PDA

View Full Version : Direct Broking - fee increase



rmbbrave
01-02-2007, 08:04 PM
I just got this email from Direct Broking.

Which is th cheapest online broker now?

---------------------------------------------------------
We would like to advise a slight brokerage rate adjustment effective Wednesday 7 February 2007.

The rate affected is the DIY Call Account Internet Rate.

The current rate is:

New Zealand Trade Value up to NZ$25,000, brokerage of NZ $29.90

Balance of trade value over NZ$25,000 0.20%

The new rate will be:

New Zealand Trade Value up to NZ$15,000, brokerage of NZ $29.90
Balance of trade value over NZ$15,000 0.20%

Please note: All orders (partial and full) placed into the markets provided by NZX prior to Wednesday 7 February 2007 will attract the current brokerage rate. All new orders and modifications to old orders placed into the markets provided by NZX on or after Wednesday 7 February 2007 will attract the new rate.


All other rates remain the same. If you have any questions in regards to this adjustment please feel free to call our Faster Dealers on 0800 805 777


Kind regards


Nigel Wynn
Managing Director
------------------------------------------------------

rmbbrave
01-02-2007, 08:09 PM
This what ASB charges

http://www.asbsecurities.co.nz/section871.asp?

Brokerage rates - online share trading services

0.3% with a minimum of NZ$30(includes the NZX Trade fee of $4.50 incl.GST) per trade

Toddy
01-02-2007, 09:07 PM
Rmbbrave

So, before a $25k trade was $29.90
Now a 25k trade is $49.90

I guess that this is the ANZ Bank influence coming on board.

I'll call them tomorrow and ask them to explain why they are now trying to screw a long term customer.

exposed
01-02-2007, 09:27 PM
yes all online brokers have increased fees big time,

I WOULD SUGGEST A BROKER IN AUSTRALIA IF YOU TRADE ALOT.

very cheap now compared to nz.

Ttops
01-02-2007, 09:28 PM
Hi rmb
Trades equal cost at $11467 between ASB and Direct. Direct cheaper for bigger trades ASB cheaper for smaller trades.If my maths is correct? Certainly cut back the advantage of being with Direct. A bit rougher on the traders for sure but was expected as you say Toddy once ANZ got involved.

lager
02-02-2007, 11:02 AM
There is not much competition out there. Access Brokerage use to be the only 'competition'.
Good idea for someone to startup another online trading site.

Anyone out there keen?

lager
02-02-2007, 11:05 AM
http://www.traderdealer.com.au/clients/fees.php
AU$33 up to AU$200K per trade.

exposed
02-02-2007, 11:31 AM
So Lager $33 to 200k compared with nz brokers $600 for the same deal

WHY ARE THEY SO MUCH MORE?

beats me other than just ripping you off comes to mind

gisborne_gold
02-02-2007, 11:40 AM
...and TD Ameritrade in the states US$9.99 per trade...and even that's up from the $8 per trade that Ameritrade launched with, before merging with TD Waterhouse.

Bling_Bling
02-02-2007, 11:44 AM
Inflation !

You stingy buggers. My broker charges me 1%.

gisborne_gold
02-02-2007, 11:56 AM
It's about value for service provided.

With automated trading platforms the incremental cost per trade is dramatically reduced from the chalkie days.

I believe the brokers should be pursuing volume with low trade fees to take advantage of their low marginal cost online broking services, not discouraging trading with higher fees.

exposed
02-02-2007, 12:03 PM
Of course the fees are small they would say if you buy once in a blue moon and maybe they are?.

If you going to trade YOU NEED YOUR HEAD READ TO PAY THESE FEES as we all know cost of transactions is a killer in the long run for traders.

zyreon
02-02-2007, 12:34 PM
yeah let's form a co-op online discount broker

"the share trader forum people who though brokerage costs were too high company"

(i would do it if i knew how, and could make profits while undercutting)

Direct Broking
02-02-2007, 12:46 PM
Thank you for your comments in regards to our rate adjustment email.

We appreciate there is some frustration around our terminology ‘slight increase’; however we do believe overall the increase is small.

Let me explain:

By small I refer to we’ve only altered one brokerage rate by bringing the tier down from $25,000 to $15,000

The biggest impact is felt at the $25,000 level, there is no impact on any trades under $15,000

Over 25,000 the percentage reduces with the higher trade value

Naturally before making this decision we have compared ourselves with other market participants and believe our brokerage rates are very competitive.

It may be fair to note too we have not altered our rates since May 2005.

I do have a prepared graph which shows the comparative rates between market particpants, please feel free to email me if you would like a copy - feedback@directbroking.co.nz.

Thank you again

kind regards
Gillian Beresford
Marketing & Communications Manager

Deev8
02-02-2007, 03:36 PM
quote:Originally posted by Direct Broking

We appreciate there is some frustration around our terminology ‘slight increase’; however we do believe overall the increase is small.

Let me explain:

No, let me explain, but without any spin:

NZ$25,000 deal before the slight increase - brokerage of NZ $29.90
NZ$25,000 deal after the slight increase - brokerage of NZ $49.90

A 67% increase in the brokerage fee for a NZ$25,000 deal. That's why a few people had a problem with the phrase ‘slight increase’.

exposed
02-02-2007, 03:58 PM
Well said Deev8

COMPANY SERVICE

Brkge inc GST Trades up to

Amscot Discount Stockbroking HTML & WebIress

$19.80 $22,500
0.09% $100,000,000

Andrew West Stockbroking Andrew West Stockbroking $29.95 $30,000
0.11% $999,999

Avcol Stockbroking Pty Ltd Avcol Stockbroking Pty Ltd $19.80 $10,000
$29.70 $30,000
$62.70 $80,000
0.08%


CommSec Share Trades Internet Preferred*
$19.95 $10,000
$29.95 $25,000
0.12%


CommSec Standard
$29.95 $10,000
0.31%


E*TRADE E*TRADE
$32.95 $30,000
0.11% $999,999






e*TRADE E*TRADE Pro
$32.95 $30,000
0.11% $999,999



E*TRADE Power E*TRADE
$32.95 $30,000
0.11% $999,999


E-Shares Corporation E-Shares Corporation Ltd.
$27.44 $16,600
0.17% $999,999

Easy Street Financial Services EasyBroking
$26.00 $50,000

Goldman Sachs JBWere Goldman Sachs JBWere
$50.00 $6,666
0.75% $15,000
0.65% $50,000
0.60% $999,999




Macquarie Bank Macquarie DirecTrade
$39.95 $25,000
0.16% $100,000




Morrison Securities Pty Limited htmlIRESS
$22 $50,000
$44 $100,000
0.06% $999,999,999

Morrison Securities Pty Limited webIRESS $22 $50,000
$44 $100,000
0.06% $999,999,999


National OnLine Trading NAB OnLine Trading - Casual

$29.95 $27,227
0.11%




National OnLine Trading NAB OnLine Trading - Premium

$29.95 $27,227
0.11%




National OnLine Trading NAB OnLine Trading - Professional

$29.95 $27,227
0.11%





Netwealth Netwealth Share Trading

$17.99 $5,000
$19.95 $10,000
$26.99 $25,000
0.11% $999,999




Quicken QuickBroker
$24.99 $10,000
$31.99 $25,000

Sanford Casual Service
$19.95 $9,999
$29.95 $27,227
0.11% $999,999




Sanford Premium
$19.95 $9,999
$29.95 $27,227
0.11% $999,999









Sanford Professional
$19.95 $9,999
$29.95 $27,227
0.11% $999,999








St. George Bank directshares
$32.95 $30,000
0.11%










Suncorp Suncorp Share Trade
$23.95 $15,000
0.16%
Suncorp Suncorp Share Trade - Standalone
$28.95 $15,000
0.19%
TraderDealer Bourse Data Link
$33.00 $200,000
0.01% $1,000,000
0.03% $999,999,999






TraderDealer WebIress
$33.00 $200,000
0.01% $1,000,000
0.03% $999,999,999






Westpac Broking Westpac Broking Integrated Accounts
$24.95 $25,000
0.11%

Westpac Broking Westpac Broking Standard Accounts
$29.95 $25,000
0.15%


Thinks this sums up a comparison of how our friends in Australia get treated.

So if your a trader you would be far better off dealing with an Australian firm.

stick with the nz firms if you trade very little.

Flying Goat
02-02-2007, 04:22 PM
Hi,

I have been a loyal customer to Direct Broking and have paid them many thousands of dollars over the last couple of years in transaction charges, all the while not burdening them with any interaction that would cause them extra marginal costs.

There was a thread about online brokerages a few months ago where I predicted that since ANZ are took over the reigns the rates will go up for sure. Very dissapointed that this has become reality, as of next week my rates nearly doubled. Call it what you like, but I call it:

BIG AUSTRALIAN BANKS TAKING THE P1SS, AND THE CASH OUT OF NEW ZEALAND

Someone suggested we start our own discount brokerage, the obvious partner would be kiwi bank, but in reality we all know we do not have the scale or ability to even consider it, we will always be at the whims of the big Aussie banks and they know it.

I was also rather peeved at the email (none less becuase I was under the understanding that as per either the Fair Trading Act or the Consumer Guarantees Act, that customers needed a minimum 1 month notice period when in contractual relationships for services).

Anyhow, made my mind up today, bought some shares in ETRADE today and will be opening an account with them as of Monday, seemed like the best solution in conjunction with a kiwibank AUD account.


Bye, bye Direct Broking, it is time for me to take my (around $8,000 per annum worth of) business to ETRADE, as although your service has always been friendly and efficient, the low rates were your point of difference, and you just lost that!

Cheers, FG

Dazza
02-02-2007, 04:38 PM
on a side note

NBNZ system is screwed

once again aft 5pm i cant log on to my account and trade the asx

bugger that

going to oz on monday, hope to open up an etrade account :D

bye bye cheapie nzl rubbish :d

jke_brown
02-02-2007, 04:42 PM
yes E-trade is the way forward. I use ASB to look at depth, E-trade to place orders. I have found ASB always freezes on me if I try to place order in the last 30-40 minutes of trading.

Jackie

Flying Goat
02-02-2007, 04:51 PM
quote:Originally posted by jke_brown

yes E-trade is the way forward. I use ASB to look at depth, E-trade to place orders. I have found ASB always freezes on me if I try to place order in the last 30-40 minutes of trading.

Jackie


Jackie,

Apparently ETRADE has real time depth as well, as opposed to the 20 minute delays experienced with the NZ online platforms, could be handy as when big announcements are made and the feeding frenzy of buying / selling occurs you never really know what happened until after the dust settles, i.e. twenty minutes later!


Cheers, FG

exposed
02-02-2007, 05:03 PM
If ANZ own Direct broking ? and E Trade are owed by ANZ why would you stay with Direct Broking unless you like paying higher fees DUH

Flying Goat
02-02-2007, 05:26 PM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

If ANZ own Direct broking ? and E Trade are owed by ANZ why would you stay with Direct Broking unless you like paying higher fees DUH


Not quite right, ETRADE are listed on the ASX in their own right, I bought shares in them today so at least am actually enjoying some of the profit that results from my transaction fees :D

FG

fish
02-02-2007, 08:24 PM
FG
Since asb increased their fees I have stopped regular trading . Had been thinking of changing to Direct but this fee increase again makes trading prohibitive .
Would appreciate if you could spell out exactly how you work through your new broker-do they allow internet trades on nzx in real time as with direct broking? How do you get money from aussie back here and vv etc ?

warthog
02-02-2007, 09:13 PM
The hog is seriously considering ASX transactions only in the future due to the serious lack of competition in the local broking market.

Flying Goat
03-02-2007, 10:32 AM
quote:Originally posted by fish

FG
Since asb increased their fees I have stopped regular trading . Had been thinking of changing to Direct but this fee increase again makes trading prohibitive .
Would appreciate if you could spell out exactly how you work through your new broker-do they allow internet trades on nzx in real time as with direct broking? How do you get money from aussie back here and vv etc ?


Hi Fish,

Have not started using ETRADE yet, plan to sign up on Monday but from what I understand the process is as follows: set up ETRADE account, set up kiwibank AUD account as your nominated account (from which you can transfer funds to and from). There are two setbacks, firstly it costs about $25 to make the transfer from the kiwibank account to ETRADE account, however this is not a problem for me as I intend switching a lump sum into my trading account and keeping it there long term... Second set back is that I don't think they trade on NZX, but actually I have been thinking exactly the same thing as warthog, if we need to pay $50 to make a trade on the NZX, why bother - actually in my opinion the only decent stocks on the NZX are way over valued now anyhow and (except for keeping my longterm holding of PPL) will stick to trading on the ASX, seems to be better for your financial health!

Sorry could not be more useful... i am open to any other ideas..

Cheers
FG

Flying Goat
03-02-2007, 10:34 AM
quote:Originally posted by warthog

The hog is seriously considering ASX transactions only in the future due to the serious lack of competition in the local broking market.


Could not agree more Warthog...

FG

Flying Goat
03-02-2007, 10:37 AM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

If ANZ own Direct broking ? and E Trade are owed by ANZ why would you stay with Direct Broking unless you like paying higher fees DUH


sorry exposed, you're right in that ANZ own 35% of ETRADE, but the only other option I could think of was IRESS but then their shares seem very expensive.... to be honest have always disliked ANZ as a brand, not least due to the way they shafted Feltex shareholders, and would rather not do business with them, but SO FEW OPTIONS[V]

FG

Steve
04-02-2007, 10:47 AM
I have no problems with their fee increase.

However, I would be happier if they were more prompt in acknowledging emails. It's been days and I'm still waiting...

exposed
04-02-2007, 06:13 PM
Why would you Steve , if you only buy shares a few times a year? then your right no big deal.

If you buy more often say like a few times a month then your comments make no sense at all.

777
04-02-2007, 06:26 PM
Good luck them but I'm out. Trading is not viable any longer. The final incentive to change to an Australian online broker. I just needed the push so thank you Direct.

Steve
04-02-2007, 07:21 PM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

Why would you Steve , if you only buy shares a few times a year? then your right no big deal.

If you buy more often say like a few times a month then your comments make no sense at all.

When I am fully focussed on shares, I trade on average 20 times a month.

I am also a business owner and am aware that costs (staff, utilities etc) have been rising which need to be passed on to the consumer to ensure that the business remains viable in the long-term.

Make sense?

JoeKing
04-02-2007, 09:38 PM
quote:Originally posted by Deev8


quote:Originally posted by Direct Broking

We appreciate there is some frustration around our terminology ‘slight increase’; however we do believe overall the increase is small.

Let me explain:

No, let me explain, but without any spin:

NZ$25,000 deal before the slight increase - brokerage of NZ $29.90
NZ$25,000 deal after the slight increase - brokerage of NZ $49.90

A 67% increase in the brokerage fee for a NZ$25,000 deal. That's why a few people had a problem with the phrase ‘slight increase’.

Well said DeeV8!
Have been looking at
http://www.traderdealer.com.au/clients/fees.php
AU$33 up to AU$200K per trade. posted by lager.
Looks ok to me... any comments??
Cheers
JK

lambton
05-02-2007, 08:01 AM
quote:Originally posted by gisborne_gold

...and TD Ameritrade in the states US$9.99 per trade...and even that's up from the $8 per trade that Ameritrade launched with, before merging with TD Waterhouse.


There is a thing called economies of scale. Sad but true you pay more for less in NZ.

exposed
05-02-2007, 09:02 AM
Steve fee increases from trading in shares and from the view point of running a business are different comparisons.

From Direct brokings point of view of course they will have to increase fees if they think that is justified to run there business.

On the other hand where do they make all there money? from traders of shares of course not from someone that buys or sells a couple of times a year.
Hence I would argue if direct or any other of these Nz online outfits had true competition from someone who looked after traders with lower fees they would all go out of business if they were not backed by big banks.

Thats why I say if you are a trader then you are best served operating from an Australian broker with lower fees.



You say you trade 20 times a month and are happy to pay more in fees , I say you lack basic investing knowledge of what fee increases will do to your returns in the long run and invite you or anyone else to present a different case.

Steve
05-02-2007, 09:12 AM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

You say you trade 20 times a month and are happy to pay more in fees , I say you lack basic investing knowledge of what fee increases will do to your returns in the long run and invite you or anyone else to present a different case.

Exposed, how can you say that I lack 'basic investing knowledge'?

If you read my earlier post, I said that "I have no problem with their fee increase." I never said that I would be paying more in fees.

My trade size is below $15,000 so it makes no difference to me at all![^]

I accept ypur apology in advance...;)

exposed
05-02-2007, 10:00 AM
Steve I dont know if you have only $15k to invest in total at any one time ? so I cant comment.

Deev8
05-02-2007, 10:30 AM
quote:Originally posted by Steve

I have no problems with their fee increase.

Whether or not the fee increase is fair is one issue. However the point that caused some outrage was the company dismissing it as a "slight adjustment" even though it would mean a 67% increase in the brokerage fee for a NZ$25,000 deal.

We expect some "spin" in any announcement that a company makes, but this takes the biscuit.

Steve
05-02-2007, 01:27 PM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

so I cant comment.

EXACTLY! Yet you still managed to come up with "I say you lack basic investing knowledge"

Think with your mind before you shoot with your mouth...[^]

exposed
05-02-2007, 01:36 PM
Steve you didnt answer my question

Do you only have 15k to invest?

or do you invest multiple amounts of less than 15k?

Steve
05-02-2007, 01:41 PM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

Steve you didnt answer my question

Do you only have 15k to invest?

or do you invest multiple amounts of less than 15k?

I do multiple trades of less than $15k, not that it adds any validity to your comment...

exposed
05-02-2007, 02:07 PM
Okay say you do your 20 x trades for the mth of under 15k invested

20 x 29.9 = $598 of fees / mth

I assume by your statement


I do multiple trades of less than $15k

you believe your not paying more

Before fee increase you could have done multiple trades of 25k for less fee money.

Steve
05-02-2007, 03:46 PM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

Okay say you do your 20 x trades for the mth of under 15k invested

20 x 29.9 = $598 of fees / mth

I assume by your statement


I do multiple trades of less than $15k

you believe your not paying more

Before fee increase you could have done multiple trades of 25k for less fee money.

Yes I could do trades of $25k, but that would reduce the spread of companies that I could trade in at any one time.

My trade size has not changed. The 'tweak' in the brokerage rate has not made me decrease my trade size. In fact 'tweak' in the brokerage rate does not affect me - I have no problems with the increase.

How do you reach the conclusion: "I say you lack basic investing knowledge"?

It would appear that you have misinterpreted my original comment...

Deev8
05-02-2007, 04:56 PM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

You say you trade 20 times a month and are happy to pay more in fees , I say you lack basic investing knowledge of what fee increases will do to your returns in the long run and invite you or anyone else to present a different case.


The problem is that Steve made it clear that he will not pay any more in fees - his deal size is less than $15,000 so he will continue to pay $29 brokerage per deal. The fact that he could have done bigger deals for that $29 brokerage in the past is irrelevant to him.

exposed - you seem to be demonstrating a lack of basic comprehension and arithmetic skills!

exposed
05-02-2007, 04:58 PM
Steve you need to understand how fees impact on your overall return.

Okay so you have always only paid the minimum brokerage but evertime you invest your 15k you are paying more in the long run in fees than if you invested a larger amount of money at a lower fee.

This large amount of fees you are paying will impact on your performance return in the long run.

This is what I mean by understanding basics.

Halebop
05-02-2007, 06:12 PM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

Steve you need to understand how fees impact on your overall return.

Okay so you have always only paid the minimum brokerage but evertime you invest your 15k you are paying more in the long run in fees than if you invested a larger amount of money at a lower fee.

This large amount of fees you are paying will impact on your performance return in the long run.

This is what I mean by understanding basics.


If a $30 fee on a $15,000 buy or sell execution (0.2%) is impacting returns in any material way, then share selection or trading strategy is presenting a much bigger problem than discount broker choice.

exposed
05-02-2007, 07:11 PM
Halebob are you an accountant as this is how they would think?

I presume you think that Steve will never lose.

Direct Broking
05-02-2007, 07:57 PM
quote:Originally posted by Steve

I have no problems with their fee increase.

However, I would be happier if they were more prompt in acknowledging emails. It's been days and I'm still waiting...


Hello Steve

I am sorry if you haven't had a reply yet. I personally replied to our clients who emailed us to feedback@directbroking.co.nz on Thursday & Friday but have been on leave since - I will respond to all emails on Wednesday. Again, I apologise.

Kind regards
Gillian Beresford
Marketing & Communications Manager
DBL

zyreon
05-02-2007, 08:00 PM
If you're actively trading then brokerage of $30 is actually $20.10

Transaction costs turn zero sum games into minus sum games, and should be minimised as much as possible to increase FV. For most of us economies of scale in directly accessing the market is probably not possible, so in lieu of a cheaper alternative broker for the NZ market there's not all that much that you can do.

You could try CFDs, they tend to operate on a no commission basis, but then you get hit with the spread.

So being unable to lower costs go for higher expected return...

Fodder
05-02-2007, 08:31 PM
quote:Originally posted by Steve


Exposed, how can you say that I lack 'basic investing knowledge'?

If you read my earlier post, I said that "I have no problem with their fee increase." I never said that I would be paying more in fees.

My trade size is below $15,000 so it makes no difference to me at all![^]



Well Steve lets hope that none of these <$15,000 trades appreciate, or else heaven forbid you're gunna have to fork out more than 30 bucks when you sell [:0][:0][:0]




;)

BRICKS
05-02-2007, 09:13 PM
DOUBT that to many KIWK`s do $15,000 trades that constant let alone $25,000 at all.. [8D]

BRICKS
05-02-2007, 09:14 PM
DOUBT that to many KIWI`s do $15,000 trades that constant let alone $25,000 at all.. [8D]

Halebop
05-02-2007, 11:01 PM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

Halebob are you an accountant as this is how they would think?

I presume you think that Steve will never lose.


Not quite sure what the reference to accountants means Exposed? The math of paying 0.2% versus a +10 or -10% gain / loss doesn't require much in the way of financial training.

I sometimes lose money trading. Stop losses and the potential for further losses are more pressing than transaction fees - I'd rather pay the 0.2% than be down another 10% on a bad trade. But yes, the goal is to make money and the easiest way to do that is avoid duds and pick winners. Again, being up 50% or 200% on next year's flavour of the month renders a 0.2% transaction fee immaterial.

At those kind of transaction costs, far better to spend energy on the investment than the transactional cost of investing. Otherwise just a case of Penny Wise, Pound Foolish.

Deev8
06-02-2007, 12:21 PM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

Steve you need to understand how fees impact on your overall return.

Okay so you have always only paid the minimum brokerage but evertime you invest your 15k you are paying more in the long run in fees than if you invested a larger amount of money at a lower fee.

Now we understand you exposed - the simple solution is for Steve to start trading deals of $15 million, then his brokerage would be a much small percentage of the total.

Perhaps you should turn your talents to solving New Zealand's balance of payments problems next.

exposed
06-02-2007, 02:22 PM
oh well see some of you cant see passed a fixed dollar amount in fees as the cost , keep paying your high fees.

777
06-02-2007, 03:14 PM
What ever spin anyone wants to put on it, it is still an excessive increase. I have been a promoter of Direct through this forum but no longer.

exposed
06-02-2007, 03:29 PM
Deev8 your not a trader are you or if you are your not very good.

Flying Goat
06-02-2007, 04:30 PM
You lot can argue this until the cows come home but at the end of the day, even if fees are a small percentage of your overall profit from either trading or investing, WHY PAY MORE IF YOU DON'T NEED TO. The logic that "if you make 100% on an stock why worry about .02%" does not stack up with me - it is .02% on a couple of hundred thousand dollars of transactions a year that i would rather spend on something useful and not making the Aussie banks even fatter than they already are. Direct Broking is hardly to blame, rather it is price fixing from above, i.e. only way to trade on the nzx is via the big Aus banks... perhaps worth a letter to the commerce commission? Now there is an idea.

FG

Deev8
06-02-2007, 05:14 PM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

Deev8 your not a trader are you or if you are your not very good.


Thanks for your opinion, but it's not one that I really value as you don't seem to have much of a grasp on reality.

exposed
06-02-2007, 07:13 PM
Flying goat your a champ somebody who sees the logic.

Deev8 I expected a more rational response because if you really were a trader you would have understood my statement.
It was not a dig at you.

Steve
07-02-2007, 06:59 AM
Hey Exposed, if you have got the time could you find out who can give me a better brokerage deal for my transactions valued at less than $15k?

Last time I had time to do the math, Direct was the cheapest at $29.90

Cheers
Steve

Deev8
07-02-2007, 08:06 AM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

Deev8 I expected a more rational response because if you really were a trader you would have understood my statement.
It was not a dig at you.

exposed - I fear that you are the one who doesn't understand.

Steve was very clear that his deals are $15K or less, and as a result he is happy that the announced fee increase will have no bearing on his brokerage costs. But you insist on telling him that he is suffering from the increse because before he could have done bigger deals for the same brokerage cost.

He could have done, but he didn't - so it's irrelevant. But you still insist "if you really were a trader you would have understood my statement"

Like I said - you just haven't grasped the reality of the situation.

Lawso
07-02-2007, 11:01 AM
What a lot of moaners and whingers. I can go along with DB when they describe it as "a slight increase". For example, on a $60k transaction you'll now pay $120 instead of $100, on $30k now $60 instead of $40. Never mind the %age increase - 0.2% is still peanuts. And as Zyreon points out, transaction costs are tax deductible for traders.

When I started investing, 10 or so years ago, there were brokers (Merrill Lynch the worst) ripping me off for 1.5% brokerage and sometimes more if I was dumb enough to let them get away with it. Eventually I got it down to a steady 1%, which I could accept as basically a long-term holder. Now, as a more active investor but still not a true trader, I'm very happy to deal with DB, with their basic $29.90 and 0.2% gross for transactions over $15k. And they've always been helpful and obliging if I've needed to call or email them.

If people like Flying Goat are so uptight about 0.2% on "a couple of hundred thousand dollars of transactions", then he can't be a very successful trader. Does he expect to get the service for free?

Deev8
07-02-2007, 11:44 AM
quote:Originally posted by Lawso

What a lot of moaners and whingers. I can go along with DB when they describe it as "a slight increase". For example, on a $60k transaction you'll now pay $120 instead of $100

That would be a 20% increase - not slight in my book.


quote:Originally posted by Lawso

... on $30k now $60 instead of $40.

That would be a 50% increase - definitely not slight in my book. We must own very different dictionaries.


quote:Originally posted by Lawso

Never mind the %age increase

As a test of whether the increase is "slight" or not, the percentages are important.


quote:Originally posted by Lawso

0.2% is still peanuts.

0.2% isn't a lot, and I for one have never said that DB's post-increase brokerage costs are unfair or particularly high. It's actually similar to what I pay in the UK and US markets.

What I did object to was DB's description of the increase as slight, when the examples you have given demonstrate that at the margin it's anything but slight.

777
07-02-2007, 11:45 AM
Lawso if you did it correctly and made split the $60,000 into two transactions then the total cost was $79.80 (29.90+29.90+20).

It does not cost DB any extra to do a transaction for a $1,000,000 than it does for the magical $15,000. It just means that higher transactions pay for the lower ones. I would be quite happy of they charged a higher amount for the $15,000 ones than they now do as long as the balance over it was at a lesser rate, such as 0.1%.

biker
07-02-2007, 11:51 AM
Why spin the announcement?
I was thinking of changing to Direct(have the forms) but now hesitant. What else are they spinning?
Shows disrespect to their customers IMO.

brother coy
07-02-2007, 12:14 PM
hahhahha what a buch of da dossers some of ya are hahahaaa:D
got no f.cking idea hahahaa:D hers a tip for ya suckers that donts minda paying 30 doolars hahahahaha:D:D cause i cvan put ya onto some more expensive better brokers hahahaaa:D

The one thing that sort of scares me about the difference between full service and discount brokers is that a pretty good chunk of discount brokerage firm clients are not that educated about investing.

They look at a $20 commission (discount broker) and a $50 commission (full service broker) and they decide they can't afford to invest with a full service broker.

Instead they plow their life savings into some wonder stock
they heard about from a friend (hey, it's only a $20 commission, why
not?) and lose a few hundred or thousand bucks when the investment goes south.

Not that a broker is going to pick winners 100% of the time but
at least the broker can guide or mentor a beginning investor until they learn enough to know what to look for and what not to look for in a stock.

looks like ya dont it suckers hahahahaaa:D:D:D:D:D[:p]

duncan macgregor
07-02-2007, 12:55 PM
BRO, I thought you had shot over the ditch to get into nickel and uranium like i did. Listen to advice from a broker you must be joking. Worried about how much they charge you, then change, its a free market. I dont have any shares in the nz market only invest in the ANX The NZ dollar is to high for starters.
I find the ASB easy to deal with the little bit of extra brokerage is nothing. MACDUNK.
DISCL AGM SMY, MCR, SMM.

brother coy
07-02-2007, 12:59 PM
ya mc drunk how ya new site go hahahaa yes i have no investment in da nz onlu offshore now hahahahhaa we thinka da same i couldnt help mys self for a laugh hahahaa posting on here hahaaaa

limegreen
07-02-2007, 01:01 PM
quote:Originally posted by Deev8

quote:Originally posted by Lawso

... on $30k now $60 instead of $40.

That would be a 50% increase - definitely not slight in my book. We must own very different dictionaries.

SNIP

As a test of whether the increase is "slight" or not, the percentages are important.


This scenario is very similar to the use of absoluate and relative percentages to demonstrate health risks/benefits. For example, with certain cancer wonder drugs, some groups will talk about a 50% benefit, whereas other groups will talk about a 3% benefit (with the risk in dying going from 6 in 100 to 3 in 100 with said drug). So percentages are important, but it depends a lot on your frame.
My hunch is that most of DB's internet customers trade under $15k at a time, so for the most people there is no change, and in absolute terms, the increase is pretty small.

Bobby_Fischer
07-02-2007, 02:26 PM
The whinging comes from that (large) part of the collective NZ psyche which seems always to want something for nothing - one reason why the gov. were able to (and wanted to) "stiff" Telecom.

Deev8
07-02-2007, 02:54 PM
quote:Originally posted by Bobby_Fischer

The whinging comes from that (large) part of the collective NZ psyche which seems always to want something for nothing - one reason why the gov. were able to (and wanted to) "stiff" Telecom.

No you are wrong - some of the "whinging" comes from people who want companies to be more honest with their customers, and treat them with more respect.

DB have increased their brokerage charges - that's OK, everyone can make their own decision about whether to use them or a competitor (and actually I don't think that the revised charges are bad). But they tried to spin it as a slight increase, that's as inept as the government claiming that 85 pages of new regulations have been introduced to simplify and streamline a process.

Bobby_Fischer
07-02-2007, 03:25 PM
I don't see anything dishonest with the DB announcement. As others have pointed out, it really is a matter of opinion and perspective whether the change is "slight". Personally I think the use of the adjective is a bit fatuous, since DB should have realised it was potentially inflammatory (as it has turned out, based on views expressed here). So if it really was intended as "spin", then it has backfired. More likely the announcment was prepared by someone without the experience to know better, and signed off (if at all), by someone who didn't take care to read it and/or consider it properly.

Deev8
07-02-2007, 04:05 PM
quote:Originally posted by Bobby_Fischer

I don't see anything dishonest with the DB announcement.

You mean like advertising products that are packed with sugar as "low fat" - it's not a lie, just a diversion from an inconvenient truth.


quote:Originally posted by Bobby_Fischer

More likely the announcment was prepared by someone without the experience to know better, and signed off (if at all), by someone who didn't take care to read it and/or consider it properly.

Fair enough - but that's not too encouraging either is it?

Bobby_Fischer
07-02-2007, 04:19 PM
quote:Originally posted by Deev8


quote:Originally posted by Bobby_Fischer

I don't see anything dishonest with the DB announcement.

You mean like advertising products that are packed with sugar as "low fat" - it's not a lie, just a diversion from an inconvenient truth.

- I don't believe there was any intention to deceive here, as discussed in the point you've quoted below.


quote:Originally posted by Bobby_Fischer

More likely the announcment was prepared by someone without the experience to know better, and signed off (if at all), by someone who didn't take care to read it and/or consider it properly.

Fair enough - but that's not too encouraging either is it?

- No it's not, but it's par for the course these days, old chap.

kura
07-02-2007, 04:33 PM
quote:Originally posted by brother coy

ya mc drunk how ya new site go hahahaa yes i have no investment in da nz onlu offshore now hahahahhaa we thinka da same i couldnt help mys self for a laugh hahahaa posting on here hahaaaa

Yeah, welcome back Bro, it was getting a bit dull without our more colourful posters to entertain us.

waikare
07-02-2007, 06:55 PM
quote:Originally posted by brother coy

hahhahha what a buch of da dossers some of ya are hahahaaa:D
got no f.cking idea hahahaa:D hers a tip for ya suckers that donts minda paying 30 doolars hahahahaha:D:D cause i cvan put ya onto some more expensive better brokers hahahaaa:D

The one thing that sort of scares me about the difference between full service and discount brokers is that a pretty good chunk of discount brokerage firm clients are not that educated about investing.

They look at a $20 commission (discount broker) and a $50 commission (full service broker) and they decide they can't afford to invest with a full service broker.

Instead they plow their life savings into some wonder stock
they heard about from a friend (hey, it's only a $20 commission, why
not?) and lose a few hundred or thousand bucks when the investment goes south.

Not that a broker is going to pick winners 100% of the time but
at least the broker can guide or mentor a beginning investor until they learn enough to know what to look for and what not to look for in a stock.

looks like ya dont it suckers hahahahaaa:D:D:D:D:D[:p]




If you don't have any investments in NZ, and therefore you will have no need to use their services, perhaps you should leave the comments to us that use Direct Broker.

Flying Goat
07-02-2007, 07:03 PM
quote:Originally posted by Lawso

What a lot of moaners and whingers. I can go along with DB when they describe it as "a slight increase". For example, on a $60k transaction you'll now pay $120 instead of $100, on $30k now $60 instead of $40. Never mind the %age increase - 0.2% is still peanuts. And as Zyreon points out, transaction costs are tax deductible for traders.


If people like Flying Goat are so uptight about 0.2% on "a couple of hundred thousand dollars of transactions", then he can't be a very successful trader. Does he expect to get the service for free?



Lawso,

Interesting perspective: you think I am a poor trader becuase my preference is for low brokerage fees? For the record, a) my return as a medium term investor in 2006 was slightly above 43%, however this is totally irrelevant, as is the fact that you paid 1.5% with Meryll Lynch ten years ago (get over it, a lot has changed since then). The simple facts are that I can order $60,000 worth of stock for $60 with ETRADE, yet now through Direct Broking that same trade would cost me $120, or exactly twice as much. If I choose to save $60 every order that I place I do not think that is a reflection of my shortcomings as an investor, quite the opposite. If I only make six such trades per month the money saved with ETRADE will have been enough to pay the power bill, the internet, the telephone, put petrol in the car and take my partner out to dinner at least once - all these savings each month! If someone told Fair enough, we probably sound like a bunch of moaners, but if you can't express your opinion in a forum, then where can you? Anyhow to be honest I think it is an excellent opportunity for Direct Broking to gather feedback on the price increase both positive and negative. With regards to your comments of "does he expect to get something for free?" no ofcourse not and that is a completely irrational thing to say as until now have spent a lot with them and had no complaint. In fact I promoted them in this forum. Yet I should add that since ANZ bought Direct Broking they have closed the New Market office and their business is not under the same inflationary pressures that most businesses are faced with. In fact as they grow so does the profit margin, due to the large fixed cost base, with very small marginal variable cost associated with an increased volume of transactions. So, Lawso, feel free to spend as much as you want on trading, you must be very good if, unlike most of us, money is no object to you.

Halebop
07-02-2007, 07:34 PM
I have 2 Australian brokerage accounts and 1 New Zealand one. Debating fees is not the full story. Even though both my Australian brokers offer Bank deposit facilities, as a New Zealander, Australians rank as preferential creditors ahead of me. That in istself could be worth paying a $10 or $50 "even steven" premium. Additionally, neither of my Australian brokers offer a cost effective execution service for the NZX. So maybe the "high rates" aren't so high after all? Finally, discount broking in New Zealand is for many an extension of their banking facility. The convenience and visibility of real time cash transfers might mean more than a $20 brokerage differential.

Steve
08-02-2007, 07:13 AM
quote:Originally posted by Steve

Hey Exposed, if you have got the time could you find out who can give me a better brokerage deal for my transactions valued at less than $15k?

Last time I had time to do the math, Direct was the cheapest at $29.90

Cheers
Steve

Hows the hunt going Exposed?!

exposed
08-02-2007, 07:47 AM
Steve if you check pg 1 of this thread I listed a number of brokers cheaper than direct for your 15k deals.

Steve
08-02-2007, 08:01 AM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

Steve if you check pg 1 of this thread I listed a number of brokers cheaper than direct for your 15k deals.

Doesn't your list show Aussie broker rates for trading ASX shares? What are their rates to trade NZX shares?

peekay
08-02-2007, 08:22 AM
Fully support your views Steve.Cannot see our Steve can call himself a trader with only up to 15k to spend unless dealing with the risky smaller priced stocks.

I am in the process of joining Sanford in Perth at 19.95A a trade with a rebate of 5.50A for trades in excess of 6 per month.

Direct has fallen into the same trap as ASB and other Nz brokers by hurting the high value and regular traders such as myself who averages 3 trades per week and between 25-40000k per trade.

I guess many of my type of trader will quit Direct as they did with ASB Securities by being greedy and not looking after their main source of income trader but preferring to look after the small and infrequent client.

peekay
08-02-2007, 08:29 AM
OOPS, support views of EXPOSED, certainly not STEVES, was in a bit of a rush and certainly in a hurry to dump Direct Broking after their massive fee increase 100% for my trading.

Steve
08-02-2007, 08:35 AM
quote:Originally posted by peekay

Cannot see our Steve can call himself a trader with only up to 15k to spend unless dealing with the risky smaller priced stocks.

You have mis-read. Only my trade size is below $15k, not my total to spend. I am not restricted to just the risky smaller priced stocks either...

peekay
08-02-2007, 08:43 AM
Well, if your spend per stock is above 15k you will be hit with the increase.

Steve
08-02-2007, 08:46 AM
quote:Originally posted by peekay

Well, if your spend per stock is above 15k you will be hit with the increase.

Refer back to post 1 on page 3 ;)

peekay
08-02-2007, 08:58 AM
Have not mis read.If your spend is only up to 15k it is very difficult to make money at regular intervals unless you are trading low value stocks.

I would say that most regular traders, are the clients that Direct should be supporting, and the ones that invest in high value trades in excess of 15k and turnover frequently.

Steve
08-02-2007, 09:04 AM
quote:Originally posted by peekay

Have not mis read.If your spend is only up to 15k it is very difficult to make money at regular intervals unless you are trading low value stocks.

Have CEN, TEL & VCT not had decent runs of late?

peekay
08-02-2007, 09:11 AM
Yes, I have been trading both VCT and TEL which have both been in a trading range for some time.

However with only up to 15k to spend one would have to wait for a long run up, more of a buy and hold rather than a few trades within the range.

exposed
08-02-2007, 09:13 AM
Steve you arnt getting many shares for your 15k of cen etc then are you

Steve
08-02-2007, 10:55 AM
quote:Originally posted by exposed

Steve you arnt getting many shares for your 15k of cen etc then are you

1500 CEN after it broke the resistance at 810. Requires 4c to cover brokerage, balance is profit.

Yes, if I were trading $25k then I could buy 3000 CEN......but that is not my current strategy.

elZorro
05-11-2010, 07:30 AM
I just had a bit of a shock with my last trade purchase using the Call account: the fee wasn't $29.90, but $29.90 plus 0.4%. This is because I didn't have all of the funds ready at the time of purchase. I would (of course) had the small extra amount ready in there by settlement date. So that situation cost me $45.54 extra.

Looking back, Direct Broking have steadily increased from a flat fee of $29.90 just 3-4 years ago, to reducing the cutoff for a percentage fee, then changing the 0.2% to 0.4%, then adding fine print to the DIY Call Account table of fees (but without mentioning that another 0.4% will be charged). It's deliberately designed to pull extra fees off smaller retail investors like me. So unless I leave a few thousand in my Call account, I can't make a snap purchase without being clobbered for extra fees. This has been happening since at least October 2010. Has anyone else noticed?

elZorro
05-11-2010, 08:25 AM
Hi eZ,

Before clicking confirm order (the last step before the purchase/sale is completed) there is a summary on what the transaction will cost you for them to perform it.

Pretty basic in my books. :cool:

Thanks Yankiwi, that solves the issue of cost of the transaction. Maybe I'm in a poor mood this morning. I guess my real question was: who has decided that Direct Broking's costs per transaction will be steadily hiked up from the lower costs position that pulled all the customers in originally?

Lizard
05-11-2010, 08:28 AM
From my perspective, any increases by DB are nothing like as dramatic as the changes from the full-service brokers. They have progressively increased minimum charges, other market fees and even the % commission. Given that I now also tend to make larger trades, the cost of using one is typically 3-5 times higher than for DB and could be even worse.

And yes, there are reasons why I sometimes use a full-service broker, but it is not because they offer a better service.

Also due a mention for substantially increasing the cost of investment is my bank. For those holdings I retain in scrip and present overseas currency cheque, a $5 per visit charge is now typical along with almost double the spread on cross-rates from when I first recall. Naturally the basic interest rate I can expect to receive on funds is now one-third of when the account was first opened - carrying in full the fall in lending rates rather than proportionately.

POSSUM THE CAT
05-11-2010, 10:44 AM
ElZorro the rules that there has to be sufficient cleared funds in your call account at time of order (not time of settlement) for the special brokerage rate. Has not changed in the last approximately eight years since they took over Access Brokerage. Also you get reasonably competitive interest rates on money in your Call Account.

elZorro
05-11-2010, 12:39 PM
ElZorro the rules that there has to be sufficient cleared funds in your call account at time of order (not time of settlement) for the special brokerage rate. Has not changed in the last approximately eight years since they took over Access Brokerage. Also you get reasonably competitive interest rates on money in your Call Account.

I will have to look at my transactions Possum, but I don't think that can be correct. Certainly all sales transactions (credit to account) are $29.90, and I'd not noticed any difference on the buy side before, my purchases are all under $15k. This happened to be a 12k purchase that showed up the fee, and I did go back over old documentation from DB before I started posting. I saw no mention of this clause.

Jay
05-11-2010, 03:22 PM
I'm sure PTC is right - extra charge if the funds are not available - treated the same as if you did not have a call account.
See below
Won't affect when you sell as you are receiving the funds - the normal limits/fee structure will apply as per below
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIY Call Account and OMCA Internet RatesBrokerageCall account internet rates are only available to Direct Broking call account or Online Multi-Currency Account holders with sufficient cleared call account funds available to fully cover the purchase of securities prior to submission of the order.http://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/images/topright_corner_red.gifhttp://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/images/spacer.gif
For trades for New Zealand listed securities (other than debt securities) with a trade value of up to NZ$15,000 NZ$29.90
http://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/images/spacer.gifFor trades for New Zealand listed securities (other than debt securities) with a trade value exceeding NZ$15,000 http://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/images/spacer.gif(i) for the first NZ$15,000; plus NZ$29.90 http://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/images/spacer.gif(ii) for the portion of the trade value exceeding NZ$15,000 0.20%
http://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/images/spacer.gifTrades for Australian listed securities with a trade value of up to AU$30,000 AU$29.00
http://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/images/spacer.gifFor trades for Australian listed securities with a trade value exceeding AU$30,000: http://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/images/spacer.gif(i) for the first AU$30,000; plusAU$29.00 http://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/images/spacer.gif(ii) for the portion of the trade value exceeding AU$30,000 0.30%
http://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/images/spacer.gifDIY Standard Internet RatesBrokeragehttp://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/images/topright_corner_red.gifhttp://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/images/spacer.gif

Trades for New Zealand listed securities (other than debt securities)NZ$29.90 plus 0.40%http://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/images/spacer.gif
Trades for Australian listed securities 0.70% or AU$40.00
(whichever is greater

Macleod
05-11-2010, 04:00 PM
Add to all that the constant issues with charts not showing, slow response times to orders and the increasingly large gap in fees between NZ and Aussie brokers (fees lower than $10 per trade.) ... the hassle of opening an account overseas is looking more and more worth the frustration.

Edit: Just realised it may look like Im trying to have a go at DB, but thats not quite what I meant to do. They are priced fairly reasonably compared to other NZ brokers, and thier customer support team are very friendly and helpful. I imagine that half the reason they are having such technical difficulties is simlply because they are better than most other NZ brokers and perhaps their client base is growing faster than their systems can handle?

Anyway, as always, just IMHO and DYOR. :P

emearg
05-11-2010, 04:13 PM
I'm sure PTC is right - extra charge if the funds are not available - treated the same as if you did not have a call account.

I second that! I can remember back many years miscalculating something and not having the funds, only to pick up on my mistake when it summarised the order and told me the fee. It saved me placing an order at ten times the desired buy price.

elZorro
05-11-2010, 04:36 PM
I second that! I can remember back many years miscalculating something and not having the funds, only to pick up on my mistake when it summarised the order and told me the fee. It saved me placing an order at ten times the desired buy price.

I have some correspondence now that assures me the policy has been in place since 2005. So I was wrong again.

DB's sort of another case of local businessman does well, builds up new business and sells to overseas owner, in this case ANZ. The fees are being increased steadily, but as Lizard says, it's across the board. I'm still happy with the service.

I remember our local Trustee Bank, had a great Super Fund. Westpac bought them out, and the low commission fees disappeared with the changeover. Staff were at pains to say that it was the same deal, it wasn't in that case.

POSSUM THE CAT
05-11-2010, 06:41 PM
Macleod Have a good look at those Australian $10.00 trades terms & conditions. Some you have to do at least 30 trades A Month others more or you have a large amount of Dollars in there call account at 0.01% per annum interest or a monthly service fee. I have spent ten years in Australia and a lot of the time dealt with Access or Direct Broking in NZ for Australian Trades as it was cheaper and more efficient than Australian Brokers

Lawso
06-11-2010, 01:57 PM
I never have problems with DB. Any time I've had a question or made a mistake it's invariably cleared with a quick phone call. On a recent purchase I was surprised to be charged $58.70 brokerage instead of 29.90. I called up to ask why and was told there were insufficient funds in my call account to cover the purchase. A quick check showed that I had been a day late in transferring funds into the account. The nice lady said I wouldn't be penalised and she immediately put a brokerage rebate credit of $28.80 through to my account. Great service and ever so friendly!

PS. It's a bit like Computershare. People post from time to time with their grizzles. I've never found Computershare anything but friendly, helpful and efficient.

Macleod
08-11-2010, 02:14 PM
Thanks Possum. I realise there may be conditions but the ones I have seen don’t seem to be deal breakers.

I guess my real gripe isn’t actually the fees. Its the time delay between placing an order on the DB website and when the order is actually placed on the market.

I've only just started being more active with my portfolio (read: trading rather than simply investing). In the past you only had to wait 1-5 minutes for your order to be placed, but recently that has stretched to cases of waiting 10-15minutes (in one case more than an hour, although that turned out to be an actual administrative issue on their end and thankfully didn’t effect the outcome of my purchase).

I can think of an example from last week though, where I placed a buy at 4.5 cents which was 0.2 cents above the current price, only by the time it was placed the price had risen so I then had to edit my order to buy at a higher price and wait again for the order to be changed. Eventually I was able to nab some shares at 5 cents which was ok.

The SP continued to rise and I placed a sell at 5.5 cents for what I thought would be a tidy $500 profit minus broker fees. Only by the time the order went through, it had dropped to 5.4 and looked to be getting worse, so I edited my sell to 5 making sure I would at the very least recoup my original capital minus broker fees. Only it took so long that the price had dropped below 5. I was eventually able to sell them at 4.5 cents.

So because of these 10-15 minute delays between entering an order on the website and when its actually placed on the maket, this meant instead of making a profit of $1000 (based on my original order price and original sell price) or $500 (based on my actual purchase price and original sell price) or breaking even (based on my actual buy price and original sell price) or breaking even (based on my original buy price and actual sell price) I got shafted and suffered a loss of $500 plus 2 times broker fees.

From my point of view a $30-$50 monthly fee is a pittance compared to the losses suffered waiting for orders to be placed and/or amended.


PS: Sorry if that example was a little hard to follow. Just think how confusing it was for me at the time with money on the line... I was stressing out! haha



EDIT: In DB defense, as I said earlier, their customer service is excellent. When i raised the issue of delays on this forum, one of their customer reps replied asking for details. To be honest, i havent actually replied because I highly suspect that when I say its only a 10-15minute delay they will just tell me it must've been a busy period or something. : /

POSSUM THE CAT
08-11-2010, 06:33 PM
Macleod is the problem this end or the australian end when dealing with comsec in AUST. the larger the order the more priority it got and those paying full service brokerage got priority I know of one poster on this web siite a few years back that considered 5 mins a long trade. Best of luck to you