Edward Jones/MFS
So i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven’t studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I’ve never seen that at ANY other fund company.
retardSo i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven’t studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I’ve never seen that at ANY other fund company.
wow i hope thats not the case since they invented the mutual fund!!
If they have a negative lifetime return on the fund that started in the 20’s that would suck!!
This table was based off of fund family rankings from a year ago, but MFS was the 4th ranked fund family over the trailing 5 years. I doubt 2009 hindered their rankings, and I doubt that their bond funds are the sole purpose that MFS as a whole is ranked 4th:
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/BA-Waddell_020209.pdf Over the past decade they are #5: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/BA-FrnkTmpltn_020209.pdfIt’s a damn question hotair. I’m reading it right off the packet. Grow up already. I was just curious if anyone else noticed it. And yes ABOM I know that they invented the mutual fund, thats why I was a little shocked. Almost everyone is at a negative return. STOCK funds though…Their bond funds did quite well.
Oh 3rd - I know they are ranked high on the list, thats my question. Why ranked so high, if the packet I received showed nothing but negative returns?
Did it have specific funds, or a plethora? I’m surprised that such bad info came in a packet that MFS themselves gave you.
It has specific funds. I’ll have to take a look at it again tomorrow at my office. I just looked at their website and it’s not showing the funds the same way on the booklet I was sent. I was pretty shocked at those numbers. Like I said though, their bond funds did fantastic.
Actually if you click this site and look at “Stock Funds” on the lifetime it’s pretty similar to what I saw at the office. Mostly negative returns on the lifetime. Kinda disappointing.
https://www.mfs.com/wps/FileServerServlet?servletCommand=serveUnprotectedFileAsset&fileAssetPath=/files/documents/products/performance/perf_mfd.pdf
9 out of 15 negative. I mean seriously?
Ahhhh...that chart is giving all 10 year numbers, unless the fund was incepted in like 2002 or 2005, in which case they can only give lifetime numbers.Actually if you click this site and look at “Stock Funds” on the lifetime it’s pretty similar to what I saw at the office. Mostly negative returns on the lifetime. Kinda disappointing.
https://www.mfs.com/wps/FileServerServlet?servletCommand=serveUnprotectedFileAsset&fileAssetPath=/files/documents/products/performance/perf_mfd.pdf
9 out of 15 negative. I mean seriously?
Nonetheless…their bond funds are the bomb. We’ve been throwing heavily into the Municipal Income and Emerging Markets Debt.
Thats what I said before. It looks like their bond funds have done quite well. I haven’t studied their funds until now, that was the purpose of this thread. To ask ya’lls opinion. However, the stats I see on the Stock side…Blow more than “hotair”
They must pay good revenue sharingSo i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven’t studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I’ve never seen that at ANY other fund company.
[quote=iceco1d]
[quote=Ronnie Dobbs]So i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven’t studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I’ve never seen that at ANY other fund company.[/quote]I call b.s. You know everything. Plus, it figures you’d make this post all about yourself! Seriously, just kidding. It was kinda funny though, right?[/quote]
Dude…Come on! I’ve been trying to participate in good convo here. I don’t know anything about MFS, that’s why I was asking. You have to admit though…Those stock numbers look like sh*t.
[quote=iceco1d] It was just a joke man.
[/quote]
I know, but i’m just sayin lol. I can’t even be serious anymore without SOMEONE being a d***. But i seriously know your joking…
Wind, I have never seen the info you are referring to, so not sure the time period, but if I look at their current numbers through 12/31, every single 5-year number is positive (of the 25 or so funds on the Jones focus list). The info you have is probably through like Q1 2009 or something. I don't use them much at all, but their fixed income, their two Total Return funds (Global and domestic), and their allocation funds are actually VERY good. Actually, the funds mentioend above mostly have positive THREE year numbers also.So i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven’t studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I’ve never seen that at ANY other fund company.
Wind, I have never seen the info you are referring to, so not sure the time period, but if I look at their current numbers through 12/31, every single 5-year number is positive (of the 25 or so funds on the Jones focus list). The info you have is probably through like Q1 2009 or something. I don't use them much at all, but their fixed income, their two Total Return funds (Global and domestic), and their allocation funds are actually VERY good. Actually, the funds mentioend above mostly have positive THREE year numbers also.[/quote] B24 - The numbers above are what I saw at my office, after checking the book that came. The numbers are through Dec 31st 09. The 3 year looks worse. 15 of 15 are negative. Terrible. I was impressed with their bond funds though.[quote=Ronnie Dobbs]So i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven’t studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I’ve never seen that at ANY other fund company.
what a moron! and yeah bond funds over the last 3 years look impressive when compared to equity funds AT ANY FUND COMPANY.So i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven’t studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I’ve never seen that at ANY other fund company.
The 10yr/life stat is kind of confusing. What it means is that if the fund has at least a 10 year track record, they’re showing you the 10 year number. If it doesn’t, they’re giving you the lifetime of the fund. So, any fund with a track record over 5 years is going to have a number show up in that 10yr/life column.
For instance, MITTX has been around since 1924 and has a lifetime return of about 8.8%, but it's 10 yr number is -.37%. I don't use MFS, unless it shows up in Advisory, but from what I've read so far they're a decent/good fund company.Does that mean they paid to play on your platform? Is that still the process, after the due diligence committee blesses them?
[quote=BigCheese]Does that mean they paid to play on your platform? Is that still the process, after the due diligence committee blesses them?
[/quote] Yes, that's right. I think it's the same process LPL and most other firms use for "pay to play". Although I think our vetting process is more thorough, which is why we don't have nearly as many kickback agreements as LPL.Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.Thanks, Spiff??? I already answered that question! [quote=3rdyrp2][quote=Ronnie Dobbs]Actually if you click this site and look at "Stock Funds" on the lifetime it's pretty similar to what I saw at the office. Mostly negative returns on the lifetime. Kinda disappointing.Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
https://www.mfs.com/wps/FileServerServlet?servletCommand=serveUnprotectedFileAsset&fileAssetPath=/files/documents/products/performance/perf_mfd.pdf
9 out of 15 negative. I mean seriously?[/quote] Ahhhh...that chart is giving all 10 year numbers, unless the fund was incepted in like 2002 or 2005, in which case they can only give lifetime numbers.[/quote]
Sorry 3rd. I thought I thanked you earlier. I was just being a gentlemen by saying thank you. Sorry Spiff, guess I have to take my thank you back…or you can mail it to 3rd.
[quote=Ronnie Dobbs]Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.[/quote] They fired me because I couldn't read mutual fund sales material. You are next dumbsh*t!OK ... first off, I'll say this: according to Barron's, MFS consistently did better than any other MF over the last 1,5,10. So however Ronnie's looking at the data, it must be getting skewed insofar as I'll trust the mag to level-set everything.
Second, from a "what have you done for me lately" perspective, I've done passably well with MFS. It's not like I have tons of money with them, but I'm happy. And of course ... wtf are talking about past performance, anyways? As per the first point, the conversation I want to have with my clients is all about the consistency of effort, the capacity to have a repeatable process. Look at Morgan Stanley: 36th, 35th,46th. Vanguard, 15,8,7. AF, 4,10,12. Putnam, 46, 53,57. Schwab, 33,29,29. Tells me what I need to know about the underlying management ... that costs are absolutely bullsh!t. Those are the messages I take to the client.[quote=Ron 14][quote=Ronnie Dobbs]Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.[/quote] They fired me because I couldn't read mutual fund sales material. You are next dumbsh*t![/quote] Muh huh.....I spose thats true! I better watch out. Funny thing though, even though they are going to fire me, I keep jumping segments and they keep giving me div trips!.....WEIRD![quote=Ronnie Dobbs][quote=Ron 14][quote=Ronnie Dobbs]Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.[/quote] They fired me because I couldn't read mutual fund sales material. You are next dumbsh*t![/quote] Muh huh.....I spose thats true! I better watch out. Funny thing though, even though they are going to fire me, I keep jumping segments and they keep giving me div trips!.....WEIRD![/quote] Ah, yes..the Wind we all knowQuestion is how do you talk in the first person without using the pronouns me and I?
In 6 sentences below, you used "I" or "me" twice. In 3 sentences, Wind used "I" or "me" 4 times. You as well as 99% of us are able to use those words in a more reasonable ratio. I think thats where all of it comes from. [quote=Spaceman Spiff]The 10yr/life stat is kind of confusing. What it means is that if the fund has at least a 10 year track record, they're showing you the 10 year number. If it doesn't, they're giving you the lifetime of the fund. So, any fund with a track record over 5 years is going to have a number show up in that 10yr/life column. For instance, MITTX has been around since 1924 and has a lifetime return of about 8.8%, but it's 10 yr number is -.37%. I don't use MFS, unless it shows up in Advisory, but from what I've read so far they're a decent/good fund company. [/quote]Question is how do you talk in the first person without using the pronouns me and I?
Don't you really think the point here, is that in general Ronnie can't get through a thread without thumping his chest about productivity? That does get to be a little tiring, but to his defense it's always pointed at people attacking him. I've said it before, good for him ... let's move on.Question is how do you talk in the first person without using the pronouns me and I?
In 6 sentences below, you used "I" or "me" twice. In 3 sentences, Wind used "I" or "me" 4 times. You as well as 99% of us are able to use those words in a more reasonable ratio. I think thats where all of it comes from. [quote=Spaceman Spiff]The 10yr/life stat is kind of confusing. What it means is that if the fund has at least a 10 year track record, they're showing you the 10 year number. If it doesn't, they're giving you the lifetime of the fund. So, any fund with a track record over 5 years is going to have a number show up in that 10yr/life column. For instance, MITTX has been around since 1924 and has a lifetime return of about 8.8%, but it's 10 yr number is -.37%. I don't use MFS, unless it shows up in Advisory, but from what I've read so far they're a decent/good fund company. [/quote] [/quote] I agree. If it were me, I'd be talking in third person all the time so that nobody would pick on me. I can be rather incsecure when I feel like I'm being abused. If instead I chose to talk about myself as if someone else were talking about me, perhaps I wouldn't have to say I or me as often as I do. But that's just me.[quote=Spaceman Spiff]Question is how do you talk in the first person without using the pronouns me and I?
[quote=Ron 14][quote=Ronnie Dobbs]Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.[/quote] They fired me because I couldn't read mutual fund sales material. You are next dumbsh*t![/quote] This is the same idiot that could not read an insurance hypo. What a tool. He'll have complaint on him before 2 long.[quote=Mr.Blonde][quote=Ronnie Dobbs][quote=Ron 14][quote=Ronnie Dobbs]Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.[/quote] They fired me because I couldn't read mutual fund sales material. You are next dumbsh*t![/quote] Muh huh.....I spose thats true! I better watch out. Funny thing though, even though they are going to fire me, I keep jumping segments and they keep giving me div trips!.....WEIRD![/quote] Ah, yes..the Wind we all know[/quote] Or you could totally ignore (like you are) the fact that i'm giving an obvious stab at the fact Ron's being a d***.[quote=hotair1][quote=Ron 14][quote=Ronnie Dobbs]Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.[/quote] They fired me because I couldn't read mutual fund sales material. You are next dumbsh*t![/quote] This is the same idiot that could not read an insurance hypo. What a tool. He'll have complaint on him before 2 long.[/quote] Cause clients LOVE giving complaints out to people who do whats right for them. Makes total sense.Conversation with new prospect...
Yes Mr or Ms Prospect everyone takes kick backs. It's the only way to play. So what.
Spiff-
When I compete against your company I win because I enlighten them how we are SO different. Not one prospect is told about these relationships until I bring it up and ask them to repsond to that statement above. Nor are they told about trading costs. It's one of the hidden secrets in our industry...disclose on documents no one reads and its acceptable in the industry.
I have said all along...get rid of these dirty secrets and we'll cleanup our industry. LPL does not give me one dime from the relationships, in fact, they reduce my ticket charges that I pay.
Ronnie the reason you have not heard much about MFS is because they are not talked about in the break room of the Lazyboy store or the Saturn dealership you have been fired from before you start annoying stay at home moms while knocking on doors for EJ.
Oh man, buckle up. Its gonna be a bumpy ride!
*Grabbing the popcorn*[quote=mnymker]
Ronnie the reason you have not heard much about MFS is because they are not talked about in the break room of the Lazyboy store or the Saturn dealership you have been fired from before you start annoying stay at home moms while knocking on doors for EJ.
[/quote] I don't door knock, fool.[quote=BigCheese]
Conversation with new prospect...
Yes Mr or Ms Prospect everyone takes kick backs. It's the only way to play. So what.
Spiff-
When I compete against your company I win because I enlighten them how we are SO different. Not one prospect is told about these relationships until I bring it up and ask them to repsond to that statement above. Nor are they told about trading costs. It's one of the hidden secrets in our industry...disclose on documents no one reads and its acceptable in the industry.
I have said all along...get rid of these dirty secrets and we'll cleanup our industry. LPL does not give me one dime from the relationships, in fact, they reduce my ticket charges that I pay.
[/quote] If I had the time this morning I'd take the bait and start this debate. Again. However, I don't. So I'll leave it with - what's your point? Where exactly did I bring up revenue sharing anyway?You don’t have to and I don’t believe you referenced it all. There isn’t a debate to be had Spiff. Your company and mine are dirty but they play by the rules. I am making the case for total transparency. A concept that appears to be foreign in our industry.
When I bring up the differences and how I can play another way, I win. Tell me you bring up all aspects of costs when it comes to funds. Do you actually highlight the fine print. I never did. It's time we as a collective group stand up and say enough of this, I know they'll figure out a way to get the money some other way, but can't we say no more. It's similar to the outrageous bonuses paid in our industry. It's as if 2008-2009 didn't occur.The mindset of everyone getting "theirs" in the face of an individual investor who can't come to grips with their reality (and saw their accounts drop by half or more). Banning backdoor arrangements would at least give us an opportunity to gain some trust back. The only way I know was to walk away and take control back from the B/D's. That's when I won. And so did the clients.[quote=BigCheese]You don’t have to and I don’t believe you referenced it all. There isn’t a debate to be had Spiff. Your company and mine are dirty but they play by the rules. I am making the case for total transparency. A concept that appears to be foreign in our industry.
When I bring up the differences and how I can play another way, I win. Tell me you bring up all aspects of costs when it comes to funds. Do you actually highlight the fine print. I never did. It's time we as a collective group stand up and say enough of this, I know they'll figure out a way to get the money some other way, but can't we say no more. It's similar to the outrageous bonuses paid in our industry. It's as if 2008-2009 didn't occur.The mindset of everyone getting "theirs" in the face of an individual investor who can't come to grips with their reality (and saw their accounts drop by half or more). Banning backdoor arrangements would at least give us an opportunity to gain some trust back. The only way I know was to walk away and take control back from the B/D's. That's when I won. And so did the clients.[/quote] I don't disagree with you on the revenue sharing thing. I'm looking forward to the day when I don't have to point out that page in the new account packet. Without getting into the futility of discussing trading costs within mutual funds, what is it that you're offering your clients that are free from those chains? Stocks? ETFs? UITs? So did you go to the RIA model or did you just jump to LPL?Edward Jones advisors were able to start selling MFS products off of the preferred list as of Monday. The firm’s other preferred mutual fund providers include <SPAN =companyName>American Funds, <SPAN =companyName>Franklin Templeton Investments, <SPAN =companyName>Goldman Sachs Funds, <SPAN =companyName>Hartford Mutual Funds,<SPAN =companyName> Lord Abbett Funds, <SPAN =companyName>OppenheimerFunds and <SPAN =companyName>Van Kampen Investments.
Getting onto the platform is a multi-year process, but once on, preferred firms typically see a surge of flows from Edward Jones’s network of independent advisors, says <SPAN =companyName>Cerulli analyst Scott Smith. In part, that is because of the nature of Edward Jones branches, which typically consist of an advisor and an assistant. “Stand-alone advisors are more likely to rely on the due diligence of their providers,” Smith says. “I think the Edward Jones advisors may be more apt to look to their home office for guidance.”
What glorious 3 or 5 Pack of funds is MFS flooding Jones advisors with ? What magnificant performers should FA’s put investors in “after the performance”, like Van Kampen’s All Weather and Franklin’s Founding Funds and American’s Income Foundation ?
It’s a five pack!!! Surprise!
Can we purchase puts on that 5 pack ?!!!
To be serious for a minute…is there any indication of what the impact on American Funds, or other Jones preferred funds for that matter, will be from what must be a mass exodus out of the funds and into Advisory Solutions? Considering how much existing money apparently has gone into this, it must be creating outflows at American Funds beyond what they are used to. I would think it has to be stressing the system at American Funds, and maybe others to an extent. Any comments?
Probably no different than EDJ advisors that go indy, put their clients money into fee-based accounts and dumped all the existing American funds and bought other stuff. EDJ's theory is probably they will lose less people to Indy w/the revolutionary breakthrough of this new fee-based account, so the money would have been dumped out of American either way; If the advisor jumped to Indy and sold the funds, or if the advisor stayed at EDJ and is now selling the funds to put into Adv. Solutions.To be serious for a minute…is there any indication of what the impact on American Funds, or other Jones preferred funds for that matter, will be from what must be a mass exodus out of the funds and into Advisory Solutions? Considering how much existing money apparently has gone into this, it must be creating outflows at American Funds beyond what they are used to. I would think it has to be stressing the system at American Funds, and maybe others to an extent. Any comments?
A couple of things. First, when I went Indy I could put an advisory fee on my existing portfolios, and did not need to turn them over to get the fee. Jones is forcing the advisor to dump their American Funds to earn the fee. This is an entirely different scenario.
Besides that, the amount of assets that leaves Jones to go Indy is a drop in the bucket compared to the dollars that are going into A.S. right now.
This is not a Jones issue, this is an American Funds issue. My problem with it is that Jones is putting the advisor in the position of dumping existing portfolios to earn their advisory fee, and American Funds is potentially suffering from the Jones move. If they allowed their advisors to do it as Indys do, there would not be this mass exodus.
I am not trying to turn this into a Jones rant, but trying to assess the real impact this Jones move has to be putting on their fund vendors for those of us that are continuing to have clients hold American Funds while they pay us for advice.
I think there is defintely some impact on AMF. But I think the amount is probably overstated. I think the last I heard they had like $10B in advisory. So let’s assume 70% of that was from existing assets, so $7B. Of that, let’s assume 25% was from American Funds (which is higher than the firm average of all assets), so round up to $2B. Does anyone think $2B is going to even register on AMF’s radar? Seriously. They have like $850B in assets.
And I think AMF has like 5 funds in advisory, so you have to add some back. LuvIndy, one thing about Jones making FA's "dump" shares to go into advisory....I think it would be worse if they said "OK, you can now take your existing A-share portfolios and put a wrap fee on it". Jones' position is that they are doing something very different (than an A-share portfolio), including using lower-cost share classes and unlimited fund families. So their belief is that we should be using "best of breed" funds for each asset class. I don't want to get into a debate about the quality of the program, but the point is that in order to justify an advisory fee, you have to offer clients something more than just a higher fee.[quote=B24]I think there is defintely some impact on AMF. But I think the amount is probably overstated. I think the last I heard they had like $10B in advisory. So let’s assume 70% of that was from existing assets, so $7B. Of that, let’s assume 25% was from American Funds (which is higher than the firm average of all assets), so round up to $2B. Does anyone think $2B is going to even register on AMF’s radar? Seriously. They have like $850B in assets.
And I think AMF has like 5 funds in advisory, so you have to add some back. LuvIndy, one thing about Jones making FA's "dump" shares to go into advisory....I think it would be worse if they said "OK, you can now take your existing A-share portfolios and put a wrap fee on it". Jones' position is that they are doing something very different (than an A-share portfolio), including using lower-cost share classes and unlimited fund families. So their belief is that we should be using "best of breed" funds for each asset class. I don't want to get into a debate about the quality of the program, but the point is that in order to justify an advisory fee, you have to offer clients something more than just a higher fee.[/quote] BingoOK, since you asked. Here’s how I justify the fee:
1. I don’t have to do trades to get paid.
2. I can make adjustments WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT (i.e. tax planning over time)
3. The client knows I have no incentive to trade when I make a recommendation for a fund swap.
4. I can spend time with them showing them their retirement illustrations, tax strategies, debt reduction, mortgage calculations, etc., and not need to justify it with a trade every now and then.
5. When I meet my goal with them of having all of their assets, they are compensating me the same way a new client is. In other words they don’t become a liability to me when they are all tapped out financially and I’m only getting trails (I’m honest with them).
6. I don’t live my life chasing dollars, and they like that (I’m honest with them).
7. My income is based on their portfolio value, not the number of rollovers I bring in that month (I’m honest with them).
You’d be surprised at what being straight with people about how we get paid would do for your psyche. It really changed mine.
Luv, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t suggesting that you can’t justify a fee based program, I was just saying that this was Jones’ thought process behind it. I totally agree with what you are saying.
I think there would definitely be a problem for Jones if they just said “OK, you can now wrap up your existing fund portfolios”, without implementing a formal advisory program with all the bells and whistles. The problem is, to qualify as a true advisory program (versus the retired “fee-in-lieu of commission” programs), you need to be showing that you are offering additional value. Frankly, migrating to fee-based is an evolution, and many people at Jones (and other firms) would simply wrap up their portfolios and give them no more service than before, if left to their own devices. In Jones’ defense, they really needed to come up with a formal program with very defined value-added services (formal fund vetting process, auto rebalancing, Investment Policy Agreements, performance reporting, etc.) in order to justify the new fee.
Trust me, I know the value that can be added and the benefits of fee-based advising.
B24, I see your point now. I agree you are correct that a typical Jones person probably doesn’t have the tools available to customize a real plan for someone, and so they came to the conclusion they did.
Beyond that, it does make me wonder what the effect on the fund managers is with all of this automated rebalancing going on in the industry in general, not just Jones. And what happens when a manager of one of these programs decides for some reason to eliminate a fund and yanks all of that cash out of it on one day.
In terms of Jones, It bugs me that a whole generation of advisors is under the impression that their plan is what an advisory fee plan looks like, and they know nothing different.
Good banter.
Pretty sad when you spend your time "bugged" about impressions that other people at another firm have about a platform you don't use. Did you use your superpowers to determine what their "impressions" are or did you do a statistically significant sample? In terms of you, it bugs me that you are so bitter that you make things up to insult 10,000+ FAs that did nothing to you and you don't even know anything different. You raise some pretty good questions. Too bad you had to throw in the "typical Jones person" and "they know nothing different" comments.B24, I see your point now. I agree you are correct that a typical Jones person probably doesn’t have the tools available to customize a real plan for someone, and so they came to the conclusion they did.
Beyond that, it does make me wonder what the effect on the fund managers is with all of this automated rebalancing going on in the industry in general, not just Jones. And what happens when a manager of one of these programs decides for some reason to eliminate a fund and yanks all of that cash out of it on one day.
In terms of Jones, It bugs me that a whole generation of advisors is under the impression that their plan is what an advisory fee plan looks like, and they know nothing different.
Good banter.
I’ve talked to SEVERAL and hear the same things frequently. I feel like I have a pretty good idea. I can’t speak for all of them obviously, but I feel pretty confident I know what I’m talking about.
[quote=LuvIndy] B24, I see your point now. I agree you are correct that a typical Jones person probably doesn’t have the tools available to customize a real plan for someone, and so they came to the conclusion they did.Beyond that, it does make me wonder what the effect on the fund managers is with all of this automated rebalancing going on in the industry in general, not just Jones. And what happens when a manager of one of these programs decides for some reason to eliminate a fund and yanks all of that cash out of it on one day.In terms of Jones, It bugs me that a whole generation of advisors is under the impression that their plan is what an advisory fee plan looks like, and they know nothing different.Good banter.
[/quote]
Not knowing how every other firms’ advisory program works does not make an advisor bad. Honestly, good advisors are not defined by which advisory plan they use. They are defined by how they implement them with their clients, and how well they service their clients. IMHO, most Jones advisors take a lot of pride in the level of service they provide to their clients.
B24-
I think you are right most Jones brokers feel they provide a good service to their clients. Any broker worth their salt from any firm should feel the same.It just isn't any better or worse than most brokers. The bottom line is if you serve your clients well defined by constant communication (we do alot with email) and help them from screwing things up, then you were typically ahead of the broker who made their dough and ran to the next prospect. Friday, I moved 200K from an indy not for anything they did terribly wrong with the investments. But the client never heard from the broker (in an advisory account!). And at the end of November I moved 2M from Morgan Stanley and several bank brokers and an indy for essentially the same reason. This week I should be moving another 1M from MS (competing with Jones by the way, but I got the verbal last week). If you don't serve your clients, you lose in the long wrong advisory or otherwise. Incidentally, that competitive situation with Jones was won because of conflicts. The broker had the advisory program and didn't even offer it...I guess my point would be I sense Jones is selling this to the advisors as the “best in the industry” when many of the advisors don’t know what the rest of the industry is doing.
Also I fear they are selling the optimized management (read better performance), and not providing better, more objective advice to the client. Stuff like this hurts the industry.
Wow! This post is so dumb I hardly know where to start. I guess I will start with the first sentence. 1: You "sense" how Jones is selling this to Advisors. There you go using your superpowers again. 2: Jones is selling it as "best in the industry". Should they sell it as "3rd best"? 3: "Many Advisors don't know what the rest of the industry is doing." So Jones Advisors should be required to pass a test on other platforms before they can sell ours? 4: You "fear" they are selling..." Really? You FEAR that? Are you so FEARFUL you won't go out at night or cross the road alone? Give me a break you drama queen. 5: You fear Jones FAs are selling better performance instead of better advice? You can't prove better performance or better advice until the future. You have to know the outcome to prove which was better. Here is what I fear. I fear you are a bitter little person who can't respond to a topic in an enlightening or informative way so you look for every opportunity to insult Advisors at a firm where you don't work. Why don't you spend some time sharing your knowledge and experience and back off on the insulting other people.I guess my point would be I sense Jones is selling this to the advisors as the “best in the industry” when many of the advisors don’t know what the rest of the industry is doing.
Also I fear they are selling the optimized management (read better performance), and not providing better, more objective advice to the client. Stuff like this hurts the industry.
Wow! This post is so dumb I hardly know where to start. I guess I will start with the first sentence. 1: You "sense" how Jones is selling this to Advisors. There you go using your superpowers again. 2: Jones is selling it as "best in the industry". Should they sell it as "3rd best"? 3: "Many Advisors don't know what the rest of the industry is doing." So Jones Advisors should be required to pass a test on other platforms before they can sell ours? 4: You "fear" they are selling..." Really? You FEAR that? Are you so FEARFUL you won't go out at night or cross the road alone? Give me a break you drama queen. 5: You fear Jones FAs are selling better performance instead of better advice? You can't prove better performance or better advice until the future. You have to know the outcome to prove which was better. Here is what I fear. I fear you are a bitter little person who can't respond to a topic in an enlightening or informative way so you look for every opportunity to insult Advisors at a firm where you don't work. Why don't you spend some time sharing your knowledge and experience and back off on the insulting other people.[/quote][quote=LuvIndy]I guess my point would be I sense Jones is selling this to the advisors as the “best in the industry” when many of the advisors don’t know what the rest of the industry is doing.
Also I fear they are selling the optimized management (read better performance), and not providing better, more objective advice to the client. Stuff like this hurts the industry.
owned
Wow! This post is so dumb I hardly know where to start. I guess I will start with the first sentence. 1: You "sense" how Jones is selling this to Advisors. There you go using your superpowers again. 2: Jones is selling it as "best in the industry". Should they sell it as "3rd best"? 3: "Many Advisors don't know what the rest of the industry is doing." So Jones Advisors should be required to pass a test on other platforms before they can sell ours? 4: You "fear" they are selling..." Really? You FEAR that? Are you so FEARFUL you won't go out at night or cross the road alone? Give me a break you drama queen. 5: You fear Jones FAs are selling better performance instead of better advice? You can't prove better performance or better advice until the future. You have to know the outcome to prove which was better. Here is what I fear. I fear you are a bitter little person who can't respond to a topic in an enlightening or informative way so you look for every opportunity to insult Advisors at a firm where you don't work. Why don't you spend some time sharing your knowledge and experience and back off on the insulting other people.[/quote][quote=LuvIndy]I guess my point would be I sense Jones is selling this to the advisors as the “best in the industry” when many of the advisors don’t know what the rest of the industry is doing.
Also I fear they are selling the optimized management (read better performance), and not providing better, more objective advice to the client. Stuff like this hurts the industry.
Dude until you've lived outside of the cult you are clueless. Sorry for looking out for the clients, oh wait, I guess I'm not at the only firm that looks out for the clients anymore.
Wow! This post is so dumb I hardly know where to start. I guess I will start with the first sentence. 1: You "sense" how Jones is selling this to Advisors. There you go using your superpowers again. 2: Jones is selling it as "best in the industry". Should they sell it as "3rd best"? 3: "Many Advisors don't know what the rest of the industry is doing." So Jones Advisors should be required to pass a test on other platforms before they can sell ours? 4: You "fear" they are selling..." Really? You FEAR that? Are you so FEARFUL you won't go out at night or cross the road alone? Give me a break you drama queen. 5: You fear Jones FAs are selling better performance instead of better advice? You can't prove better performance or better advice until the future. You have to know the outcome to prove which was better. Here is what I fear. I fear you are a bitter little person who can't respond to a topic in an enlightening or informative way so you look for every opportunity to insult Advisors at a firm where you don't work. Why don't you spend some time sharing your knowledge and experience and back off on the insulting other people.[/quote][quote=ytrewq][quote=LuvIndy]I guess my point would be I sense Jones is selling this to the advisors as the “best in the industry” when many of the advisors don’t know what the rest of the industry is doing.
Also I fear they are selling the optimized management (read better performance), and not providing better, more objective advice to the client. Stuff like this hurts the industry.
Dude until you've lived outside of the cult you are clueless. Sorry for looking out for the clients, oh wait, I guess I'm not at the only firm that looks out for the clients anymore.
[/quote] This is exactly the response I expected from you. An original thought would have been way too much to hope for. Not one sentence of my post was defending Edward Jones. As a matter of fact you will not find one single post I have ever made on this forum that suggests that Jones is "the best of" or the "only of" anything. You will also not find a post were I insulted anyone because of what firm they worked for including being independent. I was stating that you had an interesting point and it was too bad you couldn't discuss it without the insults. Of course you responded by hitting me with the Cult insult. I have no idea what your education, experience, certifications, production, or fee based assets are but I would guess that you are far more clueless than me in just about every one of those categories. Let me guess. I should go drink my Kool Aid?
First, I have been all facts from day one. I only went personal when you started the “it’s so dumb” childish talk.
Back to facts:
Until the late 2000’s (when I left) the culture at Jones has ALWAYS been “If Jones does it, it is the right way, if Jones doesn’t do it, and other firms do, they are either ripping the clients off, or at best have some ulterior motive.” Jones advisors set themselves apart with their clients by essentially saying the above in their introduction to a client, and then reading the two lines from Arthur Levitt’s book that referred to Jones. I used to do the same thing when I was green and trying to create a competitive advantage.
Next, yes I am concerned about a lot of the garbage in the industry, because it hurts us all. When a firm with a large presence (anyone from Jones argues they are dominating the marketplace) that is offering an advisory fee plan that is being sold largely on being a better performing vehicle that does a dis-service to the industry. The point being every Jones person I’ve talked with about A.S. has clearly made a long term commitment to this as part of their business plan, and does not understand how it compares with what their clients’ alternatives might be elsewhere. When I have a conversation with a client about SMAs, managed fund platforms, etc., I can explain to them the difference between those and what they are doing with me, and why I choose to do it the way I’m doing it, but that doesn’t make it RIGHT. It makes it the way I’m doing it.
Wow! This post is so dumb I hardly know where to start. I guess I will start with the first sentence. 1: You "sense" how Jones is selling this to Advisors. There you go using your superpowers again. 2: Jones is selling it as "best in the industry". Should they sell it as "3rd best"? 3: "Many Advisors don't know what the rest of the industry is doing." So Jones Advisors should be required to pass a test on other platforms before they can sell ours? 4: You "fear" they are selling..." Really? You FEAR that? Are you so FEARFUL you won't go out at night or cross the road alone? Give me a break you drama queen. 5: You fear Jones FAs are selling better performance instead of better advice? You can't prove better performance or better advice until the future. You have to know the outcome to prove which was better. Here is what I fear. I fear you are a bitter little person who can't respond to a topic in an enlightening or informative way so you look for every opportunity to insult Advisors at a firm where you don't work. Why don't you spend some time sharing your knowledge and experience and back off on the insulting other people.[/quote] Now that is a professional smackdown. Nice work ytrewq.[quote=LuvIndy]I guess my point would be I sense Jones is selling this to the advisors as the “best in the industry” when many of the advisors don’t know what the rest of the industry is doing.
Also I fear they are selling the optimized management (read better performance), and not providing better, more objective advice to the client. Stuff like this hurts the industry.
Really? If you had any idea how Jones was positioning this program you could speak intelligently about it (or not). And don't tell me your "old Jones friends" tell you. First off, the LAST thing they are doing is positioning it as a performance play. Nowhere do they say "Advisory Solutions is designed to perform better than other investments" (or anything even remotely close to that). In fact, their underlying message is to NOT sell return, but to focus on service, and that the program is only suitable in specific situations for specific clients. They MANDATE client reviews, and strongly encourage them to be done quarterly. Look, I am not saying it's the absolute best program out there. But they have designed the whole thing with the best intentions for clients. Seriously, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about. And this is coming from someone that is probably the most neutral of all the Jones FA's on this site.I guess my point would be I sense Jones is selling this to the advisors as the “best in the industry” when many of the advisors don’t know what the rest of the industry is doing.
Also I fear they are selling the optimized management (read better performance), and not providing better, more objective advice to the client. Stuff like this hurts the industry.
Here is what I've heard people say. "the rebalancing is killer. My clients bought stocks at or near the bottom because of the rebalancing and now they are way up." The flip side to rebalancing is that it can mitigate upside the same way.
Also, a RL told me all of his conversations with the GP's are saying "the rebalancing is what makes it so great." Also you are right that the farther removed you get from Jones the more likely you are to not know how it really is there, anymore. I'll admit that all day long.If the GPs are telling each other that the rebalancing is the best part of the program, then they’re missing the boat. It’s a nice feature that keeps portfolios from getting into the weeds from time to time. I tell my clients that the best part of the program is the research that is done on the funds. I don’t physically have the time to do anywhere near the kind of research that those folks do. I can’t call up the money manager at Neuberger Berman and grill them on their processes. If I can pass that responsibility off to a third party and use that time to focus on other parts of their investment/planning life, then it’s good for the clients and good for me too.
[quote=LuvIndy]
Here is what I've heard people say. "the rebalancing is killer. My clients bought stocks at or near the bottom because of the rebalancing and now they are way up." The flip side to rebalancing is that it can mitigate upside the same way.
Also, a RL told me all of his conversations with the GP's are saying "the rebalancing is what makes it so great." Also you are right that the farther removed you get from Jones the more likely you are to not know how it really is there, anymore. I'll admit that all day long. [/quote] Well you have a sample size of 3 out of 10k. I guess that makes it fact!Ron 14, in my experience with Jones, it often does. I am not trying to stir a pot, but I would stand by that statement. And if I said 3, it’s more than that.
GPs telling the reps what to do is the same as shepards leading the sheep. or that’s how I saw it while I was there and even more so now…
Okay. I don't get this analogy. Don't shepards lead sheep? They don't lead cats or fish now. Do they? If your point was to call all Jones FAs sheep then just say that. It would go something like this, "I spoke to 6 Jones FAs. They are all sheep and a damned shepard is leading them!" Man I could have so much fun with this post. I am trying to tone it down a bit. I'll probably fail.GPs telling the reps what to do is the same as shepards leading the sheep. or that’s how I saw it while I was there and even more so now…
Let’s see, General Partners at a partnership, providing leadership, is
that sort of like managers leading the employees, captains leading the
troops, or a coach leading his players. Gee
I never had a coach lead me under the influence of 8 glasses of scotch a la Ray RaleyLet’s see, General Partners at a partnership, providing leadership, is
that sort of like managers leading the employees, captains leading the
troops, or a coach leading his players. Gee
Seems to me this is just another example of the hyperbole that Jones management (culture) spews. Tell them that A shares are the only way, the least costly for the client if they hold them forever and act as if your firm is the only one who is looking out for the client.
Then the regulators get hold of your non-disclosed kickback scheme, 12b1's are on the radar screen and suddenly you see the light, and lo and behold advisory solutions program is now embraced. Let's face reality, Weddle didn't allow advisory solutions to piss off Bachman or his cohorts. He is a savvy guy who saw the industry changing and when the SEC came down on Jones hard, identifiied risks to the model, and made the changes to become somewhat current in the industry. Props for remaining on the The Best Company to Work For List. After all, that is what matters...I wonder if they test who can vote in the initial interview.In reality, A shares are the most cost effective investing solution if you are going to work with an advisor sold active money manager. Use the right company and they can be even less expensive than most no-load funds. You can put $100K into AIVSX for the next 40 years, pay $3500 upfront and .57% a year. That's pretty cheap.
Advisory was about 5 years after the revenue sharing lawsuit. I don't know that I'd specifically connect the two.Cmon man…
Weddle has the moxie to stand up to the old guard and affect some change (albeit its late in the game) and he realized the risk if they don't diversify. Kudos to him. And the notiion that the GP's didn't see a key source of revenue (pure profit I might add) in serious jeopardy is laughable. Kind of ironic that I am sticking up for the GP'syes the FAs are sheep
The GPs are shepards leading the sheep/FAs to be slaughtered/killed[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
In reality, A shares are the most cost effective investing solution if you are going to work with an advisor sold active money manager. Use the right company and they can be even less expensive than most no-load funds. You can put $100K into AIVSX for the next 40 years, pay $3500 upfront and .57% a year. That's pretty cheap.
Advisory was about 5 years after the revenue sharing lawsuit. I don't know that I'd specifically connect the two. [/quote] I think there is a direct correlation between Advisory, revenue sharing, industry trend (towards advisory models), as well as legislative conditions (whatever the he!! they come up with to do away with 12b-1's, and eventually revenue sharing). But they did not do it in a bubble. I truly believe that as part of their 5-Year Plan, this was one of the big items. They had become (always were, I guess) a one-trick pony.Spiff-
At least B24 can see the change for what it was. Maybe its time you stop typing and read before you hit the send button. You just sound so ridiculous when you drink that green stuff. This was extracted from the 10K- MUTUAL FUNDS AND ANNUITIESThere are regulatory proposals being considered that could significantly impact the related disclosure and potentially the amount of compensation that broker-dealers derive from mutual funds and annuity products. The Partnership believes it is likely in the future that broker-dealers will be required to provide more disclosure to their customers with respect to payments received by them from the sales of these products. It is also possible that such payments may be restricted by law or regulation. For additional discussion of mutual fund regulatory initiatives, refer to "Item 1A - Risk Factors, Regulatory Initiatives" in the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008. The Partnership derived 56% of its total revenue from sales and services related to mutual fund and annuity products in the first nine months of 2009 and 64% in the first nine months of 2008. The Partnership derived approximately 34% of its total revenue for the first nine months of 2009 and 35% of its total revenue for the first nine months of 2008 from one mutual fund vendor. Significant reductions in the revenues from these mutual fund sources could have a material impact on the Partnership's results of operations. Your tagline talks about intelligent life... Weddle did the right thing, because he knew that change was imminent and if you read the 10K , they talk about risks to the partnership and that's one of many.
I’m curious. If a segment 5 has $50,000,000 in A-share mutual funds, he makes about $50,000 per year in trails(10 basis points). How does he survive on that payout? Where do the big bucks come from?
[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
In reality, A shares are the most cost effective investing solution if you are going to work with an advisor sold active money manager. Use the right company and they can be even less expensive than most no-load funds. You can put $100K into AIVSX for the next 40 years, pay $3500 upfront and .57% a year. That's pretty cheap.
Advisory was about 5 years after the revenue sharing lawsuit. I don't know that I'd specifically connect the two. [/quote] But you still would own AIVSX.... I ran AIVSX against NYVTX since incept 2/17/1969. AIVSX 553,531 NYVTX 939, 228 Yes, AIVSX is pretty cheap....Indy.I’m curious. If a segment 5 has $50,000,000 in A-share mutual funds, he makes about $50,000 per year in trails(10 basis points). How does he survive on that payout? Where do the big bucks come from?
Another fund family.I’m curious. If a segment 5 has $50,000,000 in A-share mutual funds, he makes about $50,000 per year in trails(10 basis points). How does he survive on that payout? Where do the big bucks come from?
[quote=BigCheese]Seems to me this is just another example of the hyperbole that Jones management (culture) spews. Tell them that A shares are the only way, the least costly for the client if they hold them forever and act as if your firm is the only one who is looking out for the client.
[/quote] http://www.cnbc.com/id/32086978/site/14081545[quote=Ronnie Dobbs][quote=BigCheese]Seems to me this is just another example of the hyperbole that Jones management (culture) spews. Tell them that A shares are the only way, the least costly for the client if they hold them forever and act as if your firm is the only one who is looking out for the client.
[/quote] http://www.cnbc.com/id/32086978/site/14081545 [/quote] http://www.thestreet.com/p/rmoney/jamesjcramer/10200162.html NextIf he's a Seg 5 and he only has $50MM in mutual funds, that would be a relatively newer FA. But to complete your scenario, he also has $35-40MM in individual bonds ... which are reinvesting into mutual funds at a rate of $2MM per year. Let's say that's worth another $40000. The bonds come due on a regular basis; he may easily have 30% of that above total coming due in the next five years. That's $3MM per year coming due; $60,000 in commissions. Of course, during that call about reinvesting the bonds perhaps an insurance conversation creaps in, possibly about using the income stream to buy LTCi ... but let's leave that out. Before you woke up and turned on your PC to sling shots at a producing rep, he sold $150-180K. On top of the recurring revenue, he only needs to sell $25000 a month, and he's bumping along at a half mil and maintaining his 5 status. Most of the 5s I know have books north of $100M, and those numbers jump pretty quick when you have bond inventories of $50MM.I’m curious. If a segment 5 has $50,000,000 in A-share mutual funds, he makes about $50,000 per year in trails(10 basis points). How does he survive on that payout? Where do the big bucks come from?
[quote=Mr.Blonde][quote=Ronnie Dobbs][quote=BigCheese]Seems to me this is just another example of the hyperbole that Jones management (culture) spews. Tell them that A shares are the only way, the least costly for the client if they hold them forever and act as if your firm is the only one who is looking out for the client.
[/quote] http://www.cnbc.com/id/32086978/site/14081545 [/quote] http://www.thestreet.com/p/rmoney/jamesjcramer/10200162.html Next [/quote] Did you take a look at that date douchehead.......2004....Oh and by the way...Your firm does it too....[quote=Ronnie Dobbs][quote=Mr.Blonde][quote=Ronnie Dobbs][quote=BigCheese]Seems to me this is just another example of the hyperbole that Jones management (culture) spews. Tell them that A shares are the only way, the least costly for the client if they hold them forever and act as if your firm is the only one who is looking out for the client.
[/quote] http://www.cnbc.com/id/32086978/site/14081545 [/quote] http://www.thestreet.com/p/rmoney/jamesjcramer/10200162.html Next [/quote] did you take a look at that date douchehead.......2004....[/quote] I don't know what's worse, the date or the fact you're referencing Jim Cramer. Douchebag.[quote=Mr.Blonde][quote=Ronnie Dobbs][quote=Mr.Blonde][quote=Ronnie Dobbs][quote=BigCheese]Seems to me this is just another example of the hyperbole that Jones management (culture) spews. Tell them that A shares are the only way, the least costly for the client if they hold them forever and act as if your firm is the only one who is looking out for the client.
[/quote] http://www.cnbc.com/id/32086978/site/14081545 [/quote] http://www.thestreet.com/p/rmoney/jamesjcramer/10200162.html Next [/quote] did you take a look at that date douchehead.......2004....[/quote] I don't know what's worse, the date or the fact you're referencing Jim Cramer. Douchebag.[/quote] It was a joke asshole. You still lying to prospects?Noggin - and you would have turned your $100K into $6.7mil at an annualized return of 10.94%. Not a bad deal for $3500 upfront and .57% along the way. Did you know that ICA gets a 5 rating from Lipper and a 4 star rating from Morningstar?
foot - You took a two sentence statement, short ones at that, as me drinking kool aid? Seriously? You actually took the time to search the SEC filings for the Jones Financial Companies 10-K? That's pretty sad. Maybe you have it bookmarked. The 10-k talks about dozens of risks to the firm's business model. Everything from a material downturn in the financial markets to having to rely on third party vendors for many different things. I don't expect the GPs to work in a bubble. I expect them to look for solutions that would benefit the clients, FAs, and the firm. The 5 year plan that B24 mentioned earlier states that fee based relationships and the planning that goes along with them are one of the core strategies for reaching our 5 year goal. It also talks about diversifying our revenue mix. The two do go hand in hand. But, to say that AS is a knee jerk reaction to 12b-1 fee legislation and revenue sharing disclosure is just shortsighted. Oh yeah, and you should call it "OUR non-disclosed kickback scheme" because you participated in that scheme while you were here.You're really clueless about this business aren't you? First, it's 25bps for most funds. You don't get down to 10bps until you get into some muni funds at specific shops. So, $50 mil creates $125K a year, not the $50K you mentioned. Before you start wondering about how a Seg 5 can survive, why don't you figure how how you get paid. You can find that info in the prospectus or on Joogle.I’m curious. If a segment 5 has $50,000,000 in A-share mutual funds, he makes about $50,000 per year in trails(10 basis points). How does he survive on that payout? Where do the big bucks come from?
In all fairness spiff I thing 52new was referring to net. In that case 40% (and thats being lenient) is 10bps to the seg 5s pocket.
So typical of Spiff isn’t it? I googled Jones Financial Companies and what do you know I found the 10K and went to the risks section, took maybe 3 minutes. Your statement that you don’t think advisory solutions was a result of the GP’s concern for risk to THEIR capital and their revenue is so off the mark its laughable. In your on-going effort to refute anything that makes sense which you interpret as negative, you continue to defend blindly. Even a brother, B24, disagreed with your statement.
As for your comment that I participated in these agreements when I was at Jones. You are dead on, and back then there wasn't any disclosure to us because the GP's weren't required to. They also participated in directed brokerage ( a banned practice) just like most other firms. The difference is that I chose NOT to participate and got out once I did know. Today LPL does receive revenue sharing, fully disclosed and not one penny goes in my pocket. Mindshare is no different that shelfspace and at Jones the final straw was the inclusion of Hartford funds that had no track record at all, their only reason for being part of the Jones preferred funds was because Jones owned an income stream for being a consultant to Hartford. The GP's conveniently forgot to tell us of that relationship until they were forced to by the SEC. So give kudos to Weddle for identlfying a major risk to your firm and embarking in an advisory solutions program. At least with that you have the beginnings of becoming conflict free and in today's environment less conflicts with more transparency is the montra.Cheddar or Nut?
I’m curious. If a segment 5 has $50,000,000 in A-share mutual funds, he makes about $50,000 per year in trails(10 basis points). How does he survive on that payout? Where do the big bucks come from?
OK, here's the deal...though I wouldn't like doing business this way, many, many big producers still regularly open 10-20 new accounts per month. They are not sitting around switching out fund families and churning stocks. They are opening new accounts, they are taking in new assets from existing clients, they have some C shares, they manage some company retirement plans with new money coming in all the time, they now have some advisory accounts, they do life insurance, LTC, etc. It doesn't all revolve around churning assets. I find the asset churners are not the big producers, but the $250K producers that have been in the business 15 years and aren't really trying anymore. And those are the same guys that probably sit around bitching about not making more money and blaming it on Jones. The big producers are still going after assets, making money, and not bitching. They would be good producers anywhere.
Stop feeding 52new. He’s like an EJ meletio shudder.
foot - are you reading what I’m typing or are you simply arguing in a vain attempt to make yourself look better? Did you not read the part where I said that I agree that Advisory Solutions was part of the plan to diversify our revenue stream?
I don't doubt for a second that when Weddle got into the MPs seat that he had a different mindset than our previous MPs on how to mitigate the risks to the firm. Bachmann didn't like fee based accounts. They set the bar so high on MAP that it wasn't even on most FA's radar screen. Weddle was OK with them. And evidently enough of the GPs and FAs agreed with him that it became a viable idea. It was a good business move. One that benefits the clients, the firm, and the FAs all at the same time. But you make it sound like it was a devious plan hatched in the inner sanctum of the South Campus as a direct, knee jerk response to the lawsuit over revenue sharing. Did you know that revenue sharing was disclosed in the 10-k as far back as 1998? My question for you, and the others like you who used revenue sharing as their excuse for going indy, is when did you start to really care about how the firm made money? Was it when your bonuses started going away in 2001 and 2002? None of you ever read the 10-k and wondered what that line about revenue sharing was in the Fee Revenue paragraph? Or did you only feign righteous indignation when your firm became the whipping boy of regulators? Your dealings suddenly became altruistic with your clients and you had to protect them from the evil monster that you suddenly discovered you were shacking up with. That's what I find laughable when you get on your high horse and start blabbing about Jones not disclosing this or that to you. It's not that they didn't disclose it to you, it's that you either didn't care enough to wonder why we had preferred fund families or you were too oblivious to even realize it was happening. I still find it laughable after all these years that the regulators didn't shut down the revenue sharing agreements altogether industry wide, but instead just said, if you're going to do it you have to disclose it. Evidently it's not unethical if you tell people you're doing it. I agree that the Hartford deal was a poorly executed one and it certainly could have been better disclosed. As to Hartford not having any track record, that's not exactly true. Jones FAs had been utilizing Hartford money managers for a long time through their VAs.[quote=Spaceman Spiff]Noggin - and you would have turned your $100K into $6.7mil at an annualized return of 10.94%. Not a bad deal for $3500 upfront and .57% along the way. Did you know that ICA gets a 5 rating from Lipper and a 4 star rating from Morningstar?
foot - You took a two sentence statement, short ones at that, as me drinking kool aid? Seriously? You actually took the time to search the SEC filings for the Jones Financial Companies 10-K? That's pretty sad. Maybe you have it bookmarked. The 10-k talks about dozens of risks to the firm's business model. Everything from a material downturn in the financial markets to having to rely on third party vendors for many different things. I don't expect the GPs to work in a bubble. I expect them to look for solutions that would benefit the clients, FAs, and the firm. The 5 year plan that B24 mentioned earlier states that fee based relationships and the planning that goes along with them are one of the core strategies for reaching our 5 year goal. It also talks about diversifying our revenue mix. The two do go hand in hand. But, to say that AS is a knee jerk reaction to 12b-1 fee legislation and revenue sharing disclosure is just shortsighted. Oh yeah, and you should call it "OUR non-disclosed kickback scheme" because you participated in that scheme while you were here. [/quote] My point was that because it is preferred doesn't mean it's the best place for clients. Either one would be a happy camper I would think if they left it alone. Star ratings is not how I determine what I look at. Do you want a 5 star portfolio now or when you retire?I agree. I don’t use AIVSX. I think there are better options for that space.
As to whether I want a 5 star portfolio now or when I retire - yes I do.[quote=Spaceman Spiff]I agree. I don’t use AIVSX. I think there are better options for that space.
As to whether I want a 5 star portfolio now or when I retire - yes I do. [/quote] Have a good rest of the week. I am leaving the revenue sharing at "the Firm" for other folks.Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/whats-firms/edward-jonesmfs