BRIAN5000 wrote:If you switch it threatens you that you will lose all online information so when I get around to it I will try it.
Do you really mean all online information, or just statements, trade confirmations and the like? Why would one lose online trading ability, holdings, portfolio reviews, etc.?
All online statements etc.
This information is believed to be from reliable sources but may include rumor and speculation. Accuracy is not guaranteed
Has anyone managed to have this fee removed? Is it on all your accounts? Strangely, the $2 fee is applied to my RIF account, but not to my TFSA or margin accounts. I'm reluctant to speak to them about removing the fee in case I end up with all my accounts being charged.
When this fee was first introduced I learned on this forum that TDDI would waive it for seniors. Since you have a RIF, I'm assuming you're a senior so that should work. At the time I told a senior relative of mine about that and they waived it for them just by asking. I would call them and ask "I understand they waive for seniors, is that right?" And take it from there.
When this fee was first introduced I learned on this forum that TDDI would waive it for seniors. Since you have a RIF, I'm assuming you're a senior so that should work. At the time I told a senior relative of mine about that and they waived it for them just by asking. I would call them and ask "I understand they waive for seniors, is that right?" And take it from there.
Shhh now, don't tell AltaRed or your friend will be paying fees in a whistle.
IdOp wrote:When this fee was first introduced I learned on this forum that TDDI would waive it for seniors...
Shhh now, don't tell AltaRed or your friend will be paying fees in a whistle.
I resent TD's implication that seniors have some sort of disability that prevents them from using the Internet. Clearly this is a form of discrimination. Perhaps this is even a human rights issue that demands intervention by the authorities?
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
Shine wrote:Shhh now, don't tell AltaRed or your friend will be paying fees in a whistle.
I don't have as strong a stand on this issue....for now....EXCEPT.....I, like Bylo, do not know what makes a 65 year old incapable of using the internet so the age point is discriminatory.
However, there are people who cannot afford to access the Internet, or are too senior/old to learn how to use the Internet and thus a concession needs to be made to waive fees on paper statements for such situations. The better condition that some institutions impose is whereby IF one has online access to their accounts, then they clearly can afford to access the Internet and they are capable of accessing the Internet, so paper statement fees should be charged. It really is no more complex than that.
BTW ISTM the banks and telcos went about this the wrong way. If the supposed benefit to them in going paperless is lower costs then instead of charging luddites they should have offered a small credit to those who decided to opted-in. There would have been no need to offer patronizing and discriminating concessions to stereotypical groups.
Even a $1/month credit would have easily covered their costs of paper, processing and postage. (Or in the case of brokers, they could have offered a free trade in every year you were paperless.) And it would have been received better by those who chose to opt-in with less pushback from those who chose not to.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
Of course, but how often do you see the bean counters give discounts or understand human behaviour? Heaven forbid, both revenue and expense drop. Can't have that.
AltaRed wrote:The better condition that some institutions impose is whereby IF one has online access to their accounts, then they clearly can afford to access the Internet and they are capable of accessing the Internet, so paper statement fees should be charged. It really is no more complex than that.
I have an issue raised to the TD Ombudsman about their inability to go all paperless. AS a loyal President's Account holder for 20 years, I want ALL corporate action notices to be sent paperless, and, since they are incapable of that, at least to call my VOIP line with the contents when they are time critical. Their incompetence on this issue cost me $12k 2 years ago and they assured me that they would call, then this spring, they not only failed to call in another incident but denied that they had any obligation to do so. I asked them when their front-line staff started to lie to customers? This has been going on for 3 months....
I am suggesting that any new discount brokerage customers avoid TDDI because they lie.
AltaRed wrote:Of course, but how often do you see the bean counters give discounts or understand human behaviour? Heaven forbid, both revenue and expense drop. Can't have that.
The banks and telcos do regular (and higher than inflation!) fee increases. Providing they bury the "paperless rebate recovery" fee in one of those so it can't be associated with the original "paperless rebate" no one will be the wiser and their shareholders won't have to suffer
Brokerages may have a bit of a harder time because the $10/trade fee is inviolate on the upside with increasing pressure on the downside. But I'm sure they can find something else to make up for that.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
Bylo Selhi wrote:BTW ISTM the banks and telcos went about this the wrong way. ...Even a $1/month credit would have easily covered their costs of paper, processing and postage.
I dunno about banking, but in the Telco world, that's not even close.
When we did G&A estimates back in the '90s on zero cost/unit cost budgeting, we felt it cost closer to $10 to spit out computer generated paper (including depreciation of equipment, software, programmers, etc) and way more if human intervention was part of the process. Granted our billings were not close to the volume of Telcos/Utilities, but still....
ghariton wrote:I dunno about banking, but in the Telco world, that's not even close.
Could you please break it down approximately. My assumption is that they pay a lot less for postage than do we mere mortals.
Yes, they get incentive rates. You get the best postal rate if you have a high density mailing, sort the mail into postal walk sequence and pack the letters into Canada Post "lettertainers" and cages. This way the mail goes directly to the distribution centers and the carriers simply pick up the bundles and put them into their bag ready to distribute. If the density is not high, you can still get an incentive rate if the mail is prepared so that it is machine readable (so Canada Post's equipment can pack the lettertainers) and you separate out the USA and international mail. I don't remember the exact % savings, but it was at least 10%. Significant savings when you are spending $1M on postage!
Mail preparation including paper, envelopes, printing, folding, inserting, management was about 25 to 30 cents per piece IIRC.
ghariton wrote:I was given data in confidence and can't really reveal much. But in line with what AltaRed says, postage is a very small part of the total cost.
Thanks. I thought that might be the case, i.e. confidentiality. What surprises me is that the cost of production is apparently so high. I'd have thought that production costs would keep dropping thanks to technology while postage would continue to rise due to labour costs.
[I can understand why telcos might not want to share the true cost of providing their $3/month mandatory touch-tone service (probably near-zero these days) but] one would think that these enterprises might be a bit more open about the true cost of sending paper statements in order to better defend themselves from criticism that the $2/month fee is a cash grab.
Insomniac wrote:Canada Post "lettertainers"
When I first read that the term "letter entertainers" evoked an image of postal workers manually sorting mail
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
Has anyone else noticed a small yellow warning sign when you log in to TDW/TDDI/TDCT ?
The "encrypted login" padlock has a yellow warning label on it. Google says that corresponds to: "gray alert Your connection to the site is encrypted, but Google Chrome has detected mixed content on the page. Be careful if you're entering information on this page. Mixed content can provide a loophole for someone to manipulate the page. This content could be third- party images or ads embedded on the page."
I've tried erasing browsing history. Deleted all TD bookmarks and just find it again through Google search. Using the main EasyWeb login button. Using Chrome browser, V. 42.0.2311.90 (which Google says is up to date)
There is a screenshot attached. I don't know anything about the encryption information that Google is referring to unfortunately.
I'm using Pale Moon (a Firefox sibling), it looks OK there.
Attachments
tdw2.jpg (27.42 KiB) Viewed 1723 times
finiki, the Canadian financial wiki
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” [Richard P. Feynman, Nobel prize winner]
I recently switched from IE Explorer to Chrome (42.0.2311.90 m) because the WebBroker site kept trying to refresh. Chrome has eliminated this but I get the grey lock with yellow cautionary triangle as you describe. If you right click on the lock you get the attached description: "The identity of this website has been verified...but it does not have public audit records". I was also getting a message from TD to the effect that streaming quotes may not (will not?) work with Chrome. But that's not a feature I need so I'm not fussed about it. I don't think there is any security issue, it appears related to the note that the site may not work properly with future releases of Chrome.
I'm not seeing anything about mixed content or a caution re/ entering data on the site?
As an aside, be careful when linking to any site that you find using a Google search, that it is genuine and not a fake/phishing link.
Bylo Selhi wrote:[I can understand why telcos might not want to share the true cost of providing their $3/month mandatory touch-tone service (probably near-zero these days) but] one would think that these enterprises might be a bit more open about the true cost of sending paper statements in order to better defend themselves from criticism that the $2/month fee is a cash grab.
The bill preparation process is often outsourced and put up for competitive bids.
Billing systems have long been the Achilles' heel of traditional telcos, with huge amounts of money wasted spent and many people being fired when the systems failed. The problems are usually invisible to customers, but not always. You may remember when Bell Mobility messed up their billing system in the 2000s. The President of Bell Mobility lost his job over that screw-up.
To bring this back on topic, I wonder whether TD is suffering from the same kinds of problems with their systems development.
Last night after 5:30pm BC time did a bill payment from BNS to TDI into TFSA and RRSP. Both TFSA accounts have the money in now and it's only 10:30 am but the RRSP not yet. Maybe have extra people posting TFSA contributions? Now to try to figure out what to buy
This information is believed to be from reliable sources but may include rumor and speculation. Accuracy is not guaranteed
Koogie wrote:site is encrypted, but Google Chrome has detected mixed content on the page.
Often a sign that the site owner is pulling "simple" content (e.g. ads, static text etc) from a server that is not using ssl (https). Some versions of browsers used to show big scary pop-up windows with warnings.
SSL has (or used to have) an encryption overhead which is nominally not required for all of the content.
oxymoronic marketers pitch: "... and make ads more relevant"
qasimodo wrote:SSL has (or used to have) an encryption overhead which is nominally not required for all of the content.
The problem is that an attacker could sneak something into the unencrypted stuff that could give him access to the encrypted stuff. It's very bad practise to do it, and absolutely should not be happening on something so important as a web banking site.
adrian2 wrote:I'm using Pale Moon (a Firefox sibling), it looks OK there.
TDW.JPG
TDW.JPG
Rysto wrote:The problem is that an attacker could sneak something into the unencrypted stuff that could give him access to the encrypted stuff. It's very bad practise to do it, and absolutely should not be happening on something so important as a web banking site.
Well I've downloaded Firefox at the office and am going to use it for online banking from now on. Not my favorite browser but that Caution warning when using Chrome is just freaking me out to much (shades of the PT debacle).
TDW needs to get their sh*t together on that issue. The Chrome browser is used by +/- 50% of the populace damn it !
Koogie wrote:TDW needs to get their sh*t together on that issue. The Chrome browser is used by +/- 50% of the populace damn it !
I've been telling them that for several years now, including links to this and that. All apparently has fallen on deaf ears. Apparently they've been assimilated by the Bill's Borg.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.