Jump to content

Talk:Nuveen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Nuveen Investments)

copyvio

[edit]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/nuveen-investments-expand-equity-capabilities/story.aspx?guid=%7B16616D5C-9157-4569-A29C-8A118BCFCF89%7D

First American Funds

[edit]

Have not done much research, but a note on my U.S. Bank HSA account reads: 

A note for HSA investors: effective December 31, 2010, Nuveen Investments acquired the non-money-market mutual
funds from First American Funds (FAF) Advisors, Inc. As a result, the affected First American Funds have been
renamed to reflect the Nuveen Family of Funds name. FAF Advisors, Inc. will continue to serve as the advisor
on the money market fund and retain the name of First American Prime Obligation Fund.

Anyone have better details? Shouldn't this go into the article? Samatva (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unresolved
 – Closing improper RFC and recreating a new RFC, closing this specific RFC. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article retain the large section containing unsourced/poorly sourced negative statements as they stood prior to my deletion of them? - John Galt ✉ 05:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No - as RFC initiator. The section was a full 3/4ths of the article, which greatly violates WP:UNDUE, and the section was very poorly sourced, and even contained a lot of unsourced negative statements. A section about the event in 2008 should be included, but this company has a long history and a single event does not define it. It needs to be shortened significantly. - John Galt ✉ 05:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reducing the size of the section. I think there are valid WP:WEIGHT concerns. This is a hundred year old company which seems to have been something of a pioneer in the financial sector and the article is focused on one controversial incident. In a comprehensive article that provides a balanced overview of the company's history I doubt the ARS criticisms would warrant more than one or two paragraphs or a short section. That said, I support condensing the coverage, not whitewashing, so the main criticisms levelled at Nuveen and their response to them should be covered. Betty Logan (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with User:Betty Logan - the article is heavily weighted to highlight the negative events of the last few years, and should be edited to present a more balanced view. Nuveen is a respectable company that was caught in one fiasco - a fiasco about which the entire article revolves. However, there are current efforts by the company's marketing department to gut out the entire article, essentially leaving nothing but the lede and a poorly-written chronology list. The weasel-wording of this RFC lets me believe its only purpose is to lend the nominator a crutch to remove the entire 2008 chapter, both sourced and unsourced. Having been foiled on AN/I, the nom is now trying to canvass for supporters wherever he can find them, much to the delight of the company's marketing department. The article should be fixed, not blanked. Owen× ☎ 09:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims of "weasel wording" are lies and attempts to poison the well. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get off your high horse, and stop playing wiki-games. What's next - a personal appeal to Jimbo to give you special permission to blank the article to appease Nuveen? If you were interested in improving the article, you would have done so by now, rather than engage in futile AN/I petitions, and in RFCs asking "Should the article retain X". At least be honest about what you want, and ask, "Should the article contain criticism?". You've been editing wiki long enough to know that the more you play such games, the more editors get involved, and the more likely the article is to be made neutral -- both praise and criticism. Despite what you may think, that's a good thing. Owen× ☎ 17:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're a liar and a well poisoner. Fortunately for you, you have a lot of company here in that respect. If YOU had been interested in a "neutral and balanced" article, you would have made it so. I tagged that article 7 months ago. Instead, you've been reverting various edits to this article for years and doing nothing to improve the quality. Furthermore, take your assumptions of bad faith and shove them. I don't work for the Nuveen company, nor do I know very much detail about them, apart from their being a part of the mutual funds industry. Contrary to what you seem to think, article editing is not reserved for "experts" or special people, and it doesn't require an expert to see when something is grossly POV and weighted down with negative claims. The quality of the article before versus after wasn't the point, the point is, you WANT the heavy negativity in there. You can say and think whatever you like, but you are the personification of everything wrong with Wikipedia: assumptions of bad faith, owning articles, and arrogant attitudes towards "outsiders". Whenever I think of someone like you I image Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons: a socially-incompetent weakling who behaves in arrogant manner to people on the internet as compensation. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC Reboot

[edit]
Editing work overtook the RfC. There is a clear consensus that the previous material suffered from UNDUE weight, and a rough consensus that the changes made since were an improvement, there is no consensus here regarding the weight of the current text, nor, if there is still undue weight, how to resolve the matter. I'd also ask editors working on the article to consider the infobox request near the bottom of the discussion, which is unrelated to the discussion, but shouldn't get lost in this close. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a reboot of an improper RFC previously created. The purpose of this RFC is to evaluate the best process to handle the WP:UNDUE concerns regarding the Auction rate securities section of Nuveen Investments. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my initial review it seems like a large portion of the section needs to be retained, with some extensive copy editing. However, that leaves the problem of WP:UNDUE. This can be resolved in a couple of ways. The first would be to have extensive efforts to improve the overall content of the article/company as a whole. With their overall age, there should be a lot that could/should be written about it using reliable sources -- although many of those are probably offline resources. A second alternative would be to consider creating a new article for the specific ARS situation or merge into Auction Rate Security page, while leaving a summary and redirect on this page. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I stated above I think there are valid WEIGHT concerns, since I think in a comprehensive article that covers a 100 year history, this amount of coverage probably wouldn't be warranted. It's hard to address in a 'Start' class article though, and we have to make sure that the outcome of this RFC won't be too prohibitive to someone if they come along and develop the article i.e. judgments about a Start class article might not apply to a GA standard article. I think what I would do is just remove all of the unsourced claims and anything relating to ARS that doesn't directly relate to Nuveen and leave it at that. Obviously the best way to balance an article is to cover other stuff, so if anyone cared that much they would do a bit of work on it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undue There is too much focus on this one issue and too much repetition of content in the ARS article. I suggest reducing this to a short paragraph that notes Nuveen's involvement in ARS and the ARS collapse and refers the reader to Auction rate security and Auction rate security#2008 auction failures for more information. Jojalozzo 22:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on this press release] Nuveen offered to redeem all ARPS for its municipal bond fund ((NYSE: NQU), funded by variable rate demand preferred shares (VDRPs). This suggests the article may be considerably out of date. Jojalozzo 01:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undue The section is still a full 3/4ths of the article, which greatly violates WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, and the section is very poorly sourced, contains unreferenced claims, etc. A section about the event in 2008 should be included, but this company has a long history and a single event does not define it. That section needs to be shortened to one paragraph at most and updated with most current information for WP:NPOV. There is already an article about ARPS, links from this article to that article are sufficient. - John Galt ✉ 05:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • REVIEW this mock up at User:Tiggerjay/ARS -- there was a lot to trim but I wanted to retain enough information so it still made sense without having to completely read and understand ARS. I think this would be a good place to start with, and then to evaluate how we can build out the rest of the page with more information to better weight the article. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decent starting point but I would not keep the sentence about ARS in the lede. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I put your draft in as it is obviously much better and there is consensus for undue. I also trimmed some of the unsourced promotionalism in the article. However, out of the three paragraphs now in the article for the controversy, I think the second unsourced paragraph could still be trimmed. User:CorporateM 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 6 July 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuveen Investments → Nuveen – Company is rebranding and removing the "Investments" from the name. See about page for reference: http://www.nuveen.com/Home/Corporate/About/Mission.aspx. Portocac13 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Updated Information

[edit]

Updated AUM information available here: http://www.nuveen.com/Home/Corporate/About/Products.aspx

More on Nuveen's history: http://www.nuveen.com/MutualFunds/WhyNuveen/OurHistory.aspx http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/the-john-nuveen-company-history/

More on capabilities of Nuveen affiliates: http://www.nuveen.com/Home/Corporate/About/CorporateCapabilities.aspx Portocac13 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the AUM, but as for the rest, you need to propose specific, non-promotional sentences in an edit request. It would be better to rely upon outside sources instead of Nuveen's own website. Altamel (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nuveen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Information

[edit]

Hi – My name is Jake Holtgrewe, and I work on digital and social media strategy for Nuveen. We noticed that several elements of Nuveen’s Wikipedia page are becoming outdated, and I wanted to see what we can do to help provide more current information around such items as assets under management, descriptions of our business, etc. Given Wikipedia’s guidelines around self-editing, I imagine it would be more appropriate to include the relevant facts/updates on the discussion page rather than making edits directly to the site itself.

As a starting point, I would direct people to this recent article in Barrons ([1]), which includes the following statistics/updates:

  • As a description of our firm, I would suggest: “Nuveen is the asset management arm of TIAA, which purchased Nuveen in 2014.”
 Done Altamel (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuveen’s Assets Under Management are $882 billion as of December 31, 2016
 Done Altamel (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuveen is the world’s 15th largest mutual fund company, with $169 billion invested in 164 funds
I'm not so sure about this item. I've seen many different methodologies for ranking mutual fund companies by size, and they all have different results. Wells Fargo also claims to be the 15th largest mutual fund company. Altamel (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine we will look to substantiate this in the future. Jholtgrewe (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, while it is not cited in the article, Nuveen currently has approximately 3,000 employees
I've searched the web and SEC EDGAR filings to substantiate this figure, but to no avail. Can you provide any sources to confirm? Altamel (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am still working on finding a source for this. Jholtgrewe (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, and I look forward to continuing this dialogue.

Jholtgrewe (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)jholtgrewe[reply]

Hi Jholtgrewe. Sorry for the delay, I've reviewed your edits. Altamel (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Altamel. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you but I really appreciate your help with this. Please see my responses. You will also see that I went ahead and added a section for Sponsorships. I added the appropriate references but please let me know if you need anything else for this. I have pictures of the sign to include but not the proper rights to upload - any thoughts? Thanks! Jholtgrewe (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.barrons.com/articles/tiaa-nuveen-a-trillion-dollar-startup-is-making-its-move-1491623875
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuveen&oldid=1208795976"