Is TradeKing Misleading New Clients?
I was checking out the TradeKing stock broker website just now and doing some quick analysis to find any hidden fees or faults. What I found was probably the most misleading piece of information that I’ve seen in quite some time when comparing itself against the competitors.
Fine Print Reads Wrong Year
View that image and tell me if anything stands out as being not right. It took me about 10 seconds to find that the price quotes for major competitors was horribly inaccurate. Here are a few “whoopsie” mistakes just off the top of my head:
- Etrade costs $12.99 per trade (price depends on what account you initially qualify for)
- Etrade charges $.015/share over 2,000 shares. (flat fee trades depending on account)
- “$4.95 per trade market or limit, no catches” (O yes TradeKing there are catches)
- Margin Rates of nearly 11% (Depends on the broker)
Now, take a look at the very bottom fine print and you will find this, “Commissions and fees from published web sites as of 7/5/2006. Some brokers may offer more competitive fees than the ones published if certain balances or level of activity are met. Please contact each broker individually to confirm their commission schedule.”
The year is 2007, not 2006.
ohh that’s not good.. could be a lawsuit waiting to happen!
You are correct – the date that was listed in the disclosure was from 2006. TradeKing had inadvertently missed updating the ‘as of date’ for the information as the page was updated; an error on our part. Your post made us want to make sure the information we were presenting was correct. As it turns out, one of our competitors did lower their per-contract charge on an options trade in the past few days, which we have since updated to ensure accuracy. However, if you look at the graphic you posted, you will see the margin rates are presently correct and have been updated when appropriate throughout the year.
TradeKing strives to be straightforward and honest with everyone. In no way was this an attempt at ‘tomfoolery’; simply an oversight when updating the page. We are a bit embarrassed that the ‘as of date’ was not kept updated when the numbers changed, so kudos for catching our error!
Be good,
Mike
TradeKing