source. Within this website I found material referring directly to the sales structure as "Multi-Level Sales" Once again, this should not be deemed as a negative or positive fact but just that; a fact. I cannot produce this documentation because I am no longer an agent with WFG and do not have the legeal right to share such a document. If an individual recruits another individual he/she becomes your "downline". "Downline" is a common term in any Managing General Agency (MGA) structure. When a downline sells a product, the upline will get a pre-determined percent of the commission known as an override (this percent will vary based on an individuals level in relation to his or her downline). This is not necessarily unique to the multi-level marketing/sales system. In my own experience, there was no renumeration for recruiting a new individual. To be 100% clear: when someone signed an associate member agreement none of the start-up fee went to any individual member. I cannot comment on the exact use of these funds but myself was never promised income from the initial startup of another individual.
I can attest to the high level of compliance and due diligence required in the agent transactions with clients. At the time I left the company in late 2011, they were implementing checks and balances above industry standards. As with any industry, this does not catch every oversight or mistake but does provide documentation to ensure standards are being met.-- Gpniceguy57 ( talk) 21:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Since this article is obviously contested and controversial, please only add content that is sourced per Wikipedia policies concerning verifiability and neutral point of view. That means no more primary sources, cobbling together references to argue a point, etc. If you have issues with the information already in the article, please discuss them here with appropriate third-party, independent, verifiable, recognized sources to back up any additions. Achieving consensus is quickest, most efficient way to create a stable article; edit warring just creates a mess that attracts those with big mops. Flowanda | Talk 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have moved this content from the main page to the talk page because the sources are either to corporate sites, press releases or sites with no mention of WFG. Before readding any content, let's find sources meeting guidelines.
In NASCAR, World Financial Group is a major sponsor of Roush Fenway Racing, sponsoring Carl Edwards's ride part-time on the #60 Ford in the Busch Series. Previously, WFG had sponsored Roush Racing on Edwards' #99 Ford in the NEXTEL Cup Series and the #50 Ford in the Craftsman Truck Series. [2]
WFG recently signed a two-year sponsorship agreement with Fox Sports Network and the Pacific Ten Conference (Pac-10). The Pac-10 - known as the "Conference of Champions" - is a NCAA Division 1 college athletic conference that includes 10 of the biggest schools on the West Coast, including University of Arizona, Arizona State, University of California, Berkeley, University of Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, University of Southern California, University of Washington and Washington State University. [3] [4]
On Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2007, WFG agreed to a three-year “Bronze Level Sponsorship” of USA Luge. With the sponsorship WFG will support the athletes and programs of USA Luge as they take part in major competitions around the globe. [5]
Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 07:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the NASCAR sponsorship section was already a part of the article for quite some time. I simply moved it to a new sponsorship section and added two other sporting events that WFG sponsors.
It is not true that the sponsorship section for the organizations I added only links to WFG corporate sites. In FACT, the Pac-10 website specifically shows WFG as a corporate partner. All you have to do is scroll down to see the WFG logo along with the other sponsor's logos. You must not be scrolling down and so you are incorrectly assuming that it doesn't mention WFG. Also, the USA Luge website is NOT a WFG site. It is a USU Luge site that lists a contact name and phone number at the USA Luge organization.
Therefore, I do not understand what the problem is with leaving the Sponsorship section in the article. Could you clarify your reasoning. Thank you. Drewbull Drewbull ( talk) 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello out there Flowanda. I notice you haven't had a chance to respond. Is the Pac-10 website or the USA Luge (a USA Olympic team organization) website not reliable sources? Do you think that either the Pac-10 or USA Luge organizations would actually put a WFG logo on their websites and issue a press release about WFG's sponsorship if it were not a reality. The same goes for the NASCAR vehicles entered by the Roush Fenway Racing team. Could it be that WFG officials are actually going in and putting their logos all over the race car in the darkness of night without permission and lying about sponsorships? Wow, and the Roush Fenway Racing team chooses just to leave the WFG logos on their car. Of course WFG hires hackers to hack into the Pac-10 website and the USA Luge website to place the WFG logo on their sponsorship pages. I don't think so. So to verify if WFG is a sponsor of the Roush Fenway Racing team go look at the car with WFG's logos covering it. I believe it is safe to say that Pac-10 and USA Luge are reliable sources of who their corporate sponsors are.
Ok, forgive my sarcasm, but I think you are taking this to an extreme. Are the only reliable sources Time Magazine and CNN? Sports sponsorships are NOT a contentious thing. Neither is the fact that Mickey Mouse is the property of Walt Disney. Should we require that Walt Disney prove their ownership of the likeness of Mickey Mouse through a newscast on ABC. Wait, don’t they own the ABC Television network? In that case, NBC had better be the reliable source to confirm that Mickey Mouse AND ABC are actually owned by Walt Disney.
Basically, I’m trying to say that I doubt anyone could deny the reality that World Financial Group IS a sponsor of the Roush Fenway Racing team, the Pac-10, and USA Luge. By the way here is the USA Luge website front page with the WFG logo: http://www.usaluge.org/index.php and here is the Roush Fenway Racing team website corporate sponsorship page: http://www.roushracing.com/our_sponsors/default.asp and here again is the Pac-10 website corporate sponsorship page: http://www.pac-10.org/sponsorships/pac10-sponsorships.html
If this was a contentious topic, I could understand why you keep removing something that I took the time to add to the article, instead of asking me to add additional sources if needed (like the three above). Thank you. Oh and oops I forgot to sign... Drewbull Drewbull ( talk) 07:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I havent a problem with well argued cases for sponsorship, though the amount of material placed in the article should be proportionate to other sections. The same however should be said regarding the case for classification as MLM. The argumentation behind both is similar, and does not constitute synthesis or arguing a point, and the inclusion of both pieces of information on the page proportionately would balance things under public perception. Rgds. Caraski ( talk) 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added updated information regarding NASCAR, including reference links to WFG's pages for sports sponsorships and their charitable foundation. Saureco ( talk) 20:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Nightfireop --> This seems to be fairly controversial as a section, although there is certainly a case for mentioning something like what you were trying to accomplish on the page at some point. While the pattern up to now seems to indicate a similar set of lawsuits being filed against WFG as with WMA (Ruiz et al v. WFG et al. 2007 (regarding false statements); Gale v. WFG. 2006 (regarding classification of employees); Roth v. WFG. 2008 (also regarding illegal lack of benefits and misclassification of employees)) I am not entirely clear how to source these as court records are often difficult to obtain online and from the public domain, and I dont know if posting them on the page is consensus. Certainly people should know that there is a pattern of company practices emerging that is quite similar to its predecessor, WMA, but as to how we should probably discuss it here first. If you are interested, there is an academic, peer reviewed paper in the Entrepeneurial Business Law Journal out of Ohio state University that mentions the Gale v. WFG case in 2006, located here: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/eblj/issues/volume2/number1/11.%20Nicholson%20Article-%20Final%20Book.pdf, but as you may or may not know, the results of that particular case was that the employee in question was too far removed from the parent company, WFG/AEGON in this case, by multi-level tiering of structure. There is currently a legal grey area regarding employee classification in the US under such circumstances, so its a difficult avenue. You may have been on the right track with the Ruiz et al v. WFG case however.
Rgds Caraski ( talk) 20:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting how so few lawsuits exist against particular agents in this company and yet so much emphasis is placed on them. If lawsuits and compliance issues are of interest, then refer to Ric Edelman's "The Lies about Money" page 120-163 where he cites hundreds of cases, diciplinary actions, etc against very well known companies. You will not find a single one listed for World Financial Group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.96.178 ( talk) 21:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Josephbergevin ( talk) 20:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Date: June 30, 2008; 2:55pm (MT)
Is this Wikipedia entry on Hubert Humphrey or on World Financial Group? If it is truly on the latter, why is there a 3rd level reference to Hubert Humphrey, that clearly belongs (and actually is) in the Wikipedia entry on him?
By 3rd level, I refer to the following: A reader comes to this page to obtain information on World Financial Group (Level 1 of information). In their reading they will find that Hubert Humphrey was the founder of the former company World Marketing Alliance (WMA). This is 2nd level information, which certainly has it's place in the History section of this entry (although it does not clearly state that Hubert Humphrey has never been associated with World Financial Group). But then the article gives a sentence and reference on 3rd level information regarding Hubert Humphrey: "A Money Magazine report generally critical towards Humphrey and the former WMA was published in 2000.[3]" Then referencing the article.
To review, here are my points of concern to be considered:
1. Hubert Humphrey has never been associated with World Financial Group. This is not clearly stated, and therefore seems to imply to readers that he is involved with World Financial Group.
2. By referencing the Money Magazine report (which is clearly on WMA and Hubert Humphrey), it is implying to anyone clicking on the link from the World Financial Group entry that is report is about World Financial Group. This link already exists on the Hubert Humphrey entry, and should only be on that page. It is appropriate and should suffice that a reader could find this Money Magazine article by clicking on the Hubert Humphrey link from the World Financial Group entry. As a reader this (the Hubert Humphrey entry) is where I would expect to find this information, not in the entry on World Financial Group.
_____________________________________________
I disagree--- WMA is a direct predecessor to WFG, and WFG was created as an essential clone to WMA when the public perception of and plethora of lawsuits surrounding WMA began to make the original company untenable. If a company organized more traditionally underwent a name change, this would be 1st level information regarding the company. The fact that WFG/WMA are MLM may, in a very technical way allow one to categorize WFG as a separate company since all of the agents are technically not employees of the company itself, but the retention of a significant majority of staff, as well as the same corporate structure, and plan essentially makes this a paper distinction only. information regarding Humphrey and WMA is, and should be 1st level information, and its exclusion here could be seen by some as a distortion. This is especially true since the removal of the former WMA page on Wikipedia was justified based on the claim that 'WMA is now WFG, there should be a single article' Rgds Caraski ( talk) 04:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I added a recent bloomberg article that deals heavily with WFG, and provided links with recent litigations filed against WFG as well as private arbitration and comments by missouri etc. security regulators regarding WFG. Rgds. Caraski ( talk) 12:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I didnt revert the Humphrey reference in History, but this does need to be addressed here. Rgds. Caraski ( talk) 04:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Recent lawsuit, you can read about it here: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20515.htm.
Rgds. Caraski ( talk) 05:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This lawsuit is against W Financial Group based in Houston, Texas, NOT World Financial Group headquartered in Georgia. Even the president's name does not match the name of the World Financial Group president. Please get your facts straight before making accusations against a company. I agree with the person in another section that points out your continued vendetta against this company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterpbr ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right about the lawsuit. Thanks for clarifying. No reason to remove the bloomberg article though. side note, not a vendetta nor a vested interest, but the business model tends to allow for easy exploitation, which does happen, though as I've mentioned before, a great many agents are decent hardworking individuals. I dont generally like to engage in polemics, so lets keep discussion exploratory and focus on making the article as balanced and reflective of underlying reality as possible. You'll need to justify removal of the other sources, and respond to the information regarding WMA. Rgds. Caraski ( talk) 04:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the Bloomberg article. As far as fines from finra go, all financial services companies get into trouble. Actually, if you took a look, World Financial Group has very few compared to the Merrill Lynches and Citi Smith Barneys of the world. I believe if you want to be fair about this, you must make sure articles about regulatory actions against every financial services company is posted within their respective Wikipedia article. Why target only World Financial Group if you have no vendetta against them? If you took a look, I'm sure you would be shocked at how very few actions and fines against World Financial Group are listed on the finra website compared to most well known companies. I seem to remember the Bloomberg article stating that World Financial Group has more representatives than Merrill Lynch, yet fewer fines. I find that interesting. The article also mentions how other companies have substantially more and higher fines. The business model of World Financial Group has absolutely nothing to do with any fines from finra by the way. There are documented examples of much worse exploitation within other major well-known financial services companies. You must be fair about this. Hunterpbr ( talk) 06:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this certainly needs to be investigated in a non-partisan and objective way. Though to be fair, it was Humphrey's own spokeperson's comment that it had received less fines, and not an actual study so it would need to be verified independantly. Caraski ( talk) 16:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Per the present edit-war on the article, regarding how relevant WMA and its history is to the WFG article at hand. First, see #Money Magazine "Hubert the Great" article referenced above for a relevant previous discussion. Second, World Marketing Alliance links here, so there is clearly not two distinct companies here, so WMA (the direct predecessor of WFG) material is on-topic here. Actually, given that we don't have information about which "selected assets" of WMA became WFG, I think we are stuck assuming WMA is relevant to WFG by default (i.e. "things related to X of WMA are relevant to WFG unless we know for sure that X did not become part of WFG"). We just need to be clear which group-name various bits of info are talking about. Finally, while the the npros ref states, "purchased selected assets of WMA Agency", the cited wfhdirectory ref states, "World Marketing Alliance was acquired by the AEGON group and changed their name to World Financial Group." That doesn't sound like a clear "pick up a piece here and there and make a totally new and different company!" as much as a typical corporate shell-game or reincarnation under a new name. It really does sound like WMA became WFG for all intents and purposes, barring legalese, and especially to an extent where we would assume WMA and its history is totally part of WFG's hisory unless specifically cited otherwise. DMacks ( talk) 07:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It is clear that you are attempting to slant the article in a negative way by presenting the fact the WMA was fined. If you did any research at the FINRA website, you would see that ALL securities related firms have fines. Most of the big name companies have substantially larger fines and more frequent fines than WMA ever did. Interestingly, the Bloomberg article makes a point of saying there are more World Financial Group representatives then there are Merrill Lynch representatives. Yet, may I emphasize the fact that Merrill Lynch has MUCH more fines for WORSE offenses. Why is it then that the Merrill Lynch history page is not exclusively negative talk about the company? This article about WFG is NOT neutral at all. Hunterpbr ( talk) 15:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
That sections states that WFG is multi-level marketing and the sources do not prove that by the fact that they do not mention the company specifically. That is the purpose of the deletion. I am not deleting anything about the WMA connection after you added statement from the AEGON executive. In good conscience, I cannot allow the constant slanting of the article toward being a negative one. Hunterpbr ( talk) 04:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
As you can see, there is an SEC filing ( http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/769218/000092838503000979/d20f.htm#tx305_4) that refers to it as multi-level-marketing (search for "multi-level marketing group of wealth management advisor networks" at the source-- its a form 20-F so its long) this consensus was reached long ago. See talk under pyramid scheme. The bloomberg article in question also both discusses, and directly asserts that WFG is MLM. Caraski ( talk) 04:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I have worked for WFG and upon reading this wikipedia page, it is very clear that the people writing this are biased and probably work for the company as every sentence is just regurgitated marketing material.
I wouldn't know how to contribute professionally to the wiki page but hopefully somebody else can. The company is well known to be a Multi-Level-Marketing type of company, that needs to be brought to light.
And the "ratings" of the company's wellness is VERY suspect given the CLEARLY hand-picked biased reviews of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.156.248 ( talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted information that was blanked in January, and inserted it into the lawsuits/public perception section. Its all sourced. Rgds. Caraski ( talk) 04:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm reverting this section to an older version. A whole paragraph of sourced, consensus information was deleted around January. Caraski ( talk) 04:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Text "April 27, 2010 - Charles Schwab recruiting report" ignored (
help)
I removed this material because it violates WP:NOR. We cannot, based on our own conclusions, assert that the WFG commission practices are similar to those of other companies. If sources make that conclusion then we can report it. I don't see that in any of these, but if I'm mistaken please let me know. Will Beback talk 21:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
A law firm is not a reliable or unbiased source for statements in this article. Therefore I removed any references that direct to a law firm website which is specifically negative about the topic within the following section:
In May 2010, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a federal case against two former brokers of WGS, accusing them of having raised approximately $14,800,000 through the offer and sale of promissory notes as part of an illegal Ponzi scheme in the States of Ohio and Florida starting while the two were employed by WGS and using their customer contacts there.
That does leave one referenced website link. Hunterpbr ( talk) 06:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)