No. of Recommendations: 10
I can't help but wonder why everyone is so upset because BuyandHold upped their prices. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Everyone on here is acting like BuyandHold and The Motley Fool owe them something. To me, 2.99 per trade was pretty damn cheap. 6.99 a month to me is not that big of a deal. And if it is a big deal to you, I would suggest you take your money and go elsewhere rather than come on here and whine.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
There is no other brokerage firm that charges a monthly fee for doing nothing!

60 days of nothing and you may be charged, but not 30.

Buy and Hold appealed to people who invest around $50-$100 a month. And bought maybe every other month. Once Buy and Fold found out this wasn't putting bread on the table they came up with this "hair-brained" idea of a 30 day inactivity fee. I don't need to be told to invest my every month or else. I will invest when I choose.

As I have said before, an increase to $6.99 to trade with an inactivity fee of $2.99 for not doing anything for 60 days, then I would be staying. Since I typically trade every other month. But I WILL not pay $13.98 a trade and not have it be "real-time" I will go elsewhere and do some real trading at $12 or less.

We (people who invest less then $100 a month, such as children) are a little peturbed about the bait and switch that Bait and Switch pulled on us.

T

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
A lot of internet companies over-estimated what they could do. I used to have a free 800-number voice mail box, but the company that provided it had to start charging. I used to have a free no-minimum checking account from X.com (which also had no-minimum mutual funds), but they closed all the accounts without warning when they noticed there was no way to make a profit. I suspect BuyandHold exec's thought "let's start an internet brokerage, make it look attractive, do an IPO and make lots of money." It's turning out to be more difficult than they expected. The same has happened to a lot of dot-coms.

Is it fair to call this bait and switch? I'm sure they imagined their original business model would pay its own way.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
Whoah..wait just a minute. I understand completely that BuyandHold was a bargain at $2.99/trade. However, they were targeting the SMALL invester and encouraging buying small amounts of stocks regularly with very low charges..and encouraging those with DRPS to transfer their shares to buyandhold for bookkeeping purposes, charging little or nothing for the service. Just let us tap your checking account for a certain amount every month and buy and hold and fool on. When you abruptly change that whole scheme, with no warning at all..you anger people. This is a board to come to and express your views...so if you don't like our expressions of disappointment over a good deal gone sour...you go some place else and quit whining....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
azriel says:
I used to have a free 800-number voice mail box, but the company that provided it had to start charging. I used to have a free no-minimum checking account from X.com (which also had no-minimum mutual funds)



I would like to first say the comparison is not the same. These were free and you didn't have to PAY to leave. I also had a X.com account and they gave me 78 days notice and the money I didn't get transfered out in time was sent to me automatically and they never charged me a penny!

Now I do aggree that buyandhold.com probably can't stay in business they way things were going but all they had to do what is meet us in the middle and come up with a better fee structure that didn't include a monthly fee for no trades.

Look at this way, if my account is inactive for 6 months how much did it cost buyandhold.com? They made no trades for me. All of the record keeping was electronic. I had no reason to contact any of their reps. So the only expense I see is keeping the systems running and this doesn't relate to 6.99/month. I even would agree to only get acount updates every three months if that is costing them very much money.

I think it is the active traders that is costing them the most money but as usual we will all have to pay the price.

Rick
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
CMangano wrote: "rather than come on here and whine"

Oh come on - the "right to whining" is an American right, in the constitution in the same amendment as the "right to privacy" (really!).
One poster in particular puts up about a dozen a day, even though he also said he ALREADY has totally closed his account and logically should no longer what is posted here.

"Everyone on here is acting like BuyandHold and The Motley Fool owe them something"

If by this you think (as many on this board do) that The Fool somehow endorses/owns/etc B&H, wrong - B&H is just a paid advertiser (and clearly there are not enough of those, given the layoffs and slashed content). If by this you are referring to people complaining about the Fool cutbacks (and their new tendancy to charge for lots of things, and pimp those products in the few columns remaining), then I for one am guilty as charged (I posted several comments exercising my right to whine about the fact I am now only recieving tons of free content rather than tons and tons like before - hell, I'm getting ashamed as I write this!). At a mimimum, it sure put some life in this board (although, if this puts a strain on the Fool to provide so much free board space, this could be an ugly downward spiral;)).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
SJsDad -
- hell, I'm getting ashamed as I write this

LOL - Great post!

Kevin
(Dripfool2) fellow Whiner!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
CMangano ansked: why is everyone so upset because B&H upped their prices?


I'll tell you why I'm angry: I transferred positions in 23 DRIP stocks to B&H to take advantage of being able to buy when prices fell. The transfer process was not pleasant! It took over 3 months, countless phone calls and emails to get all the stocks into my B&H account. In some cases the problems were caused by the DRIP transfer agents but in many cases the problems were caused by B&H (e.g. they kept losing the certificate deposit forms I sent them). I was grandfathered out of the original monthly inactivity fee but it really didn't matter as I typically made 2 - 4 buys per month with an occassional sell. I stayed on the pay per trade fee stucture because I am nearing retirement and anticipate greatly reducing further buys; just letting shares accumulate through the free dividend reinvestment.

Now I feel like this has been a big bait and switch scheme. I have no objection to higher per trade fee of $6.99 but I am quite angry about not remaining grandfathered out of the inactivity fee (or call it what you will).

It would be very difficult (and costly) to transfer shares back to the many different DRIP transfer agents to accomplish free dividend reinvestment. As a percentage of my monthly reinvested dividend income, the $6.99 represents an exhorbitant rate. In short, I'm screwed and I'm pissed about it.

I haven't decided what my next move will be. I guess I should wait until I'm calmer before I make a decision.

Dave
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
T and Others,

>Buy and Hold appealed to people who invest around $50-$100 a month. And bought maybe every other month.<

If one claims to be "Foolish" using Buy and Hold for $50 to $100 investments wasn't a good move either. The "Motley Fool Investment Workbook" has a great example of how fees/commisions eat up investment gains (page 56). TMF also urges "small" (all) investors to limit entry fees/commissions to 2%.

A $2.99 fee for a $50 buy comes to a whopping 6%. For a $100 buy, it would still be 3% up front.

The point is, a person who is investing in small amounts would be better served in a no fee DRIP.

In my case, I was (am) investing in about a half dozen no fee DRIPS and opened a Buy and Hold account in order to buy those stock not available in a DRIP with no fee. The result was that my Buy and Hold account sat dormant a good part of the time.

The change in fee structure forced my hand in a couple of ways.

1) It now makes much more sense for me to transfer my DRIPS to my Buy and Hold account. If I'm paying the fee anyway to have the account.

2) The new fee structure MOTIVATES me to MAKE SURE that I invest monthly in such a way that my fees stay below 2%, roughly $350 a month minimum.

Instead of seeing the downside of the new price structure. Perhaps true "Fools" would be better served to *FIND *A *WAY to make it work for them.

Outside of a no fee DRIP. Buy and Hold is still the best game in town for the "small" investor.

I'm staying put.

Mac







Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Mac - "A $2.99 fee for a $50 buy comes to a whopping 6%. For a $100 buy, it would still be 3% up front."

Yeah, that is why we said putting in $50 - $100 a month. And then I buy when I have $150 (2%) which is every other month or so.

So GEE I guess I meet all the Foolish criteria.

I didn't need motivation, I put in at least $100 a month, and bought when it was over $150. But even if I did buy with $100 the fee is only 3%, big deal.

If I followed the Motley Fool way to a "T":

1) I have credit card debt, and I am investing. Eeek!
2) I buy Lottery tickets about once a week or so. Uh-Oh!
3) I max out my 401(k) but it isn't all in a S&P 500 fund. Tsk. Tsk.

Sharebuilder is the best game in town for the "small" investor.

So in closing, I agree with somethings that the Fool says but I think there are exceptions. My CC debt will be paid off in 10 months and it is at 2.99%. I can do better then that in the market and I have for the past year...

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Instead of seeing the downside of the new price structure. Perhaps true "Fools" would be better served to *FIND *A *WAY
to make it work for them.

Outside of a no fee DRIP. Buy and Hold is still the best game in town for the "small" investor.

I'm staying put.

Mac


Think smaller, Mac. It appears that this may come as a shock to a lot of people, but a lot of us do not have the ability to invest $350.00 every month....or any month, for that matter. All true "Fools" do not have that kind of income to invest, so it is difficult to *FIND *A *WAY to make it work for them. I'm sure you all do not mean to sound arrogant, but to those of us without that $$$ finding an upside to the new price structure is impossible, and investing in nothing except no fee DRIPs is unacceptable, too. It can be done, it just has to be done elsewhere.

Nola
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Nola,

>It appears that this may come as a shock to a lot of people, but a lot >of us do not have the ability to invest $350.00 every month....or any >month, for that matter.

Nope, no shock. But I've heard this before. I told my kids (ages 20,16,14) that putting money aside for the future is so important, that I felt they should do it even if they had to work a few extra hours a week at a part time job to find the money.

My oldest (at age twenty) has done exactly that. Local fast food restaurants are crying for people. My son works every Saturday and Sunday morning from 5am to 9am (in addition to his "day job")and gets about 7 bucks an hour. His friends are rarely moving before 9am anyway and he still makes it to church on sunday. Granted, he doesn't have a house full of kids. But he makes the $2000 contribution to an IRA annually by working 8 hours a week that don't interfere with his life much (although staying out late doesn't work too well).


I had the same argument with a cousin who works as an hourly employee in a warehouse (doesn't make much) after I told him he should put at least $1000 a year (about $20 a week) in an IRA. He said there was no way he could do that. He does however find the money for a pack of cigarettes a day and a case of beer a week (check the prices next time you are at the store and do the math). It's his choice, but it is that choice rather than the ability to invest that prevents him from doing it.

>I'm sure you all do not mean to sound arrogant,

Arrogant? Hardly. But I drive a 1984 Ford Pickup(no car payment)and use the money I could be spending on a new one to invest.

I found a way.

Additionally I don't smoke (in my cousins case that would save him about $100 a month conservatively).

I "invest" more in BUD stock, than I "spend" on consuming cans of Bud (my cousin drives the price up for me).

>investing in nothing except no fee DRIPs is unacceptable, too.<

Why?

> It can be done, it just has to be done elsewhere.<

Where?

Mac
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nope, no shock. But I've heard this before. I told my kids (ages 20,16,14) that putting money aside for the future is so important, that I felt they should do it even if they had to work a few extra hours a week at a part time job to find the money.

My oldest (at age twenty) has done exactly that. Local fast food restaurants are crying for people. My son works every Saturday and Sunday morning from 5am to 9am (in addition to his "day job")and gets about 7 bucks an hour. His friends are rarely moving before 9am anyway and he still makes it to church on sunday. Granted, he doesn't have a house full of kids. But he makes the $2000 contribution to an IRA annually by working 8 hours a week that don't interfere with his life much (although staying out late doesn't work too well).


I had the same argument with a cousin who works as an hourly employee in a warehouse (doesn't make much) after I told him he should put at least $1000 a year (about $20 a week) in an IRA. He said there was no way he could do that. He does however find the money for a pack of cigarettes a day and a case of beer a week (check the prices next time you are at the store and do the math). It's his choice, but it is that choice rather than the ability to invest that prevents him from doing it.

Hi Mac,
I just read your post, and wanted to comment on young people and investing. There are several issues at play, one is that not enough parents talk or teach about the importance of saving more or less investing - In addition, some of them don't even set/show a good example. Second, they don't teach it in school (until possibly college)So, not having any knowledge of the importance of saving or the magic of compunding interest or the stock market, how could they be expected to be willing to 'work' and possibly give uo some of their other vices in order to have money to invest? They need exposure to this knoweldge in order to have the incentive to make that 'choice'. I would love to see a child be interested in the stock market, but than again your are only a kid once, and a kid has a very limited income (starting will a small allowance and then moving up to a part time and then a full time job) that they would probably be more happy to spend going out to the movies, the prom, concerts and all of the other things kids do...and then of course they want a car - their income is limited and their wants are great, and unfrotuanlty most of the time saving to invest would be last on thier list - there is to many 'immediate needs' they see that 'need' to be fullfilled. I would never fault a kid for saying I'm going to spend that yearly ira money on dates and fun times with friends, remember kids have time on their hands, yes they would be way ahead of the bar by starting so young, but let them be kids too. They have plently of time to think about all of this stuff.
First and foremost they need to learn how to manage their money and save before investing. If they have a part time job, let them spend their money on a car and gas and insurance, there is only so much time on can see the world with innocence let them have it while they can.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hi Mac,

I don't disagree with the point you've made about teaching your children to invest. I opened the accounts with the hope that even some of the kids and grandkids would take up the banner and begin investing for themselves. Some of them have. By the time I knew anything about investing, or had the capability to do so, however, my four children were past my having a lot of sway over what they determine they are doing with their lives, and some had dug their hole so deep, I'm not certain they'll ever dig back out. When something happens to me, I certainly do not want my estate dumped into their laps without any direction at all....not that it will be that large of an estate, but more than they are accustomed to dealing with. So, part of it will be invested--which will not be so easily dealt with. This is especially true if they don't learn anything about stocks and investing before then. Also, I wanted to bypass the children so that I would know the grandchildren would benefit from what I had. I can't necessarily count on them having anything passed down to them from their parents in some of the cases.

I know what you mean about the car payments. I drove a 1973 Pontiac for over 20 years..the only new car I have ever owned. I've been driving a l990 Ford MiniVan since then, and probably will until it dies. I don't like car payments, in fact I resent the mortgage on the house! Had it paid off once, but had to mortgage it again to get funds for repairs.

It can be done, it just has to be done elsewhere.

Where?


I'm moving the accounts to Firstrade. At this point I think their game plan is one we can deal with. At least there isn't a monthly fee at present. We'll see how it works.

Nola
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement