Hey, the following complaint and my response were posted to the WWWBoard at my Internet Fund page. I'll put it up here too, so some of you could give feedback on your experiences with WWWFX. Or if you want to post to my board, go to netconductor.com
Posted BySusan on January 25, 1999 at 03:28:32:
>I am a shareholder in The Internet Fund. I am surprised at the inaccuracies >I have read here tonight. Apparently you have zero tolerance, except of >course for the money you're making through your investment in TIF. Their >phone number was never disconnected. They accept wire transfers.
>Apparently you like to feel "in the know" without actually knowing. Are you >sure this is The Internet Fan Club?
>Or are you just trying to gain some notoriety through assoication with TIF? >Of course, I do understand how it works, the top dog always has some other >dog biting at his tail...but how can you blame them,,,look at the view.
Dear Susan,
Obviously my site has struck a raw nerve in you, as reflected in your unwarranted attacks on me. You refer to the "inaccuracies" of my page yet give brief, feeble examples. You will need to elaborate further before I can address such "inaccuracies". You only mention: 1) their phone was not disconnected and 2) they accept wire transfers.
As for point #1, I assume you are referring to the copy of my email to Dr. Paul Farrell at CBS Marketwatch.com. It is true that the phone was not disconnected. When I wrote that letter, I had attempted over a dozen calls at various times in the day and could not get through. Others informed of the same problem. My email asking for an explanation informed me phone purchase orders had been discontinued. Only later did I realize (when I finally did reach TIF) that the phones were not physically disconnected but merely that *no one could get through*. Big tangible difference there, Susan.
Point #2 - If they accept wire transfers, Susan, why doesn't The *Internet* Fund use the Internet (webpage) to communicate this info to their shareholders (since they were apparently unable to do so via phone).
More importantly, do you realize the costs involved in a wire transfer? My bank notified me it will cost "between $10-$15, depending on where in the U.S. you send the wire". Ten to fifteen dollars. I was trying to invest $200, so that's up to a 7.5% charge. Basically you are saying 1) I should have known, telepathically, that wire transfers were an option AND 2) I should not balk at the fact that this essentially means The Internet Fund is not a no-load fund but in fact a 7.5% load (in this case) fund in disguise. How can that substantial charge not raise the ire of any rational investor?
Lots of money down the drain...
Sixteen days after I mailed out my money order for $200, I get it returned in the mail saying that my order failed because they do not accept money orders. I do not know if it is standard practice for fund companies to refuse money orders, but whatever the case I was surprised and pissed off. It was at that point I made my last purchase, I just gave up and started waving the white flag. I'm not going to dedicate an inordinate amount of my time, money and other resources just to be granted permission to purchase shares. At least I received my money order return intact. TIF failed to change my mailing address on my first request so I've lost mail. They should explicitly mention on their site that they do not accept money orders and that they do accept wire transfers. You may think this is common knowledge but I beg to differ. That is what a FAQ is for.
I admit it is pretty brazen of me to tell the people I call "most incompetent" to look at my site where I blast them. So I've been expecting some hostility in return, perhaps you are linked in some way to these people I criticize. I wonder why you are going to great lengths defending them? When I first bought into the fund, many (if not most) shareholders were acquaintances of those who started the fund. Are you, perchance, one of those folks? Perhaps if you've had to experience the outrages I and many others had to deal with, you would have an inkling as to the anger and frustration we've felt.
On the other hand, I feel a bit guilty for calling them incompetent since I've seen recent articles profiling these people. An elderly former school superintendent, family and friends doing their business out of somebody's house.
They have finally expanded telephone capacity to handle call loads. But when I finally got through, I requested my account status. The man (don't know his name, had strong NY accent) took my name and number down and said he would return my call. He never responded. Another sign of incompetence. Pissed off, I called again and fortunately, this time, a lady named Kitty gave me a fairly quick and detailed reponse.
I've sent several letters via various channels contacting them about my page. I requested feedback, *corrections*, and asked if I could email Ryan Jacob a 15-question brief interview for him to return at his earliest convenience. All correspondence met with no response whatsoever. If there were glaring errors with my page, Susan, why don't you tell them to confront me about it instead of having them ignore my letters?
Yes, the name of my page is The Internet Fund Club, despite the fact that it may seem to be a misnomer to you. You seem to think I have the obligation to praise this fund. I could bury my sand about the absolutely horrible customer service experiences involved with TIF, but most rational observers would note this would be a major ethical transgression.
I have received nearly 100 hundred emails, bulleting boards and forum responses, calls from journalists, etc. But your letter, clearly, is the only filled with vitriol. Please respond with apropos facts to put a little substance behind the sound and fury of your diatribe.
You are very selective in your attacks - pointing out what little criticism of the fund I have on my page but neglecting to comment on the other 95% of the site, which compares the funds, provides news articles, and gives links to further information. Does the rest of the site (the most important parts) also raise your ire, Susan?
Perhaps you would care to address these points, Susan:
1) Why Morningstar went out of their way to provide WWWFX data, despite the fact TIF dragged their feet in providing basic information 2) Long turnaround time via glacially slow snail mail rather than purchases via phone or email. 3) The fact that for approximately two weeks, you could not contact them by phone. 4) Why an Internet Fund would have a website but not use it to communicate with their shareholders and prospective customers? Only very recently was there even a FAQ posted. And I also refer you to Dr. Farrell's article regarding this and various other outrageous shortcomings of the fund. Now, will you please address these facts?
If you would care to argue about the page by the merits of the contents, I encourage you to do so. If you are going to make a sophomoric attacks, in
the vein of your "top dogs" comment, please take your crap elsewhere.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
George |
