BBB Logo

Better Business Bureau ®
Start With Trust®

BBB Accredited Business since

Capitol Information Group Inc

Additional Locations

Phone: (703) 905-8000 View Additional Phone Numbers 7600A Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22043 http://www.capinfogroup.com View Additional Web Addresses

Print

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Capitol Information Group Inc meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.

Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 16 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Capitol Information Group Inc include:

  • Length of time business has been operating.
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size.
  • Response to 3 complaint(s) filed against business.
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business.
  • BBB has sufficient background information on this business.


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

3 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 3 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 0
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 3
Total Closed Complaints 3

Additional Information

top
BBB file opened: October 14, 2009 Business started: 11/02/1983 in VA Business incorporated: 06/23/2009 in VA
Type of Entity

Corporation

Business Management
Mr. Phill Ash, President Ms. Alane Dashner, Director of Circulation Ms. Barbara Griggs, Customer Service Manager Mr. Richard Matulis, Finance Director
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Phill Ash, President
Customer Contact: Ms. Barbara Griggs, Customer Service Manager
Business Category

Publishers - Periodical Advertising - Direct Mail Magazine Sales by Mail

Alternate Business Names
Business Management Daily Investing Daily Personal Finance
Additional Information

On June 26, 2009, CIG acquired the publishing assets of Newsletter Holdings and its subsidiaries, KCI Communications and National Institute of Business Management. Included in the transaction are all print newsletters, web sites, special reports and event assets.


Additional Locations

  • 7600A Leesburg Pike

    Falls Church, VA 22043

  • P O Box 9266

    Mclean, VA 22102

  • P.o Box 9186

    Mclean, VA 22102

  • P.o. Box 3808

    Mclean, VA 22103

  • P.o. Box 4123

    Mclean, VA 22103

  • P.O. Box 9070

    McLean, VA 22101

  • P.o. Box 9266

    Alexandria, VA 22102

  • P.o. Box 9286

    Mclean, VA 22102

  • PO Box 3808

    West Mclean, VA 22103

  • PO Box 9206

    Mclean, VA 22102

  • 1
X

What is a BBB Business Review?

We offer free reviews on businesses that include background, licensing, consumer experience and other information such as governmental actions that is known to BBB. These reviews are provided for businesses that are BBB accredited and also for businesses that are not BBB accredited.

X

About BBB Business Review Content & Services:

Some Better Business Bureaus offer additional content & services in BBB Business Reviews.
The additional content & services are typically regional in nature or, in some cases, a new product or service that is being tested prior to a more general release.
Not all enhanced content & services are available at all Better Business Bureaus.

Professional AffiliationsX
X

Types of Complaints Handled by BBB

BBB handles the following types of complaints between businesses and their customers so long as they are not, or have not been, litigated:

  • Advertising or Sales
  • Billing or Collection
  • Problems with Products or Services
  • Delivery
  • Guarantee or Warranty

We do not handle workplace disputes, discrimination claims or claims about the quality of health or legal services.

X

BBB Complaint Process

Your complaint will be forwarded to the business within two business days. The business will be asked to respond within 14 days, and if a response is not received, a second request will be made. You will be notified of the business's response when we receive it (or notified that we received no response). Complaints are usually closed within 30 business days.

X

What is BBB Advertising Review?

BBB promotes truth in advertising by contacting advertisers whose claims conflict with the BBB Code of Advertising. These claims come to our attention from our internal review of advertising, consumer complaints and competitor challenges. BBB asks advertisers to prove their claims, change ads to make offers more clear to consumers, and remove misleading or deceptive statements.

X

What government actions does BBB report on?

BBB reports on known significant government actions involving business' marketplace conduct.

X

Thank you for your feedback!

Help us improve by taking our survey.

X

BBB Reporting Policy

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.

X

Additional Phone Numbers

  • (703) 394-4921(Phone)
  • (703) 394-4931(Phone)
  • (703) 610-0101(Phone)
  • (703) 739-3798(Phone)
  • (703) 905-4657(Phone)
  • (703) 905-4931(Phone)
  • (800) 543-2053(Phone)
  • (800) 832-2330(Phone)
  • (800) 892-9702(Phone)
Find a LocationX

  Change Location
Show Only Accredited Locations


Complaint Detail(s)

1/4/2014 Problems with Product/Service
11/23/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The Energy Strategist is a Newsletter which is part of Investing Daily -- and which in turn is part of the Capital Information Group. I paid approximately $400 per year for this Newsletter. The letter has come under new leadership recently. I am seeing and can show unequivocally that they are distorting the performance of their stock recommendations and performance -- in particular showing gains on their tracking sheets for recent stock recommendations which are inaccurate and which give potential customers the view that their performance is significantly better than it really is. This is a misrepresentation. I wrote to them on September 2nd flagging these issues in writing. My e-mail letter to them is provided below. Please note that I have raised the issues previously and when each inaccuracy occurred (as well) and in prior emails, and have received no response from the company. The email which I sent them on September 2nd (again have sent emails previously) is provided below. I would be grateful for the BBB's help in getting this Newsletter to provide accurate reporting. That is in the interest of all customers. I anticipate that the Newsletter may try to "spin" this matter. From my standpoint, am happy to clarify any points. Also, I do not have a specific agenda -- aside from just wanting fair and accurate reporting of stock price recommendations. Excerpt below: Hi...I have been a subscriber to the Energy Strategist for over a year now and wanted to write regarding the accounting of several recent stock picks in the Newsletter. Overall -- an investor needs to feel comfortable that their stock analysts have high integrity and provide objective advice. Otherwise, the willingness to risk significant capital in recommended investments becomes questionable. As I have reviewed a number of recent stock picks, have noticed the following: A. Alliance Holdings -- recommended recently within the Energy Strategist. However, the stock is officially recorded on your growth portfolio spreadsheet as added on 12/02/2010 (rather than 2013) with a total return to date of 46.56%! For Energy Strategist subscribers -- that is not accurate. *. ******** (*** and ***) -- recommended recently as buys in your Newsletter for the Growth Portfolio. However, only TSO made it ultimately to the portfolio tracking sheet. Return to date not recorded though (it has lost money since being recommended. That is not a problem in the short-term by the way; why don't you simply track the actual performance?). ** *** -- jumped above the recommended price of 75 the morning after recommendation -- so most investors never got in. Currently showing a 25.09% return which is not right anyway. I think that this might be labelled as "fudging" or cooking the numbers and skewing the actual returns. At this point -- I have been reading the monthly issues but have scaled back my positions overall and have stopped buying the picks for now like ***** *****. While not all readers will understand the implications of not accounting for recommendations accurately and honestly -- ultimately subscribers will be lost and the credibility of the Newsletter will start to erode -- if not through formal feedback (i.e., some people will never write in and share there views) than through informal discussions. While you might be taken aback by my flagging these issues, I think that the reality is that you may wish to consider the integrity of the newsletter you are writing and what you are really doing on a day-to-day basis. As noted above, investors do depend on accurate and honest analysis. What is the point of being in this business otherwise? Ultimately, it is hard to make money doing otherwise. You might gain subscribers through games in the short-term; ultimately more will be lost than through accurate reporting. In contrast by the way, I do buy other more expensive newsletters like the **** Stock Analyst and the ****** Stock Analyst. They provide a valuation of each stock (rather than a buy-under) and they list their performance accurately against these holding each year -- and have an independent audit done. That is -- there is no gaming or dishonest tracking. Right now -- I am deciding whether your analysis overall is worth retaining the newsletter for reading purposes. Regardless, my suggestion is that you should show a higher standard of leadership and integrity in reporting. My sense -- is you would probably gain more subscribers in the end and have a better sense of personal value. As you can appreciate, it is very disappointing to honest Joes who are simply looking for a reputable, well researched energy newsletter - to observe this gaming of the numbers. And at a certain level -- you are ultimately disappointing yourselves and what you stand for - through engaging in these types of practices. At this point, there is still an opportunity to clean up this reporting and report the stock picks accurately. My hope is that you will do the right thing -- for you and for the newsletter firstly -- and properly report the numbers. Note: Sent 9/2/2013 at 9:30 pm….

Desired Settlement: The Newsletter needs to accurately report information on the performance of their stock price recommendations. The performance from the date recommended by the Newsletter, the real returns, and the gains or losses.

Business Response: Dear ***** ******,

I am ****** ******, Chief Investment Strategist for The ****** Strategist. I have recently been made aware of a complaint by a subscriber to my newsletter. The subscriber’s name is ******* ****** and the complaint number is *******.

Before getting into the specifics of the complaint, I want to explain how the newsletter works. The ****** Strategist is written by **** ********* and myself. We give investing advice to subscribers, including specific Buy and Sell recommendations on companies. The ****** Strategist is one of many newsletters put out under the Investing Daily umbrella. These newsletters are supported by a large staff.

I do not personally manage the spreadsheet that tracks the performance of the portfolios. When a pick is made, that information is relayed to a support person who updates the tracking spreadsheets. Generally the updates are done quickly, but it is possible that there could be a short delay depending on the workload of the person entering the data.

Human errors are possible. I have caught this on occasion when a new stock pick is entered. Errors can go in both directions; we have had very good performers in the portfolio show poor performance because a wrong date was entered. The entry of *** ******, for example, had a glitch that caused it to show 0 percent return even though it was up by ~20 percent since being added to the portfolio in August. I try to check the portfolios as often as possible, and we try to catch and correct any errors shortly after they appear.

As of today’s date, there are three portfolios for The ****** Strategist. There are 21 stocks in our Growth Portfolio, 9 in our Conservative Portfolio, and 11 in our Aggressive Portfolio. Of the 41 stocks in the portfolio, all but 8 have positive gains since being added to the portfolios. The complaint that **. ****** makes could happen if a new stock is added to the portfolio and an error is made in entering the date. Given the number of stocks that we have in the portfolios – and the outstanding performance of the respective portfolios – I find it shocking that someone would ascribe to us a motive of purposely attempting to fudge our numbers. Our portfolio performance has been so strong that there is certainly no need to exaggerate it.

On to the specifics of the complaint. On the ***** item, I have inquired and was told that ******** ******** was in the portfolio at one time in the past, was sold, and then was added back. It is possible that when it was added back that the person who entered the data initially entered the original date it was in the portfolio. I don’t know this to be a fact, because this complaint never reached me and it is correct in the portfolio now. Did **. ****** perhaps supply screenshots for support of his claims? In any case, it is possible that ********, when added to a portfolio of 40 stocks, had a wrong date entered which was subsequently corrected. Certainly no intent to mislead, but possibly a case of human error. If **. ****** captured a screenshot, then I could confirm that an error had been made, but if an error was made it didn’t persist for long before being corrected.

On the 2nd item, the question of the refiners *** and ***, both of these companies are listed in the Growth Portfolio. *** had initially been on our Watch List, so it was listed already even before the new Buy recommendation was issued. *** wouldn’t have been in the portfolio until our data entry person had a chance to add it. Since we have 3 portfolios, it is also possible that **. ****** looked for *** in the wrong portfolio. Again, a screenshot in this case would be helpful to establish when he claims *** was not in the tracking spreadsheet. As in the previous instance, certainly no intent to mislead, but once we make the recommendation we rely on our data entry person to get the portfolio updated in a timely fashion.

On the 3rd item – the question of ***. We recommend a Buy price, and if a stock exceeds the Buy price then we advise to wait and try to buy the stock on a dip. We may also subsequently raise the Buy price. In fact we recommended *** on April 24th, 2013 and it did quickly jump above our $75 Buy target. However, had **. ****** placed a limit order at our $75 target, *** dipped below that level on May 13th, 2013 and **. ******’s order would have been placed. As of today, *** is up nearly 29 percent since being added to our Growth Portfolio on April 24th. Between April 24th and September 2nd – the date of **. ******’s complaint – *** had in fact returned 26.45 percent, and he did in fact have an opportunity to buy at our recommended price 3 weeks after we initially made the recommendation. So it would appear that **. ****** is simply mistaken on this count.

Regarding **. ******'s comment that he has stopped following our recommendations – specifically mentioning ***** ***** – I would add that since being added to our Aggressive Portfolio on August 28, 2013 that ***** ***** is up 45 percent in less than 2 months. While you can never be right on every pick, our portfolios are full of picks that have double-digit gains in a short period of time. We have no need or desire to exaggerate the portfolio performance. Had **. ******’s complaint made its way to me I would have addressed his concerns directly, and maybe he would have developed a different working hypothesis than thinking we are dishonest.

I am sorry that **. ****** feels that it was our intent to mislead, and I regret any data entry glitches that may have taken place. I am also sorry that **. ****** missed out on ***** ***** and ***, because he would have made double-digit gains in a short period of time in both cases.

Sincerely, ****** ******

Chief Investment Strategist for The ****** Strategist

October 25, 2013

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:

Dear **. ******, I would like to respond the comments provided by ****** ******.  Many of his comments are, unfortunately, incorrect. For context: 1.  I wrote to the Energy Strategist over a week before contacting the Better Business Bureau citing the same issues discussed in my letter to you.  My email was sent to the Newsletter on 9/2/2013 at 9:30 pm.  (I have retained a copy of that letter) To date no one from the Energy Strategist has ever responded directly.2.  Regarding the problems in reporting regarding *** and ***, I looked at the Growth portfolio for weeks after those two stocks were reported as "Buys."  During this period, I called their Customer Service department directly and raised my concern.  Secondarily, I also wrote to **** ********* (**. ******'s Partner) through the Stock Talk "Blog" on their website indicating that those two stocks were unreported – a blog where he responds frequently.  While **. ********* responds to questions raised on the Blog -- he did not respond to my comment or concern about *** and *** reporting.3.  Regarding screen shots, yes -- I have multiple ones.  For example, regarding ******** Holdings -- the stock was reported incorrectly for multiple weeks after recommendation -- as having been held by the company since 2010 and showing an over 35% return.  ******** Holdings was initially recommended in the July 24, 2013 issue (newsletter attached).   As of the August 21st issue (about a month later, also attached) – the reporting was still in error.  This is the Newsletter that **. ****** and **. ********* are purportedly reviewing and publishing biweekly.   If you have any trouble reading or opening these attachments, please revert.  [I am also happy to furnish the substantiation in regards to *** and *** as well].


 Potential conclusions: 1.  The performance of **. ******'s stocks is irrelevant (whether winners or losers).   What is relevant here and the concern is whether the performance of his stocks are reported accurately to his consumer base - -- for reasons discussed in detail in my original email to your office.2.  **. ****** cites 41 stock picks in his portfolio.  Our suggestion is that he needs to make sure that the original recommended price, performance-to-date, etc are reported accurately.  It only takes me a few minutes (as an individual consumer) to review the stocks in the Energy Strategist portfolio versus his Newsletter recommendations and see if the reporting is accurate.  He and **. *********, we suggest, can and should check their recommendations both when initially reported and periodically thereafter.  Otherwise, it begs the question - who is minding the shop (i.e., who is carefully and prudently managing the business)?Additionally, **. ****** is indicating in his email that he finds it "shocking" that someone is suggesting that he may be fudging the numbers.  And then, Robert, goes on to suggest that I (i.e., the consumer) is making errors.  As discussed above, I have not made an error.  Further, many of these errors in reporting have existed for weeks. Only recently have they been addressed (perhaps finally due to my letters or others to his Customer Service department).    What is technically of concern -- is that **. ****** and **. ********* have been advised about these errors previously by call and email to their customer service department, and have not taken action or written back -- prior to my contacting you (and that they feel the need to use the adjectives in their response, i.e., "shocking" and [consumer] "errors").  If **. ****** is apologetic for these errors, we can certainly appreciate and respect that.  In tandem, there is also no need to write back discussing consumer errors or related adjectives.    That is unnecessary, **. ******.
In short, we believe that the suggested approach is that the Energy Strategist needs to more carefully and rigorously track their recommendations moving forward, make sure that the holdings are recorded accurately, and mitigate these problems from happening again.  That will help the consumer. Thank you.  
Sincerely, ***** ******

Business Response: November 14, 2013

Dear **. ******:

On Monday, November 4th our Director of Consumer Satisfaction, *** ******, spoke with **. ****** by phone to address his areas of concern wfth our services. Following is a recap of that conversation and **. ******'s reply to the specific points enumerated in **. ******'s last response:

1)    For reasons presently unknown, we did not receive the email of September 2nd referenced in his response (or any subsequent emails sent through the same forum). Because of this, **. ****** did not receive a response from **. ****** or **. *********.

The most recent email Investing Daily received from **. ****** regarding The Energy Strategist, occurred in February of this year.

To be dear, we are not implying that **. ****** did not send it; however, there is no record of it being received on our end, either,

2)    On July 3rd **. ****** did post a comment on the "Stack Talk" forum of The Energy Strategist regarding reporting concerns on *** and ***. However, contrary to **. ******'s claim that **. ********* "did not respond to my comment or concern about *** and *** reporting", **. ********* did in fact respond the following day, July 4* in the same forum, in his response, he included the statement that *** and *** "are likely to be downgraded from Buy to Hold next week as we're growing concerned about the trading action in refiners as the ********* spread continues to evaporate."

3)    **. ****** acknowledged that **. ****** is correct in that the reporting for those two stocks was in error in both August editions of The Energy Strategist.

We recognize that a reporting error occurred in The Energy Strategist as **. ****** has described. However, we adamantly deny that the error was intentional, or was done with the intent of trying to embellish the value of our investment service. As **. ****** pointed out in his initial response, a similar error was made with another security during the same time period. In that instance, the effect of the error was an understatement of the stock's performance by 20% (which we believe is relevant to the question of intent).

At no time was any employee of Investing Daily ignoring **. ****** or his concerns. It may sound cliched, but we value all of our subscribers and attempt to satisfy all of them. Investing Daily has been publishing investment advice since 1974 and enjoys an excellent record for customer satisfaction as evidenced by one of the highest renewal rates in our industry -- the litmus test for delivering on our promises. In fact, **. ****** himself has subscribed sixteen different times to our various publications over the past six years.

in this case, an unintentional editorial error did occur and we are taking steps to ensure that it does not happen again. Although the process for inputting changes to our investment portfolios is manual and carries with it the potential for human error, we have instructed all of our analysts to add a "verification check" step to their review process, to ensure that all portfolios are reviewed twice before publication. In addition, all subscriber inquiries regarding portfolio reporting or editorial integrity will now be forwarded to **. ****** so he can personally oversee our response and act as a pivotal point of contact with the subscriber.

We appreciate **. ******'s concern for reporting accuracy and agree with his assertion that the primary outcome from this exercise going forward is "the holdings are recorded accurately, and mitigate these problems from happening again", in that respect, we are in full agreement.

We appreciate **. ****** giving us his time, effort, and the opportunity to bring this matter to our attention. We eagerly await his response and look forward to his acceptance of our explanations. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Consumer Response: Better Business Bureau:

 
 
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID *******.  Overall, the response is satisfactory to me (with selected caveats below).
 
Where we agree with the response of the Capital Information Group is that they are instituting new procedures to address errors in stock reporting moving forward.  We are pleased by these actions and believe that it is in the best interest of all their subscribers.
 
That being said, there are several areas where there appears to be inaccuracies or misstatements in their response.
 
The Capital Information Group indicates that:
 
A.  I subscribed to 16 services that they offer.  What is true is that I examined many of their services for short 30 day, free trial periods, before formally subscribing the ones that were of interest.  I primarily have subscribed to two:  Canadian Edge and the Energy Strategist (for extended periods of time).  I ultimately dropped Canadian Edge because there was a stocks recommended that dropped to about zero and where upon further research I found that the company was showing ballooning accounts receivable positions (that were not being paid by their customers).  This problem in the recommended stock (i.e., a ballooning accounts receivable position) was one that I felt that a good equity analyst would have been able to spot in advance of the disastrous earnings reports that the company ultimately declared, causing the stock to plunge.  I later found that other researchers (independent of the Capital Information Group) were separately warning about the risks in that stock.
B.  The company apparently did not receive my original email of September 2nd.  I sent it and saw that the email was acknowledged as sent.  I also sent **. ****** after our recent call -- several trial emails -- at his request -- through the firm's customer service response center on the internet, which he appears to have received.  (He indicated that he would advise me, if he did not receive my test emails). The point here is that as the Capital Investment Group does not acknowledge original receipt -- places higher probability on the fact that the company's quality procedures were not completely sound - before lodging a complaint at the Better Business Bureau.
** **** ********* acknowledges that the stocks I asked about on July 2 on Stock Talk -- were being reviewed and placed on Hold.  However, what the letter from *** *****'s fails to acknowledge is in that same email thread is that I advised **** that these stocks (***, and ***) were not being reported at all in the Newsletter's Growth Portfolio -- after being recommended and after having dropped in value significantly.  Further, after advising him in that email thread that the stocks were not being reported -- he took no discernible action to get the Growth Portfolio corrected.  The non reporting went on for weeks, as mentioned in my previous emails to the BBB.
D.  Lastly, regarding the newsletter and **. ******'s comment that one separate stock had gone up in value -- and was not being reported as having gone up, what I can say is that I was tracking the Growth Portfolio and what we were observing was misreporting or non-reporting of stocks that had gone down. I noted 3 significant ones in past emails to the BBY.
 
Lastly, as the BBB will appreciate -- I have no specific agenda here aside from ensuring that the Capital Information Group and the Energy Strategist Newsletter has more effective stock reporting and tracking procedures, and that their recommendations are provided accurately and tracked.  I have sought no other benefit in any manner.  Further, I have written back each time at my own personal expense and time -- because I have reviewed the situation carefully.  **. ******'s comments in our email exchange several weeks ago -- that he creates the newsletter material, but then does not see the actual published Newsletter -- is a seminal point.
 
What I would ask is that the Capital Investing Group in their response, kindly avoid these types of questionable arguments highlighted in points A through D above.  Had they not made these assertions, i would have simply accepted the response without caveat.
 
In my view, the fundamental issues are:
 
A.  The company needs to tighten their quality procedures.  We are delighted to seeing them now doing this.  We laud them for this effort and look forward to sustained and accurate reporting moving forward.
B.   What would also help (although not part of my compliant above and clearly an aside) -- is that they hire people on their staff who have requisite financial analysis certifications (i.e., are Chartered Financial Analysts or CFAs, a normal requirement for an Equity Research Analyst).  The reason I mention this is that frequently the newsletter indicates that you should buy a stock below a certain price (e.g., buy stock ABC below $40.00. However, they never advise what the stock is actually worth based upon its projected cash flow.  Consistent with points above -- transparent valuation of equities and accurate reporting would strengthen the fabric of the organization.   You will also note the value of having people on the staff with these certifications, based upon my comments regarding the Canadian Edge Newsletter (which is also published by the Capital Information Group).
 
Regarding the company's assertion that the errors were unintentional -- we are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at this time -- and in the spirit of fairness.  While it is possible to make an argument either way here (based upon my calls to the Newsletter, the emails I sent, my Stock Talk conversation with **** *********) -- we are willing to give the company the benefit of the doubt at this time, based upon their efforts to improve their internal procedures as documented in *** *****'s response to you.
 
In this regard, we appreciate **. ****** reaching out to me, and we appreciate the Newsletter's efforts.  
 
I would also like to thank the Better Business Bureau for their time and efforts here.  Clearly, you have made a difference in this case to date, and we very much appreciate it.
 
We are hopeful that the Capital Information Group will embrace this discussion and the associated actions as a true opportunity to strengthen their company.  We are hopeful that they will see as strongly as us -- that the actions suggested herein will create the type of service that consumers need and deserve.  Thank you.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Regards,

******* ******

BBB's Final Determination: Consumer accepted resolution offered by the business.

9/28/2013 Problems with Product/Service
1