Talk:World Financial Group/Archives/2012

Redesign of an old system

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)

Thank you for this eloquent explanation. The only alternative I have to reading/populating a WP article is to actually go meet someone in the company, visit over coffee to have the business model explained, and feel free to lob question after question to the agent. You can only take rumor and innuendo so far. At the end of the day it's your personal experiences that determine your perspective of truth. I was skeptical of the firm the first time I was approached, especially having already been burned by a real MLM company. In the least, I ask readers to at least get information before making a final decision. This is what our elders called an "educated decision". Otherwise, you're just jumping to conclusions based on assumptions. Saureco (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes reverted

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)

AEGON purchased CERTAIN assets of WMA as is actually stated earlier in the wikipedia article. WMA no longer exists. Therefore I disagree that any article about WMA reflects in any way on the company called World Financial Group. Major companies are bought and merged into other corporations all the time. It is improper to link to an article about the previous company in an attempt to discredit the surviving company. That is especially true when that article only applies to the previous company.

Also, it is a total false allegation that World Financial Group makes any income claims for agents. The World Financial Group website clearly states the following: "Many people have experienced various levels of success with World Financial Group. However, individual member experiences may vary. This statement is not intended to nor does it represent that any current member’s individual results are representative of what all participants achieve when following the World Financial Group system." I don't know what Honestshrubber has against World Financial Group, but his or her attempt to falsely discredit the company should not remain in the article. Ashboarder 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Ashboarder

Thanks, Ashboarder, for responding on the discussion page. I'm glad we can have a civil discussion instead of just undoing each other's edits.

First, I'd like to address Ashboarder's claims. The first claim Ashboarder makes is that articles about WMA have nothing to do with WFG. I don't see how this is true, and apparently neither do other Wikipedia editors, as there are several references to WMA already in the article, including links to references that refer only to WMA. And as I mentioned, World Marketing Alliance redirects to the WFG article, which clearly implies that the companies are connected. The fact that "Major companies are bought and merged into other corporations all the time" does not suggest that the practices of the companies which are purchased have nothing to do with the practices of the companies they become post-purchase.

To address Ashboarder's second comment, I would like to include the paragraph I added, which keeps getting undone:

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.

Now there is nothing in this paragraph that is disproved or even disputed by the disclaimer on WFG's website that Ashboarder quotes. The paragraph simply says that some recruiter are accused of exaggeration, and makes no attempt to generalize this to the company as a whole.

I would also like to take this opportunity to show the paragraph that was in place before my edit:

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.

As most readers can probably guess, the reason I replaced this paragraph is that it is essentially free of specific information regarding criticisms of WFG. It further implies that any such criticisms are based on isolated personal experience, rogue agents, or a failure to understand WFG's business model. While this may be true, it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to judge the validity of complaints against WFG, and it is especially against the spirit of Wikipedia to omit the specific nature of the complaints in favor of generalities. Thus I felt that this paragraph did a disservice to Wikipedia readers, and was more informative after my edit.

I am therefore restoring the page to what it was before my changes were undone. I do not feel that my comments reflect a bias, but I am open to this paragraph being rewritten, so long as it informs readers of the criticisms directed toward WFG. However, I do not appreciate my changes being simply undone because someone does not like what I wrote. My contribution is certainly not vandalism, so I believe that the guidelines given in WP:UNDO clearly say that undoing is not the appropriate action to take.

Honestshrubber 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that this dispute has escalated to the point where violations of the Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule are imminent, so I urge Ashboarder and anyone else who disagrees with my changes to raise the level of discourse here, and stop undoing.

Honestshrubber 02:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No Honestshrubber, you are showing bias in your edit which offers no proof, from a reliable source, of your claim that WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP recruiters "exaggerate the likelihood of profiting significantly from participation in the business". Therefore your edit is NOT from a neutral point of view (NPOV). The article clearly states that AEGON purchased chosen assets, NOT the entire WMA company which ceased to exist. World Financial Group is NOT WMA. Therefore it is not acceptable that you insist on adding a link to an article about WMA from March 5, 2001. World Financial Group was formed as a company after that date. Your edit is simply a false allegation and is not NPOV. Ashboarder 06:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Ashboarder

On second thought, I think you are right that the sentence you removed was not substantiated enough to warrant inclusion. I confess that I may have put too much weight on some second- and third-hand accounts from insufficiently reliable sources. I also think that you were correct to move the remaining sentence to the earlier part of the article. So I think that the article as it stands at this moment is the best it's been since I first decided to edit it, and I consider this dispute resolved. Honestshrubber 07:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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).

Pyramid Scheme

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

It's worth pointing out, just so it's here and clearly stated, that the truth, in whatever form it takes, is not suitable for the article unless it's verifiable. — Lomn 04:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashboarder mentions that "any statements made in internet discussion boards and forums do not represent a NPOV and can not be verified as fact", he also alludes to the fact that such are 'slanderous', and may be posted by 'competitors or other person's with a vested interest in damaging the reputation of WFG'. While this is a distinct possibility, a verifiable NPOV statement, would be that 'there is a verifiable amount of public discourse surrounding the possibility that there may be some aspects of WFG business practices that are of questionable ethicality, and this possibility is the subject of verifiable public debate'. This makes no statement as to the content of the various claims levelled against WFG, it merely mentions that such claims exist and are accessible and prevalently available publicly. A further point to this end would be that, if such in fact constitutes slander, I would invite ashboarder, or any other individual to point to any lawsuits launched by WFG charging slander or libel. Certainly it is in WFGs best interest to protect its own name and business interests, therefore if there is a case for slander, one should be able to pursue that avenue.Caraski (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Message boards are not reliable sources. If you can't cite allegations per Wikipedia guidelines, don't bother inserting the claims to the article. Don't even bother bickering about them on the talk page. — Lomn 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, The revised edit should conform to reliable source guidelines, and does not contain any unverifiable sources.Caraski (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I will bicker about this...I'm a she not a he Caraski. Have a sunshine filled day. AshboarderAshboarder (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)

I must ask what qualifies you to state that WFG representatives are lacking in "financial sophistication"? How can you justify making such a sweeping general statement that the representatives of an entire organization offer a "poorer degree of service"? That is nothing more than your opinion. How dare you insult some of my industry colleagues that are very passionate, hard-working, knowledgeable, and successful in their chosen profession. That indicates to me that your biased opinion against WFG is the actual reason for you being so intent in labeling the company as MLM in this article. That just does not fly Caraski. Contrary to what you said above, you have not offered any verifiable source to place the MLM label on WFG in Wikipedia. Based on what you said in your latest statement, it is impossible to believe that you do not have a hidden agenda and/or bias against WFG. Ashboarder (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Ashboarder

if you read my statement carefully, hard to do if you're upset I realize, you will see that I did not make any quantitative statements regarding the proportion of associates of WFG lacking said sophistication. That would in effect be impossible. Allow me to clarify my statement. I effectively pointed out that the use of MLM-recruiting practices implies that 'associates' are generally recruited from friends, family, acquaintences, door-to-door, etc. If you take a specific individual, and based on his/her acquaintances or individual network, gauge the financial sophistication of each connected individual, you will get a base value of degree of financial knowledge that is close to the average for the entire population. Therefore, the basic level of financial sophistication of entry level associates is basically the average for the entire population. If you compare this to a financial firm that has a more traditional type recruiting scheme, where associates are employees and are paid salary commission, it is in the organization's best interest to recruit people with some degree of a financial background. That is why they primarily screen people using CV/resume's and related experience and/or a degree is an asset to employment in such a scenario. A cross section of entry-level employees using a traditional, i.e. NOT a MLM-type recruiting scheme is therefore significantly higher than the average population. Note that I did mention that there are training courses, but that associates are not required to reach a specific obligatory level of sophistication. At the same time most firms offer training courses as well, so the increase in sophistication after employment for the two scenarios can said to be largely analogous. The claim therefore that the average sophistication for MLM-recruited associates vs. traditional resume/CV screening stands. This in no way diminishes from the fact that hard working individuals, as you mention, can do quite well under either scenario. My statement above merely points out that on AVERAGE, a consumer will be better served by a model which consistently recruits highly qualified associates offering a diverse package of financial options than by model which recruits average associates offering a more narrow range of financial options. Lets try to stay factual here, and talk about the article itself. Meta conversation may serve some purpose but its starting to meander. Ad hominems and emotional appeals do not really suit what should be an objective discussion regarding the article. RgdsCaraski (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears the only consensus at the MLM companies "board" is your comments Caraski. So you believe in playing judge and jury? It seems you added World Financial Group to the list and made every single comment about WFG in the discussion section. You mention the same Canadian government website there (that you used here) in your attempt to label WFG as MLM. That same website and the "MLM companies list" on Wikipedia (again where you added WFG) are your only "sources" for your argument, along with your very biased statements against the wonderful people that are representatives with WFG. Ashboarder (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Ashboarder

I urge you to look again at the discussion section. While its true that I did provide primary evidence, I was not the first to post WFG to the list, as well, the evidence I provided was acknowledged by argryiou. Rgds. Caraski (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

While thats certainly an emotional response to what was intended as a succinct observation, you do still have yet to give a substantive argument against legal classification. Here is another source, a security and exchanges commission classification of WFG as a multi-level marketing group. Thats pretty objective. I will quote: "World Financial Group/AEGON USA-owned or operated multi-level marketing group of wealth management advisor networks that have only recently started to aggressively grow in the Canadian marketplace and are now evolving into a more direct producer model for ACI products and services" this is from AEG Annual and Transition Report 20-F Item 4. filed with the SEC. [1]

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)

Congratulations Caraski on finding a source that helps you to label WFG the way you want. You clearly spent a lot of time and effort to accomplish your goal. Because of your desperate attempt to find a source to prove your point, it makes me laugh when you say you don't have a vested interest in WFG. I must add that I do not appreciate your egotistical attitude. To say that there was no substantial argument, beside your own, is asinine on your part. AshboarderAshboarder (talk)

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)

For (a), we don't really care what they call themselves and we definitely can't rely on our own analysis of their statements. But as discussed several other times on this talk-page, there are independent sources that explicitly use the MLM label, so it's a WP:RS'ed analysis. NPOV explcitly does require that we use what sources say, rather than avoiding critical analysis or striving for 50/50 pro/con even-handed treatment. DMacks (talk) 09:02, 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 will put this matter to rest, once and for all.

If you are in a "traditional" employment model, whether as employer or employee, looking at a basic organizational chart of a corporation, regardless of size, indicates a pyramid-like model. Just as there is a military chain of command, "not everyone can be a general, kiddo". There are fewer and fewer members at the top of any corporate model, so this begs the question: where are you in YOUR company's pyramid - the bottom or the top? And in like kind, where would you RATHER be? So this kills the pyramid nonesense - most of us are already conscripted into a pyramid. It's just that for most of us, the more work we put into it doesn't dictate a 1-for-1 increase in pay.

Second, yes, WFG does recruit. If you wanted your company to grow, what would you do? Sit around and wait for some of the most fantastic candidates to notice your building and psychically draw a conclusion to come interview there? No. You're going to put the word out, you're going to advertise, you're going to hold interviews. News flash - THAT'S RECRUITING. If you worked in the software industry and a major player like Microsoft, Sony, Adobe, or Intuit tried to recruit you, would you say "sorry, you sound like an MLM"? They would look at you like you had a 3rd eye, and say "OK, next!".

Finally, as mentioned above, many other companies in parallel industries have similar business models. Look on most job boards during times of unemployment and you will find real estate, mortgage, and other insurance/investment brokers with household names recruiting. Why don't they get the spectre of the MLM label? Because they've been around for a few decades more? Because you're already one of their clients? If the same busines model of brokers and agents have been around for years, why does one company get the name calling while the others, even with a smaller selection of products or potentially worse track records, get off scott-free?

It's time to air out the personal agendas. WFG's business model and product portfolio is growing by leaps and bounds yearly. Their compensation model is now set to eclipse the remainder of the industry, and they still service most of the families that these other firms choose to ignore (including mine). At the end of the day, WFG's business model and management philosophy will have its day in the sun, and those who have slandered it WITHOUT PROPER CITING will have karma come full swing. Yes, I'm flustered. Yes, I'm an agent. However, I am having this discussion with the folks involved in editing the main article. If need be, I will have my way with the article and drag the opposition into the town square for all to see. But for now, we'll let civility and responsibility have its turn to correct the article on its own. Saureco (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pyramid Scheme 2

Caraski, an MLM is defined as follows:

1. Representatives make a bonus upon the sign-up of any new representative they recruit. WFG does not pay a bonus in any manner to the recruiter. Compensation is strictly based on the provision of services.

2. MLMs typically get together at hotels and other public spaces to hold their meetings and seminars. Aside from big events or gatherings that exceed office capcity, almost all WFG gatherings occur at legitimate office spaces where business and training are conducted. Most MLMs have representatives and prospective clients/representatives sit in on the same presentation. WFG's training sessions for agents are conducted concurrently and separate from the client/representative corporate overview.

3. MLMs don't require any licensing - you merely make money from recruiting bonuses or moving product. While it is true that in WFG you can make money on products/services without a license (i.e., debt settlements, identity protection, etc.), the major compensation occurs once an agent a) holds a license and has completed all necessary state and federal coursework and b) conducts business that is appropriate for the client.

I do want to put it out that yes, I am a WFG/WGS agent. While my perspective would indeed seem biased, I want you to know the differences between MLMs and WFG's models. As such, I have not edited the main article (yet), but I would hope this clarification would prompt you to edit the main article on your own behalf as a matter of integrity. If it is not corrected by April 1, 2010, I will change it myself. ;) Saureco (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, nobody cares how any editor feels anything should be defined or classified based on some definition. WP:V policy says we say what WP:RS say, so essentially if they say it's MLM, then for purposes of the wikipedia article it is, period. It might not be the WP:TRUTH and it might not be how various editors understand or relate the ideas, but we're simply not allowed to make those judgements or analysises, especially when they contradict reliable sources. DMacks (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is what WP has become at the great expense of good old due diligence: a one-stop shop of purportedly "factual" information which the public uses as the first line of defense for investigating topics of interest. Your average joe does a Google search, a WP page pops up, and that is used as de facto truth since it is perceived as multiple, credible sources used to build the page. The problem with that is the contributors may or may not have an axe to grind. And as many contributors have pointed out so far, information can be published and left out as "credible" for quite some time until a fellow editor recognizes flaws in argumetative logic, credibility and/or lack of sources, and reference to other systems or pages that eventually becomes so prolific that it has a mind of its own.

At the end of the day, we can hide behind rules that may or may not benefit the public good. What you have to ask, especially of every contributor, is "what DIRECT knowledge do you have of the subject?" Simply pulling outdated articles or lawsuits that apply to a predecessor company to be used as fodder on the next generation does not constitute journalism or research. That is an agenda, plain and simple. If one parent is unsuitable to raise a child, and the child is sponsored by a more appropriate parent, why do we hover over the child with remarks of "you're just like your biological father"? (This illustrates the relationship of AEGON's purchase of WMA's business system and rebranding as WFG.) The logic of this behavior escapes me. Why does the biggest contributor of inflammatory information provide 27 lines of speculation and lawsuit info against this one firm while major companies like JP Morgan Chase have fewer than 5 lines of text for each of their goofs? And they have been around for much longer. Saureco (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Saureco, on Wikipedia we rely entirely on "outdated articles" and other reliable sources. We are not permitted to base articles on our own personal knowledge. Please read over the basic policies, which I've posted on your user talk page.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not delete sourced material again, or replace it with your own unsourced views.   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, I have heeded your recommendations and have edited the appropriate section with a slew of valid sources. I appreciate your even-handedness in the matter and will take a page from your book. But regarding the matter at hand, I trust that WP will still allow an even playing field to keep this page's topic on point and not let it fall into rumor and innuendo. (Side note: those of us in contact with the LA team of WFG are well aware of the particulars in regards to that Bloomberg article. The reporter was misrepresenting himself to get info from Ms. Lagattuta, but we won't get into that here.)Saureco (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing a positive approach. I haven't looked closely at your "slew" of sources yet but a quick glance shows a fundamental problem. We should only be using sources which are about WFG. Could you please review your addition and remove any sources that do not refer to the subject of this article? Also, we can't cite Wikipedia articles as sources, only materials from other publications.   Will Beback  talk  18:26, 23 March 2011 (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)

This isn't a forum to discuss the WFG, but let's bend that rule for a moment. I went to the website and found a page on earning potential that includes reference to "supervisory overrides" and "trails".[5] Those sound like MLM terms. However they aren't defined on the site. Another page says that part of the business format includes "Recruit new associates to the business",[6] which sounds like an MLM goal rather than a goal for a non-MLM broker. Since the details aren't in an obvious public page I can't see if there's any compensation for recruiting new associates. Which gets us back to the matter at hand - we can't look at websites and decide how to describe the business. Instead, our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.

Have you had a chance to go over your "slew" of sources to make sure that all are concerned with WFG? Ones which talk about financial planning in general should be in the financial planning article instead.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'm still getting acquainted with the format of this site. The only reason I got an account was to correct what I felt were some one-sided injustices. I see that much of my material has already been removed, but whatever. I'm now savvy to the syntax of paragraphs and linked information, so I am becoming a more formidable contender here.

As for what you read and purport as a cracked code, let me elaborate on what you've uncovered. Residuals are common in many industries, including music, film acting, writing, and insurance. The more someone acquires or uses of your product, you get residual pay for creating the product or the market outlet. So, if residual income is such a no-no and so MLM-like, I guess we better picket Hollywood and all the publishing houses. Trails, on the other hand, are only found in the investment industry. The more your client's account grows, the fund manager pays the agent a tiny percent based on the total assets under management. The higher the value in the client's funds (that's a good thing), the more recurring income for the agent that set it up. Again, if you think this is bad, good luck taking on Wall Street...

Finally, you don't have to recruit in WFG. You just don't. Simply holding a valid insurance or securities license allows you to make money on your own as an agent. The best way to measure the validity of a company is if you can go make money on your own activities with clients, which you completely can do at WFG. And again, I will only harp on this for a little longer - we do NOT get compensated for reruiting anyone. Period. End of discussion. We only get compensated if:

1. the client/representative needs a financial solution (we can't MAKE anyone become a client),
2. we hold a valid license for the product as well as have completed all regulatory course work, and
3. we are appointed with the product provider

I hope this clarifies some stuff, but again you should really sit down with an agent for 30 minutes to get this busines model mapped - no strings attached. Saureco (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Will - a little more clarification on this. Supervisory overrides are just that - supervisory bonus based on team performance. That is NOT an MLM-specific feature - it's common in pretty much all sales organizations. Oracle's regional sales team, for example, pay their managers based on team performance. Pick an industry, look at an sales team, and you will find the management being compensated based on the performance of their team. "Trails" as explained above, are common in the financial/insurance industry. Basically, you're getting paid on a continuing basis based on the longevity of your accounts. An account that stays for 20 years, will pay you for 20 years. Ask your insurance agent for external verification of that. So, again, it's not an MLM-specific feature. Yes, WFG encourages recruiting. You'll note that there are a lot of expanding business that aggressively recruit, and that pretty much NEED to do so in order to sustain growth/expansion. Again, we're talking right across the business world - that job app kiosk at Safeway? That's a recruiting tool. The letter I received last week from an Allstate executive recruiter? They're recruiting.

Two core questions that you have to look at with an MLM: Do you get paid _to recruit_ (IOW are you being directly compensated for recruiting, with no other sales activity taking place), and is it impossible to earn a "reasonable" income without recruiting (and you'll have to define reasonable yourself). If the answer to both questions is "yes", then it's an MLM. Otherwise...

BTW, there really _does_ need to be a split between "Network marketing" and "MLM" They're not the same thing. Cprael (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In many large businesses recruiting is handled by management or even a special human resources department. Safeway cashiers don't try to recruit people to work at their store, nor do they receive any special compensation if they do. My stock broker doesn't try to recruit me either. If there are sufficient sources to write about network marketing as distinct from multi-level marketing then we can write about that. But at the end of the day we must restrict ourselves to what can be found in reliable sources, not the arguments we make on this page. If sources describe WFG as using network marketing then we'll say that, if they say it uses multi-level marketing we'll say that, and if there are sources for both then we'll include both descriptions. Let's not make this harder than it has to be.  Will Beback  talk  20:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• In April, Schloeman was named Executive Marketing Director Most Valuable Player for the company's financial division. Schloeman beat out more than 25,000 people in the company nationwide. Schloeman received the award at the Gala Awards Ceremony during World Financial Group's Convention of Champions in Orlando's Orange County Convention Center. [..] Schloeman is primarily responsible for hiring and training new licensed agents and also work with individual clients. As the director, there are 130 agents who work under Schloeman.
  • Chino Hills man named Marketing Director MVP Liset Marquez. Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Ontario, Calif.: Aug 9, 2007.
• ASSOCIATE CONTRACTS WITH WORLD FINANCIAL: Chuck Christensen has contracted with World Financial Group Inc. as an independent associate. Christensen's focus will include introducing Whatcom County consumers to opportunities that exist at WFG, expanding its local clientele and increasing the base of its financial professionals.
  • Cascade Marketing offers presentations to public Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: Apr 12, 2006. pg. 1

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)

Ah, I see where you're going. I probably shouldn't give away the secret to the Business Format System (BFS), but all I can say is that "making money on teammates" has no bearing on the recruiting process. Again, the moment someone signs their member agreement (akin to an independent contractor's agreement), we don't make a dime on that signup process. But if most people that are applying with the firm are not actively pursued by the remainder of the industry due to net worth, they don't know all the cool stuff that's out there. Once they see what their money could be doing, it's natural for most folks to want to be a client (if not to also add credibility once they become an active agent). Making money on teammates has to do with the training process. That's all I can say without violating the terms of the BFS. Sorry. But again, we're not MLM. ;) Saureco (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want you to get in trouble by disclosing confidential material. That's another reason why we need to base this article on reliable secondary sources rather than on personal knowledge.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 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)

A: According to whom does WFG not pay for recruiting? B: According to whom is payment for recruiting a necessary part of being an MLM?   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 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)

Sourcing strictly to wikipedia policy

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)

Nascar and other sponsorships

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.

Sponsorships

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.

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.

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.

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. DrewbullDrewbull (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... DrewbullDrewbull (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)

Regarding Lawsuits Section

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. Nicholson Article- Final Book.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)

WFG employees are hourly/salary workers (W2) at the home office in Duluth, GA. All other representatives from training associates up to executive vice chairmen are 1099 independent contractors (W9). WFG reps do their best to train new teammates in wording the positions at WFG. We don't hire, we contract. We aren't employees, we're agents. This isn't a job, it's a career.

As for the WMA to WFG transition, here is how the story unfolded. AEGON recognized the potential of WMA, but didn't like the slack attention to compliance (ergo, the complaints). So what AEGON did was acquired the assets of WMA and made the declaration that all agent contracts would have to be re-upped under the new company structure. What this did was allowed AEGON to clean house of all the trouble makers by NOT re-upping their contracts. As WMA went out of existence, so did the threat of bad agents. Only those that were deemed nonthreatening were inducted into WFG. New company, new reputation. At least that's how it's supposed to work without someone drudging up the past that is no longer relevant. Saureco (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (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)

I put a line at the bottom of the lawsuits section that links to FINRA's broker check for WGS. If people can navigate that system on their own and do the math, they'll find out that WFG isn't quite the offender in the marketplace as compared to say, Ameriprise Financial or Charles Schwab. Saureco (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Money Magazine "Hubert the Great" article referenced

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)

I think this needs some hashing out in relation to other stories of acquisition to better understand the WMA-WFG relationship. First off, let's look at AT&T and SBC Global. SBC was a spin-off of AT&T - a child company, so to speak. SBC grew by leaps and bounds, better than analysts had projected. AT&T, however, did not. So, when AT&T was seeking a buyer to rescue the dying household brand, they turned to the child to save the parent. As a result, SBC bought out AT&T in terms of assets and infrastructure. AT&T is now in name only. So, do the failings of the parent cast a shadow on the child? Should SBC be scorned for a failed organization because the predecessor organization failed? You decide.

Second, let's look at the reinvention of companies and their brands. Both historically and recently there have been companies that had serious flaws in business that should have rendered them derelict or untrustworthy. One that comes to mind is Ford Motor Company. They built a car that through the 80s gave them a terrible reputation for safety and public concern - the Ford Pinto. Now, after all the lawsuits and remodeling had been done, at the end of the day they were still Ford Motor Company. Yes, they may have revamped safety guidelines and cleaned out management involved in that project, but do people still buy Fords? You decide.

Finally, looking more close to home in this topic, let's look at firms that fail completely. Bear Stearns is a good example, especially in this industry. Now, though the company's assets undeperformed during the 2007-2008 period due to risky investment moves and the company was liquidated, top management still walked away with bonuses while others just got pink slips. Bear Stearns was bought out by JP Morgan, yet another large company with SEC filings, yet we still bank with JP Morgan Chase. At the end of the day, is Chase a bad company because they acquired Bear Stearns? You decide.

In conclusion, using WMA as a Nerf bat on the WFG brand pretty much speaks for the integrity of the accuser, especially given the examples above. The association between WMA and WFG should be in lineage only, nothing more. Saureco (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits

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)

WMA vs WFG

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)

Indeed. First of all, sorry for being a part of this "edit war", it is the first time I reinsert a fact that has explicitly been deleted. I would never do it if the fact was not both relevant and sourced. I have to mention I was totally stranger to WFG before this article randomly felt under my scrutiny a few days ago. I have no proof as to whether WMA was split and sold in pieces or sold as a whole, but I have read that WMA's network of associates was transfered to WFG, any reliable source confirming this would be welcome. Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am confused, the www.manta.com companies database says WFG is an alternate name for WMA: http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_cm28pf Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is another article that clearly says that WFG was previously WMA, but I am not sure the website can be considered reliable: http://www.programcritique.com/subcategories/RealEstateOpp/WorldFinancialGroup.html Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:29, 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)

If you have more information about Merill Lynch, just add it to the Merill Lynch article.

Your most recent blanking has the following comment: "The sources do not reference World Financial Group specifically". Please read the discussion above: Facts about WMA belong to this article. Also, your comment "unreliable source" was totally inappropriate for blanking paragraphs containing references to http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca, http://www.edgar-online.com and even http://www.wfg-online.ca Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:51, 28 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)

Er, a company's own website probably doesn't refer to itself in the third person. Per WP:V and WP:NPOV you are required to let the article slant in the way that available source-supported facts dictate. DMacks (talk) 05:11, 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)

The Bloomberg article was built from an independent reporter who interviewed the WFG agent under false pretenses (he posed as an applicant). We will still let that trite article stand since it's leaning on the crutch of the Bloomberg name (aka, "credibility"). However, the SEC filing specifically states that WFG is considered a MLM but is evolving into a direct sales model as the rest of the uses. Again, cherry-picking info and holding it up as stand alone fact. Saureco (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is clearly biased

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)

If you can find us some additional or counterbalancing information from reliable sources, I can help get it integrated into the article. DMacks (talk) 17:00, 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)

If anything, AEGON would have industry ratings from firms like Moody's or Standard & Poor as AEGON is a provider of insurance and pension products. WFG, however, is just a marketing firm. The only ratings you would find for a service-based, instead of product-based, firm would be something akin to a JD Power and Associates for customer service, customer satisfaction, etc. Saureco (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Public Perception

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)

Original research

• However, many other companies within insurance and investment industries have similar business models as far as recruiting, overrides and split commissions, multiple agencies, multi-level management structures (brokers and agents), such as Allstate Insurance, State Farm Insurance, Farmers Insurance, Charles Schwab, Edward Jones, as well as many other companies.

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)

Let's maintain a discussion about this while the materia is kept intact. (Side note: please don't take my entry into your personal talk page personally. If nothing else, it serves as a notice/warning to others about transparency on this matter.)

My aim was to refute the off-handed claims that WFG is an MLM by the traditional/common interpretation of MLM (i.e., compensation for the recruiting/sign-up process, lack of adequate compensation for purely conducting business, lack of institutional and/or oversight, etc.). Again, without revealing the trade secrets of the WFG system, I can only say that we have a similar compensation and business structure as most other companies with whom many of us already (hopefully) do business. Most companies in the insurance and investment industries have:

• sales-style compensation (called transactional compensation)
• residual compensation (also found in the entertainment and publishing industries)
• recurring compensation (also called trails, typically found in the investment industry)
• a broker-agent relationship whereas the agent conducts business and gets the bulk of the commission based on his contract, and the broker gets a bonus base on his contract (special note: if the broker is at the same contract level as the agent, THERE IS NO BONUS! Take that, MLM argument!)
• licensing and regulatory education requirements prior to receiving compensation
• the list goes on

What I don't want is this to boil down to some discussion of either a) "you're a scam, which is why you make so much money" or b) "you're not a worthwhile opportunity because you won't provide super-competitive bonuses". That's lose-lose for WFG, especially at the hands of perpetually anonymous contributors that only work to portray WFG in a bad light.

What I will say is this: the more we push the MLM label on WFG based on what other companies do, the more WP stands to scare away otherwise worthwhile potential agents that could do some real good to the industry. I will maintain my claims of the company based on personal experiences, which I have found have no merit publicly (ironic), but I vow to use WP's rules to our advantage. Cheers. Saureco (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be making any assertion about WFG based on what other companies do. Can you point to those? Nor should we seek to "refute" what reliable sources say using our own original research, which is what the above material tried to do. Imagine if I tried to prove that the Moon is made of green cheese by adding information on the density of green cheese to the article on Moon? I don't care whether WFG is an MLM or not. All I care about is making sure this article complies with WP policies and guidelines. Please stop trying to convince me unless you can provide reliable, secondary sources on the topic which mention WFG. Has the company put out a press release on that issue? If they deny being an MLM we can include that.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What you're asking is a Catch22: if WFG leaves the MLM issue unattended, many people assume that a lack to denial to the claim means it's true; conversely, proactively refuting the claim makes already skeptical people pull the "then why did they bring it up" card. Again, it's lose-lose.

What I will say is this: WFG is a marketing company, not an insurance or investment company. That's what the product providers are for. WFG markets the products of other companies. Therefore, if you need a Prudential product, in that instance the WFG agent acts as a Prudential agent. WFG agents are licensed as needed to legally receive compensation as outlined by state or federal guidelines.

The reason it is hard to compare what one company makes over another is due to many reasons. Most companies don't post agent earnings because pay is most likely based on performance (which are not guaranteed), posted average compensation may put a company at a competitive disadvantage, some positions may require full-time status (which WFG does not), and most companies are paid only based on selling their own products, called being a captive agent. Since WFG represents many companies, the compensation changes from provider to provider. Besides, I would fathom that most companies won't post their organizational structures just to avoid the MLM label themselves. Again, speculation, but speculation from within the industry. I'll get to work on finding some sources to back up the claims. Saureco (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Sourcing

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)