Sent to Vanguard after email notice of tax documents:
1) Finding feedback is a bit of a chore.
2) The instructions in your emails do not match what is on the screen when a user signs in to his or her account.
3) I have had more debugging experience than I care to remember. I really don't wish to spend my time debugging third party software.
Or better yet, I tried to send the above to Vanguard. The window for feedback wouldn’t scroll down all the times, including “Submit” if that was an option.
I did discover that I could move to non-visible sections with the tab key.
Hm! I noticed typos in the Notes copy. I wondered if I sent uncorrected text.
Showing posts with label Vanguard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vanguard. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Much alarm about nothing
One of the current online ads is one about you can get over $4,000 more in Social Security every month. Sounds like an offer you can’t refuse!
Supposedly Congress has removed a Social Security Benefit and Obama has approved it. It will be removed on May 16, 2016.
The advertisers make it look like this benefit was removed by a clause snuck in by some anti-Social Security member of Congress.
Actually, it is a loophole that allowed a spouse to defer his or her Social Security while the other collected his or her Social Security. At some later date the deferrer could have a much higher Social Security benefit.
To get $4,000/month more, the person would have had to have a rather high income. I can’t imagine the average worker getting such a benefit.
But these are probably just the people the ads target. Either these “marks” will have to pay an upfront fee or buy a book to find out that they cannot get such a benefit.
I tried checking the Social Security website for “2016 changes”. I got eight hits, but that’s all I could see. No text, no further links. I sent an email, but my guess is that it will be a long time before I get an answer: too many people are asking the same question and overloading the system.
Fortunately, Vanguard published an article written by Jacklin Youssef that explains the changes. See https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/youssef-social-security-022016.
Essentially, by using your spouse’s Social Security benefits and deferring your own until age 70, you can collect 34% more per month. Let’s see, to get $4,000/month more in Social Security, you would have to have deferred a benefit of $11,764.71/month
So, you retire at 67 but defer your benefit until age 70. You would pass up $423,529 dollars to get that extra benefit. It would be over 100 months until you recouped the $423,529 you passed up. You would be over 78 when you broke even on your delay. Are you sure you will live to 78?
It’s late and I don’t want to figure out the interest you would have earned if you had saved that $11,764.71 a month.
However, how many people do you know that receive $11,764.71/month in Social Security? These are not the people who are going to respond to these ads. They probably already have financial smarts or advisors to get the best deal for themselves.
P.S. If you see an ad about this change, I had nothing to do with selecting the ad. It's done automagically based on the content of an entry.
Supposedly Congress has removed a Social Security Benefit and Obama has approved it. It will be removed on May 16, 2016.
The advertisers make it look like this benefit was removed by a clause snuck in by some anti-Social Security member of Congress.
Actually, it is a loophole that allowed a spouse to defer his or her Social Security while the other collected his or her Social Security. At some later date the deferrer could have a much higher Social Security benefit.
To get $4,000/month more, the person would have had to have a rather high income. I can’t imagine the average worker getting such a benefit.
But these are probably just the people the ads target. Either these “marks” will have to pay an upfront fee or buy a book to find out that they cannot get such a benefit.
I tried checking the Social Security website for “2016 changes”. I got eight hits, but that’s all I could see. No text, no further links. I sent an email, but my guess is that it will be a long time before I get an answer: too many people are asking the same question and overloading the system.
Fortunately, Vanguard published an article written by Jacklin Youssef that explains the changes. See https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/youssef-social-security-022016.
Essentially, by using your spouse’s Social Security benefits and deferring your own until age 70, you can collect 34% more per month. Let’s see, to get $4,000/month more in Social Security, you would have to have deferred a benefit of $11,764.71/month
So, you retire at 67 but defer your benefit until age 70. You would pass up $423,529 dollars to get that extra benefit. It would be over 100 months until you recouped the $423,529 you passed up. You would be over 78 when you broke even on your delay. Are you sure you will live to 78?
It’s late and I don’t want to figure out the interest you would have earned if you had saved that $11,764.71 a month.
However, how many people do you know that receive $11,764.71/month in Social Security? These are not the people who are going to respond to these ads. They probably already have financial smarts or advisors to get the best deal for themselves.
P.S. If you see an ad about this change, I had nothing to do with selecting the ad. It's done automagically based on the content of an entry.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Corporate customer service efficiency?
Why do large corporations continue to disprove the myth of the efficiency of the free market?
Last week I sent feedback to Frontier.com because their login box was below the visible part of the opening page. I got back the usual long-winded, formulaic message of "glad to help me" and detailed instructions on how to log in. Doesn't customer service read the messages? If I said that I found the hidden login box, shouldn't they assume I logged in and thank me for my suggestion? I'm almost ready to give up on sending comments to large corporations. I've had far better luck with companies with one or a handful of employees.
Today I found another seemingly badly designed web site. I'm ready to make a Required Minimum Distribution from my Vanguard IRA. I would like to transfer the RMD into my regular Vanguard account. No can do!! If I try to sell from one IRA fund, it will only let me buy into another of my IRA funds, have a check sent, or have a deposit into my checking account.
If I go to the RMD preference page, it let's me check for two different automatic withdrawals or making a withdrawal by other means. See above for the only other means. Don't they want me to keep my money in Vanguard funds?
Maybe the web site is not ready to accept non-automatic RMD transactions for this year. I was able to do it for the past two years. I'll try again in a week or two.
Market economies over time will be more flexible than other economic systems, but those who "worship" market economies should have the humility to admit that market economies can be inefficient and bureaucratic too. After all, like all economies, they are run by people who make misteaks.
Last week I sent feedback to Frontier.com because their login box was below the visible part of the opening page. I got back the usual long-winded, formulaic message of "glad to help me" and detailed instructions on how to log in. Doesn't customer service read the messages? If I said that I found the hidden login box, shouldn't they assume I logged in and thank me for my suggestion? I'm almost ready to give up on sending comments to large corporations. I've had far better luck with companies with one or a handful of employees.
Today I found another seemingly badly designed web site. I'm ready to make a Required Minimum Distribution from my Vanguard IRA. I would like to transfer the RMD into my regular Vanguard account. No can do!! If I try to sell from one IRA fund, it will only let me buy into another of my IRA funds, have a check sent, or have a deposit into my checking account.
If I go to the RMD preference page, it let's me check for two different automatic withdrawals or making a withdrawal by other means. See above for the only other means. Don't they want me to keep my money in Vanguard funds?
Maybe the web site is not ready to accept non-automatic RMD transactions for this year. I was able to do it for the past two years. I'll try again in a week or two.
Market economies over time will be more flexible than other economic systems, but those who "worship" market economies should have the humility to admit that market economies can be inefficient and bureaucratic too. After all, like all economies, they are run by people who make misteaks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)