Who needs TRP

Jesus Christo - All I basically did was bail on substantial long
holdings I held in PRLAX when that banana boat started sinking. I've
made ONE and only ONE recent excursion to try and make up sector losses
with another play, but took a bath on that - PRASX - an admitted short
sell. Everything else, and I've owned several of their funds over the
years, has been consistant with TRP tranding. Evidently, they are not
giving me ANY leeway regarding last months downturn over the two measly
TRP funds I did own, and this sort of treatment is nothing short of
bullshit. No wonder they need Paul McCartney in their advertising
deptartment to make up for a lost presence in the financial world.
Poor guy must be daft by now to not realize what bandwagon he's getting
up on.

So what does this mean, folks - I'm now an expatriat for the rest of my
life in the Land of Capitolism, as far as those high-handed TRP sons of
bitches are concerned?

[Missive included below.]

Regarding your account,

You have been identified by T Rowe Price for having violated the funds
excessive trading policy, which is commonly referred to as market
timing or short-term trading. As stated in the fund's prospectus, the
fund company reserves the right to restrict exchanges and purchases
that they feel are not in the best interest of the fund or the majority
of its shareholders.

T Rowe Price takes this issue of short-term trading very seriously.
Therefore, since excessive
trading could be detrimental to the funds performance, the fund company
has placed a stop purchase on your account and has removed all exchange
privileges. You may either leave your investment in your current fund
or redeem it.

Re: Who needs TRP

Use ETF's.





"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
> Jesus Christo - All I basically did was bail on substantial long
> holdings I held in PRLAX when that banana boat started sinking. I've
> made ONE and only ONE recent excursion to try and make up sector losses
> with another play, but took a bath on that - PRASX - an admitted short
> sell. Everything else, and I've owned several of their funds over the
> years, has been consistant with TRP tranding. Evidently, they are not
> giving me ANY leeway regarding last months downturn over the two measly
> TRP funds I did own, and this sort of treatment is nothing short of
> bullshit. No wonder they need Paul McCartney in their advertising
> deptartment to make up for a lost presence in the financial world.
> Poor guy must be daft by now to not realize what bandwagon he's getting
> up on.
>
> So what does this mean, folks - I'm now an expatriat for the rest of my
> life in the Land of Capitolism, as far as those high-handed TRP sons of
> bitches are concerned?
>
> [Missive included below.]
>
> Regarding your account,
>
> You have been identified by T Rowe Price for having violated the funds
> excessive trading policy, which is commonly referred to as market
> timing or short-term trading. As stated in the fund's prospectus, the
> fund company reserves the right to restrict exchanges and purchases
> that they feel are not in the best interest of the fund or the majority
> of its shareholders.
>
> T Rowe Price takes this issue of short-term trading very seriously.
> Therefore, since excessive
> trading could be detrimental to the funds performance, the fund company
> has placed a stop purchase on your account and has removed all exchange
> privileges. You may either leave your investment in your current fund
> or redeem it.
>

Re: Who needs TRP

I know. I read your posts (CEFs), Ed, and I'm trying. I just don't get
the same "feel" with them ... something about their volatility, I'm not
sure. Think I'll go to the billiard hall to play chess and cool down
after that bastard-of-a-letter.

Ed wrote:
> Use ETF's.
>
> "Flasherly" <> wrote in message
> news:
> > Jesus Christo - All I basically did was bail on substantial long
> > holdings I held in PRLAX when that banana boat started sinking. I've
> > made ONE and only ONE recent excursion to try and make up sector losses
> > with another play, but took a bath on that - PRASX - an admitted short
> > sell. Everything else, and I've owned several of their funds over the
> > years, has been consistant with TRP tranding. Evidently, they are not
> > giving me ANY leeway regarding last months downturn over the two measly
> > TRP funds I did own, and this sort of treatment is nothing short of
> > bullshit. No wonder they need Paul McCartney in their advertising
> > deptartment to make up for a lost presence in the financial world.
> > Poor guy must be daft by now to not realize what bandwagon he's getting
> > up on.
> >
> > So what does this mean, folks - I'm now an expatriat for the rest of my
> > life in the Land of Capitolism, as far as those high-handed TRP sons of
> > bitches are concerned?
> >
> > [Missive included below.]
> >
> > Regarding your account,
> >
> > You have been identified by T Rowe Price for having violated the funds
> > excessive trading policy, which is commonly referred to as market
> > timing or short-term trading. As stated in the fund's prospectus, the
> > fund company reserves the right to restrict exchanges and purchases
> > that they feel are not in the best interest of the fund or the majority
> > of its shareholders.
> >
> > T Rowe Price takes this issue of short-term trading very seriously.
> > Therefore, since excessive
> > trading could be detrimental to the funds performance, the fund company
> > has placed a stop purchase on your account and has removed all exchange
> > privileges. You may either leave your investment in your current fund
> > or redeem it.
> >

Re: Who needs TRP

As I have mentioned several times, the investment worm has turned.... 10
years ago, you could trade as often as you liked most places, except
Vanguard, where 2 per year was pretty much it..... Now, they will black list
you, charge you early redemption fees, etc......

It is the main reason most of the other investors in my group hedge current
positions or moved completely to rydex or profunds.

Happy Guy
-
"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
>I know. I read your posts (CEFs), Ed, and I'm trying. I just don't get
> the same "feel" with them ... something about their volatility, I'm not
> sure. Think I'll go to the billiard hall to play chess and cool down
> after that bastard-of-a-letter.

Re: Who needs TRP

I sold a fund at Vanguard and I got a note that said I can't buy it back for
90 days.
I sold the rest of what I had at Vanguard in response. Who needs them.

ETF's are the index funds, CEF's are not.
Example, PRLAX vs. ILF (ETF: S&P Latin America 40)


For a trade, EPP & EEM vs PRASX


EPP iShares MSCI Pacific ex-Japan
EEM iShares MSCI Emerg Mkts Index

I wanted to increase financials as a percentage of my portfolio so I bought
IXG & a smaller amount of XLF. I may sell both before the end of the year
but if I do I will be able to buy them back the next day. No fees, other
than a small commission, no penalties, no restrictions. See ya later
Vanguard.

"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
>I know. I read your posts (CEFs), Ed, and I'm trying. I just don't get
> the same "feel" with them ... something about their volatility, I'm not
> sure. Think I'll go to the billiard hall to play chess and cool down
> after that bastard-of-a-letter.
>
> Ed wrote:
>> Use ETF's.
>>
>> "Flasherly" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>> > Jesus Christo - All I basically did was bail on substantial long
>> > holdings I held in PRLAX when that banana boat started sinking. I've
>> > made ONE and only ONE recent excursion to try and make up sector losses
>> > with another play, but took a bath on that - PRASX - an admitted short
>> > sell. Everything else, and I've owned several of their funds over the
>> > years, has been consistant with TRP tranding. Evidently, they are not
>> > giving me ANY leeway regarding last months downturn over the two measly
>> > TRP funds I did own, and this sort of treatment is nothing short of
>> > bullshit. No wonder they need Paul McCartney in their advertising
>> > deptartment to make up for a lost presence in the financial world.
>> > Poor guy must be daft by now to not realize what bandwagon he's getting
>> > up on.
>> >
>> > So what does this mean, folks - I'm now an expatriat for the rest of my
>> > life in the Land of Capitolism, as far as those high-handed TRP sons of
>> > bitches are concerned?
>> >
>> > [Missive included below.]
>> >
>> > Regarding your account,
>> >
>> > You have been identified by T Rowe Price for having violated the funds
>> > excessive trading policy, which is commonly referred to as market
>> > timing or short-term trading. As stated in the fund's prospectus, the
>> > fund company reserves the right to restrict exchanges and purchases
>> > that they feel are not in the best interest of the fund or the majority
>> > of its shareholders.
>> >
>> > T Rowe Price takes this issue of short-term trading very seriously.
>> > Therefore, since excessive
>> > trading could be detrimental to the funds performance, the fund company
>> > has placed a stop purchase on your account and has removed all exchange
>> > privileges. You may either leave your investment in your current fund
>> > or redeem it.
>> >
>

Re: Who needs TRP

Could be in response to computer trading, timeframe fits, although I
couldn't say what an equitable solution might be. 2% early redemption
as a thoughtful prospectus stipend I paid Third Avenue funds come
foremost to mind, as it adds up when moving substantial amounts.
Didn't escape my notice prior to last month's heyday of pulling $1500
daily profits and headstrong $30K sector moves. I think Third Ave
wrote that in well. Reason to think twice about my intent before once
more heavily exposing myself long on the likes of TAREX. I bought two
Asian funds at the same time, sector plays, and shortly thereafter left
on TRP's alarming losses by way of comparison into what seemed the
better - Vanguard's VPACX. I'll keep that bit of timely advice about
Vanguard in mind, thank you. I haven't seen a lot of testimonials
regarding burnt fingers, even though it's something I've wondered about
-- where do boundaries actually form. As much as I do doubt they're
written in stone between the major houses. About Profunds and Rydex
I've mixed feelings and not extensive exposure, although I did buy back
into RYPRX just earlier today. And though there are plenty still to
choose from - it's that "blacklist" aspect you mention that most irks
me. I'm no longer an idealist playing unbesmirched on an open field of
capital resources. For having determined a sum of lost money was
unacceptable, I've impinged upon the financial world's code of ethics.
I'm now a known and branded "timer" How nice of TR Price to have so
succinctly profiled me with such a definative term.

happy-guy wrote:
> As I have mentioned several times, the investment worm has turned.... 10
> years ago, you could trade as often as you liked most places, except
> Vanguard, where 2 per year was pretty much it..... Now, they will black list
> you, charge you early redemption fees, etc......
>
> It is the main reason most of the other investors in my group hedge current
> positions or moved completely to rydex or profunds.

Re: Who needs TRP

That's a quandary.... funds going down, do I sell and get blacklisted or
hold on and hope it will reverse (could be one month, one year, ??).... puts
the burden on the investor, right where they want it.

As mentioned, years ago this was not a problem, now they are enforcing the
idea that mutual funds are for 'the long haul'.

I could do etfs, but don't like the potential of getting trapped into
watching the markets even more than I already do during the day..... so,
funds, with daily closing prices are mentally easier for me.

btw, welcome to the world of 'market timing'..... and you got here without
even knowing it..!

Happy Guy
-
"Flasherly" <> wrote in message > I'm now a known and branded
"timer" How nice of TR Price to have so
> succinctly profiled me with such a definative term.
>

Re: Who needs TRP

hi, ed. i thought it time too to get into some fnancials. i have had
FBR small cap financial for quite some time. i added the closed end,
FF, with the premium and all. neutron

Re: Who needs TRP

"neutron" <> wrote

> hi, ed. i thought it time too to get into some fnancials. i have had
> FBR small cap financial for quite some time. i added the closed end,
> FF, with the premium and all. neutron

I like both of those, FF is a favorite. I try to avoid CEF's near
distribution time though, they seem to create 1099 hell. I do own FUND
though, it pays quarterly.

Re: Who needs TRP

Hi folks,

Yeppers, this is NOT your fathers day and age. When we all got popped
for datelining the families got religion and in a lot of cases have
over-reacted. While Vanguard has always been a snot, it's sad to see
Price getting this snotty and not even warning you. I'd petition their
asses on the lack of warning and a promise to be a good little boy.
However, that doesn't detract from the enormous bullshit this places on
the aveage investor. And by this I'm talking about us, but the average
investor. Example. My wife is about as conservative a b&h investor as
you will find. She rebalances quarterly and that's it. She's got a
rollover IRA at Vanguard from which she's taking Substantially Equal
Periodic Payments (SEPP). Er, this means that at least annually, you
must move money from some fund(s) into the cash account for future
distributions. Well, as a conservative b&h rebalancing type investor,
this should be from whichever fund has gained the most over the past
year. Ah, but be this Health, you have a 1% FIVE YEAR steeenking ERF
that we've had to eat. Sorry, but this is insane and wrong. I'm a
firm believer in ERF's, but make them 2% net 180 days and be done with
it.

As for frequent trading, it used to be that 4 round trips a year was
the barrier. In this case, that's hardly been broached but simply
looks like one or two. I don't consider that fair either and would
complain. Hell, I know their spiel about long term investors.
However, you actions should have generated a warning at most.

Fairness when someone violates a rule is to TELL them the rule they
violated and give them the opportunity to mend their ways. Their
response was over the top. And, hey, wifey and I both have IRA's at
Price. They try this shit with me and I'll pull some serious money out
of their accounts. Mine may not be much, but wifey's is her rolled
over pension and they talk very nicely to her when the call to ask how
she's doing.

best,

rono

Re: Who needs TRP

I don't get the objection. Mutual funds were never intended to be
trading vehicles. They're supposed to be long-term holds, so anything
more than two round-trips in a year absolutely should be discouraged.
And two should be unusual.

There is no good reason that you should be able to trade MFs well, but
not be able to trade ETFs well...that is, unless your edge with MFs is
the ability to dateline or otherwise take advantage of the once-a-day
pricing. If that is indeed your edge, then tough--it's exactly why
B&Hers don't want you in the fund. You're sapping their returns.

Learn to use ETFs and CEFs. They're the vehicles designed specifically
for your needs.

Darin

Re: Who needs TRP

A mutual fund should be what I, the customer, want it to be. In this case,
the customer is often wrong....

Who are you to tell me how often I should move money...... ?

Funk 'em....... thank heavens for profunds.

Happy Guy
-
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>I don't get the objection. Mutual funds were never intended to be
> trading vehicles. They're supposed to be long-term holds, so anything
> more than two round-trips in a year absolutely should be discouraged.
> And two should be unusual.

Re: Who needs TRP

Ed wrote:
> I sold a fund at Vanguard and I got a note that said I can't buy it back for
> 90 days.
> I sold the rest of what I had at Vanguard in response. Who needs them.

Probably kept it short, less than 90 days. Who needs the present
system, one might rephrase that. Someday, someone ought to challenge
them -- the jobbers turned biz admin/economics, turned
political/lobbyist, and all other duly elected for life majors -- to
can spell it out in b&w, what exactly, in equitable wording, empowers
an ambiguous turn of words, frequent trader, to abide as a breach of
ethics and premise forfeiture of all present and future contracts.

> ETF's are the index funds, CEF's are not.
> Example, PRLAX vs. ILF (ETF: S&P Latin America 40)
>

Index, big word. I gather there's some broader alliances between
ETF/CEF/OEF/ADR, whose workings and an interplay I need to research.
Practically, I've already bought several ETFs. What I meant earlier by
"feel" - I don't get the same "action" as conventional funds, though I
didn't care much for indices in conventional flavors, either. I'm
probably just a latent DCA-er with a strong B&H bent (if and when
possible), like Happy Guy says. And, so, what I [suspect I] need to do
is get over it (lazy) and time. I also don't think ILF (bought some of
that 10/17) is the best example to hold alongside PRLAX - reason: it's
too stellar for broadly assessing an ETF exchange. I'm already running
into ETF detractor's surveys alongside broader indexed mutuals, that
are saying they're not entirely viable instruments. Grain of salt to
an extent of what I actually have read, and entirely without reference
to being kicked out of fund houses for timing. There's a saying in
equities I ran into when I started, 5 yrs. ago: You pick 4, and if you
score, there's one in there worth milking for the cream; I'm still
batting zero with ETFs.


> EPP iShares MSCI Pacific ex-Japan
> EEM iShares MSCI Emerg Mkts Index
>
> I wanted to increase financials as a percentage of my portfolio so I bought
> IXG & a smaller amount of XLF. I may sell both before the end of the year
> but if I do I will be able to buy them back the next day. No fees, other
> than a small commission, no penalties, no restrictions. See ya later
> Vanguard.

Was already added to my notes from finance feeds - EEM ( own eww -
latin midcap, noted ewc - canada) as watch points with potential.
Looking over later posts - FF, FBR, FUND, etc., ran some quick charts.
Damn, maybe I need an eye checkup, but some of it looks like a dog's
behind.

-I used to tell first-time contestants to scream loudly, as ferociously
as possible at the judges during the pose down. -The Austrian Oak

Re: Who needs TRP

happy-guy wrote:
> A mutual fund should be what I, the customer, want it to be.

Sorry, but no. When you buy a coffee maker, do you complain that it
doesn't make milk shakes? Mutual funds aren't designed for rapid
trading. Their pricing is too inefficient.

> Who are you to tell me how often I should move money...... ?

No one is telling you how often to trade. They're telling you how
often to trade mutual funds intended to be long-term holds. Sort of
similarly, banks discourage you from cashing out of CDs early, yet I
doubt you complain about those penalties.

TRP doesn't want traders buying its funds, and there's nothing wrong
with that. Its B&H customers agree. Don't take it personally. Just
trade securities intended for trading.

Darin

Re: Who needs TRP

Darin, I kind of agree with you. I think the biggest problem is that many of
the changes that have taken place have been recent. People were already
invested with Vanguard or T. Rowe Price. Now these people can't do what they
could before or a cost has been added where there was none before.

Happy guy is right, it's his money. T, Rowe Price is right as well, they
make the rules. If you don't like the rules go elsewhere. Fine for someone
that didn't have more freedom before. I'm adapting, others will too.
Vanguard is a special case though, I don't know what the heck they're doing.
Chasing away current and prospective customers is not a sound business
practice.

I like T. Rowe Price, so far. I own 4, one is a money fund, of their funds
and don't trade them. I would not hesitate to move the money to my money
market fund if I thought we were in for a real bad time though.



"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> happy-guy wrote:
>> A mutual fund should be what I, the customer, want it to be.
>
> Sorry, but no. When you buy a coffee maker, do you complain that it
> doesn't make milk shakes? Mutual funds aren't designed for rapid
> trading. Their pricing is too inefficient.
>
>> Who are you to tell me how often I should move money...... ?
>
> No one is telling you how often to trade. They're telling you how
> often to trade mutual funds intended to be long-term holds. Sort of
> similarly, banks discourage you from cashing out of CDs early, yet I
> doubt you complain about those penalties.
>
> TRP doesn't want traders buying its funds, and there's nothing wrong
> with that. Its B&H customers agree. Don't take it personally. Just
> trade securities intended for trading.
>
> Darin
>

Re: Who needs TRP

Elle wrote:
> You qualify your statement with "basically." It does leave one wondering if
> there's more to this, and it's perhaps not favorable to your side.

Hi, Bond Lady - yeah, not a good word, basically, stereotyped and
basically worn out by the Victorian and Edwardians. You like money,
too, I see you're wondering - and I made a boatload of it off PRLAX,
right as rain,ma'am. Problem there - I sold out of that ungraciously,
too: Door swung back and made a loud smack across my ass when I walked
out on PRLAX. Here's what happened: day1 (10/6), when I sold half my
position in 86 days, I got nailed so bad with penalties, I'm not sure
whether it was that or the 3% they were losing me daily, so, what
happened, , I went back day2 (10/7) and sold all the rest. Whops1.
Whops2: Just like it sounds, took a 5-day, bath. That's it, look no
further, all the 'favor' is in PRLAX profits I made; and don't even
think I'd lie to you, Bond Lady.

> I don't think it's relevant that you took a bath. One person's bath may be
> another person's tax maneuver.

Cool. Some day maybe you'll teach me some basic maneuvers. Are you any
good at them?

> I'd call them up, admit your actions were unintentional and based in not
> carefully reading their rules (assuming this is true), and ask whether they
> mightn't think a warning was more appropriate.

That's undeniably good advise, just the sort of thing I'd think proper,
in course, to do if I were to retain a legal position and was so
counselled in preperation for proceedings More stereotypically to
point, though, I'm probably just your typical bullheaded male out
trying to etch "a living," which I did swaggeringly well, all except
for two repercussions: a) I stayed nigh too long at the feeding trough
while profits dwindled, and b) I didn't plan on TRP's umbrage. And,
no, that's not a correct assumption. If you carefully read my earlier
posts (pun intended), you may have nevertheless noted, I've been
anticipating a day I'd be slapped in the face by a fund family.
Effectively, I could write the whole damn tribe the same letter; TRP
just happened to be the first to take note. It's my style, you see,
Bond Lady. I do trade often within reasonable intent and based on
prior performance.

> Or /was/ there a warning before they removed all your exchange privileges?

Of course not. They've absolutely no time for such silliness.

> If not, I'd wager TRP and others are being watched so closely by the feds, a
> certain state attorney general with more power than the mafia, etc. that
> they had no choice. 'cause I'm also betting you have a pile of dough that
> TRP wouldn't want to part with so quickly.

Silly, Elle. You just had to bait Eddy, now didn't you. Don't try
two-timing me, though. Pay attention. I've doubled my money a couple
of years - though, I'm not going to be stupid and say you're stupid. I
know who you are, Bond Lady. When you've a mind to you're good at it.
Someday I may need that kind of help - some of my risk-adverse friends
already do.

> > So what does this mean, folks - I'm now an expatriat for the rest of my
> > life in the Land of Capitalism,

> It means you either (1) start again somewhere else, and I'm sure with a
> clean slate; (2) call 'em up and chat politely about this, for some
> vindication and/or to get your exchange privileges etc. back.

Again, good, decent points. But you're wasting your time with such
suggestions for me. I made money the best way I saw fit within rules I
saw ambiguously defined and enforced. Now that they are enforced, and
no more defined, what I basically have experience. The onus is on me: I
play the cards I'm delt.

> Do not become a high maintenance customer. I speak not from personal
> experience but based on online posts suggesting, man, these companies will
> lose customers who are too much of a PITA, particularly when a loss of
> profit is involved, one way or another. It's only good business to do so, as
> well as an obligation to other customers and company stockholders.

Good. There are those that do, as you say, woman, have some modicum of
inside policy dealings. Nice to lend an informed ear is also my credo
when they speak. You don't know (and neither do I) what repercussions
the policy holds, although you are the first to address it. And you're
right, I have no choice but to bet again. I have one life - whether I
choose to live it being barred by fund houses for being in their
highest, most aggressive risk instruments at the wrong time, I may as
well leave to you as a matter of conjecture to decide.

-Sure, I'll carry your gun; just don't tell me who to point it at.
-Woody Guthrie. Dustbowl Era, Great Depression; Okie, Americana,
songster.

Re: Who needs TRP

"Flasherly" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > You qualify your statement with "basically." It does leave one wondering
if
> > there's more to this, and it's perhaps not favorable to your side.
>
> Hi, Bond Lady - yeah, not a good word, basically, stereotyped and
> basically worn out by the Victorian and Edwardians. You like money,
> too, I see you're wondering - and I made a boatload of it off PRLAX,
> right as rain,ma'am. Problem there - I sold out of that ungraciously,
> too: Door swung back and made a loud smack across my ass when I walked
> out on PRLAX. Here's what happened: day1 (10/6), when I sold half my
> position in 86 days, I got nailed so bad with penalties, I'm not sure
> whether it was that or the 3% they were losing me daily, so, what
> happened, , I went back day2 (10/7) and sold all the rest. Whops1.
> Whops2: Just like it sounds, took a 5-day, bath. That's it, look no
> further, all the 'favor' is in PRLAX profits I made; and don't even
> think I'd lie to you, Bond Lady.
>
> > I don't think it's relevant that you took a bath. One person's bath may
be
> > another person's tax maneuver.
>
> Cool. Some day maybe you'll teach me some basic maneuvers. Are you any
> good at them?

I don't talk innuendo. I'm sure you know the same basic tax maneuvers I do.

> > I'd call them up, admit your actions were unintentional and based in not
> > carefully reading their rules (assuming this is true), and ask whether
they
> > mightn't think a warning was more appropriate.
>
> That's undeniably good advise, just the sort of thing I'd think proper,
> in course, to do if I were to retain a legal position and was so
> counselled in preperation for proceedings

Now now. Stop those thoughts of suing.That's emotion working, not
intelligence. Lawsuits are too expensive, so don't even waste your time
'hating.'

> More stereotypically to
> point, though, I'm probably just your typical bullheaded male out
> trying to etch "a living,"

eke?

> which I did swaggeringly well, all except
> for two repercussions: a) I stayed nigh too long at the feeding trough
> while profits dwindled, and b) I didn't plan on TRP's umbrage.

Come on. Umbrage? That's a Freudian slip. There was no emotion behind TRP's
action. Want to bet that a red flag automatically went up on your account,
and the letter you received was in fact a form letter?

TRP doesn't know you from William Thackeray. All it knows is the rules were
busted, maybe intentionally, maybe not. Send letter.

> And,
> no, that's not a correct assumption. If you carefully read my earlier
> posts (pun intended), you may have nevertheless noted, I've been
> anticipating a day I'd be slapped in the face by a fund family.
> Effectively, I could write the whole damn tribe the same letter; TRP
> just happened to be the first to take note. It's my style, you see,
> Bond Lady. I do trade often within reasonable intent and based on
> prior performance.

Go for it.

I myself commenced Operation "Why the Hell Not Time? It's the 1970s" a
couple of months ago. (Eddy stole my tip, though, and stands to make
millions.)

> > Or /was/ there a warning before they removed all your exchange
privileges?
>
> Of course not. They've absolutely no time for such silliness.

We're in the armed forces now.

> > If not, I'd wager TRP and others are being watched so closely by the
feds, a
> > certain state attorney general with more power than the mafia, etc. that
> > they had no choice. 'cause I'm also betting you have a pile of dough
that
> > TRP wouldn't want to part with so quickly.
>
> Silly, Elle. You just had to bait Eddy, now didn't you.

Eddy hooks himself without my bait.

> Don't try
> two-timing me, though. Pay attention. I've doubled my money a couple
> of years - though, I'm not going to be stupid and say you're stupid. I
> know who you are, Bond Lady. When you've a mind to you're good at it.
> Someday I may need that kind of help - some of my risk-adverse friends
> already do.
>
> > > So what does this mean, folks - I'm now an expatriat for the rest of
my
> > > life in the Land of Capitalism,
>
> > It means you either (1) start again somewhere else, and I'm sure with a
> > clean slate; (2) call 'em up and chat politely about this, for some
> > vindication and/or to get your exchange privileges etc. back.
>
> Again, good, decent points. But you're wasting your time with such
> suggestions for me. I made money the best way I saw fit within rules I
> saw ambiguously defined and enforced.

Are you worried I may look down on your swagger at some point?

You played the game hard, you knew the risks, you faced the consequences.

No big deal.

I don't have a problem with someone doing that which I think much of
corporate America does.

> Now that they are enforced, and
> no more defined,

Come on. You mean you hoped you wouldn't get caught. You did. No big deal.

> what I basically have experience. The onus is on me: I
> play the cards I'm delt.
>
> > Do not become a high maintenance customer. I speak not from personal
> > experience but based on online posts suggesting, man, these companies
will
> > lose customers who are too much of a PITA, particularly when a loss of
> > profit is involved, one way or another. It's only good business to do
so, as
> > well as an obligation to other customers and company stockholders.
>
> Good. There are those that do, as you say, woman, have some modicum of
> inside policy dealings.

No doubt about that. I'd be filthy rich if I dropped my remaining, and
ever-dwindling, care for ethics.

> Nice to lend an informed ear is also my credo
> when they speak. You don't know (and neither do I) what repercussions
> the policy holds, although you are the first to address it.

Don't get me wrong. TRP is serious. You got form letter XXXX. Porn doesn't
get this obscene.

Prepare to beg.

Re: Who needs TRP

Elle wrote:
> I don't talk innuendo. I'm sure you know the same basic tax maneuvers I do.

Wrong assumption, Ellie. Just going on guts here. Money and more
money is what drives me. If I wanted to learn more about taxes, I
would. It could become more of an option, although it's not one I'm
looking forward. One of my ideals is that, given sufficent proficiency
for trading - I stay concentraded where I like to be, and hand over the
rest to someone else. The IRS came after me last year when they saw
what I was up to. I handed that mess over to H&R Block to straighten
out. Another lesson learned, don't mess with Mother IRS.

> Now now. Stop those thoughts of suing.That's emotion working, not
> intelligence. Lawsuits are too expensive, so don't even waste your time
> 'hating.'

My motives are for a better understanding and commonality - between
fund houses and the industry - to identify what frequent trader
entails. I can go off first thing in the morn and pull the same thing
with a different fund family without repercussions; I know I've been
doing it for two years. Draw the line. I, for one, wouldn't mind
seeing itl.

> eke?
Old English eacan, to increase.

> Come on. Umbrage? That's a Freudian slip. There was no emotion behind TRP's
> action. Want to bet that a red flag automatically went up on your account,
> and the letter you received was in fact a form letter?

OK- have it your way. They hired a business writer for a 2-nd tier
missive on frequent trading, TR Price then approved as suitable for
spitting out as an automated response event.


> TRP doesn't know you from William Thackeray. All it knows is the rules were
> busted, maybe intentionally, maybe not. Send letter.

Thanks, I'd as soon do it without them. Just a idealistic whim of
mine - perhaps better to serve me next time I'm jumping up and down on
another fund's toes.


> Go for it.
>
> I myself commenced Operation "Why the Hell Not Time? It's the 1970s" a
> couple of months ago. (Eddy stole my tip, though, and stands to make
> millions.)

I try to get over there sometime - retirement/investment usegroup.
Looks good.

> Are you worried I may look down on your swagger at some point?

I know better than that. The only sure long term bet is going to be
death.

> Come on. You mean you hoped you wouldn't get caught. You did. No big deal.

No I *wondered* when I would get caught. It has to be something - I
have to learn to adapt. What I hope is to adapt in a lucrative manner.

> Prepare to beg.

If it comes to that, think I've got an idea of who to beg from over in
alt.investment planning for how-to-pull 6+% bonds.

Re: Who needs TRP

Hey Flash....Paul McCartney is doing Fidelity ads NOT T. Rowe Price.

"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
> Jesus Christo - All I basically did was bail on substantial long
> holdings I held in PRLAX when that banana boat started sinking. I've
> made ONE and only ONE recent excursion to try and make up sector losses
> with another play, but took a bath on that - PRASX - an admitted short
> sell. Everything else, and I've owned several of their funds over the
> years, has been consistant with TRP tranding. Evidently, they are not
> giving me ANY leeway regarding last months downturn over the two measly
> TRP funds I did own, and this sort of treatment is nothing short of
> bullshit. No wonder they need Paul McCartney in their advertising
> deptartment to make up for a lost presence in the financial world.
> Poor guy must be daft by now to not realize what bandwagon he's getting
> up on.
>
> So what does this mean, folks - I'm now an expatriat for the rest of my
> life in the Land of Capitolism, as far as those high-handed TRP sons of
> bitches are concerned?
>
> [Missive included below.]
>
> Regarding your account,
>
> You have been identified by T Rowe Price for having violated the funds
> excessive trading policy, which is commonly referred to as market
> timing or short-term trading. As stated in the fund's prospectus, the
> fund company reserves the right to restrict exchanges and purchases
> that they feel are not in the best interest of the fund or the majority
> of its shareholders.
>
> T Rowe Price takes this issue of short-term trading very seriously.
> Therefore, since excessive
> trading could be detrimental to the funds performance, the fund company
> has placed a stop purchase on your account and has removed all exchange
> privileges. You may either leave your investment in your current fund
> or redeem it.
>

Re: Who needs TRP

TERRY LEDFORD wrote:
> Hey Flash....Paul McCartney is doing Fidelity ads NOT T. Rowe Price.


Right-o.

.. . .with Fidelity ... they recently launched the Music Lives
Foundation (a school music charity). . . .plus Fidelity is sponsoring
Paul McCartney's current US tour.

.. . .some time since Fidelity used a celebrity. . . Ads over the past 5
years tended to feature everyday people, but this . . . McCartney still
holds a special place in many Baby Boomer hearts.

Re: Who needs TRP

TERRY LEDFORD wrote:
> Hey Flash....Paul McCartney is doing Fidelity ads NOT T. Rowe Price.

(=A9 2005 Globe Newspaper Company, September 8, 2005) Biz as usual and
the show must go on - They're out to redefine muckracketeering:

Other marketers say the timing couldn't be better for Fidelity, which
has come under scrutiny in recent months by federal securities
regulators who are considering a civil charge against the fund company
stemming from allegations that its traders accepted lavish gifts and
entertainment from brokers who did business with the company.

Meanwhile, a criminal investigation by the US attorney's office is
focusing on whether brokers from other firms offered drugs or
prostitutes to Fidelity traders as a reward for getting the firm's
business.