Talk:Fundsmith
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Not an active fund edit
Auto writes: I don't think 'active' is accurate, or fair. 'Long Term', even 'maverick' may be accurate opinions - I think they are; but not 'active'. One of the points about Fundsmith is that it doesn't 'churn' investments. Perhaps a Wikipedia Provost Marshal could review the inclusion of the adjective 'active', as I think it is inaccurate, and, possibly, a little misleading. Auto wrote 2009 Z, 20130223. 81.157.64.111 (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. What does "well known city figure" even mean?--LedgerTom (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Active in this sense means "actively managed". Whilst you are correct in saying that Fundsmith don't change their investments or weightings often, "doing nothing" does not mean it isn't actively managed. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Losing money yet paying Mr. Smith millions report newspapers edit
It is reported in newspapers that the fund has been losing investor's money in recent years. The shocking thing is that despite this, a parent or associated company has recently paid Mr. Smith and another man tens of millions of pounds. Big payments when the fund has done very well may be acceptable, but big payments when the fund is losing money? This ought to be mentioned in the article. 92.3.53.200 (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)