Fidelity - the good, the bad, and the ugly

The good - Fidelity recently dropped the insurance cost of its variable
annuity wrapper so that it actually costs 5 basis points less than
Vanguard's (0.25% vs. 0.30%, exclusive of underlying fund expenses); note
that neither Vanguard nor Fidelity provide a death benefit (though Vanguard
will add one in for 5 basis points).

This means that the cost of using a Fidelity variable annuity like a
non-deductible IRA (once one exhausts IRA limits) is a relatively small
0.25%. You still have to see whether this investment makes sense, but the
analysis is the same as for a non-deductible IRA.



The bad - Fidelity seems to send paper mail ads for products of theirs that
I am already using (with a cover note along the lines of "I thought you
might be interested in this.") One would think that the same computer
program that spews this stuff out could also check to see whether the
customer is already aware of (using) the product.

The ugly - last year I posted a horror story about how Fidelity handled a
dividend check I didn't cash in a timely manner. They automatically
reinvested the check after they determined it was stale, and when I spoke
with them, they offered to unwind the transaction. As part of this
unwinding they manufactured a back-dated sale in 2003 (the reinvestment was
in 2004), generated a "corrected" 1099 for 2003 (showing this "sale"), and
subsequently undid that bogus sale. But they never sent me a "re-corrected"
1099B for 2003, so as far as the IRS was concerned, my 2003 taxes were now
missing a sale that never occurred.

After only 3/4 of a year dealing with a Fidelity rep who repeatedly assured
me that Fidelity would get a correction out shortly, and that he would call
me back to keep me posted (neither of which happened, despite my repeated
calling), I finally wrote a letter to Fidelity explaining the situation.
The matter got bumped to their tax group, and they were able to rectify it
in a couple of weeks.

Products/services and website at Fidelity are usually good. However, the
human touch at Fidelity seems quite variable. Often it is quite good, but
with two reps this year promising to call me and then not following through,
I have not been a happy camper. (I do want to distinguish the retail side
from the institutional side - on the latter, Fidelity reps have been
superb.)

--
Mark Freeland

Re: Fidelity - the good, the bad, and the ugly

"Mark Freeland" <> wrote
> The good - Fidelity recently dropped the insurance cost of its variable
> annuity wrapper so that it actually costs 5 basis points less than
> Vanguard's (0.25% vs. 0.30%, exclusive of underlying fund expenses); note
> that neither Vanguard nor Fidelity provide a death benefit (though
Vanguard
> will add one in for 5 basis points).
>
> This means that the cost of using a Fidelity variable annuity like a
> non-deductible IRA (once one exhausts IRA limits) is a relatively small
> 0.25%. You still have to see whether this investment makes sense, but the
> analysis is the same as for a non-deductible IRA.
>
>

ent_annuity.shtml
>
> The bad - Fidelity seems to send paper mail ads for products of theirs
that
> I am already using (with a cover note along the lines of "I thought you
> might be interested in this.") One would think that the same computer
> program that spews this stuff out could also check to see whether the
> customer is already aware of (using) the product.
>
> The ugly - last year I posted a horror story about how Fidelity handled a
> dividend check I didn't cash in a timely manner.

Your bad. Your ugly.

snip
> Products/services and website at Fidelity are usually good. However, the
> human touch at Fidelity seems quite variable. Often it is quite good, but
> with two reps this year promising to call me and then not following
through,
> I have not been a happy camper.

Maybe the expected cost of having to babysit you through your future
blunders was higher than the expected return of having you as a customer.

Take some responsibility for your own mistakes. No business can afford high
maintenance customers.

Re: Fidelity - the good, the bad, and the ugly

Elle wrote:
> "Mark Freeland" <> wrote

> > The ugly - last year I posted a horror story about how Fidelity handled a
> > dividend check I didn't cash in a timely manner.
>
> Your bad. Your ugly.
>
> Maybe the expected cost of having to babysit you through your future
> blunders was higher than the expected return of having you as a customer.
>
> Take some responsibility for your own mistakes. No business can afford high
> maintenance customers.

Stop posting your useless messages and wasting our time.

Re: Fidelity - the good, the bad, and the ugly

wrote:
>
> Elle wrote:
> > "Mark Freeland" <> wrote
>
> > > The ugly - last year I posted a horror story about how Fidelity
> > > handled a dividend check I didn't cash in a timely manner.
> >
> > Your bad. Your ugly.
> >
> > Maybe the expected cost of having to babysit you through your future
> > blunders was higher than the expected return of having you as a
> > customer.
> >
> > Take some responsibility for your own mistakes. No business can
> > afford high maintenance customers.
>
> Stop posting your useless messages and wasting our time.

Thanks for the comment, though Elle's presumption of the worst in (some)
people is amusing. Especially since in my intial call to Fidelity
regarding this check, I said that it was my fault, that a satisfactory
course of action would be to sell the specific shares that had been
purchased, and that I would identify those shares for Fidelity (I wasn't
asking them to do any significant work, just process an order).

Fidelity's response was: no, no Mr. Freeland, we can reverse the
transaction for you. Then their comedy of errors ensued: selling the
wrong number of shares, on the wrong dates (plural); issuing a wrong tax
report; hacking a "solution" by adding back more shares than I should
have had; etc.

I did take responsibility, and had offered a simple solution.

I even offered Fidelity a way to dump me. I said that if they could not
at least get the number of shares in the account corrected by the end of
the tax year (2004), I would liquidate the position. If I were so much
trouble to them, they could have let me go then.

Yup, Elle's got me pegged, all right :-)
--
Mark Freeland

Re: Fidelity - the good, the bad, and the ugly

Elle wrote:
> "Mark Freeland" <> wrote

> > The ugly - last year I posted a horror story about how Fidelity handled a
> > dividend check I didn't cash in a timely manner.

> Your bad. Your ugly.

Why do you people still use checks? Seems like a stupid and unnecessary
hassle to me.

Re: Fidelity - the good, the bad, and the ugly

"Evojeesus" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "Mark Freeland" <> wrote
>
> > > The ugly - last year I posted a horror story about how Fidelity
handled a
> > > dividend check I didn't cash in a timely manner.
>
> > Your bad. Your ugly.
>
> Why do you people still use checks? Seems like a stupid and unnecessary
> hassle to me.

Indeed. I stopped using them over five years ago.

Re: Fidelity - the good, the bad, and the ugly

"Evojeesus" <> wrote in message
news:
> > "Mark Freeland" <> wrote
>
> > > The ugly - last year I posted a horror story about how Fidelity
> > >handled a dividend check I didn't cash in a timely manner.
>
>
> Why do you people still use checks? Seems like a stupid and
> unnecessary hassle to me.

One uses checkes for many reasons. Often contractors don't take credit
cards. Until Check21 fully kicks in, checks are still the best proof of
payment (501(c)(3) under $250), etc.

With one exception, I've never set up an account to issue dividend checks.
That one account was a stock investment with Schwab, two decades ago, when
the only choices that Schwab gave were - let a dividend sit in a
non-interest paying cash account, or get a check.

--
Mark Freeland

Re: Fidelity - the good, the bad, and the ugly

Elle wrote:
> "Evojeesus" <> wrote

> > Why do you people still use checks? Seems like a stupid and unnecessary
> > hassle to me.

> Indeed. I stopped using them over five years ago.

In Finland checks were phased out in the seventies...so I've never
written a check and never will. They seem very primitive, like the
oldest kind of paper currency...IOUs of some kind :-)