suckage of Vanguard's web site?

[MJ]

For a 1st rate funds company, they have a 3rd 2nd rate internet system.

1) They are the ONLY company I have that would NOT let me access my account at a public internet cafe in Thailand. Their excuse reason was to protect me. I guess the US Gov (EFT estimate transfers), and a dozen other financial institutions including TD Ameritrade, Fidelity etc. I use, don't have my best interest at heart since, I can access my accounts via the same internet cafes.

2) This September (only 8 months after the year closed) I tried to access my 2006 1099s and the online message read I didn't have any 1099s. The message should have read " to save you money, we purge our system of your unnecessary 1099s even though the 2006 tax year isn't over yet or call your CS rep for further inquiry. I had an extention good until Oct 15.

If it didn't hurt me financially, I would liquidate my funds and transfer them elsewhere. This time I will have my new laptop in Thailand.

MJ

[twaddle]

Vanguard does seem a little on the conservative side. That's why I like 'em.

TDAmeritrade, OTOH, will be losing my account as soon as I decide where I want to transfer it:

Customers: TD Ameritrade failed to warn of breach

BTW, you should be able to transfer your Vanguard assets in-kind with no liquidation necessary.

[chinaco]

I think the original post title could probably be change..

Instead of: suckage of VG site.

It could have been labeled: My preference [name the reason... hobby, whatever] of L* has put me outside of the mainstream on desktops and that site does not accommodate my choices.

It's your choice! I suspect that their IT dept will only test mainstream config combos.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco It could have been labeled: My preference [name the reason... hobby, whatever] of L* has put me outside of the mainstream on desktops and that site does not accommodate my choices. It's your choice! I suspect that their IT dept will only test mainstream config combos.

chinaco, I'd like to phrase that in a more technically correct way.

No one needs to asks a web developer to 'support' a Mac, XP, Vista, or Linux, or any specific browser. Web site developers should put up web sites that comply with the published standards. If they do that, then any of us can go complain to our browser or OS maker to fix their product if it does not display a standards compliant web page correctly.

If the web page is not standards compliant, we should complain to the web page developer.

IE is poor in this regard - but developers have coded for it's mistakes because of it's popularity. But that is dwindling, firefox and others are gaining.


FireFox, Safari, Camino, Opera, Sea Monkey all have much more 'green' than IE in this chart:

Comparison of web browsers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-ERD50

[figner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco It could have been labeled: My preference [name the reason... hobby, whatever] of L* has put me outside of the mainstream on desktops and that site does not accommodate my choices.

Actually, it turned out that none of the issues were related to my choice of Linux. The first one was "user error" , while the second one was what I think is a non-intuitive account application process on Vanguard's site.

Can I change the thread title after the fact? At least I included a question mark...

And yes, it would be nice if more web sites were standards-compliant! I submit feedback for the ones I use, but am not holding my breath waiting for change.