Good til 180 Days

or Register to post new content in the forum



  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Aug 12, 2009 9:13 pm

Since when did a GTC order  become a good until 180 day order?  Yesterday according to WFA.  Had every single one of my orders cancelled.  180 days old, 45 days old, all of them.  How can a firm cancel good orders in non discretionary accounts?

Aug 12, 2009 9:27 pm

I thought that the only things to be cancelled yesterday were the 2x and 3x leveraged ETF’s.  I didn’t notice having any of my orders cancelled, although I didn’t check…

Aug 12, 2009 9:30 pm

New policy (at least for AGE) any GTC orders that were 180 days old were cancelled, FA needed to call client to put the order back on.  More worthless hours spent. 

Aug 12, 2009 11:18 pm

Since when did a GTC order  become a good until 180 day order
Yea a big pain in the ass. Another liability for us. I have had them canceled and didnt know about it. Not like they send you an email or anything. If you dont have your system programmed right, you wont know and if a price target hit on the buy or sell side and your order is out, well it could be a big problem. Why they make it so difficult to do this biz, I dont know.

Aug 13, 2009 10:43 am

Since someone mentioned it, is WF restricting leveraged ETFs?

Aug 13, 2009 4:34 pm

There is a exchange fee to keep them in past 180 days. They’re not going to eat it. They could have let people know. I have a list of all GTC orders and the dates, 170 days, when to re enter.

  "What we have here is a lack of communication"
Aug 13, 2009 5:09 pm

180 days forces you to review accounts and communicate with clients semi-annually.  When I was still at Ameriprise, about six months into switching from Pershing to Schwab for the clearing on the wrap program, we started to get socked a tkt charge for GTC and Stop loss orders. The suits rationale was it takes up megabytes and storage, therefore the advisor will pay.  And yes, even if it did not execute, the rep got charged.  Marvelous!

Aug 13, 2009 8:58 pm

Should have done your training !!!

Actually they should have sent out a notice on Infomax or the News leader,
but then a lot of FA’s don’t read that either.

Aug 14, 2009 1:24 pm


Since someone mentioned it, is WF restricting leveraged ETFs?

[/quote] Yes they are restricting them.[/quote]   Thanks for confirming.  Do you know if this will affect SMAs as well?