The Unofficial American Express and Ameriprise Financial Advisors Consumer Opinion & Reviews Forum

amp Ex Member	Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP Reply #45 - Sep 29^th, 2006, 12:13am Give me one sales force in the country that doesn't have goals and incentives to produce numbers, INcluding Vanguard.
Back to top

macca

Anti-Ameriprise

Offline

Friends don't let friends
use Ameriprise!
Posts: 4685
Summer-Rockies, Winter-beach

Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP
Reply #46 - Sep 30^th, 2006, 8:47am

"Give me one sales force in the country that doesn't have goals and incentives to produce numbers, INcluding Vanguard."

AMP, I have told you time and again, it's not THAT you sell, it's WHAT and HOW you sell.

For example, YOU are pretending to be a 'financial advisor' while pushing an inappropriate product on people without a clue how it works or what the costs are. That's WRONG!!

Another example of wrongdoing...about YOUR firm):

" NASD RULES 2110, 2310(A), 2310(B), 3010(A), 3010(A)(2),
3010(B)(1), 3110(A), IM-3110(B) - WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING
THE ALLEGATIONS, THE RESPONDENT MEMBER CONSENTED TO THE ENTRY
OF FINDINGS THAT, THROUGH REGISTERED REPS, OMITTED MATERIAL
FACTS WHEN SELLING VARIABLE ANNUITIES INTO QUALIFIED PLANS -
FAILED TO ORALLY DISCLOSE THAT VARIABLE ANNUITIES DO NOT
PROVIDE THE BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE OF TAX DEFERRED EARNINGS WHEN
PURCHASED IN QUALIFIED PLANS, FAILED TO ORALLY DISCLOSE THAT
TAX DEFERRAL IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR PURCHASING VARIABLE
ANNUITIES IN A QUALIFIED PLAN; FAILED TO EXPLAIN COSTS AND
FEATURES OF VARIABLE ANNUITIES, FAILED TO DIFFERENTIATE
ADEQUATELY VARIABLE ANNUITIES FROM MUTUAL FUNDS; FAILED TO
ADDRESS THESE ISSUES ADEQUATELY WHEN TRAINING REPS AND OMITTED
MATERIAL FACTS REGARDING QUALIFIED ANNUITIES IN DISCLOSURE
DOCUMENTS AND SALES LITERATURE; THROUGH REGISTERED REPS,
RECOMMENDED IN CERTAIN INSTANCES THE SALE OF VARIABLE
ANNUITIES INTO QUALIFIED PLANS WITHOUT HAVING A REASONABLE
BASIS FOR BELIEVING THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE SUITABLE AND
FAILED TO DETERMINE THAT CUSTOMERS HAD A NEED FOR A BENEFIT
OFFERED BY A VARIABLE ANNUITY, OTHER THAN TAX DEFERRAL, WHEN
RECOMMENDING THE PURCHASE OF THE PRODUCT; FAILED TO TAKE
CORRECTIVE ACTION IN A TIMELY MANNER WHEN IT BEGAN TO ADDRESS
APPROPRIATENESS OF SELLING VARIABLE ANNUITIES INTO QUALIFIED
PLANS; FAILED TO ADDRESS ADEQUATELY REVIEW OF VARIABLE ANNUITY
AND VARIABLE LIFE INSURANCE TRANSACTIONS, FAILED TO PROVIDE
REPRESENTATIVES WITH ADEQUATE SUITABILITY GUIDELINES, FAILED
TO OBTAIN INFORMATION CRITICAL IN MAKING A DETERMINATION OF
SUITABILITY AND CONDUCTING RELATED SUPERVISORY REVIEWS,
INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR ITS BOOKS AND RECORDS, INFORMATION
REQUIRED TO BE OBTAINED BY THE FIRM'S PROCEDURES; FAILED TO
HAVE ADEQUATE PROCEDURES FOR VARIABLE PRODUCT EXCHANGES;
FAILED TO ESTABLISH ADEQUATE PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF CUSTOMER
ACCOUNT ACTIVITY ON A PERIODIC BASIS OR FOR THE HANDLING OF
CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS.

Do you see how THIS kind of selling is BAD?

Another example:

"New Hampshire regulators accused American Express Co.'s financial-advisory unit of defrauding customers by giving its sales force secret incentives to sell poorly performing in-house mutual funds, rather than investments from competitors.

AEFA awarded bigger bonuses for selling the proprietary funds, investigators said. E-mails collected by the state show supervisors praising advisers who sold American Express funds and chiding those who didn't. In one sales contest, AEFA offered advisers free one-year leases on Mercedes-Benzes as prizes for promoting a new in-house fund.

The New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation said in an administrative complaint that the American Express unit violated state and federal securities laws requiring advisers to act in clients' best interests and to disclose conflicts of interest that could taint their recommendations. The agency, which investigated practices from 1999 to 2003, asked a hearing officer to impose penalties of up to $17.5 million, including restitution....

The complaint, which provides an unusually detailed look at incentives offered to sell in-house funds, comes at an inopportune time for the company. Earlier this month, American Express said it planned to spin off Minneapolis-based AEFA, which analysts value at about $10 billion. NH regulators are attacking the integrity of the unit's signature product: financial plans that the company promotes as tailored to customers' needs but that regulators say were used primarily to push American Express mutual funds.

"AEFA had a pervasive sales culture that was established and managed with one thing in mind -- to push American Express products and other products that in many cases benefited American Express at the expense of its clients."

Back to top

BLUEBOX SAYS: "MACCA IS RIGHT ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS!!"&&

amp Ex Member	Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP Reply #47 - Sep 30^th, 2006, 2:19pm Quote: AMP, I have told you time and again, it's not THAT you sell, it's WHAT and HOW you sell. You're so incredibly full of sh*t.
Back to top

macca Anti-Ameriprise Offline Friends don't let friends use Ameriprise! Posts: 4685 Summer-Rockies, Winter-beach	Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP Reply #48 - Sep 30^th, 2006, 2:32pm "You're so incredibly full of sht. " Great response. Why not go post that on the diehards forum as your Ameripoff defense..... Is NASD 'incredibly full of sht', too?
Back to top	BLUEBOX SAYS: "MACCA IS RIGHT ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS!!"&&

amp

Ex Member

Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP
Reply #49 - Sep 30^th, 2006, 2:52pm

Are you still making everything you type a 12 or 14 point? You're so weird.

Anyway, You know why you're so incredibly full of sh*t? Let's just go 1 at a time. I don't want to overwhelm the tiny brain and enormous ego that you have.

First, is it really what is sold? Then why does Vanguard push only proprietary products? I usually don't sell Riversource funds. But proprietary funds are all they want me to buy at vanguard. Shameless. Except for their brokerage arm that is....Oh, in which case they sell funds w/ the dreaded 12b1, don't they? And were we ever told where those go? I hope they're not also a "Significant portion of revenue" like from Vanguard's revenue sharing disclosure sheet. At least ameriprise let's us know where the money's going.

And is it really how it's sold? How about how I usually charge between 500 and 750, for a comprehensive financial plan....and I deliver it in person, and I'm local, and I meet w/ the clients several times throughout the year. How is that for how I sell my services? Now let's contrast that with how vanguard sells a financial plan: It costs $2000 !!! You get it 'told' to you over the phone. You get ONE phone meeting for your 2000 bucks!

That's the first installment of 'what and how I sell', manhandscca.

Back to top

macca

Anti-Ameriprise

Offline

Friends don't let friends
use Ameriprise!
Posts: 4685
Summer-Rockies, Winter-beach

Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP
Reply #50 - Sep 30^th, 2006, 3:54pm

"Then why does Vanguard push only proprietary products?"

They don't. Again, people call Vanguard to buy Vanguard funds because Vanguard is good. Their costs are low (yours aren't) their funds perform great (yours don't), Vanguard stayed out of the scandals (you didn't), Vanguard is client owned, (you aren't).

" I usually don't sell Riversource funds."

Prove it.

"But proprietary funds are all they want me to buy at vanguard. "

Again, people call Vanguard to buy Vanguard funds. Vanguard's funds are great. At Ameripoff, your garbage prop funds were once all you sold, but they did so badly you had to start offering other funds. Even now I hear rumors that Ameripoff is trying to sell off Riversource.

"Except for their brokerage arm that is....Oh, in which case they sell funds w/ the dreaded 12b1, don't they?"

Yup, you can buy funds from other fund companies through the Vanguard brokerage that charge 12b-1 fees. Vanguard does not charge 12b-1 fees, though. You lied about that.

"I hope they're not also a "Significant portion of revenue" like from Vanguard's revenue sharing disclosure sheet. "

lol, I hope they are. Then, the Vanguard clients (me) will not have to pay to advertise other fund families products. You see, AMP, at Ameripoff the money goes into the salesman's pocket. Not into the Riversource funds. That hurts the clients. At Vanguard, it goes into the Vanguard funds. Isn't that great? This is one reason why Vanguard has millions and millions and millions more clients than Ameripoff does. This could be a reason you are LOSING clients. Vanguard planners don't get kickbacks and soft dollars and 12b-1 fee commissions, like you do. Any profit goes back into the funds.

"How about how I usually charge between 500 and 750, or even as low as 300 for a comprehensive financial plan"

And, of course, you can't prove a word you say. For all I know, you charge $1,200. On top of that you charge 1% a year (so you say) and then you put people into expensive garbage on top of that.

So, your clients pay:
$500 for a plan
1% a year
1.25% or more in fund expenses
1.45 for M&E on a rava (and probably more for riders)

Good grief!! I pay less than .20% for ALL my costs!!!!

"....and I deliver it in person, and I'm local, and I meet w/ the clients several times throughout the year. "

Right. This way you can work your sales magic in person. Tell them your BS face to face. I know how that works. I've helped enough people get away from their salesmen 'face to face'. I know how 'face to face' means obfuscate and tell lies while pretending to be a 'trusted friend'. You don't fool me. Roll Eyes

"How is that for how I sell my services?"

Not very impressive. Especially since I know a lot about you from your posts on this site. I know what a liar you are. I know how ignorant you are. I know that you could care less about your clients. YOU TOLD ME.

" Now let's contrast that with how vanguard sells a financial plan: It costs $2000 !!! "

You refused to answer my question...WHEN does it cost $2,000? Well, the truth is that it rarely costs $2000. Often it costs nothing.

Flagship™ or any client with more than $1 million invested with Vanguard - fee waived.

Voyager™ or any client with between $250,000 and $1 million invested with Vanguard - fee waived.

Investors committing new assets of $100,000 to Vanguard - fee waived.

Existing clients with less than $250,000 invested with Vanguard - $1,000

The only time that the cost would be $2,000 is if the existing clients has less than $250,000 invested with Vanguard and wants a basic plan worked up, and special planning in addition....including things like estate planning, education planning, etc.

This is the kind of crap you pull on your clients 'face to face'. You refuse to address the context, you leave out important facts, you outright lie. Then, you smile and pat them on the back and shake their hands after ripping them off.

" You get it 'told' to you over the phone. "

Wrong.

" You get ONE phone meeting for your 2000 bucks."

Liar.

I suggest that you learn what you are talking about before you start spewing garbage. My husband actually went through Vanguard planning as a second opinion. I KNOW what Vanguard offers. And I can read what is right there on the website. All you can do is spew lies and obfuscations. Just like you do with your clients.

Back to top

BLUEBOX SAYS: "MACCA IS RIGHT ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS!!"&&

amp

Ex Member

Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP
Reply #51 - Sep 30^th, 2006, 4:42pm

Quote:

[glow=pink, 2]Ya want ta know whut's even More HI LARIOUS? When I dun googled "rava prospectus" the top 2 sites that dun come up were about how ol' lyin' cheatin' low-down dirty manhands maccra, tha Lyin' DAWG changed the rava preespeckis ta suit her li'l A-genda! [/glow]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-31,GGLJ:en&sa=X&oi=spell&r...

[glow=pink, 2]I guess that "rava prospectus" is now synonymous w/ ol' lyin' low-down macca-manhands mcgee, and how she had ta lie and change them ol' words around becuz sha din't think they look'd bad enuff. Now That's HI LARIOUS! [/glow] Grin

This quote is yet another example of how dishonest you are---even googling "rava prospectus"--the top 2 items on the search turn up how you posted the prospectus and changed all the words around to suit your sick agenda! You really are a crazy dishonest liar w/ deepseated emotional problems! Get the help you need!

Anyway, I didn't bother to read your last (charming, I'm sure) lengthy post.

If I want to listen to the rants of crazy people, I go to Diehards. You're a dime a dozen over there.

Take care

PS, You're not trying to get amp advisors to post on a vanguard fan site because you know you look like an idiot on this site and want backup, are you?
If that's the reason, recruit them from that site, and bring them here. Otherwise, you should pick up the clues that ameriprise isn't hated as you posit, since you can't get more backup than the posters you invent.

Back to top

rkjrkj Amexsux New User Offline Member of Amexsux Posts: 3	Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP Reply #52 - Apr 10^th, 2007, 5:43pm If I supply the pistols would you guys have a real old fashioned duel and leave the site to ameriprise sucks relevant posts?
Back to top

akabc

Amexsux New User

Offline

Member of Amexsux
Posts: 1

Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP
Reply #53 - Apr 21^st, 2007, 6:59pm

Just a question. Has Vanguard gotten out of the mutual fund business? I just wondered because ETFs are cheaper and they could sell them to clients (it must be in the clients best interest because they're cheaper). Therefore, I'm sure that Vanguard no longer sells it's S&P 500 fund to anyone and simply offers them a VIPER. If they are still offering it to clients, they should cease. The client could get the same investment performance for less cost.

I think I'm going to run out and buy Vanguard S&P 500 Fund so I can earn 7.55% over the last 10-years and only pay .18% per year to do it. I would hate to pay Bill Miller .70% to earn nearly 4.5% more annually (that's a 60% increase in return as a real time number - NET of fees). And God forbid I pay a sales charge AND pay 1.08% internally to purchase Mutual Shares. All it does is kick Vanguard's S&P 500 Fund A** in the 1,3,5,10,15 and 20 year time frame. Look at the numbers joker. A $10,000 investment in each since 1976 (both net of any applicable sales charges):
Vanguard S&P 500 Fund = $329,477
Mutual Shares = $719,130

I'm no finance major or economic genius, but I'll pay the fees and take the increased performance.

Back to top

macca

Anti-Ameriprise

Offline

Friends don't let friends
use Ameriprise!
Posts: 4685
Summer-Rockies, Winter-beach

Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP
Reply #54 - Apr 21^st, 2007, 8:14pm

"Has Vanguard gotten out of the mutual fund business? I just wondered because ETFs are cheaper"

Vanguard sells ETFs - and you should do some research - ETFs are not always cheaper.
For example: "With continuous media attention, exchange traded funds are becoming synonymous in investor’s minds with low-cost investing. However, you cannot count traditional mutual funds out yet. In reality, for the typical investor who invests a little money upfront and hopes to derive several hundred bucks a month over 15 or 20 years, ETFs are likely to be more expensive than traditional index funds from providers like Vanguard Group Inc and Fidelity Investments."
http://www.thebulltrader.com/755/investing-in-etfs-versus-mutual-funds/

"I think I'm going to run out and buy Vanguard S&P 500 Fund so I can earn 7.55% over the last 10-years and only pay .18% per year to do it. I would hate to pay Bill Miller .70% to earn nearly 4.5% more annually (that's a 60% increase in return as a real time number - NET of fees). "

Of course here you are predicting PAST performance - not FUTURE performance. Very boring and since we do not go back in time to make investment choices, utterly useless. When you can predict FUTURE performance, then you will have a good argument. Wink

"I'm no finance major or economic genius,"

I certainly agree with you.

Back to top

BLUEBOX SAYS: "MACCA IS RIGHT ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS!!"&&

bluebox

Centurion Member

Offline

don't feed the trolls

Posts: 2389

Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP
Reply #55 - Apr 21^st, 2007, 9:43pm

macca wrote on Apr 21^st, 2007, 8:14pm:

[size=14]"Has Vanguard gotten out of the mutual fund business? I just wondered because ETFs are cheaper"

Vanguard sells ETFs

yes and the S&P 500 Viper is cheaper than VFINX. So why doesn't Vanguard just use the Viper instead of VFINX. Since they make it, they could waive brokerage fees since they could do it outside of the exchange as a private transaction.

Back to top

macca

Anti-Ameriprise

Offline

Friends don't let friends
use Ameriprise!
Posts: 4685
Summer-Rockies, Winter-beach

Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP
Reply #56 - Apr 22^nd, 2007, 4:43am

I think a better quetion would be why does YOUR firm offer up an S & P 500 index fund with the sickening expense ratio of .59%????? How dare you charge that kind of money for an S & P 500 index fund??!

And that expense ratio includes a 12b-1 fee!!

And I think we all know that 12b-1 fees are very harmful to investors:
"Surely the fee that you as a mutual fund investor should be most outraged by is the 12b-1 distribution fee. This fee ranges from 0.25% of a fund's assets all the way up to 1.0% of the fund's assets. This fee is used for marketing, advertising, and distribution services. Yup, that's right. If you're in a fund with a 12b-1 fee, you're paying every year for the fund to run commercials and try to sell itself. Can this in any way really help you? Do you enjoy seeing advertisements of your fund or your fund family on television? Unless you really do, you should probably avoid funds that charge a 12b-1 fee."

http://aol.fool.com/school/mutualfunds/costs/ratios.htm

That 12b-1 fee your firm charges is more than the entire expense ratio for VFINX at Vanguard!!!!

So you can see why YOUR fund returned 6.94% over the past 5 years while VFINX returned 7.50%.

I'd say you should clean up your own backyard before attacking a firm with very low costs that, unlike Ameripoff, kept it's nose clean throughout the scandals.

Back to top

BLUEBOX SAYS: "MACCA IS RIGHT ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS!!"&&

bluebox

Centurion Member

Offline

don't feed the trolls

Posts: 2389

Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP
Reply #57 - Apr 22^nd, 2007, 2:55pm

macca wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2007, 4:43am:

So you can see why YOUR fund returned 6.94% over the past 5 years while VFINX returned 7.50%.

of course when I use a S&P 500 index fund the internal costs are way less than VFINX but you of course know that.

Again however the issue is why doesn't Vanguard Make VFINX cheaper or just use the Viper which they make and sell for less? Nice try at another dodge however.

Back to top

macca

Anti-Ameriprise

Offline

Friends don't let friends
use Ameriprise!
Posts: 4685
Summer-Rockies, Winter-beach

Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP
Reply #58 - Apr 22^nd, 2007, 3:48pm

"of course when I use a S&P 500 index fund the internal costs are way less than VFINX but you of course know that."

No, I do not know that. All I know for sure is that you have lied to me and about me over and over. But if what you have told me about your fees is the truth, your clients are paying far, far more than I am in costs. That's a big reason why they get get lower returns than I do.

"Again however the issue is why doesn't Vanguard Make VFINX cheaper or just use the Viper which they make and sell for less?"

No, bluebox, this is the Ameriprise Sucks website and I think you should tell us why your index fund charges a horrid 12b-1 fee that is higher than the entire expense ratio of Vanguard's VFINX.

YOUR fund returned 6.94% over the past 5 years while VFINX returned 7.50%. And they are both S & P 500 index funds!! Shocked

I'd say you should clean up your own backyard before attacking a firm with very low costs that, unlike Ameripoff, kept it's nose clean throughout the scandals.

Back to top

BLUEBOX SAYS: "MACCA IS RIGHT ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS!!"&&

MINvarPORTwiz Centurion Member Offline Member of Amexsux Posts: 1159	Re: Exclusive Photo: Inside AMP Reply #59 - May 16^th, 2007, 10:59am to webmaster: most of the above 'posts'[ are not germaine to this topic, which is working at ameriprize, not 12b-1 fee calculations, bill millers bad year ('06).
Back to top