Author Topic: Fidelity's Site - Ugliest Brokerage Site Ever?  (Read 3686 times)

avid investor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
Fidelity's Site - Ugliest Brokerage Site Ever?
« on: December 12, 2014, 08:55:56 AM »
So, I logged in today to see the status of my account.  Not quite so cut-and-dry as I had funded the account with more money before we knew about the 350 share limit (much less the 250 we all got), and I bought some more shares at the opening price.  So, all of the cash still shows on the Positions page., they don't update it until it settles.  The page is also hard to interpret, even with these few holdings.  Had to click all over the place to see balances, history, etc.  Thinking I'll be transferring these shares out pronto.

core

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1790
  • Your loss is my gain
    • View Profile
Re: Fidelity's Site - Ugliest Brokerage Site Ever?
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2014, 09:10:47 AM »
Yay, another dump on somebody thread.  I like these!  Though such a "such a needless expenditure of negative energy", avid.  (Sound familiar? )

I can tolerate a site which is ugly and difficult to use as long as it works.  But yesterday as we all found out the hard way, it does not.  I know several people who lost $600+ because Fidelity's site wasn't accepting their orders.  That is not acceptable.  This isn't Fidelity's first rodeo so you can't blame it on an IPO... How is it that the site was allowed to continue operating like this for God knows how long?

avid investor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
Re: Fidelity's Site - Ugliest Brokerage Site Ever?
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2014, 09:27:50 AM »
Yay, another dump on somebody thread.  I like these!  Though such a "such a needless expenditure of negative energy", avid.  (Sound familiar? )

I can tolerate a site which is ugly and difficult to use as long as it works.  But yesterday as we all found out the hard way, it does not.  I know several people who lost $600+ because Fidelity's site wasn't accepting their orders.  That is not acceptable.  This isn't Fidelity's first rodeo so you can't blame it on an IPO... How is it that the site was allowed to continue operating like this for God knows how long?
The difference, dear Core, is that I didn't choose Fidelity.  LC did.  You choose to continue to use LC for investing your hard earned (?) cash, while b'ing about them so much.  :)  Smile Core.  Not dumping on you.  Just pointing out that yes, I too criticize that which I don't like, but don't hang there when I don't like it.  Occupational hazard when you're a software developer.  You can't stand a UI that isn't intuitive, doesn't work well, or presents inaccurate information.

rawraw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2795
    • View Profile
Re: Fidelity's Site - Ugliest Brokerage Site Ever?
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2014, 10:16:51 AM »
Yay, another dump on somebody thread.  I like these!  Though such a "such a needless expenditure of negative energy", avid.  (Sound familiar? )

I can tolerate a site which is ugly and difficult to use as long as it works.  But yesterday as we all found out the hard way, it does not.  I know several people who lost $600+ because Fidelity's site wasn't accepting their orders.  That is not acceptable.  This isn't Fidelity's first rodeo so you can't blame it on an IPO... How is it that the site was allowed to continue operating like this for God knows how long?
Well it was accepting orders for specific share amounts, just not total.  That limitation may be documented somewhere in their FAQ section

core

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1790
  • Your loss is my gain
    • View Profile
Re: Fidelity's Site - Ugliest Brokerage Site Ever?
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2014, 10:27:08 AM »
Well it was accepting orders for specific share amounts, just not total.  That limitation may be documented somewhere in their FAQ section

I never attempted used the "sell all" option like some others did.  I still had some issues.  And we both had problems modifying open orders.  If modifying an order doesn't work they shouldn't have that option there, causing me to sit there trying it over and over like an idiot.  I am surprised their customers put up with that; I mean isn't modifying an open order a common event around there?  Perhaps not.  Perhaps Fidelity caters to those who have a large balance but hardly ever trade, and when they do make a trade they want to pick up the damn phone because by God somebody better talk to me if I've got money there.

Avid- I was just giving you a hard time.  And thank you for carefully putting a "(?)" in "hard earned (?) cash".  I assure you it wasn't hard, nor was it earned.  Maybe "effortlessly confiscated" would be more appropriate.

rawraw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2795
    • View Profile
Re: Fidelity's Site - Ugliest Brokerage Site Ever?
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2014, 10:29:40 AM »
Oh okay,  and yes modifying the open order was glitchy.  I don't trade often (normally buy and hold), so I don't really have a frame of reference for where they rank

bobeubanks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
Re: Fidelity's Site - Ugliest Brokerage Site Ever?
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2014, 11:02:05 AM »
How is it that the site was allowed to continue operating like this for God knows how long?

I would guess that the vast majority of Fidelity's customers are not Fidelity customers by choice. I'm a Fidelity customer because two of my previous employers made the choice (presumably in their interest) to use Fidelity for their 401(k) manager. Now that I'm no longer with those companies, I've moved some of that money out to IRAs but I'm still reluctantly their customer due to some institutional investment options available are still better than what I could get as an individual even at a company like Vanguard. Every year though those good options get a little less attractive. While I was still at my last employer, they decided to cut down on the number of investment options and the options they removed were all Vanguard funds. They told us to trust them that we were better off with the mysterious Blackrock managed funds which included "hedge" portions which only priced quarterly and had zero disclosure as to the holdings.