Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Off-topic? I dunno. Morningstar, again. A different glitch

Hello. I notice over the last few days that many of the "News and events" links on the quote page for many funds have been removed, ostensibly because the news is too old. But is LAST MONTH (October, 2014) too old??? The titles of the news articles do appear, but when I click on them, an Error message comes to say that "we no longer make this one available." Stinks.


  • edited November 2014
    Perhaps, as Microsoft used to state, "it's not a bug it is a feature. More and more it seems like they have a problem with their system. I can see the eventual expiration of stale news but they should leave it up for one year as a reference.
  • edited November 2014
    Certainly, yes! I put all my stuff together a long time ago in a portfolio at Morningstar, and as far as it goes, I still think it's the most user-friendly, even if the updates are slow. But elsewhere on their website, I see contradictory data and ...just... just... a BUNCH of stuff that tells me that M* is not all that reliable. I'm taking the print edition of WSJ and can access its online version, plus Barron's, too. So, I will. :)
  • edited November 2014
    Hi Max,

    Perhaps, the new and improved features that M* now offers ... Well although they might be new ... they might not be improved!

    Seems they have a gremlin within their data system that they, thus far, have been unable to extract.

  • Hello, Old Skeet. You're right!
  • @Max: "I'm taking the print edition of WSJ and can access its online version"? But you have to pay twice, no? Once for print, again for on-line?
  • edited November 2014
    No, sir. I'm paying for the print edition with air miles, anyhow. I have consciously decided not to torture myself in the sky anymore, unless there's no other option--- like an upcoming visit to a classmate, next May. I got SWA tix at a bargain basement price, but I have to use Boston rather than Hartford---which I don't like. ......... They are allowing me to get online at no additional cost. I guess it might be different if I were using a cell phone app? It is indeed possible to purchase ONLY the digital, online "newspaper." ....... I used up some more stale air-miles to buy Barron's, too. Now I can easily switch and toggle back and forth, between them. Getting the online access straightened out was a major pain, because everyone, everywhere, who is supposed to be in charge, has put computers in charge. Customer "service" on the telephone for WSJ is just up the road in the next town from me, in Chicopee. Its proximity made the option to run up there and chew on some faces more attractive, but in the end, I did not do it. THEY called ME to get it up and running, at last. :) After I did a bit of looking and spoke to a person or two at the CORPORATE office. North Jersey, I think.....
  • Max: I've long been greatly irritated that our print subscription does not allow on-line access. How did you accomplish that? The last time I checked there was no registration provision in the on-line version that accepted a print subscription.
  • Old Joe, the lovely chat-agent suggests that maybe the reason you can't get online acceess is because your subscription is just for the week-end? I bet that is not the case, but I figured I'd ask...... What's the verdict? :)
  • The following 'cut & paste' from morningstar portfolio news section
    is as of 1pm Tuesday 11/25/14 ------------------------------
    Morningstar Alert

    04-25-14 01:00 PM
    New portfolio
    An update to the fund's portfolio has been reported. The portfolio is dated 14-02-28.
    ------------------------- many other funds in the port. 'news' section' show the 'same old' -- 'same old'

  • .....anyhow, the useless troll is saying that you need to contact Customer Service (aka Customer Rage and Aggravation Line) ..... So, what GOOD is that chat tool, eh?
    What I ended-up with is a user-name which is NOT a user-name, but an email address, instead. An AUTOMATED password was generated.

    When I added Barron's, at first they couldn't even see that I had a subscription. When they uncovered it, I asked them whether the user name and password HAD TO BE the same for both. The twit I was talking to did not know, so she told me, "yes." So, I found it impossible to get online access to Barron's at first, and, as usual, "Customer Service" was as useful as tits on a bull.

    I called the CORPORATE office. I deliberately went into their stupid list of employees I might be trying to reach. The guy who picked up was very understanding, and put me on to the proper woman. She, in turn, had another woman take care of all the necessary steps in order for me to be able to get into BOTH of them, online---while I was still right there with her, on the phone. I was nice for a change, rather than to vent my frustration at the typical bullshit that we all find, everywhere, when trying to use such automated systems. But will the Ministry of Truth come after me, now? "How many fingers am I holding up, Max?"

  • Old Joe, I did a bit of looking back. I suggest you try this number in Princeton, or maybe it's Monmouth Junction, NJ
    (609) 514-0870

    That's NOT the direct line to the Customer Rage and Aggravation phone line. I used that one to GET AROUND the dolts at "Customer Service." When I thoroughly explained what was going on, it was they, in NJ, not Chicopee, who ended-up assisting and getting the job done.
  • Thanks, Ralph. Yes, it seems like a Chinese Fire Drill over at Morningstar. Oops, will the political correctness police chase me down, now? I recall once that Yahoo shut me down because I dared to use the word, "gobbledygook." I was told it was offensive. Yes. The humans have stopped thinking. The computers are doing it for them, now.
  • Don't fight city my Morningstar...the bible can not be changed
  • My latest note(s) to "Joe" and Carly mention that they're wrong on the AIP minimums for both Artisan (which does waive the minimum, contra Morningstar) and Vanguard (which doesn't, also contra Morningstar) and encourages them to try to make any sense at all out of the performance reports for Royce Focus (FUND). The number of impossible inconsistencies on a single page is really impressive.


  • Any other mistakes? I use them EVERY Day? So far so good....
Sign In or Register to comment.