Talk:Self-directed IRA/Archive 1

Archive 1

External Links

It appears that the owner of IRAAA.org thinks he owns this page. I have seen others place their links on the page he removes them quite efficiently. IRAAA.org is NOT a non-profit organization and should not be treated as such. Hopefully we can call a truce and other productive links will be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Augieirusta (talk • contribs) 13:00, 18 July 2007

I've moved this discussion here. I think that the link's okay--the organization seems to be providing information, not a hard sell. You're getting reverted by wikipedia users who are not the owner of IRAAA.org. Darkspots 19:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest then, that those same reverting users which I suspect are one in the same or affiliated with iraaa.org allow other links on the page as well. I know because this because I saw other links placed and immediately removed. Placing links of other providers should not be considered a hard sell as well. Make no mistake iraaa.org is a business and sells product they are not as altruistic as they seem (as you stated). Concerned member - augieirusta

Your interest in this seems to be more about inserting other links--the kind of links that keep getting removed, that I've removed myself (once), that are clearly commercial. I don't think that's going to happen. The link that I reverted failed WP:EL. Darkspots 03:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely Darkspots I have made no declarations otherwise, I have been very clear with my grievance, the discrimination of other sites that provide the same service is the problem. It seems the .org is the fig leaf one needs to be listed. Once again, I disagree with you iraaa.org is clearly a commercial venture and they sell competitive retirement products no matter how altruistic and benign their site seems. Debra Buchanan and Jeff Nabors are in the business of selling IRA LLCs and 401k through products through advisers under the disguise of a membership driven site.augieirusta

• So what you are asserting is that there is some sort of nefarious purpose behind this website; that these individuals you named are effectively engaged in some elaborate charade under the guise of a trade association. If that is the case, then I would say that deleting the link would be appropriate. But if it is a legitimate trade association for an industry that lobbies for its membership, conducts certification, enforces a code of ethics or others sorts of things, then the link would belong. But at least make that assertion when you delete the link and some evidence would be nice on occasion. And try to avoid accusing us of some sort of plot to deny you your self-imagined constitutional right to spam Wikipedia. 99.9% of people have no skin in the game unlike you clearly do. Sometimes there is a gray area. No one here knows whether you are correct about the purpose of this site or just a bitter enemy who is mad because Debra Buchanan turned you down for a date at the last conference. This site for me is in that greay area. At least give them credit for a little creativity rather than just throwing up a site that says "Hey my name is Bob Jones, we sell IRAs!" That kind of linkspam is low hanging fruit as far as I am concerned. In the interests of peace, I think removing the link would be appropriate given the doubt over its legitimacy. If the proponents of that link have any questions, they can provide evidence that they are a legitimate trade association. Montco 17:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well certainly as a objective minded person in a public service program I would not expect sarcasm. But what I am asserting is true. They do not lobby for their members, the certification process has been floundering since its inception and they have no traction in the industry. Not being a technical person I did not realize that the editing option was open and quite frankly working this system is not an intuitive process. I'll keep your creative insights in mind and I do give them credit it has successfully gotten them this far. And I turned her down for a date :) Thank you for for at least listening to reason and understanding that it is truly unfair that just because a .org is thrown at the end of a title world peace is attempted. augieirusta

Hello, this is Jeff Nabers, founding member of IRA Association of America. An IRAAA member brought this discussion page to my attention, and I'd like to offer a response. Firstly, IRAAA is in fact a non-profit association. I invite you to check with the Secretary of State of Colorado where we were incorporated. That means there is in fact no "owner" of IRAAA. Not only have I not removed the links of others, this is my first post to wikipedia.org (I hope I'm doing it correctly). IRAAA's sole product is professional membership. Our members include attorneys, financial planners, consultants, CPAs, etc... each of whom sells their own products themselves. There are many people and companies in the "self directed IRA" industry who are critical of our education because it often solves the confusion that provides many services providers with a large profit margin. It appears that the complaint lodged by augieirusta is that we are removing the links of others. I will not myself, or through IRAAA employees, remove the links of others as I have faith in the ability for wiki moderators to identify what is commercial activity. In response to the complaint of links to IRAAA articles being commercial in nature, I ask for concise substantiation before these links are permanently removed. Thank you.Iraassociation 21:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (http://www.iraaa.org/)

It looks like www.nuwireinvestor.com is a lead generating web site for www.guidantfinancial.com. The staff of NuWire is made up of Guidant staff. I don't think this is a good idea. My sister got scammed from Guidant Financial. She paid $5,000 to setup a retirement account and they gave her a booklet of documents and an attorney later told her that what they were encouraging her to do was illegal. Guidant is a scam and it looks like NuWire is just a lead generating department of Guidant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defendtruthapi (talk • contribs) 22:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My name is Jeremy Ames. I am the CEO and Executive Editor of NuWire Investor (www.nuwireinvestor.com). I was also one of the original co-founders of Guidant Financial (www.guidantfinancial.com). That alone should tell you I have a conflict-of-interest that should prevent me from making any edits to this page on Wikipedia. I am responding to the last comment not in order to have a link to our website reinstated, but to address what I consider some serious and poorly researched accusations.

NuWire, Inc. is a separate company, with separate staff, a separate office space and a separate purpose. If you do a quick search for self-directed IRAs on NuWire’s site, you will come across content that highlights David Nilssen, Tom Anderson, Lisa Bromma, and T.J. Valenzuela and provides links to Guidant Financial, Pensco, Entrust and Trust Administration. I’ll let that fact speak for itself about whether NuWire’s employees have honored their responsibility as journalists to minimize conflicts-of-interest.

Your scam comment is, in my opinion, libelous and inappropriate for a forum such as Wikipedia. It makes me suspicious, along with your edit history, about your intentions. Guidant Financial does not encourage clients to purchase any particular investment. In fact, the Guidant IRA product requires an outside attorney review the client’s proposed investment before their paperwork is completed.

I can assure you that if Guidant’s product offering were a scam, the DFI or some state attorney general would have already shut it down. That doesn’t, however, preclude your sister from having a genuine customer service concern if she used one of Guidant’s products. If she is unhappy for any reason, I would encourage her to contact someone at Guidant directly.

On another note, I admire Pensco and Jeff Nabers for using their own name when making edits or comments on the page. The history of this page seems to reflect an underground war between self-directed competitors. It’s unfortunate, because it appears to have added little value in the amount and scope of information regarding self-directed IRAs.

Jeremy Ames, CEO of NuWire, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.51.174 (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright investigation

In May 2009, it was discovered that material in this article was duplicated at the internet point [1]. Fortunately, this particular mirror makes determining original publication simple, since at the time I went to investigate the claim it was displaying the following text: "The previous content of this page appears to infringe on the copyright of the text from the source(s) below and is now listed on WikipediaCopyright problems." This makes clear, at least, that this source is copying us and not the other way around. Very helpful of them it is to update their contents to reflect us in this way. This site is listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links

I removed the ELs because they are inappropriate. They offer nothing that the article couldn't provide if we put more work into it. They certainly could be used as sources, so I have copied them here for possible such use:

• Self Directed IRA Frequently Asked Questions. Self Directed IRA
• Unlocking the global-trillion dollar crowdfunding market. Huffington Post
• Investing in real estate with a self directed ira. Bloomberg
• New JOBS act will revolutionize retirement. Forbes
• Marino, Vivian (April 17, 2005), "Using an IRA to Buy Real Estate", New York Times
• Take charge of your IRA. CNNMoney.com

Jojalozzo 02:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Self-directed IRA/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class== Stub class because this article has just one section.EECavazos 04:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Low priority because the article does not state it's priority through notability, it could go to mid if the article has a big tax impact otherwise low because this article is not on a tax.EECavazos 04:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 06:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)