+8

Already pay for Marketplace now I have to pay for SA Pro too??

khart100 2 years ago in Website updated by investrealsc 2 years ago 1

I already pay $1,000 a year for a Marketplace service that provides high level analysis of virtually every stock worldwide. This is a great service that I use to find stock ideas that first meet their criteria.

What I have been doing is then going to SA and searching the stock and reading a bunch of past analysis performed by a wide variety of writers. Many of these ideas are not covered by many people. Many of them don't have articles written in the last 10 days. For many of them it has been several months (TREX for example).

I'm now expected to pay $900 a year more to read months old and outdated analysis? This is absurd. If SA stays this way I doubt I will renew my subscription service that I'm currently paying for. While they provide great high level statistical based analysis, they don't really go in depth on any one stock in particular. So instead of a $1,000 a year subscription, I now basically need to have a $1,900 a year subscription to get what I need.

I'm also annoyed that some people are apparently offered the Pro service at $300 a year as I've seen numerous complaint comments referencing this amount. To go from $0 to $900 is insane. I'd consider paying maybe $10-20 a month but $75...???

I'm even more annoyed that this change was done with absolutely no communication from SA. I spent a lot of time yesterday trying to figure out what was going on. I created a new account to see if something was wrong with my current account. That's just terrible customer service.

+3

I agree 100%, and I really hope more customers voice (pen) their opposition, as I view this as a bait and switch.  A couple of weeks a go I could research old articles (included in my membership) and now I have to pay for this "again"... 


I read a comment from a fellow forum member who pointed out an interesting comparison:

SA Research $900 annual 

WSJ $222

Apparently SA has become a more valuable resource than the WSJ.... hmmm