TD WebBroker: good features, but slow & quirky
Patrick Coghlan
I opened up a couple of TD Greenline RRSP accounts so that I could perform
electronic trades over the web. I had seen a lot of news reports that TD
was investing heavily in their electronic trading services (buying up lots
of small brokerages etc.) and expected their web service to be top notch.
I'd have to say I am a bit disillusioned with WebBroker. It has lots of
nice features but it takes so long to move between quote/order entry
windows (plus the fact that you can hung in some windows and have to log
in again) that one would probably be better off just using telephone
orders.
How does the web trading service from Bank of Montreal Investorline or
other financial institutions compare?
--
-Pat
--> Remove "noSpam*" from REPLYTO to reply via e-mail
Doug McGraw
I use Investorline simply because it is cheap. I get quotes from other sources
(there are tons of them out there..) and place my order during off-hours using
the online order service.
For quick order changes I go back to the phone.
Doug
Doug Sokalski
On Thu, 08 Jan 1998 13:37:26 -0500, pcog...@noSpam.magma.ca (Patrick
Coghlan) wrote:
>How does the web trading service from Bank of Montreal Investorline or
>other financial institutions compare?
>
>--
>-Pat
I found that BMO's InvestorLine web broker is not very
good. I have had a terrible time getting to the "make
trade now" section. I click on it and nothing happens.
I have e-mailed them about it and they are aware of it
but, as of now, still have not have totally fixed the
problem.
I have used GLIS's PC Broker and MicroMax with a fair
amount of satisfaction. However, they both crashed on
Grey Monday.
Doug.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Remove N_S after @ to reply.
Jeff Joseph
In article <pcoghlan-080...@macpcoghlan.ca.newbridge.com>,
pcog...@noSpam.magma.ca (Patrick Coghlan) wrote:
>I opened up a couple of TD Greenline RRSP accounts so that I could perform
>electronic trades over the web. I had seen a lot of news reports that TD
>was investing heavily in their electronic trading services (buying up lots
>of small brokerages etc.) and expected their web service to be top notch.
>
>I'd have to say I am a bit disillusioned with WebBroker. It has lots of
>nice features but it takes so long to move between quote/order entry
>windows (plus the fact that you can hung in some windows and have to log
>in again) that one would probably be better off just using telephone
>orders.
I've been on WebBroker for about a year and it's a mixed bag. Those
"hangs" you talk about tend, in my experience, to have been limited to
particular daytime hours in recent months when the system has been
bottlenecked with orders (the recent plummets resulting from falling
gold prices and the Asia situation have played havoc with the service.)
WebBroker has picked up tons of subscribers ever since about summer when
they dropped the trade prices to the minimum $29 (from $35). I suspect
that, coupled with the heavy on-line volumes during the volatile markets
of the last few months, have the TD people playing catchup to upgrade
their servers.
From my perspective, it does the job although bear in mind that most
orders I place tend to be submitted after the market closes.
Actually, the biggest problem I have had with WebBroker is that it tends
to be rather slow at updating your overall portfolio values. When I
check my account summaries, I'd much rather have an immediate list of
at-the-moment trading prices. Right now, I read the summary than have to
click each stock to get the most recent quote - something that's a
little on the time-consuming side.
----------*------------*-------------*------------*-------------*-----
Jeff Joseph. Stonecutter #107.
E-mail:jjo...@interlog.com
"Male jewelry is strictly for the bourgeoisie. Rich, smart men know
about money and what it's good for. Why buy gold bracelets when
there's a takeover battle looming at RJR/Nabisco and they could spend
the money on skyrocketing stock shares instead?" - P.J. O'Rourke
----------*------------*-------------*------------*-------------*-----
Ron Injates
I have used the Greenline's services for several years and still prefer to deal
through Micromax. I recently tried Scotiabank's pityful offering. Asking one
simple question about eligible investments in RRSP's brought a reply that
suggested if I had to ask questions, I really had no business dealing with a
discount broker. I should go away and pay my dues by educating myself or deal
with a full service broker. I've banked at Scotiabank for many years but have
been using Greenline since it started. While the software leaves much to be
desired, the staff have always been very good to deal with.
Ron Injates
If you like TD's Micromax but find it inconvenient to access it with a Dos program,
you can use most Windows based modem programs to enter trades and get account
informaiton. I think the only drawback is that you cannot retrieve historical stock
data unless you use the Micromax program.
Ron
Patrick Coghlan
In article <34CDB9...@yorku.ca>, Toronto Resident <yu13...@yorku.ca> wrote:
> Patrick Coghlan wrote:
> >
> > I opened up a couple of TD Greenline RRSP accounts so that I could perform
> > electronic trades over the web. I had seen a lot of news reports that TD
> > was investing heavily in their electronic trading services (buying up lots
> > of small brokerages etc.) and expected their web service to be top notch.
> >
> > I'd have to say I am a bit disillusioned with WebBroker. It has lots of
> > nice features but it takes so long to move between quote/order entry
> > windows (plus the fact that you can hung in some windows and have to log
> > in again) that one would probably be better off just using telephone
> > orders.
> >
> Is there a cost to using that service. Is there a cost from moving from
> mutual fund to mutual fund. what about from TD mutuals to altamira. is
> there a charge?
There is no cost to have a WebBroker account which allows you to login and
get quotes etc. provided you have an RRSP (or RIF?) at TD. You will incur
costs if you make trades through your WebBroker account. There is a
flat-rate charge of $29 for stock trades; slightly higher for things like
options trading.
The ability to trade options is one thing in TD's favour though, since
Investorline doesn't let you buy options (even over the phone, I believe).
WebBroker is incredibly S-L-O-W, however.
Remove "noSpam." from my return address to reply via e-mail
--------------------
-Pat
Toronto Resident
Patrick Coghlan wrote:
>
> I opened up a couple of TD Greenline RRSP accounts so that I could perform
> electronic trades over the web. I had seen a lot of news reports that TD
> was investing heavily in their electronic trading services (buying up lots
> of small brokerages etc.) and expected their web service to be top notch.
>
> I'd have to say I am a bit disillusioned with WebBroker. It has lots of
> nice features but it takes so long to move between quote/order entry
> windows (plus the fact that you can hung in some windows and have to log
> in again) that one would probably be better off just using telephone
> orders.
>
> other financial institutions compare?
>
> --
> -Pat
>
Tim Meehan
Ron Injates <inj...@rogers.wave.ca> banged away at the keys in ont.general
on Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:02:37 -0800 and came up with:
A little bird tells me that TD's computers are so antiquated, IBM said that
if they don't replace them by the end of this year they'll refuse to
service them. Apparently they've been getting on with really old legacy
systems for years and kept putting off the upgrade, and think they can get
by Y2K on the old systems. Nuh-uh.
-Tim
"Cautious, careful people, always casting -=Tim Meehan-=-=-=-=-=-=
about to preserve their reputation and =-tim.m...@utoronto.ca
social standing, can never bring about a -=th9.simplenet.com=-=-=
reform." -- Susan B. Anthony =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Michael Richardson
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:02:37 -0800, Ron Injates <inj...@rogers.wave.ca> wrote:
>If you like TD's Micromax but find it inconvenient to access it with a Dos program,
>you can use most Windows based modem programs to enter trades and get account
>informaiton. I think the only drawback is that you cannot retrieve historical stock
>data unless you use the Micromax program.
And I'll bet that it is just Xmodem or something.
My major beef is that the Datapac modems in Ottawa have a couple that
just don't work right, despite repeated calls to their help line.
--
:!mcr!: | Sandelman Software Works Corporation, Ottawa, ON
Michael Richardson |Network and security consulting and contract programming
Personal: <A HREF="http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html">m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca</A>. PGP key available.
Corporate: <A HREF="http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/SSW/">sa...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca</A>.
Patrick Coghlan
> Ron Injates <inj...@rogers.wave.ca> banged away at the keys in ont.general
> on Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:02:37 -0800 and came up with:
>
> >If you like TD's Micromax but find it inconvenient to access it with a
Dos program,
> >you can use most Windows based modem programs to enter trades and get account
> >informaiton. I think the only drawback is that you cannot retrieve
historical stock
> >data unless you use the Micromax program.
>
> A little bird tells me that TD's computers are so antiquated, IBM said that
> if they don't replace them by the end of this year they'll refuse to
> service them. Apparently they've been getting on with really old legacy
> systems for years and kept putting off the upgrade, and think they can get
> by Y2K on the old systems. Nuh-uh.
I guess that would explain the completely unacceptable response time from
WebBroker. By the time it takes to login and even obtain one quote, a
person could have obtained 50 quotes from a service like Yahoo.
Doug Jefferys
Patrick Coghlan (pcog...@noSpam.magma.ca) wrote:
:
: I guess that would explain the completely unacceptable response time from
: WebBroker. By the time it takes to login and even obtain one quote, a
: person could have obtained 50 quotes from a service like Yahoo.
I've been dissatisfied with WebBroker 2 from the day it was introduced,
and have angsted about whether or not to go public with my thoughts.
What the heck, it's USENET, I'll let it all hang out :)
Disclaimer: I have no relationship with TD other than as a GLIS client.
What follows is speculation as to the cause of the performance problems
with WebBroker 2, based on my personal experiences only. Any speculation,
particularly as to what may have happened during the design process, is
strictly speculation, and should be taken with a grain of salt the size
of the national debt.
I think the problems with WebBroker 2 are related to the heavy reliance
on Java and Javascript. WebBroker 1 was a very simple product, just a
straight forms-based set of pages, with any given transaction taking
place with only 2-3K of text being transmitted back and forth. No
frames, no imagemaps, and the only graphic was a TD Bank logo at the
top of the screen. (Nope, not even a background color tag :)
With WebBroker 2, every click of the mouse relies not only on the
dozens of graphics you see on the screen, but on even more Javascript
functions, each of which has to be downloaded with each page. When
I use WebBroker 2, I note that every click of the mouse results in
the downloading of at least 30+K of data from their server to mine.
Furthermore, each function appears to be downloaded in a separate
http session, adding to the overhead of the process. Finally, if
you've set your web browser up with reasonable security precautions,
odds are you don't want to cache the SSL-retrieved data to disk, so
every time you move from page to page, it's all downloaded *all over
again*.
On a 14.4K link, that works out to a best-case response time of 30
seconds *per user action*, with multiple user actions required to
fill out the form and receive the response from the site. Ouch.
I won't even get *into* the cross-platform issues. Suffice it to
say that unless you're running on a PC or a Mac, you may find that
you can't access the service at all, even if you're using the right
browser with the right level of encryption. Yup, this application
uses Java, the great cross-platform hope, in a platform-dependent
way. IMHO this is totally unacceptable, and bespeaks design flaws
even worse than the slow response time mandated by the reliance
on bandwidth-intensive graphics and technologies.
So we now get into the design decisions. My speculation is that this
was an example of the triumph of the marketing goons over the propeller-
heads. When the first WebBroker 2 prototype was ready, it was probably
demonstrated to the Powers That Be on the company's internal LAN, where
bandwidth wasn't a concern.
For instance, even simple options like licking on a menu option ("order
entry") will result in the download of a list of items ("equity/option/
mutual fund"), also in graphical form, and their associated functions.
What's the value-add for the user by making the selection of the type
of order entry a two-step process, rather than a one-step process?
Well, it looks kinda slick. And on the company's LAN at my imaginary
demo of the prototype, it probably happened instantly, and the audience
ooh'd and aah'd at the slickness of it. But in the real world, it means
another 5-10 seconds of idle time for the user.
My continuing speculation is that The Powers That Be probably saw the
slick presentation, heard the happy buzzwords of Java and Frames, and
decided that this was the wave of the future. By the time the user
feedback started coming in about slow response time, it was far too
late to do the necessary redesign. Marketing had triumphed over
usability.
If anyone from TD is listening, and if you're working on a WebBroker 3,
let WebBroker 2 be a lesson to you: good software design starts with
the users. The technology is a means to the end, not the end in itself.
If a hypothetical WebBroker 3 development team comes to you with a
proposal or a prototype, ask them how the spinning TD logo and the
dozens of Javascript functions help the users get what they want.
If you can't get a good answer, tell 'em to go back to the drawing
board and start over.
Me? I want three things from my discount broker:
1) Fast, efficient account inquiry.
2) Fast, efficient order entry.
(A hint: IMHO, "fast" means a response time of less than five seconds
per mouse click on a 14.4K link, 90% of the time. Yes, that *does*
impose a bandwidth constraint. That's the reality of the WWW. Deal.)
3) Web-based trading. That means platform-independence and browser-
independence. Not as an afterthought or a bug fix, but as a design
principle from day one. If I wanted to be locked into proprietary
software, I'd use Micromax.
(Another hint: Had you used standard HTML, avoided browser-specific
extensions, and never used Java/Javascript, a lot of the platform-
specific elements of WebBroker 2 would never have cropped up.)
Again, if your design team can't explain how their army of graphic
designers and bleeding-edge technology will build a system that will
meet your user's requirements, tell them to start over. Start with
the user requirements, and mold the technology to fit.
All that said, and having publicly reamed TD out for their WebBroker 2
design, I'd like to publicly thank them for one thing -- they've kept
WebBroker 1 up and running, and probably a lot longer than they ever
expected to.
Keeping WebBroker 1 alive indicates that TD is aware of the issues
regarding WebBroker 2, and is willing to spend money to keep its
clients happy. (Let's get real, folks - running two internet trading
system in parallel is *not* something that comes without a price tag).
So for that, at least, TD gets my thanks.
Nevertheless, the day WebBroker 1 is phased out - if no alternative to
WebBroker 2 exists, then I'll close my accounts and take my business
elsewhere.
My 2 bytes' worth,
Doug.
--
dougj |
@ |
hwcn.org |
Michael Richardson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 29 Jan 1998 21:48:37 GMT, Doug Jefferys <ae...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
>I've been dissatisfied with WebBroker 2 from the day it was introduced,
>and have angsted about whether or not to go public with my thoughts.
>What the heck, it's USENET, I'll let it all hang out :)
Hmm. I just filled out the forms and asked for a copy of WebBroker.
Can I still "get" WebBroker 1?
{And, other than my password, what do I need? Shouldn't they give me
all the Java on disk, and not download it? I like that from performance and
security issues. }
>I won't even get *into* the cross-platform issues. Suffice it to
I would like to hear it. I want to run it on BSDi Netscape 3.01 under NetBSD
1.3. I'd be curious if it runs with any of the JDK.
>So we now get into the design decisions. My speculation is that this
>was an example of the triumph of the marketing goons over the propeller-
>heads. When the first WebBroker 2 prototype was ready, it was probably
>demonstrated to the Powers That Be on the company's internal LAN, where
>bandwidth wasn't a concern.
Hmm. I suspsect that you are exactly correct. This seems to be the story
with Java, and I'm worried it will be its downfall.
>If you can't get a good answer, tell 'em to go back to the drawing
>board and start over.
>
>Me? I want three things from my discount broker:
>
>1) Fast, efficient account inquiry.
>
>2) Fast, efficient order entry.
Agreed.
>3) Web-based trading. That means platform-independence and browser-
> independence. Not as an afterthought or a bug fix, but as a design
> principle from day one. If I wanted to be locked into proprietary
> software, I'd use Micromax.
From other reports I've read here, they are all being backended into the
same overworked mainframe. From my experiences with "Micromax" via a properly
configured XTerm+CU, I'm getting "Can not retrieve information. Please try
later" more and more often.
4) secure.
When they first announced WebBroker, I poked around www.tdbank.ca. It was
open. Completely. I got a telnet login banner. SVR4, Solaris I think. I
thought... maybe they plan to use a different machine. When I filled in the
form to get web broker, I noticed that the https was to the same machine, so
I took another look.
The machine in front is definitely a packet filter, not an application
layer gateway. It doesn't even let ping in, but it does return ICMPs. It does
not complete a three way handshake and then tell you to buzz off, so it isn't
running simple proxies. Whether it is stateful or not, or whether or not it
is commercial, I don't know. Qmail is being used to email, so the consultants
know something. So.. generally I feel good about their setup.
>START WITH THE USER REQUIREMENTS, AND MOLD THE TECHNOLOGY TO FIT.
Just for emphasis.
>All that said, and having publicly reamed TD out for their WebBroker 2
>design, I'd like to publicly thank them for one thing -- they've kept
>WebBroker 1 up and running, and probably a lot longer than they ever
>expected to.
Can I still get it... I guess I'll phone.
>Nevertheless, the day WebBroker 1 is phased out - if no alternative to
>WebBroker 2 exists, then I'll close my accounts and take my business
>elsewhere.
Are the others any better?
- --
:!mcr!: | Sandelman Software Works Corporation, Ottawa, ON
Michael Richardson |Network and security consulting and contract programming
Personal: <A HREF="http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html">m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca</A>. PGP key available.
Corporate: <A HREF="http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/SSW/">sa...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca</A>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBNNFiA9iXVu0RiA21AQF4swMAwNSznwwM/SqwAVOPGxFisF0FNpBUYlo0
qul/QxIWzL7FDzzOlJ7ho/KpYVmshlpl2yTHe65B1VGV+JeiacLbL7rLLSOtLn4R
tqtLlNwgG15yEzN3RAzPdg5eXO20uBoT
=oINu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Coghlan
In article <34D1F4...@anonymous.com>, pri...@anonymous.com wrote:
> I think your analysis is excellent.
>
> I continue to use WebBroker 1.0 since it has all the features I need and
> is more robust. WebBroker 2.0 has been a pain to use since it was
> introduced. The graphics serve no usefull purpose to the end user. I
> like a simple program. Functionality is the goal, not visual
> stimulation.
The graphics definitely seem to be one of the major. Just try loggin in
at 11 pm to get a quote when you will be one of the few users on the
system. It still takes 1-2 minutes just to get logged in and obtain a
quote. The login prompt is put up right away, but you can't actually
login (pressing the submit button) until all the sexy graphics on the LHS
have been downloaded.
pri...@anonymous.com
I think your analysis is excellent.
I continue to use WebBroker 1.0 since it has all the features I need and
is more robust. WebBroker 2.0 has been a pain to use since it was
introduced. The graphics serve no usefull purpose to the end user. I
like a simple program. Functionality is the goal, not visual
stimulation.
Margaret
Phil Stenson
While reading misc.invest.canada on 29 Jan 1998 21:48:37 GMT,
I saw ae...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Doug Jefferys) write:
>Patrick Coghlan (pcog...@noSpam.magma.ca) wrote:
>:
>: I guess that would explain the completely unacceptable response time from
>: WebBroker. By the time it takes to login and even obtain one quote, a
>: person could have obtained 50 quotes from a service like Yahoo.
>
>I've been dissatisfied with WebBroker 2 from the day it was introduced,
>and have angsted about whether or not to go public with my thoughts.
>What the heck, it's USENET, I'll let it all hang out :)
OK, you asked for it! <G>
[snip]
>With WebBroker 2, every click of the mouse relies not only on the
>dozens of graphics you see on the screen, but on even more Javascript
>functions, each of which has to be downloaded with each page. When
>I use WebBroker 2, I note that every click of the mouse results in
>the downloading of at least 30+K of data from their server to mine.
Well, turn off the graphics. I have Auto Load Images turned off
for ALL of my web browsing and everyday work involving web
research and access. Pages load MUCH more quickly and links
usually appear fast enough if that's what I want to do.
<NOTE TO WEB 'MASTERS'>
If I get to a site that doesn't appear properly due to reliance
on graphics (no fall-back text links or imagemap only) then 90%
of the time I blow it away and try something else. Only rarely
do I want to see that site badly enough that I switch on Images
and re-load. While I'm waiting, I get still further pissed off.
And let's not even get into Frames!
</NOTE TO WEB 'MASTERS'>
Back on topic, I use Webbroker 2 without images and it works just
fine, thank you. You should try it.
>On a 14.4K link, that works out to a best-case response time of 30
>seconds *per user action*, with multiple user actions required to
>fill out the form and receive the response from the site. Ouch.
Even more reason to switch off graphics. My modem is 'only' 28.8
but it's usually adequate under these circumstances.
[snip of imaginary design review (actually probably close to the truth!)]
>Well, it looks kinda slick. And on the company's LAN at my imaginary
>demo of the prototype, it probably happened instantly, and the audience
>ooh'd and aah'd at the slickness of it. But in the real world, it means
>another 5-10 seconds of idle time for the user.
You could always use MicroMax. It also works fine for me and is
pretty darn fast. Nothing fancy, but it does the job. Interestingly,
you can get historical quotes from MicroMax but not from WebBroker.
>My continuing speculation is that The Powers That Be probably saw the
>slick presentation, heard the happy buzzwords of Java and Frames, and
>decided that this was the wave of the future. By the time the user
>feedback started coming in about slow response time, it was far too
>late to do the necessary redesign. Marketing had triumphed over
>usability.
From a developer's standpoint, this may not be true. Some propeller
heads go for all the latest techno-gadgets. They think a 'User' is
merely the heroin addict that sleeps in the doorway to their apartment.
>If anyone from TD is listening, and if you're working on a WebBroker 3,
>let WebBroker 2 be a lesson to you: good software design starts with
>the users. The technology is a means to the end, not the end in itself.
I kept this because its soooooooooooooooooooooooo true!
>Me? I want three things from my discount broker:
>
>1) Fast, efficient account inquiry.
>
>2) Fast, efficient order entry.
>
>(A hint: IMHO, "fast" means a response time of less than five seconds
>per mouse click on a 14.4K link, 90% of the time. Yes, that *does*
>impose a bandwidth constraint. That's the reality of the WWW. Deal.)
Try Micromax
>3) Web-based trading. That means platform-independence and browser-
> independence. Not as an afterthought or a bug fix, but as a design
> principle from day one. If I wanted to be locked into proprietary
> software, I'd use Micromax.
Oops!! <g,d&r>
>if no alternative to
>WebBroker 2 exists, then I'll close my accounts and take my business
>elsewhere.
Where, he asks? My wife uses Royal Bank. Their proprietary system
is a huge, cruel joke and they don't have a web offering yet.
I am curious to also know what others use and like/dislike.
In summary for me <g>, I like webbroker (about 7 out of 10), but
I keep my portfolio in other software for net worth updates. I
only use webbroker for trades, not news (pretty useless), not
historical data (not even there!) and not portfolio updates
(too slow). And since I prefer to buy & hold, I don't have that
many trades.
--
phil stenson
pste...@interlog.com
FNDL Home Page: http://www.interlog.com/~pstenson/darts.html
]Snowmobiles: Man's contribution to Nature's evolutionary process.
Jeff Joseph
In <pcoghlan-280...@macpcoghlan.ca.newbridge.com>,
(pcog...@noSpam.magma.ca (Patrick Coghlan)) wrote:
>In article <34d34cc3...@news.concentric.net>, tim.m...@utoronto.ca wrote:
>
>> Ron Injates <inj...@rogers.wave.ca> banged away at the keys in ont.general
>> on Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:02:37 -0800 and came up with:
>>
>> >If you like TD's Micromax but find it inconvenient to access it with a
>Dos program,
>> >you can use most Windows based modem programs to enter trades and get account
>> >informaiton. I think the only drawback is that you cannot retrieve
>historical stock
>> >data unless you use the Micromax program.
>>
>> A little bird tells me that TD's computers are so antiquated, IBM said that
>> if they don't replace them by the end of this year they'll refuse to
>> service them. Apparently they've been getting on with really old legacy
>> systems for years and kept putting off the upgrade, and think they can get
>> by Y2K on the old systems. Nuh-uh.
>
>I guess that would explain the completely unacceptable response time from
>WebBroker. By the time it takes to login and even obtain one quote, a
>person could have obtained 50 quotes from a service like Yahoo.
That's probably because Webbrokers quotes come via quote.com which, from
my experience, is a bit on the slow side on the best of days.
Frankly, I tend use Webbroker only to check my portfolio and initialize
trades. I get the quotes elsewhere first.
Anyhow, Webbroker isn't perfect but I still think it is by far the best
of the web-based discount services offered by the major banks.
Admittedly, I haven't tried E*Trade though.
----------*------------*-------------*------------*-------------*-----
Jeff Joseph. Stonecutter #98.
E-mail:jjo...@interlog.com
"A funeral service resembles a wedding except it's less serious
because the consequences of the ceremony are already known and
there's no danger of repetition." - P.J. O'Rourke
----------*------------*-------------*------------*-------------*-----
Ron Injates
I have to agree with Phil Stenson about Micromax. Dos or Windows, it offers all
the speed I need. Portfolio tracking is available on many other faster sites
that integrated news retreval very efficiently.
Ron
Patrick Coghlan
On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 02:18:13 GMT, jjo...@interlog.com (Jeff Joseph)
wrote:
>>I guess that would explain the completely unacceptable response time from
>>WebBroker. By the time it takes to login and even obtain one quote, a
>>person could have obtained 50 quotes from a service like Yahoo.
>
>That's probably because Webbrokers quotes come via quote.com which, from
>my experience, is a bit on the slow side on the best of days.
It's not just the quotes that take a long time, EVERYTHING takes a
long time with WebBroker. A previous poster mentioned something about
how each page requires about 30K to be download on each mousebutton
press.
>
>Frankly, I tend use Webbroker only to check my portfolio and initialize
>trades. I get the quotes elsewhere first.
>
>Anyhow, Webbroker isn't perfect but I still think it is by far the best
>of the web-based discount services offered by the major banks.
>Admittedly, I haven't tried E*Trade though.
Yes, I agree it is about the best service in terms of functionality.
I chose it over Investorline for this reason. However, TD (are you
listening?) should strive for rapid response time as well as good
functionality. It is extremely frustrating trying to get anything
done with this tool.
Shall we get into it's annoyingly short timeout period as well?
Please remove "noSpam." to reply via e-mail.
---------------
-Pat
eric.r...@gmail.com
> I opened up a couple of TD Greenline RRSP accounts so that I could perform
> electronic trades over the web. I had seen a lot of news reports that TD
> was investing heavily in their electronic trading services (buying up lots
> of small brokerages etc.) and expected their web service to be top notch.
>
> I'd have to say I am a bit disillusioned with WebBroker. It has lots of
> nice features but it takes so long to move between quote/order entry
> windows (plus the fact that you can hung in some windows and have to log
> in again) that one would probably be better off just using telephone
> orders.
>
> How does the web trading service from Bank of Montreal Investorline or
> other financial institutions compare?
>
> --
> -Pat
>
> --> Remove "noSpam*" from REPLYTO to reply via e-mail