Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Datek Brokerage $9.95 a trade -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard James who wrote (13828)	12/17/1999 5:08:00 PM
From: Richard James	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16892

The following private message was received in response to yesterday's post of possible embezzlement at Datek. This would seem to indicate that Datek actually gives a fig about customers, but when I called and asked to speak to Mr. Richter in response to his message of concern, he didn't know what I was calling about and would not take the call. <<Friday, Dec 17 1999 1:32PM ET To: Richard James From: Tim Richter Dear Mr. James, I have reviewed your comments on SI and would like the opportunity to research the issue's you've raised. Please e-mail me at support@datek.com and provide your username or account number if you'd like and I will research the matter. Given what you said in your comments, I'm disappointed that we didn't provide you better service. Regards, Tim Richter Senior Vice President, Customer Support Datek Online>>

To: Richard James who wrote (13828)	12/21/1999 4:45:00 PM
From: Richard James	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16892

Datek is concerned with customer's problems. In fairness to Datek, the problem in reaching Tim Richter, a Senior Vice President, resulted from some confusion as to who was calling Tim. More importantly, Tim explained that the reason that a check was not issued was because of a systems planning gliche. Since I the amount of my fund request was the total in my account, and I also requested overnight mail costing $10, my fund request exceeded my balance by $10. Mr. Richter said he would ask that the system be modified so as not to reject such a request but issue a check for the requested amount, less the cost of overnight mail, on future requests. Mr. Richter thanked me for bringing this systems problem to his attention. Mr. Richter also apologized for the fact that the system is not currently configured to send a letter advising a customer why their fund request cannot be honored, when the system automatically rejects one under these circumstances. Currently, the system only displays a message regarding the fund request for a day or two on the Datek web site. Mr. Richter advised that he will investigate modifying the system so that any requests rejected by the computer are reviewed by an individual and, if necessary, the customer is notified of any problem with fund requests. Had an individual reviewed the request,as the computer will now be programmed, a check would have issued for the requested amount less the $10 fee. It was unfortunate that when I called Datek about the problem, three weeks after hearing nothing about the fund request, that a check was not then sent out as promised. I subscribe this to a simple mistake. Having had a very pleasant discussion with Mr. Richter, I have no reason to think there is any problem with embezzlement at Datek. BTW, this post was unsolicited by Datek. It has its problems, but it does not appear that embezzlement or commingling of funds is one of them.