Why does FIS take on the responsibilities for funds outsourcing their Transfer Agent (TA) and then do a cr-ppy job a la Franklin Templeton? Eager to sign the contract, woefully unprepared to fulfill its terms. Every move of FIS senior leadership is based on the short term. It's creaking along robbing Peter to pay Paul on the bottom line. When they fail to meet the terms they have to pay huge penalties. It's the same mistakes over and over.
2 replies (most recent on top)
Sadly, before this regime took over, TA had happy and loyal clients. Victory, through multiple name changes and management, goes back to at least the early 1990’s. This was before TA was acquired by FIS. One client had their funds processing with this TA and another; they did leave, because the larger portion of funds were handled by the other TA. They wrote a recommendation for the TA, felt badly, and I believe sent a gift, stressing the move was not due to service. There were other loyal clients who were happy. When FT came along, all of the existing clients’ projects were pushed to the rear. It is no wonder they were po’d. And with the shift to move jobs offshore, just putting warm bodies in the seats, little training, you get cr-ppy service. It really is a shame after years of providing excellent service. There are so few left from the original TA; not like it would matter. The original TA associates were treated less than, as if we were all simpletons in the Midwest, not professionals who had worked in the industry for dozens of years.
Because it is great on paper, brings in revenue, then management who are not managers cannot bring the portfolio forward and identify monies where needed. You know, cannot get bonuses and stay under the radar if you are spending money. Then they do not let go of those managers or executives for failure. Rinse and Repeat.