Ej money losing international operations
International Expansion — The Partnership's foreign operations are not yet profitable; they will require significant infusions of capital and may never become profitable. The Partnership's branch system has expanded into Canada and the United Kingdom. Operations are at substantial deficits in these two countries, and it is anticipated that it will be a substantial number of years before the Partnership's expansion in these countries will reach a sufficient scale of operations to achieve profitability. Additional investments will be incurred in the interim, which will be substantial. Despite the substantial past and prospective investment in the foreign branch system, the Partnership's Canadian and U.K. operations are not yet profitable, nor is there any assurance at this time that either operation will ultimately attain profitability.
Get a life bro - If your wife won’t sleep with you, get a hooker.
Seriously. This is ridiculous. In order to grow, you have to incur losses sometimes. Every company has to. Eventually those business units will be profitable, but how knows how long it could take.
Here’s my take - they give it the good college try (which can take years or decades). When they decide to cut their losses, they will sell the offices to a firm up there, and across the pond. It’s business. If you think Jones is the only major firm that has ever had a losing business unit, try reading the paper. But my guess is that they want to gain more mass before they try to sell off the offices.
I don't believe they'll sell off the offices. My guess is that they're committed to both of those countries no matter what. The issue is that they're trying to grow Canada and the UK in a similar fashion to the US. But instead of doing it over 50 years like Ed, Ted, and John did, they're doing it in a decade. There just aren't enough people in those countries hitting big numbers yet to make a bunch of profit.
As to the OP's three questions:
1) It doesn't matter to you.
2) It doesn't matter to your clients.
3) You have to spend money to make money. Jones lost money on you for years before they ever saw a profit. Why would they keep throwing good money after bad?
Just as an example, let's say your client, at your recommendation, purchased $10,000 of CAIBX in Oct of 2007 and had him add $100 a month. In almost 2 years of investing with you, he's still down. Is it a bad fund? Was it a bad advice? No on both. Is there some big pie in the sky gigantic payoff somehow someday that you expect that the client just doesn't see? What do you tell your client?To xfer to somebody who won’t just slam them in A shares and forget about them… just kidding spiff…
I had to room with a guy who was going to start an office in Canada(forgot if it was PDP, Eval Grad or what) but he mention all the differences between securities regulations and portfolio holdings(more int’l because there domestic stock market shouldn’t account for 60% of the portfolio). It was actually kind of interesting.
[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
I don't believe they'll sell off the offices. My guess is that they're committed to both of those countries no matter what. The issue is that they're trying to grow Canada and the UK in a similar fashion to the US. But instead of doing it over 50 years like Ed, Ted, and John did, they're doing it in a decade. There just aren't enough people in those countries hitting big numbers yet to make a bunch of profit.
As to the OP's three questions:
1) It doesn't matter to you.
2) It doesn't matter to your clients.
3) You have to spend money to make money. Jones lost money on you for years before they ever saw a profit. Why would they keep throwing good money after bad?
Just as an example, let's say your client, at your recommendation, purchased $10,000 of CAIBX in Oct of 2007 and had him add $100 a month. In almost 2 years of investing with you, he's still down. Is it a bad fund? Was it a bad advice? No on both. Is there some big pie in the sky gigantic payoff somehow someday that you expect that the client just doesn't see? What do you tell your client? [/quote] Maybe it's just me, do you have American Funds on the brain? How does this analogy apply to business operations in Canada and England? By the way, to explain further, let's say your client went to New York City on a train that left Philly and was travelling at 60 mile per hour north and another train left NYC and was travelling south at 75 miles per hour. When would they collide if they were on the same longitude? Does that help explain?? Your office must be next to a nail salon because I just don't get where you are coming from....Bottom line. At some point Jones will have to decide if it makes economic sense to continue the bleeding. Bleeding is defined for those that feel like challenging…not making a profit.
The problem gets amplified when markets (i.e., profits) are down. I don't disagree that companies make investments that take time to provide profits, but they do need to see a light at the end of the tunnel. I would think 12-14 years ought to be enough time to figure out whether or not they have made a good business decision. My statement stands...when the average GP's income drops to their base, everything is up for discussion. I wouldn't be suprised to see Jones management make major changes in many areas to shore up their cushy little kingdom...or sell out to the highest bidder (before Spiff jumps too high, I think that's very unlikely).OK Ice, Volt, Moraen, and B24, and others, go ahead and ignore my opinionated or inflamatory question #3 but DO addres the first two questions, seriously...
HOW DOES THIS HELP MY CLIENTS?
HOW DOES THIS HELP ME HELP MY CLIENTS?
Lay it on me dudes (and dudettes). Lets hear it.[quote=noggin][quote=Spaceman Spiff]
I don't believe they'll sell off the offices. My guess is that they're committed to both of those countries no matter what. The issue is that they're trying to grow Canada and the UK in a similar fashion to the US. But instead of doing it over 50 years like Ed, Ted, and John did, they're doing it in a decade. There just aren't enough people in those countries hitting big numbers yet to make a bunch of profit.
As to the OP's three questions:
1) It doesn't matter to you.
2) It doesn't matter to your clients.
3) You have to spend money to make money. Jones lost money on you for years before they ever saw a profit. Why would they keep throwing good money after bad?
Just as an example, let's say your client, at your recommendation, purchased $10,000 of CAIBX in Oct of 2007 and had him add $100 a month. In almost 2 years of investing with you, he's still down. Is it a bad fund? Was it a bad advice? No on both. Is there some big pie in the sky gigantic payoff somehow someday that you expect that the client just doesn't see? What do you tell your client? [/quote] Maybe it's just me, do you have American Funds on the brain? How does this analogy apply to business operations in Canada and England? By the way, to explain further, let's say your client went to New York City on a train that left Philly and was travelling at 60 mile per hour north and another train left NYC and was travelling south at 75 miles per hour. When would they collide if they were on the same longitude? Does that help explain?? Your office must be next to a nail salon because I just don't get where you are coming from....[/quote] Would it have made more sense if I had used Neuberger Berman Mid Cap Growth? The mutual fund name is irrelevant. The point is that when you make an investment, sometimes it initially loses money before you see any gains. In this case, Jones is making and investment of capital to go international. They're initially losing money. Just like every business in this country that has ever been started, you lose money before you breakeven and then eventually make a profit. You have to choose, whether as an investor in CAIBX or in a new business venture, how you want to move forward. You can either cut and run or you can keep putting money in if you believe that what you are doing will be very profitable in the long run. I would guess that Jones is going to stick it out. As to your algebra problem: Approx 32 miles north of Philly on the New Jersey Turnpike. I had to use some very general locations to get the answer, but I'm close. Now, I've only driven into NY one time from the Poconos, so I'm not too familiar with that part of the country. But, I'd guess you'd be pretty lucky to average 60 mph with the toll roads and all. So, technically, I may be off a little bit.I can’t speak for the UK, but in Canada I think that part of the problem was a lack of veterans. I joined EJ as new/new in '02, was Seg 5 by '05, and left in '06. When I first joined, I was struck by how many enthusiastic fresh faces there were. I asked myself - where are the successful veterans? Oh, there were some veterans, but they had only been there 5 years or so, and were Seg 3 (and the occasional 4). EJ was having enough trouble keeping the pipeline full (at least in my region), so they weren’t going to lean on those guys to produce more. I was grateful to EJ for the training and the salary and the office (and even a few assets they threw my way), but the first time I had an $80K month, with $28K for me and $52K for them, it was time to call the recruiters.
As I say, I left in '06, so maybe it's different now, as the guys would have picked up LP and grown their books (I didn't keep in touch, so I don't know). But at that time, EJ was practically the farm team for RayJay (so much so that EJ sued RJ, and RJ couldn't solicit EJ employees for 6 months in Canada), and anyone who's producing well knows that more freedom and more $$ are just a phone call away. ...and that's how I learned where the successful veterans went! Pretty hard to win the World Series when your best players go to the Yankees. One other thing: Canadians don't like to admit it, but we sort of are America Jr., with minor cultural differences (like: gay marriage is legal here). I went on a div. trip to Hawaii, and when the hosting GP had to introduce the gay IR and his companion - well, let's just say there is no word in the language to describe the look on that GP's face. My wife and I killed ourselves laughing about that one.[quote=BigCheese]1. It doesn’t help your clients.
Nor does is hurt them. Since they aren't invested in, but rather with, EDJ what happens to the UK and Canadian divisions doesn't materially affect our clients. 2. It probably hurts you in helping your clients because resources aren't available for US reps (really hard to quantify). Less bonus and partnership payout if you were elgible would be the logical answer. Really? Seems to me that those entities have never been profitable, but yet the firm has spent millions of dollars on things that make our jobs easier, allowing us to better advise and service our clients. To list the things that have been done at EDJ while we've been in Canada and the UK would take too much time, but you can't seriously make the arguement that because of the way things are going in the UK and Canada that we are suffering as US advisors. Partnership and bonus payouts have ZERO impact on our ability to advise and service our clients. That's proven every day by the number of Seg 1, 2, and 3 FAs who do a bang up job with clients. The only way you MIGHT be able to stretch it into a negative is if you assume that because we're not getting bonuses and our LP payouts aren't at 20% this year, it is having a negative impact on morale and that somehow translates to a below normal client experience. What's your take? You obviously have an opinion or you wouldn't have asked.[/quote] I'm also curious about your opinion. Is this the first time you've read the 10-K? As long as I've been reading them those statements have been there. Do you really think that Jones is short changing you on something because they're spending money in the UK and Canada?How do we get to gay marriage on this thread???
Spiff- I have a math problem for you..... Let's assume for a moment you own a company and you have grown exponentially for years. You have expanded into two countries and for more than a decade you have lost money with dim prospects of making any money in the future. If your net profits are lagging in your only profitable country, and you are continuing to drain resources, the question I continue to scratch my head is.... HOW LONG WOULD YOU CONTINUE THE BLEEDING? Remember for a moment you are the owner...[quote=Spaceman Spiff] As to the OP’s three questions:
1) It doesn't matter to you.
2) It doesn't matter to your clients.
[/quote] Hmmm, let me see, it doesn't metter to me or my clients? I wonder it it ONLY matters, then, to the GPs? Since that is speculative of me to wonder (any GPs on these boards, I'd love to hear from you) let me tell you just a couple quick reasons off the top of my head as to why IT DOES MATTER TO ME. 1) Because at Jones, my muni bond inventory purely SUCKS. Sorry guys that's not bashing, theat's merly fact. Gee guys, whaddayasay you put some capital into intermediates? My buddy at LPL has an incredible inventory of intermediate or whatever ne needs in munis. I dont have d*** to offer my clients under 25 year maturities. I get the periodic wires lamenting that "Inventories are lean everywhere." That's B.S. cause my buddy's LPL inventory isn't lean! 2) Because Jones' bond trading area SUCKS. OK, ignore the inflammatory opinion and let me restate it factually. FACT: The bond trading department is understaffed and they'll tell you so. How about allocating some UK and Canada capital to staff up your trading areas to remotely pursue matching your mantra of GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH? FACT: EJ continues to grow the hell out of the rookie sales force but refuses or declines to staff up critical area like bond trading. FACT: Jones now WILL NOT provide firm quotes when my client needs to liquidate a bond. In the past, when they used to provide form quotes, it was sometimes truly DAYS before they responded to your wire but in all honesty, it was usually a few hours. Now they have eliminated that pesky delay by refusing to provide firm quotes at all. I call my buddy at LPL and he tells me "No, man they WANT us to use firm quotes and the traders provide them after a short hold on the phone." Similar resposes come from buddies at Steifel and Wells Fargo. They're shaking their head like "C'mon man, you're not serious are you.. Jones won'tgive you firm quotes?" Jones preaches to the lemmings about having the best bond inventory best pricing yada yada and lemmings believe that crap because that's all they know. Well they don't know what they don't know. What they don't know is the inventory sucks and it is not competitive when measured by 1) availability/quantity 2) pricing or yield the client receives, 3) yield to broker. I've been documenting this for a year or so. Again, here's a couple problems that someone in St Louis should be throwing some capital at. Anybody understand why I don't care to conquer the globe. I only care to focus on that area around my small town office. So Spiffy, it does matter to me and yes, I do really think that Jones is short changing me on bond inventory and undrestaffed trading areas at least indirectly because they're spending money in the UK and Canada. Cuck Fanada Euck Fengland Juck PhonesBigCheese (or foot, or whatever),
I meant no offense. I included the "gay marraige" anecdote because I thought (and still do think) it's funny. The original thread title was EJ MONEY LOSING INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS. I thought I'd offer a little perspective that you folks might not have - that's all.[quote=BigCheese]1. It doesn’t help your clients.
2. It probably hurts you in helping your clients because resources aren't available for US reps (really hard to quantify). Less bonus and partnership payout if you were elgible would be the logical answer. What's your take? You obviously have an opinion or you wouldn't have asked.[/quote] Yes, Big Cheese you are spot on. Doesn't do ANYTHING at all for my client and doesn't do ANYTHING to help me help my client, yet regardless of my LP and bonus, I have encountered specific situations that actually makes it harder for me to help my clients. so Juck Phones[quote=BigCheese] How do we get to gay marriage on this thread???
Spiff- I have a math problem for you…
Let’s assume for a moment you own a company and you have grown exponentially for years. You have expanded into two countries and for more than a decade you have lost money with dim prospects of making any money in the future. If your net profits are lagging in your only profitable country, and you are continuing to drain resources, the question I continue to scratch my head is…
HOW LONG WOULD YOU CONTINUE THE BLEEDING?
Remember for a moment you are the owner…[/quote]
That wasn’t a math problem.
[quote=Juck Phones]
OK Ice, Volt, Moraen, and B24, and others, go ahead and ignore my opinionated or inflamatory question #3 but DO addres the first two questions, seriously…
HOW DOES THIS HELP MY CLIENTS?
It doesn’t.HOW DOES THIS HELP ME HELP MY CLIENTS?
It doesn’t.Lay it on me dudes (and dudettes). Lets hear it.[/quote]
Juck - it’s not about you. Why would it be? The purpose of any for profit company is to generate profits for the owners. Not so that you can help your clients. Helping your clients is supposed to generate profits for the company, not using profits to help you help your clients.
They will continue to fund those operations because they believe it will eventually be profitable, and they have the capital to continue to fund those operations.
Whether they are correct or not is a subject for debate. I personally wouldn’t do it, or at least change the business model in both countries (3 person offices anyone?).
[quote=iceco1d] Now, when will they stop trying to make those markets work? I dunno. How long will you chase the $1MM client? How much will you spend? How many dinner bills will you foot, before you cut the $1,244,204 rollover loose?
We all have that decision to make, and all of our answers will be different.
[/quote]
Yeah it IS rhetorical for me to ask "When will they stock the muni inventory with other than 30 year bonds?" and "When will they staff up the trading areas even quasi-commensurate with the growth level of adding kindergarten level new FAs?" cause I don't really care about fixing Jones' model. I care about taking care of my local clients and, oh, by the way I'll make a good living too.
We all have decisions to make and I'm not one to accept or dish out bitching/moaning/whining without using ones own spine to make a decision and act on it- basically man up and do something about it or STFU. Life is full of choices isn't it?
Moraen, please note that these two questions are specifically focused on my client, not " about me" so I can agree with you. Duh. I'm not insinuating or alleging or whining "Wah wah wah, they're taking comp away from me and sending it to negative cash flow operations across the golbe.". No, I'm merely saying through these questions that these decade(s) long global conquests do not A) help my client in any way and B) do not even help me help my client. I understand for profit companies etc. I love free enterprise. It's just become so clear that Jones' priorities are not my priorities.
Juck - it’s not about you. Why would it be? The purpose of any for profit company is …
Mr. Juck.
Simply, firm efforts in the UK or Canada don’t help your clients. They help clients in the UK and Canada. They don’t help you - they help the new and veteran FAs in the UK and Canada. Financial results in those two countries are not where anyone wants them (though the UK FAs are doing very well). That’s why there is considerable effort underway to improve.
I’d suggest you worry about what you can control. You may choose to start with your attitude.
Juck - Did you and your buddies at LPL, et al discuss what guidelines they are using to tell you that they have a full inventory of bonds to choose from? As you probably know from your research, Jones won't just throw anything into the inventory. It has to meet certain criteria before they'll put it in there. So, while your buddy at LPL may be able to offer his client a non rated 7 year muni, Jones isn't going to put that bond in our inventory. You'll rarely, if ever, see anything BBB or below on a muni. That may be one explanation.
Is that the only thing you have to complain about in regards to the UK and Canada operations? Because the times that you'd actually need to buy an intermediate muni can't come up all that often. At least they don't in my office.[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
Juck - Did you and your buddies at LPL, et al discuss what guidelines they are using to tell you that they have a full inventory of bonds to choose from? As you probably know from your research, Jones won’t just throw anything into the inventory. It has to meet certain criteria before they’ll put it in there. So, while your buddy at LPL may be able to offer his client a non rated 7 year muni, Jones isn’t going to put that bond in our inventory. You’ll rarely, if ever, see anything BBB or below on a muni. That may be one explanation.
Is that the only thing you have to complain about in regards to the UK and Canada operations? Because the times that you’d actually need to buy an intermediate muni can’t come up all that often. At least they don’t in my office. [/quote]
I will back up Juck here. I’m not sure about LPL, but Schwab and Fidelity usually have A or better with several different maturities (they have others, but the search criteria I use is A or better). When Jones says that offerings are thin, it is their inability to get them.
You would be surprised at the incredible amount in inventory.
The bottom line on the disaster and debacle disguised as an “expansion” into the UK and Canada is that it is the brainchild of the evil genius himself, John Bachmann. Until he is pushing up daisies somewhere, they will continue to throw good money after bad paying homage to this very bad idea. They will not abandon the idea, thereby dishonoring and disgracing Bachmann, while he is still alive. Write this down: “After Bachmann dies, EDJ will begin the process of selling the UK and Canada operation within a year!”
This is exactly the kind of small-minded nonsense that keeps Jones "culture" alive and well. The interests and ego of the former Managing Partner are put ahead of the good of the company and the thousands of people who work there today. The UK and Canada don't work, have never worked, will never work, and serve as a bottomless black hole of capital infusion funded by hard-working brokers in the U.S. You Jones guys have a house payment, a car payment, a credit-card payment, and a Bachmann ego payment every frickin' month. Sucks to be you!Sooth,
"The UK and Canada...will never work..." That's a pretty broad statement. EJ "works" in the US, why wouldn't it work elsewhere? Can you expand on your statement?Sooth, I have not been around long enough to understand the “Bachman” effect (he was before my time). But there may be some validity to your statement. I don’t believe they are showing enough traction in those areas. If they were hiring a few hundred new FA’s a year and they were sticking, or were getting a lot of transfer FA’s with assets, it could work. But they need to ramp up much quicker to make it work. I think the transition happens before Bachman is gone. Weddle has shown the gumption to get stuff done.
[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
Juck - Did you and your buddies at LPL, et al discuss what guidelines they are using to tell you that they have a full inventory of bonds to choose from? As you probably know from your research, Jones won't just throw anything into the inventory. It has to meet certain criteria before they'll put it in there. So, while your buddy at LPL may be able to offer his client a non rated 7 year muni, Jones isn't going to put that bond in our inventory. You'll rarely, if ever, see anything BBB or below on a muni. That may be one explanation.
Is that the only thing you have to complain about in regards to the UK and Canada operations? Because the times that you'd actually need to buy an intermediate muni can't come up all that often. At least they don't in my office. [/quote] Look, let me preface this saying this is not merely my bitch, moan, and whine board, nor a personal flamethrowing board. I don't feel good about merely filling up space here if it could not be productive or beneficialal -perhaps truly educational- for someone else, perhaps another lemming out there. Spiff, your premise seems to me that "Big Green Daddy knows best" but LPL or it's advisors couldn't possibly know a good bond from a bad bond. Anyway thanks for the layup question about LPL's non rated POS munis that Big Greenie just wouldn't speculate on in it's inventory. Here's how the scenario had unfolded some half dozen times in the past 6-12 months... I call my buddy "Joe" at LPL saying, "Hey Joe, I'm feeling a bit frustrated. Do me a favor. Sort your muni inventory so it shows you all 11-13 year, AA or better, non-AMT, with a quantity of $50k or more available..." FYI, I don't tell him that I only have $5k here or $10k there or most of the time I have NOTHING AT ALL under that criteria until after he shows me his 130 cusips available under that criteria and hundreds of millions of dollars of inventory available. The bit@h of it is that he's got way higher yields to the client and 1+ full point of gross for him verus me with 1/4 point gross on a wholly UNcompetitive yield! Doesn't matter, I don't have sufficient quantities anyway. 99% of the Big Greenie's lemmings don't know what they don't know. I didn't know it until I came to educate myself. I'm feeling that what I've just described is not a function of availablility, IT'S A FUNCTION OF PRIORITY. It's a function of priority of capital, sending dollars around the globe rather than rather than supplying us an appropriate NON-30 year muni inventory. The priority of spending more capital on growth, growth, growth training kindergarten lemming advisors that will sell 80 year old clients the only thing we're choosing to inventory -thirty year "high quality" munis- without questioning the suitability or the benefit versus the risk. Finally, let me come clean in the interest of full disclosure... I believe maybe he's gotta pay LPL a ticket charge -you know, that bogeyman they preach to us about occasionally at our regional meetings. Oh yeah, maybe thats only at the seg 5 meetings. You don't know what a joke that old ticket charge bogeyman is! And again, you don't know what you don't know. I aspire to pay those ticket charges! Juck PhonesNope, Jones could get whatever they want in their inventory. IT'S JONES' CHOICE. They choose NOT to deploy capital on NON-30 year munis. Their choice. Their prioritization. So, Juck Phones
When Jones says that offerings are thin, it is their inability to get them.
[quote=Moraen] When Jones says that offerings are thin, it is their inability to get them.
Nope, Jones could get whatever they want in their inventory. IT’S JONES’ CHOICE. They choose NOT to deploy capital on NON-30 year munis. Their choice. Their prioritization.
So, Juck Phones[/quote]
Juck - Why don’t you leave? It’s a serious question. If you are a Seg 5, I’m shocked that you would stay with that much jack.
That’s what I was thinking. If you aspire to pay those ticket charges and you truly feel that the Jones bond inventory is handicapping you in the business you do with your clients, then why don’t you go join your LPL buddy? I’m not saying that to be a smart aleck, I’m saying that because I believe it’s true. One of my previous RL’s used to say that one of the reasons he believed you should leave EDJ is when you have an issue with the way they run the company. It appears you do. So, why not voice that concern to Weddle or Bob Beck or take matters into your own hands and leave Jones behind?
As far as allocating resources go, if that is your complaint, you might want to ask Weddle why he's not spending more resources on an area that produces only 9% of the profit for the firm. He may have an explanation for you. I believe you are absolutely right that they believe that in the long run the Canada, the UK, and continued growth in the US will be more profitable for the firm than our muni trading desk. So, it makes sense, at least to me, that if the bigger perceived payoff is in a different area, adding 3 or 4 more bond traders to put inventory in our system like you described is not a good allocation of resources. I would guess that they'd tell you that they just don't have a huge demand for 11-13 year, non-AMT, AA or better munis. Just a question, I've not tried before because I've never had the need, did you call Jones and ask them if they could get one of the bonds your LPL buddy had? I've always been told that if you ask them for something specific like that, they'll try to accomodate you. Also, don't hear what I'm not trying to say - I didn't say anything about an LPL advisor's ability to tell what a good muni bond is or isn't. Their system is different than ours. That's what I was trying to say. I have to tell you that I find it kind of funny that of all the things you believe Jones should spend money on instead of Canada and the UK, that you pick intermediate muni bonds. Why not global account opening? Doesn't it piss you off that you have to enter the client's name, address, phone, etc so many times just to get an account open? Or how about better performance measurement? How many stock positions do you have for clients that they purchased in different lots at different times? Wouldn't you like to be able to tell them how each of those lots has been performing individually as well as as a whole? Or how about that you still can't tell your clients how their portfolio has performed as a whole on a YTD, 1, 3, 5, or 10 year mark without a TON of hassle? Now those are things I'd like for them to spend money on.Actually Spiff, there would be more demand for intermediate muni’s if they were in inventory. I don’t sell a lot of 25+ year bonds, except for the clients that jsut want the highest yield, and don’t care about the term (don’t you LOVE those guys!).
Actually, I don't think it's an allocation of resources, I think it has to do with the RIP. Jones knows they would sell like hotcakes, so capital allocation might no be an issue. But why would they want to sell a 15 year AA with a 1.5-2.25% RIP when you can get 3.0? Jones knows nobody would sell 30 year muni's if they had a great intermediate inventory. There is not much difference in yield between a 15 and a 30 right now (except half to 70% of the RIP), and most clients want the intermediates.[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
... Doesn't it piss you off that you have to enter the client's name, address, phone, etc so many times just to get an account open? Or how about better performance measurement? How many stock positions do you have for clients that they purchased in different lots at different times? Wouldn't you like to be able to tell them how each of those lots has been performing individually as well as as a whole? Or how about that you still can't tell your clients how their portfolio has performed as a whole on a YTD, 1, 3, 5, or 10 year mark without a TON of hassle? Now those are things I'd like for them to spend money on. [/quote] Not asking for the moon here. Just what every other swinging d!ck has on the street. I asked about customer facing planning materials (Cashedge-enabled applications) and you'd have thought I was talking about technology that's decades away. Weddle says most of this stuff's in the pipeline, so I believe him. My fear is that because of our "culture" we won't get into the eMoneyAdvisor technology for the same reason our web pages offer little interactivity with the client: we foster client-advisor interaction. Thoughts from B, volt, Spaceman?[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
1) ...why don't you go join your LPL buddy? 2)... why not voice that concern to Weddle or Bob Beck or take matters into your own hands and leave Jones behind? 3)...did you call Jones and ask them if they could get one of the bonds your LPL buddy had? 4) Doesn't it piss you off that you have to enter the client's name, address, phone, etc so many times just to get an account open? 5)...how about better performance measurement? [/quote] 1) Definitely will. Wont say anything more right now. 2) Beause I'm sooo off the bus... I don't care. As you are rightfully insinuating, it's time for me to take my action of STFU. 3) Do you realize the frustrating inefficiencies going back and forth from my buddy LPL Joe to StL trading, to Client (do you have anything longer/shorter/better yada yada yada?) to Joe to StL to Client etc etc etc. Way too frustrating for me to do somebody elses job of trying to procure adequate suitable inventory. 4) A non-factor for me. Really my BOA does that stuff. 5) I know it's coming...elsewhere.JP-
Perhaps you could give us your perspective of the firm from a Seg 5 standpoint. What percentage was bonus of your income typically? In case you haven't been reading, I have suggested that the Seg 5 producer like yourself is increasingly agitated with the growth montra, especially if your bonus's are being confiscated to help the outside operations and new US offices. I find it curious that your concern centers around lack of inventory (what is available on the street compared to what Jones allows for whatever their reasons). Have you heard about any modifications to the partnership program? We are still waiting from Spiff, his sources apparently can't confirm or deny, just laugh at the possibility.[quote=B24]Actually Spiff, there would be more demand for intermediate muni’s if they were in inventory. I don’t sell a lot of 25+ year bonds, except for the clients that jsut want the highest yield, and don’t care about the term (don’t you LOVE those guys!).
Actually, I don't think it's an allocation of resources, I think it has to do with the RIP. Jones knows they would sell like hotcakes, so capital allocation might no be an issue. But why would they want to sell a 15 year AA with a 1.5-2.25% RIP when you can get 3.0? Jones knows nobody would sell 30 year muni's if they had a great intermediate inventory. There is not much difference in yield between a 15 and a 30 right now (except half to 70% of the RIP), and most clients want the intermediates.[/quote] Agreed. The FA will sell something at 3 vs 1.5 all day long. I'm not saying Juck is wrong and that we have a wonderful inventory. I can't tell you how many times my branch has received a wire from our muni guy saying that the reason we don't have any munis in our inventory is blah, blah, blah. That gets really old after a while. But why would Jones allocate more resources, whether it is the capital to buy them and get them into inventory or the manpower expenses that go along with beefing up the trading desk, for something that is only 9% of the bottom line? I don't know if they did beef up that area if they would raise the YTB or not. I wouldn't imagine the spread on them would be any more favorable if we bought more of them. I would assume not enough for us to get 3 points on an intermediate muni.Volt - on the bond comment - are you kidding? It's very tough to find ANYTHING sub 20 years? I just took a quick look at our muni, fed, cbd, and CD inventory and found plenty of things sub 20 years. How many $50K individual bond orders are you trying to fill with under 20 years of maturity? In fact there are currently 59 MBD positions with more than $25K in them with maturity between 10 and 20 years. There are 31 muni positions 0-9 years. Now, I didn't sort them for AMT (very small percentage of the US population have to worry about AMT), rating (I figured Jones did that for me already), or by state so you would obviously reduce those positions if you added those things. But don't give me this bull of I can't find anything under 20 years. BTW, there are 34 CBD positions 0-9 years. Are you sure you can't find anything 20 years or under, or are you looking for something 20 years and under AND 2-3 points?
I don't believe that EDJ thinks for a second that doorknocking doesn't work. Even with so many advisors out there who are inheriting assets, getting GKNs, or Legacy offices, the mantra to the majority of them is make face to face contacts. They do want to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to get some assets right out of training, but that's just to try to give everyone as much of a chance for success as they can. It's not the silver bullet, but it's certainly a help. That doesn't mean, in any circles other than those consisting of FAs griping about doorknocking, that there are people who believe that our business model isn't viable.[quote=Spaceman Spiff][quote=B24]Actually Spiff, there would be more demand for intermediate muni’s if they were in inventory. I don’t sell a lot of 25+ year bonds, except for the clients that jsut want the highest yield, and don’t care about the term (don’t you LOVE those guys!).
Actually, I don't think it's an allocation of resources, I think it has to do with the RIP. Jones knows they would sell like hotcakes, so capital allocation might no be an issue. But why would they want to sell a 15 year AA with a 1.5-2.25% RIP when you can get 3.0? Jones knows nobody would sell 30 year muni's if they had a great intermediate inventory. There is not much difference in yield between a 15 and a 30 right now (except half to 70% of the RIP), and most clients want the intermediates.[/quote] Agreed. The FA will sell something at 3 vs 1.5 all day long. I'm not saying Juck is wrong and that we have a wonderful inventory. I can't tell you how many times my branch has received a wire from our muni guy saying that the reason we don't have any munis in our inventory is blah, blah, blah. That gets really old after a while. But why would Jones allocate more resources, whether it is the capital to buy them and get them into inventory or the manpower expenses that go along with beefing up the trading desk, for something that is only 9% of the bottom line? I don't know if they did beef up that area if they would raise the YTB or not. I wouldn't imagine the spread on them would be any more favorable if we bought more of them. I would assume not enough for us to get 3 points on an intermediate muni. [/quote] You might have answered your own question. I think it's only 9% of business because we don't have the right bonds in inventory. Not saying it would increase the YTB, I am saying that they would be an easier sell for advisors, but Jones wants the 3%. And I doubt we would need to icnrease the Bond Desk staffing to do it. I mean seriously, how much effort does it take to buy a block of bonds? FWIW, I don't think most other wirehouses have much better of an inventory than us, as I compare occassionally to Merrill and MSSB (I know guys there). Although I don't know about MS when it was just MS - I was familiar with SB. Often we would get a better muni inventory than them. I have no idea on Wachovia/AGE/WFA. Bottom line, 30 year muni's are not neccesary in most cases, and more often than not, shorter maturities are more appropriate as they are less volatile (and it's what clients want!!).Spiff, I’m new/new … do you think I can seriously feed my family on 1 - 1.75 points?
You are correct - the muni bond inventory is better than most days. I think you'd agree that it's been a bit weak for the last couple of months. I have no benchmarking data so maybe it was simply normal? I have however not had to "turn" away a buyer because of lack of inventory. BTW: we only have 1 muni bond position under 10 years today and over 4%. Wonder what LPL has? I'd like to sell more of those.[quote=voltmoie] Spiff, I’m new/new … do you think I can seriously feed my family on 1 - 1.75 points?
[/quote]
Or afford to go to the strip club.
[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
Volt - on the bond comment - are you kidding? It's very tough to find ANYTHING sub 20 years? I just took a quick look at our muni, fed, cbd, and CD inventory and found plenty of things sub 20 years. How many $50K individual bond orders are you trying to fill with under 20 years of maturity? In fact there are currently 59 MBD positions with more than $25K in them with maturity between 10 and 20 years. There are 31 muni positions 0-9 years. Now, I didn't sort them for AMT (very small percentage of the US population have to worry about AMT), rating (I figured Jones did that for me already), or by state so you would obviously reduce those positions if you added those things. But don't give me this bull of I can't find anything under 20 years. BTW, there are 34 CBD positions 0-9 years. Are you sure you can't find anything 20 years or under, or are you looking for something 20 years and under AND 2-3 points?
I don't believe that EDJ thinks for a second that doorknocking doesn't work. Even with so many advisors out there who are inheriting assets, getting GKNs, or Legacy offices, the mantra to the majority of them is make face to face contacts. They do want to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to get some assets right out of training, but that's just to try to give everyone as much of a chance for success as they can. It's not the silver bullet, but it's certainly a help. That doesn't mean, in any circles other than those consisting of FAs griping about doorknocking, that there are people who believe that our business model isn't viable. [/quote] Spiff, not to be a spoilsport for you but I ran a query of muni's with less than a 9 year maturity and I could only pull up 1200 listings, there were more than that but we are limited to 1200 at a time to display....[quote=Juck Phones][quote=BigCheese]1. It doesn’t help your clients.
2. It probably hurts you in helping your clients because resources aren't available for US reps (really hard to quantify). Less bonus and partnership payout if you were elgible would be the logical answer. What's your take? You obviously have an opinion or you wouldn't have asked.[/quote] Yes, Big Cheese you are spot on. Doesn't do ANYTHING at all for my client and doesn't do ANYTHING to help me help my client, yet regardless of my LP and bonus, I have encountered specific situations that actually makes it harder for me to help my clients. so Juck Phones[/quote] I'm pretty sure the biggest hurt to your clients is your attitude. If you can't be productive to your clients within the Jones model either you suck or... if you think LPL is so much better then pick up the phone and go! Griping about Jones will get you nothing.Thanks Noggin. I was going to post that, but didn’t want to hurt Spiff. Of course, we only have in inventory what jones said was bad for their brokers. All triple c, not insured and paying 12 pts to boot. Bad bad bad LPL.
In Spiffs defense, if they had that much in inventory, the green screens would crash. Always a silver lining.[quote=fa09] [quote=Juck Phones][quote=BigCheese]1. It doesn’t help your clients.
2. It probably hurts you in helping your clients because resources aren’t available for US reps (really hard to quantify). Less bonus and partnership payout if you were elgible would be the logical answer.
What’s your take? You obviously have an opinion or you wouldn’t have asked.[/quote]
Yes, Big Cheese you are spot on. Doesn’t do ANYTHING at all for my client and doesn’t do ANYTHING to help me help my client, yet regardless of my LP and bonus, I have encountered specific situations that actually makes it harder for me to help my clients.
so
Juck Phones[/quote]
I’m pretty sure the biggest hurt to your clients is your attitude. If you can’t be productive to your clients within the Jones model either you suck or… if you think LPL is so much better then pick up the phone and go! Griping about Jones will get you nothing. [/quote]
Seriously - Juck is Seg 5. I would think he’d earn a little more respect from another Jones guy.
You think the Jones model is right for every client?
[quote=bspears]Thanks Noggin. I was going to post that, but didn’t want to hurt Spiff. Of course, we only have in inventory what jones said was bad for their brokers. All triple c, not insured and paying 12 pts to boot. Bad bad bad LPL.
In Spiffs defense, if they had that much in inventory, the green screens would crash. Always a silver lining. [/quote] Yes, 1200 bonds in our inventory would definitely crash the greens screens and probably be too much info for the average Jones FA's feeble mind to deal with. Which is why they're going to stop using them in October for our bond inventory. You people are having trouble with hearing what I'm not saying. I didn't pass any judgement at all on the inventory that LPL has for their advisors or your ability to buy what is best for your client. None at all. noggin - I'm sure the number is still going to be higher than at Jones, but how many are there if you take out any positions less than $25K, under AA, and keep it at 0-9 years? What's the best YTM and YTB? As far as respect for Juck - respect for his accomplishments in his business, yes. But his attitude does suck. He's obviously already decided to leave Jones and has also made the decision to do as much badmouthing of Jones on the way out. Not the way I'd personally choose to leave, but if it makes him feel better, then more power to him.[quote=Spaceman Spiff][quote=bspears]Thanks Noggin. I was going to post that, but didn’t want to hurt Spiff. Of course, we only have in inventory what jones said was bad for their brokers. All triple c, not insured and paying 12 pts to boot. Bad bad bad LPL.
In Spiffs defense, if they had that much in inventory, the green screens would crash. Always a silver lining. [/quote] Yes, 1200 bonds in our inventory would definitely crash the greens screens and probably be too much info for the average Jones FA's feeble mind to deal with. Which is why they're going to stop using them in October for our bond inventory. You people are having trouble with hearing what I'm not saying. I didn't pass any judgement at all on the inventory that LPL has for their advisors or your ability to buy what is best for your client. None at all. noggin - I'm sure the number is still going to be higher than at Jones, but how many are there if you take out any positions less than $25K, under AA, and keep it at 0-9 years? What's the best YTM and YTB? As far as respect for Juck - respect for his accomplishments in his business, yes. But his attitude does suck. He's obviously already decided to leave Jones and has also made the decision to do as much badmouthing of Jones on the way out. Not the way I'd personally choose to leave, but if it makes him feel better, then more power to him. [/quote] I ran it again it was still over 1200 with your parameters.OK, thanks. How about the YTM and YTB?
Spiff-
Your so called bond department feels non-rated bonds aren't appropriate...but it does recommend that AMBAC, MBIA, or XCEL are appropriate? You have to be f____ing kidding...aren't you? I wouldn't pay for that piece of sh_t insurance if I could avoid it. Because you guys rarely offered non-rated you feel your department is helping you help your clients. BS!!!!!!!!! Just another example of the crap/propoganda you guys believe. Someone earlier referred to Jones reps as lemmings. I am begining to think that was a fair characterization.Once again, your facts are so old it's not even funny. And people like you tell us that we don't know what we don't know. You do know that the ratings on our bonds don't have ANYTHING, let me say that more slowly, A N Y T H I N G to do with AMBAC or MBIA or XCEL or FGIC or any of the other insurance agencies. See, there are these OTHER rating agencies called Standard and Poors and Moody's that rate bonds for the entire industry. The very same agencies that I'm going to guess you see rating from when you pull up your bond inventory. Let me explain how this works. Those companies look at all of the financial records of the bonds, of course at the request of the issuer, and they get a rating from that issuer. Sometimes it's AAA (that's S&P) or Aaa (this one is Moody's) and sometimes it's some other variation. There will be other letters involved too, but the basic concept is the farther along in the alphabet, the more shaky the municipality will be.
The way the industry used to work is if one of those issues also went out and purchased bond insurance, their rating would go up to AAA or Aaa because there was supposedly a guarantee that those insurance companies would pay off the bonds if the municipality were to go bankrupt (that means they ran out of money) or if they defaulted (that means they stopped paying their principle and interest back) on those loans. But now, we find out that the insurance companies that were supposed to be protecting the investor need protecting themselves. Seems they got in a little over their heads and did some stuff that wasn't very smart. So, now a company like EDJ can either keep doing things like they used to, or they could tell their advisors to stop looking at the insurance on the bonds because it's not really as safe as they once thought. Instead their advisors should fall back on the underlying rating from Moody's or S&P to talk about the safety of the bonds with clients. Guess which one EDJ picked? Someone once referred to you as a moron (by the way, that wasn't me). I'm starting to think that was a fair characterization.I still have countrywide cmo's with ambac insurance. We were told to sell them as AAA and insured...so I did. What a moron I was for listening to them.
And in my humble opinion, Spiff...you are the most moronic of all of them, becuase you aren't remotely balanced in your consistent Jones is the greatest attitude.
You wouldn't have a clue what the industry used to do because you were teaching all the Jones new reps to sell the hamburger (maybe you could describe for those that don't know what that is). EDJ is the greatest company for reps who can't or won't think for themselves. Sometimes I think you have a chance of actually breaking out of that conundrum. Days like today and all of your company responses tells me, again, I am wasting my typing skills. I hope there are a few out there who can see through the 2072 corporate responses.
Most of us consider a good day 2-3K gross or in my case I have a goal of identifying 1M of new money a day that I didn't know existed. For you, I get the impression that if you respond 1.5 times per day (which I believe is your average for 3 years) you can go home to Mama and tell her about the moron on the forums.
Did anyone have Spiff as a teacher? Maybe we can start a thread on our Jones KYC, Eval-Grad, PDP teachers?
[quote=fa09]
I'm pretty sure the biggest hurt to your clients is your attitude. If you can't be productive to your clients within the Jones model either you suck or... if you think LPL is so much better then pick up the phone and go! Griping about Jones will get you nothing. [/quote] Hey fa, you're not even thinking with common sense. My clients have no clue that I have any attitude against Big Greenie. I love my clients and literally love what I do. I am so fortunate. I will be educating my clients however, respectfully and professionally, "when the time is right". I understand full well that there comes a time to move ones self forward or STFU. Let me balance things out perhaps with some sage wisdom of what I'll just say is "well over a decade". You're new to EJ(?) You may be new to the industry. A) With EJ you are with the absolute best firm, bar none, to LEARN this industry. Years from now there may (or even may not) come a time that EJ is no longer best for you. You'll know it then like I know it now. B) You are starting out in this industry at the BEST time, bar none, that anyone living will EVER EVER EVER see for starting out. What a great time for a new FA to build a career! What a great time for a veteran FA to REbuild and reenergize a career. I've lurked these boards for years and have certainly read the incessant bashing of the Big Greenie especially by ex-Jonsers. Many of them remind me of ex spouses that just can't move themselves forward now that they're liberated from a bad situation. When I get EJ in the rear view mirror I will t.r.y. to retain a balanced prespective of the Big Greenie though I am in no way mistaken- it is fact- when you leave a firm, it is not civil divorce it is WARFARE. Speaking of which, I really need to lay low from this site now as paranoia may get the better of me in the near future. Careful -get too c***y and you could get your clock cleaned. Besides, I've just reached a personal goal that I had not wanted to exceed- my number of posts has reached 1% of Spiffs total posts. soooo Juck PhonesJP seeing as to how you are a Seg 5 I would think you are the latter of my 2 insinuations/suggestions in that you should never stay in a place that makes your truly unhappy, despite all the obvious success you've attained in your last 10 years at the firm. That being said, you have been lurking for years and for at least 8 months you've harbored enough resentment to come up with your username. All I was saying was that you weren't helping by your bashing, and to exit and be happy. Thank you for your updated post, much more balanced and I wish you all the best in your attempt to free yourself from big green brother.
[quote=BigCheese]
I still have countrywide cmo's with ambac insurance. We were told to sell them as AAA and insured...so I did. What a moron I was for listening to them.
And in my humble opinion, Spiff...you are the most moronic of all of them, becuase you aren't remotely balanced in your consistent Jones is the greatest attitude.
You wouldn't have a clue what the industry used to do because you were teaching all the Jones new reps to sell the hamburger (maybe you could describe for those that don't know what that is). EDJ is the greatest company for reps who can't or won't think for themselves. Sometimes I think you have a chance of actually breaking out of that conundrum. Days like today and all of your company responses tells me, again, I am wasting my typing skills. I hope there are a few out there who can see through the 2072 corporate responses.
Most of us consider a good day 2-3K gross or in my case I have a goal of identifying 1M of new money a day that I didn't know existed. For you, I get the impression that if you respond 1.5 times per day (which I believe is your average for 3 years) you can go home to Mama and tell her about the moron on the forums.
[/quote] The only time I get so unbalanced in my posts is with you. And with spears, but as he doesn't post much any longer, that's not as big an issue. Everything that you say I am PRO EDJ, you are ANTI EDJ. And you have the gall to tell me I'm unbalanced? There are plenty of issues with EDJ. I mentioned some of them in a post a few back. There are plenty more things I'd love to see changed. But you, along with some others, come on here LOOKING to talk bad about Jones. That's when the kool aid starts flowing a little faster in my veins. What did anything that I was talking about in my post about our inventory have to do with bond insurance? I understand COMPLETELY that Jones told you, me, and lots of others on this forum to tell our clients that the bonds were insured. It wasn't until LAST YEAR that anyone knew there was a problem with the insurers. So unless you suddenly became an accountant or an actuary and started delving into the books of AMBAC and MBIA, you weren't any more aware of what was going on in their balance sheet than any of the rest of us. You may perceive that as Jones doing something insidious and evil to cause you to look foolish, but it simply wasn't. When they found out there was an issue, they told us to stop telling people the bonds were insured and to rely solely on the underlying rating. So now our inventory screens don't even show whether a bond has insurance or not. So, does that make you a moron for selling those Countrywide bonds as insured? No. You were dealing with the best info you had at the time, which is the best any of us in this business can do. What do you expect to people to see if they were to look through the 2072 "corporate responses"? You continue to bash my career path with EDJ. Why is that? Do you think that while I was teaching people about the hamburger that I was oblivious to what was going on in the industry? If so, you are mistaken. So, you think it takes me all day long to post 1.5 times? I might spend a total of half an hour on here throughout the day. Fortunately for me I have pretty good typing skills and can formulate a thought on the fly, so I can put a big post like this together pretty quickly. Thanks for the concern though. I too have my business goals and most days I hit them.Spiff-
I have always maintained that Jones is a great place to start (how is that negative) and your responses to many are sarcastic and unbalanced...not just me. It's anyone who points out the flaws at Jones. What you can't understand for some unexplainable reason is that there is a much better life outside of your firm. It might be at a wirehouse. It might be independent. Anywhere is probably better than Jones because of their limitations, once you understand the biz. Look at Juck Phones...a seg 5 producer who is seeing the light because of lack of inventory or watching his bonus go to buffoons who should never have been hired. Or myself I left because I wanted my kids to join my practice at some point. I wanted a higher payout for myself and found that I was paying way too much for what I was getting in return. And I couldn't work for a firm that I did not trust. Yes Jones management lied and I left. And when they lie to you, if you have the balls (which I seriously doubt) and the revenue to back it up...you should consider leaving also. Please stop patronizing us, we know what you don't. Jones is a fine company for people like you.You have this habit of skillfully avoiding the questions that I ask that you don’t want to answer.
I have NEVER said anything negative about anyone who wants to leave Jones for anywhere else. I know that some people will stay at Jones for the rest of their careers and some won't. I know that the only place I'd ever consider going would be indy. I've actually had some conversations with some friends that are indy right now. All of them would welcome me with open arms into their practice. I patronize you because of your attitude. I do tend to get sarcastic. That last post I made to you about the insurance should have been read as dripping in sarcasm. I don't really care what you think of Jones or of me for that matter. I don't actually understand why you care so much. You hold a grudge longer than anyone I've ever met, which just confuses the heck out of me. But, as long as you continue to put up the posts that are so anti Jones with what you view as the truth, I'll continue to put up my pro Jones posts with what I perceive as the truth. You can't throw stones at me telling me that I'm unbiased and expect me to just let you mouth off and not expect a response to balance out your rhetoric. BTW, your starting to sound like a politician. Your talking in catch phrases - "Jones is a great place to start" "Jones management lied" "You don't know what you don't know". You're wearing a "Yes We Can" button right now aren't you?Spaceman Spiff wrote:
BTW, your starting to sound like a politician. Your talking in catch phrases - "Jones is a great place to start" "Jones management lied" "You don't know what you don't know". You're wearing a "Yes We Can" button right now aren't you? ++++++++++++++++ All right, boys, break it up. It was fun for a while, but now somebody's gonna get hurt. You both make good points, but Spiffy, you've gone too far. Calling a guy a politician? And a "Yes We Can" man at that? YOU HAVE CROSSED A LINE, SIR.Spaceman- I think it takes a good period of time after leaving Jones where one can speak without a lot of venom flowing out. I was certainly a case in point. For me given what had transpired in my region, I felt that the best decision was to leave the firm. I am certain that they were ill equiped to deal with the situation in my region and in my mind handled it so poorly that I did not trust management any longer. As a matter of fact, about 3 months prior to leaving I had lunch with a GP who asked me when I would consider leaving. I told him " when I can longer trust management to make ethical and principled decisions". He looked at me oddly and then we talked about something else. That was my experience and everyone has a different one. I left and did not contact anyone until 1 year was up…there was no need to send me a threatening letter from the home office counsel reminding me what I had signed, I was already aware of it. Integrity is not something that you can remind one of in a letter.
All that being said, the more layers that were stripped from the organization as I was on the leadership team, the more I realized that the firm I joined was not the one that I was employed by. I met with a wholesaler from a fund company this week, he too had left EJ and I felt a strange kinship. The fact that he had worked there and of his own free will had made a decision to leave caused him to have more credibility in my eyes. I enjoy the dialogue back and forth with you over time and I understand that you truly believe what you write. There is nothing worse than to stay employed with a company that you have no faith in ( i.e. Borker Boy). I wish you much success and look on my time at EJ with much fondness for the friendships fostered as well as the reward trips.[quote=canucklehead]Spaceman Spiff wrote:
BTW, your starting to sound like a politician. Your talking in catch phrases - "Jones is a great place to start" "Jones management lied" "You don't know what you don't know". You're wearing a "Yes We Can" button right now aren't you? ++++++++++++++++ All right, boys, break it up. It was fun for a while, but now somebody's gonna get hurt. You both make good points, but Spiffy, you've gone too far. Calling a guy a politician? And a "Yes We Can" man at that? YOU HAVE CROSSED A LINE, SIR. [/quote] Had I been drinking milk, it would have come out of my nose.“Jones management lied”
For me it was the revelation that Jones management had a huge conflict of interest with Hartford and had a duty to disclose to us that relationship. They chose not to, and it wasn't until the disclosure was required by the SEC that we found out. Old news yes, but it was the signal that I needed to leave because as a representative of the firm, an employee, I couldn't trust them to hold to their word. "The clients interests always come first." Clearly in this situation that wasn't the case. Hartford was new to the fund world and supposedly went through rigorous filters to be accepted by Jones. What it was is they paid the GP's the most and Jones owned an income interest from the very beginning. Slimy to its core.Big Cheese- I hear you. In a way, you don’t really understand the company until you are so deep in the company that it is painful to leave.
Cheese,
I left Jones for some of the same reasons you did. Others may have viewed it differently, but when Jones announced that they had settled with the SEC (and paid a massive fine) in Dec. 04, I was humiliated. I tried to be cavalier with clients who raised the subject, and it was quickly forgotten. But privately, I was mortified to be associated with a company that would do such things - and though I lost no clients, a couple of prospects told me that they would not deal with such a company. I got over it, of course, but I was angry at Jones. I was even angrier with myself for having been surprised by their behavior. After all, I've been around a bit...am I surprised when a politician lies? NO. Do I believe everything (or anything) a car salesman tells me? NO. When I looked at the GP page on JonesNet, what did I see? With a few exceptions, a company owned and operated by SALESMEN. So why was I surprised when I found out they'd been fined for lack of disclosure? Naivete and foolishness on my part - and I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again. Shame on me! This is not an indictment of salespeople in general - the world is full of salespeople who have integrity, and treat others with dignity and respect - it's an indictment of ME, for having been foolish enough to think Jones was as different as they said they were. And please don't flame me with the "it goes on everywhere" line - it doesn't go on everywhere, and even if it did, that wouldn't make it right. I'm not being preachy, but I'm sick of corporate malfeasance, political lies, toxic loans - it all has dishonesty at its root, and I'm sick of it. UGHH!I love this whole EDJ lied to us discussion in regards to revenue sharing and Hartford.
First, let me say that I respect both of your decisions to leave a company who you feel did something inappropriate. That doesn't mean I have to agree with you. I just took a quick look at the 10-K filing for the Jones Financial companies all the way back to 1997. Now, you're assertation is that EDJ lied to you. Well, if that were to be true there wouldn't be any discussion at all about revenue sharing at all in those documents. That is certainly not the case. It's in there had you cared to look. Truth was that back then virtually none of us knew what revenue sharing was, much less that it was such a large part of the EDJ bottom line. If you looked at it in the 10-k you'd find it under fee revenue sources along with interest income, IRA fees, etc. If you were really all that concerned about it after reading the 10-k you would have called Tom Miltenberger and asked what revenue sharing was. Or you'd have called your RL and asked him. The fact that you didn't doesn't mean that EDJ lied to you, it means that you weren't aware of it or didn't care about it. There's a difference. Now, you could make a valid argument that they should have told us why we had the preferred fund families. But then most of didn't really care why, we were just happy that someone besides us was doing the due diligence on them. I know, I know, part of the due diligence was will you pay us revenue sharing or not. Those that passed both the performance/management hurdle and revenue sharing hurdle got to be on the list. Now, that didn't mean that those were the only companies you could have done business with. B24 (sorry to drag your name into this) has been very clear that he has done his own research and doesn't use all preferred funds. You could have done that exact same thing. That would have been good for clients, don't you think? But now, you no longer have to worry about that because the companies you've associated with don't do ANYTHING shady like that. They don't do revenue sharing. They ALWAYS tell you how they're spending the firms resources in complete detail. You might want to check this link out: http://lplfinancial.lpl.com/Disclosure/Conflicts_of_Interest.htm or this one: http://www.raymondjames.com/disclosure_mutual_funds_co.htm or this one: http://www.commonwealth.com/Investors/revenue_sharing.asp I could go on with the cut and paste, but you get the point. Participating in a common industry practice doesn't constitue lying to you, IMHO. Now the Hartford thing...I really wish they would have just told all of us that they made an investment in Hartford's mutual fund business from the get go.Like I said in the previous post, Spiff, I was much angrier at myself than I was at EJ. OF COURSE they had preferred funds, and OF COURSE the GPs were getting a little sumpin-sumpin through the backdoor. What kind of rose-colored glasses was I wearing not to know that? Jeez, I piss myself off sometimes. I know that when I go to the tire dealer and open the catalogue, well, whaddayaknow, Michelin tires are the first ones I see - and did Michelin pay more for that product positioning? OF COURSE. If I want a brand that might be more economical, it’s up to me to keep turning the pages. And if I go to the grocery store, OF COURSE the $7 Kellogg product is at eye level. Nice and easy, no bending over. And if I want the generic corn flakes, they’re on the bottom row. Did Kellogg pay for that positioning? OF COURSE.
It's up to me as a hopefully non brain-dead consumer to understand that product manufacturers have an intimate understanding of human nature, brand loyalty, and so on. And it is equally up to me to understand that I PAY for convenience, and that retailers will seek payment from manufacturers to "help" consumers make a decision. Caveat emptor, right? But the rev share situation was different. There was a middleman - ME - and I was encouraged to hold myself out as unbiased. If a fund family appeared on the preferred list for any reason other than EJ TRULY AND OBJECTIVELY BELIEVED IT TO BE BEST OF CLASS, then, IMHO, that's dishonest. I know this is an OLD subject, and hopefully EJ is now the firm you want to be. But sad to say, there's never just one c***roach... Spiff, I hope I'm a mature enough individual to respect other people even when their opinions conflict with mine. And as I posted before, I think you're a bright individual who posts intelligent and thoughtful opinions. But good God, man, you can't possibly believe that what EJ did was ethical...can you?Wow, the software bleeped out c***roach? I wonder if d***roach would have worked…
It was unethical. It’s a bit like cheating on your wife. You may have the roses and hotel rooms all over your joint credit card statement, but if she (your wife) doesn’t check it, you still cheated. If somehow when you are running for office eight years later and it comes out, does that mean you didn’t cheat?
Yeah, you can’t even put John Hanc*** without the software bleeping you.
Was it unethical? I guess it depends on which company you're talking about. Jones FAs had been using some of those fund families for years before revenue sharing agreements became the thing to do. American, Lord Abbett, Putnam, Van Kampen, Federated - all of those were funds that Jones FAs had been using for a long time. Heck, Ted Jones himself had the meeting with the American Funds folks. And Jack Phelan started selling things like Affiliated and ICA back in the 50's. Federated ran our MMKT. Voyager was a firm favorite for decades. Can you argue that we wouldn't be selling Hartford or Goldman if there wasn't a revenue sharing deal? Maybe. Nobody was selling Goldman anyway, but that's another topic. Oppenheimer and Franklin, I believe, became preferred funds after the revenue sharing disclosures became more obvious. I don't really know how revenue sharing got started at EDJ. I've heard the theories about Doug Hill being the driving force, but I've not ever heard anyone confirm it in any sort of official manner. I know the phrase revenue sharing doesn't show up in the 10-k before 1997, but I don't know if it was happening before that. Could you perceive it as unethical? Yep. Do I? Nope. It didn't hurt my client. Had I used Amercian Funds or Putnam or Lord Abbett funds with or without revenue sharing, my client's performance would not have been affected either way. The only arguement you could make is that I might have used a completely different fund family. I don't know if I would or wouldn't have. I have yet to have anyone tell me how my client was negatively affected by revenue sharing.[quote=Spaceman Spiff]Yeah, you can’t even put John Hanc*** without the software bleeping you.
Was it unethical? I guess it depends on which company you're talking about. Jones FAs had been using some of those fund families for years before revenue sharing agreements became the thing to do. American, Lord Abbett, Putnam, Van Kampen, Federated - all of those were funds that Jones FAs had been using for a long time. Heck, Ted Jones himself had the meeting with the American Funds folks. And Jack Phelan started selling things like Affiliated and ICA back in the 50's. Federated ran our MMKT. Voyager was a firm favorite for decades. Can you argue that we wouldn't be selling Hartford or Goldman if there wasn't a revenue sharing deal? Maybe. Nobody was selling Goldman anyway, but that's another topic. Oppenheimer and Franklin, I believe, became preferred funds after the revenue sharing disclosures became more obvious. I don't really know how revenue sharing got started at EDJ. I've heard the theories about Doug Hill being the driving force, but I've not ever heard anyone confirm it in any sort of official manner. I know the phrase revenue sharing doesn't show up in the 10-k before 1997, but I don't know if it was happening before that. Could you perceive it as unethical? Yep. Do I? Nope. It didn't hurt my client. Had I used Amercian Funds or Putnam or Lord Abbett funds with or without revenue sharing, my client's performance would not have been affected either way. The only arguement you could make is that I might have used a completely different fund family. I don't know if I would or wouldn't have. I have yet to have anyone tell me how my client was negatively affected by revenue sharing. [/quote] Didn't hurt your clients? Spiff ... you are classic buddy. Can't see the forest through the trees. Where did that money come from to pay the rev. sharing? Um, I'm gonna guess FEES! Your clients paid them. Just drink water this weekend - no kool-aid!How did my clients pay them? Revenue sharing isn't a Jones specific revenue generator. So, if the argument is that without the revenue sharing agreements at EDJ my clients 12-b1, shareholder accounting, and other internal expenses would be lower, then I think that's a really weak argument.
Spiff is like a battered wife, “Billy Bob is a good man”, every time he gives her a black eye.
[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
I love this whole EDJ lied to us discussion in regards to revenue sharing and Hartford.
First, let me say that I respect both of your decisions to leave a company who you feel did something inappropriate. That doesn't mean I have to agree with you. I just took a quick look at the 10-K filing for the Jones Financial companies all the way back to 1997. Now, you're assertation is that EDJ lied to you. Well, if that were to be true there wouldn't be any discussion at all about revenue sharing at all in those documents. That is certainly not the case. It's in there had you cared to look. Truth was that back then virtually none of us knew what revenue sharing was, much less that it was such a large part of the EDJ bottom line. If you looked at it in the 10-k you'd find it under fee revenue sources along with interest income, IRA fees, etc. If you were really all that concerned about it after reading the 10-k you would have called Tom Miltenberger and asked what revenue sharing was. Or you'd have called your RL and asked him. The fact that you didn't doesn't mean that EDJ lied to you, it means that you weren't aware of it or didn't care about it. There's a difference. Now, you could make a valid argument that they should have told us why we had the preferred fund families. But then most of didn't really care why, we were just happy that someone besides us was doing the due diligence on them. I know, I know, part of the due diligence was will you pay us revenue sharing or not. Those that passed both the performance/management hurdle and revenue sharing hurdle got to be on the list. Now, that didn't mean that those were the only companies you could have done business with. B24 (sorry to drag your name into this) has been very clear that he has done his own research and doesn't use all preferred funds. You could have done that exact same thing. That would have been good for clients, don't you think? But now, you no longer have to worry about that because the companies you've associated with don't do ANYTHING shady like that. They don't do revenue sharing. They ALWAYS tell you how they're spending the firms resources in complete detail. You might want to check this link out: http://lplfinancial.lpl.com/Disclosure/Conflicts_of_Interest.htm or this one: http://www.raymondjames.com/disclosure_mutual_funds_co.htm or this one: http://www.commonwealth.com/Investors/revenue_sharing.asp I could go on with the cut and paste, but you get the point. Participating in a common industry practice doesn't constitue lying to you, IMHO. Now the Hartford thing...I really wish they would have just told all of us that they made an investment in Hartford's mutual fund business from the get go. [/quote] Not that I think it's right, but why is nobody concerned with the fact that ALL broker/dealers have revenue sharing agreement, as outlined above? And some (I only looked at the first one, LPL) have FAR MORE revenue sharing agreements than Jones. So again, I don't like revenue sharing in general, I am just curious why Edward Jones' revenue sharing agreements are somehow worse than all the rest? How many clients knew that Smith Barney owned Legg Mason? Almost every SB statement I see has some good old LM dogs in it. How about Blackrock and Merrill Lynch? Fortunately Blackrock is a decent fund company, but isn't it a conflict? What about Van Kampen? Owned by Morgan Stanley. They're ALL conflicts of interest. This industry is RIFE with conflicts of interest. But that doesn't mean those conflicts are acted upon. For example, I doubt that any LPL reps push their Preferred Funds because of the kickbacks. But the potential is there.This is why it is good to be set up as an RIA.
LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family.LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
[quote=Hey Kool-Aid]
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family. [/quote]Agree 100%
Off Topic: Would enjoy seeing a model portfolio of the best performing funds from each of the preferred companies for C share portfolio construction.
Spiff-
The Hartford non disclosure was the final straw for me. And then when I saw the ways that Jones made money, and they continued the propaganda train...that we were the only profit center...I realized I had to go, and I did. This week marks three years since I left, and for those that want to really be an entrpeneur or truly work for themselves, its the best fit.
I didn't care for the revenue sharing agreements, and as you have stated ad nauseum, everyone is doing it. LPL does it and it pisses me off, hell they would sell my name to anyone if they could make a buck off it.I bought some John Hanc*** funds for a client a while back and got a call from their sales desk. They said they'd love to send us some info and get their local rep into my office. I didn't need it at the time, but I'm considering using their Lifestyle funds for some of my client and would love to have lunch with their rep to tell me more about them. As far as I know, that's not illegal at EDJ. I can't imagine the number of phone calls that I'd get if Jones just opened the doors up wide and didn't put any limits on who can and can't call unsolicited on us. As it is I've got about 25 vendors who want a piece of my time. I don't see them all, but they still call and tie up my BOA for a while. So, what you see as a limitation, I see as a benefit. I've never had one fund family shoved down my throat. Sure, we hear from the preferred funds at regional meetings, but nobody from Jones tells me that I have to use them or questions me when I don't. foot - I agree that the Hartford thing should have been handled differently. I have a problem, like B24 outlined, with proprietary funds, like Riversource, and that came too close for comfort. Even Jones said they liquidated their interest there because of the conflict of interest.LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family. [/quote] Case in point... Let's say you have a client and they want to invest in Vanguard, Dodge and Cox and T Rowe Price. Can you do that? They are 3 of the largest and most widely regarded mutual fund families out there.....[quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
I bought some John Hanc*** funds for a client a while back and got a call from their sales desk. They said they'd love to send us some info and get their local rep into my office. I didn't need it at the time, but I'm considering using their Lifestyle funds for some of my client and would love to have lunch with their rep to tell me more about them. As far as I know, that's not illegal at EDJ. I can't imagine the number of phone calls that I'd get if Jones just opened the doors up wide and didn't put any limits on who can and can't call unsolicited on us. As it is I've got about 25 vendors who want a piece of my time. I don't see them all, but they still call and tie up my BOA for a while. So, what you see as a limitation, I see as a benefit. I've never had one fund family shoved down my throat. Sure, we hear from the preferred funds at regional meetings, but nobody from Jones tells me that I have to use them or questions me when I don't. foot - I agree that the Hartford thing should have been handled differently. I have a problem, like B24 outlined, with proprietary funds, like Riversource, and that came too close for comfort. Even Jones said they liquidated their interest there because of the conflict of interest. [/quote] The issue is access...always will be. I handle the mutual fund relationships for our team. There is very little benefit in my mind to having less choice as you do. If we are not convinced to do business with a mutual fund company we politely tell them , don't call us we will call you. I never have a problem with one that I have told that to, repeatedly calling afterwards, it just doesn't happen. When you have to initiate the research yourself on which mutual funds to use outside the preferred group you are being limited whether you admit it or not. How do you find out about XYZ? How much time do you have ? I used Franklin Templeton for a couple of years when I was at Jones before they were preferred. How did I come up with the idea, you may ask. I looked at the revenue sharing agreements on Mutual Funds with LPL, there were over 65 companies listed, Jones has 7 in their preferred. All of the ones that are preferred with Jones are on LPL's list with the addition of 58 more...... Which will give you more choice and possibly better results for your clients? Is 10 times more choice better? It certainly can't hurt.......[quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family. [/quote] Case in point... Let's say you have a client and they want to invest in Vanguard, Dodge and Cox and T Rowe Price. Can you do that? They are 3 of the largest and most widely regarded mutual fund families out there..... [/quote] Yes Noggin, I can...all three are available within Advisory Solutions and I can create a custom portfolio and use all of them. Now, before you jump down my throat...I understand I don't have every fund in their families available to me, but I do have quite a few. There is no argument that Indy Reps have a larger pool of funds/etfs to choose from, but that doesn't mean that a perfectly appropriate, quality portfolio can't be constructed with the myriad (sp) of investments that we have available at EDJ.[quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
perfectly appropriate, ]
Not to nitpick, but appropriate does not achieve the fiduciary standard, correct? I also think that if you are using AS, you are acting as an IAR, which means you are held to the fiduciary standard.
In all seriousness, I may be wrong and talking out of my ass. But I think that's right.
And you spelled "myriad" correctly.
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family. [/quote] Case in point... Let's say you have a client and they want to invest in Vanguard, Dodge and Cox and T Rowe Price. Can you do that? They are 3 of the largest and most widely regarded mutual fund families out there..... [/quote] Yes Noggin, I can...all three are available within Advisory Solutions and I can create a custom portfolio and use all of them. Now, before you jump down my throat...I understand I don't have every fund in their families available to me, but I do have quite a few. There is no argument that Indy Reps have a larger pool of funds/etfs to choose from, but that doesn't mean that a perfectly appropriate, quality portfolio can't be constructed with the myriad (sp) of investments that we have available at EDJ. [/quote] Can you pick which funds?[quote=noggin][quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
Thank you ...I wasn't sure and didn't take the time to look it up...so (sp) just gives me belt & suspenders ....particularly with the spelling police on this site! BTW...you are nitpicking but that's cool. I am didn't mean to use "appropriate" as a technical term, I always strive to do what's best for the client, even when not in a fiduciary capacity.[quote=Hey Kool-Aid] perfectly appropriate, ][/quote]
Not to nitpick, but appropriate does not achieve the fiduciary standard, correct? I also think that if you are using AS, you are acting as an IAR, which means you are held to the fiduciary standard.
In all seriousness, I may be wrong and talking out of my ass. But I think that’s right.
And you spelled “myriad” correctly.
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family. [/quote] Case in point... Let's say you have a client and they want to invest in Vanguard, Dodge and Cox and T Rowe Price. Can you do that? They are 3 of the largest and most widely regarded mutual fund families out there..... [/quote] Yes Noggin, I can...all three are available within Advisory Solutions and I can create a custom portfolio and use all of them. Now, before you jump down my throat...I understand I don't have every fund in their families available to me, but I do have quite a few. There is no argument that Indy Reps have a larger pool of funds/etfs to choose from, but that doesn't mean that a perfectly appropriate, quality portfolio can't be constructed with the myriad (sp) of investments that we have available at EDJ. [/quote] Can you pick which funds?[/quote] Yes...but as I said, while we have lots of them available, we do not have all of the Vanguard, Dodge & Cox and TRoweprice to choose from.[quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=noggin][quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family. [/quote] Case in point... Let's say you have a client and they want to invest in Vanguard, Dodge and Cox and T Rowe Price. Can you do that? They are 3 of the largest and most widely regarded mutual fund families out there..... [/quote] Yes Noggin, I can...all three are available within Advisory Solutions and I can create a custom portfolio and use all of them. Now, before you jump down my throat...I understand I don't have every fund in their families available to me, but I do have quite a few. There is no argument that Indy Reps have a larger pool of funds/etfs to choose from, but that doesn't mean that a perfectly appropriate, quality portfolio can't be constructed with the myriad (sp) of investments that we have available at EDJ. [/quote] Can you pick which funds?[/quote] Yes...but as I said, while we have lots of them available, we do not have all of the Vanguard, Dodge & Cox and TRoweprice to choose from. [/quote] Thanks for the information, my intent is not to bust your chops.[quote=noggin][quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=noggin][quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family. [/quote] Case in point... Let's say you have a client and they want to invest in Vanguard, Dodge and Cox and T Rowe Price. Can you do that? They are 3 of the largest and most widely regarded mutual fund families out there..... [/quote] Yes Noggin, I can...all three are available within Advisory Solutions and I can create a custom portfolio and use all of them. Now, before you jump down my throat...I understand I don't have every fund in their families available to me, but I do have quite a few. There is no argument that Indy Reps have a larger pool of funds/etfs to choose from, but that doesn't mean that a perfectly appropriate, quality portfolio can't be constructed with the myriad (sp) of investments that we have available at EDJ. [/quote] Can you pick which funds?[/quote] Yes...but as I said, while we have lots of them available, we do not have all of the Vanguard, Dodge & Cox and TRoweprice to choose from. [/quote] Thanks for the information, my intent is not to bust your chops. [/quote] I understand...it was a fair question, you left before Advisory Solutions rolled out if i'm not mistaken. It's a pretty cool product, although, someday when and if they add equities, it will be much better![quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=noggin][quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=noggin][quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
It’s GAC time, Jonesers!
Jones has an agenda. Ultimately, why does EJ Really need to get so Huge? To Sell, Go Public or Merge! There is some plan down the road to benefit the general partnership. To say the firm could not compete as a smaller company is poppyc***. As my kids would say: "DUH!" Oh, and GAC stands for Get A Clue.[quote=Effay]It’s GAC time, Jonesers!
Jones has an agenda. Ultimately, why does EJ Really need to get so Huge? To Sell, Go Public or Merge! There is some plan down the road to benefit the general partnership. To say the firm could not compete as a smaller company is poppyc***. As my kids would say: "DUH!" Oh, and GAC stands for Get A Clue.[/quote] To make more money. Duh. There are so many benefits to being larger as a brokerage firm. Larger capital base, larger inventory, better access to products/vendors, the ability to be more selective with recruiting in the future, to be able to focus more on per-FA production versus recruiting newbies, fixed-expense coverage, the list goes on..... I don't think the partners have any interest in going public or being bought. Most of them are making money hand over fist, and are already super-wealthy, and they also realize that trying to sell the company would be an almost impossible task (you would likely lose 1/2 the advisors in the company). The very structure of our company and the offices prepares FA's to go independant very easily, and most that I talk to agree that if Jones were to sell out, their first call would be to the LPL recruiter (or whoever). Our entire foundation is built on our capital structure, so I very highly doubt that a sale is even remotely possible in the next 10 years.If Jones went public I would take a very serious look at going indy.
Effay - that conversation is not a new one. Nobody needs to get a clue, except for you. I have this cool plaque on my wall with a pic of Ted Jones and a horse. Can't really tell them apart. Maybe I need glasses. The quote on it is Ted telling someone why he won't take the firm public. Basically he says it's not about the money. B24 is right. If I'm a GP, why would I want to risk the money I've put up, my very good income stream, and my position to make money? For the zero's? Did you see what happened to the AGE guys? Didn't Ben Edwards lose a bunch of money when AG got bought out? Being a Jones GP, and an LP on a different scale, is like owning a money printing press. Unless the company folds you sit back, collect the monthly checks, and wait for the bigger ones a few times a year. I'm not going to say Jones will never go public, but I think I'd be safe in saying that Jones won't ever be bought out. I can't see us going public in the near future either. But never is a long time.IMHO, it will either take a fundamental change in attitude among the upper-GP’s (which is doubtful during the current regime), or a fundamental change in the industry that makes either our model or our target marketfinancially unappealing for us to remain independant. But that would necessitate a situation where it would be appealing for another firm to acquire us.
On a separate note, my belief is that there is some sort of "pact" among GP's not to take the company public (or sell out). Yes, that screams of "cult", but I think there is a sense of stewardship at the firm, and I believe the existing GP's that worked under Ted Jones will not have any part of changing the culture of the firm - they owe that to him for basically "giving" the company away to the employees. HOWEVER, there is nothing saying that over time, as the GP's move further and further from the Ted Jones legacy, that beliefs don't change.All of the pictures that I either received or paid for were re-used (the mats and frames) when I left Jones. Might have been the best investment they ever made in me....
Spiff-
Please try and separate your feelings from reality. Every person, every company has a price. Jone's GP's love the gravy train...but if they can make the same or more and give up the BS why wouldn't they sell out.
At least at LPL we KNOW they intend to sell. You just have to sit back and send forum messages because that decision is WAY ABOVE YOUR PAY GRID. Welcome to no mans land...isn't great not to be in control of your own destiny??
Jones has no reason to go public. Everybody has their price, but more than likely the price is so high no one will be willing to pay.
Personally, I don’t think anybody really give two sh!ts about Ted Jones anymore in GP land. Great man, with a good heart. It’s not the same firm though.
Ted who?
Sooner or later if the GP's continue to only make their salaries, they will start to think about their exit strategy.
And then Spiff will be looking at his options.Bachmann said years ago that Jones would sell to the right bidder with the right amount of money. He said that he didn’t believe there would be anyone with A) enough money or B) a good enough plan to retain the existing salesforce to make a deal work. But, everything can be bought.
foot - you don't really believe that EDJ's are that short sighted do you? They recognize, just like most FAs who aren't getting a bonus right now, that times like these are temporary and relatively short in comparison to the good times. You are correct that if all they were making was their $125K-$150K salary for a long enough period of time, they'd be looking for other opportunities. However, they're not. And they're not. You should also try to separate your opinons/feelings from reality. Seems to me that you and I are just sitting on different sides of the same see saw.[quote=Moraen]Jones has no reason to go public. Everybody has their price, but more than likely the price is so high no one will be willing to pay.
Personally, I don’t think anybody really give two sh!ts about Ted Jones anymore in GP land. Great man, with a good heart. It’s not the same firm though.[/quote]
I didn’t know you could take a ponzi scheme public.
Oh wait, Enron was public.
looking forward to EDJ on the NYSE!
Again, I wish someone could explain to me, in simple terms, how it is a Ponzi scheme? How is Jones ANY different from any other company? The want to grow their business to benefit the pockets of the owners? Why does Apple want to grow their business? Why does Bank of America need Merrill Lynch? Why would and RIA want to bring on more advisors under them? It’s ALWAYS about the owners pockets. No matter how you cut it, it’s always the case. You can criticize Jones’ strategy to get there all you want, I don’t care. I don’t always agree with how they do business either. But if you call Jones’ business model a Ponzi scheme, then every for-profit business is a Ponzi scheme. I think some people are confused by the meaning of “Ponzi” scheme. For the record, a Ponzi scheme has nothing to do with owners making money on the backs of their employees. To compare what Enron was doing to Jones is just idiotic. Enron was basically hiding liabilities in offshore LLC’s, and siphoning money from the firm. Explain to me exactly how Jones is doing anything remotely close to that?
Drinking 4 cups of coffee and eating yellowjackets from the corner gas station is no way to start your day B24....Again, I wish someone could explain to me, in simple terms, how it is a Ponzi scheme? How is Jones ANY different from any other company? The want to grow their business to benefit the pockets of the owners? Why does Apple want to grow their business? Why does Bank of America need Merrill Lynch? Why would and RIA want to bring on more advisors under them? It’s ALWAYS about the owners pockets. No matter how you cut it, it’s always the case. You can criticize Jones’ strategy to get there all you want, I don’t care. I don’t always agree with how they do business either. But if you call Jones’ business model a Ponzi scheme, then every for-profit business is a Ponzi scheme. I think some people are confused by the meaning of “Ponzi” scheme. For the record, a Ponzi scheme has nothing to do with owners making money on the backs of their employees. To compare what Enron was doing to Jones is just idiotic. Enron was basically hiding liabilities in offshore LLC’s, and siphoning money from the firm. Explain to me exactly how Jones is doing anything remotely close to that?
It is if you think the dude behind the counter has a 2100 IRA from his old job at the Piggly Wiggly.
B - Did you notice that neither of the ex-Jonesers bothered to rebutt your comments? Hmm…
Did you try to prospect him too? Damn it! That was 105 large to my grid!It is if you think the dude behind the counter has a 2100 IRA from his old job at the Piggly Wiggly.
Drinking 4 cups of coffee and eating yellowjackets from the corner gas station is no way to start your day B24....[/quote] !! What's a Yellowjacket? It sounds like a southern thing.[quote=B24]Again, I wish someone could explain to me, in simple terms, how it is a Ponzi scheme? How is Jones ANY different from any other company? The want to grow their business to benefit the pockets of the owners? Why does Apple want to grow their business? Why does Bank of America need Merrill Lynch? Why would and RIA want to bring on more advisors under them? It’s ALWAYS about the owners pockets. No matter how you cut it, it’s always the case. You can criticize Jones’ strategy to get there all you want, I don’t care. I don’t always agree with how they do business either. But if you call Jones’ business model a Ponzi scheme, then every for-profit business is a Ponzi scheme. I think some people are confused by the meaning of “Ponzi” scheme. For the record, a Ponzi scheme has nothing to do with owners making money on the backs of their employees. To compare what Enron was doing to Jones is just idiotic. Enron was basically hiding liabilities in offshore LLC’s, and siphoning money from the firm. Explain to me exactly how Jones is doing anything remotely close to that?
Sorry to disappoint, but what you and your brethren call prospecting is hounding. Prime example…I get a call yesterday, assistant says its Brian on the phone, Henry said to call. I take the call…ask some probing questions on assets, what is wrong with his current situation. He tells me he has 550k in MF’s with his CPA. Anything else…yah…I had a dude hounding me so I bought 10k in a mutual fund to get him leave me alone. I say…I bet it was an Edward Jones sales person. He said Yah…howd you know. What a freakin disaster that was…true story. I just laughed and moved on.
Wow, almost makes me want to cry in my coffee.... WTF is the point of your story other than you can't move on after leaving a firm?Sorry to disappoint, but what you and your brethren call prospecting is hounding. Prime example…I get a call yesterday, assistant says its Brian on the phone, Henry said to call. I take the call…ask some probing questions on assets, what is wrong with his current situation. He tells me he has 550k in MF’s with his CPA. Anything else…yah…I had a dude hounding me so I bought 10k in a mutual fund to get him leave me alone. I say…I bet it was an Edward Jones sales person. He said Yah…howd you know. What a freakin disaster that was…true story. I just laughed and moved on.
[quote=bspears]Sorry to disappoint, but what you and your brethren call prospecting is hounding. Prime example…I get a call yesterday, assistant says its Brian on the phone, Henry said to call. I take the call…ask some probing questions on assets, what is wrong with his current situation. He tells me he has 550k in MF’s with his CPA. Anything else…yah…I had a dude hounding me so I bought 10k in a mutual fund to get him leave me alone. I say…I bet it was an Edward Jones sales person. He said Yah…howd you know. What a freakin disaster that was…true story. I just laughed and moved on.
Wow, almost makes me want to cry in my coffee… WTF is the point of your story other than you can’t move on after leaving a firm?[/quote]
This ought to be fun.
Volt…sorry. I hope that wasn’t you he was talking about.
Oh..I've moved on. I just get reminded from time to time what "Amway, Avon, Newspaper subscription, refrigerator magnet" type sales company you work for. You ever notice the "EDJ has the best sales training" is repeated over and over. I bet they say the same about AVON. What stock idea do you have for us today?[quote=bspears]Volt…sorry. I hope that wasn’t you he was talking about.
Oh..I've moved on. I just get reminded from time to time what "Amway, Avon, Newspaper subscription, refrigerator magnet" type sales company you work for. You ever notice the "EDJ has the best sales training" is repeated over and over. I bet they say the same about AVON. What stock idea do you have for us today?[/quote] *yawn*I don't think EDJ is a ponzi scheme. But it is mathematically driven. Anyone remember those charts they used to throw out at meetings (during the growth section...always had one at every get together come to think of it)about the firm would grow X amount and the firm would make Y and then the reps would get their little bone thrown to them to keep them satisfied.
Forget about the millions the FA's were giving them for the privelige of startingor managing their little practices. Adding salt to the wound is when it was said and done...they owned nothing for their hard work. So no, I wouldn't call it a ponzi scheme, I could use other terms that would adequately describe the firm in my eyes... By the way...Any word on re-instating bonus'? I gotta believe growth is continuing at its torrid pace 200/mo was the number 3 years ago. The top producers can't be happy.[quote=BigCheese]
I don't think EDJ is a ponzi scheme. But it is mathematically driven. Anyone remember those charts they used to throw out at meetings (during the growth section...always had one at every get together come to think of it)about the firm would grow X amount and the firm would make Y and then the reps would get their little bone thrown to them to keep them satisfied.
Forget about the millions the FA's were giving them for the privelige of startingor managing their little practices. Adding salt to the wound is when it was said and done...they owned nothing for their hard work. So no, I wouldn't call it a ponzi scheme, I could use other terms that would adequately describe the firm in my eyes... By the way...Any word on re-instating bonus'? I gotta believe growth is continuing at its torrid pace 200/mo was the number 3 years ago. The top producers can't be happy. [/quote] Bonus has been reinstated...One's prospecting strategy is what they make of it. You are viewing it through the lense of someone that started at Jones. Most FA's starting at any firm hound people for a while until they get going. I don't think Jones ever cornered the market on "hounding" prospects. I am sure you have ACAT'd enough accounts from other firms to know that every firm has that problem. Some of the worst accounts I see come from Merrill Lynch. What you are referring to is the difference between a "newbie" and an established advisor in this industry.Sorry to disappoint, but what you and your brethren call prospecting is hounding. Prime example…I get a call yesterday, assistant says its Brian on the phone, Henry said to call. I take the call…ask some probing questions on assets, what is wrong with his current situation. He tells me he has 550k in MF’s with his CPA. Anything else…yah…I had a dude hounding me so I bought 10k in a mutual fund to get him leave me alone. I say…I bet it was an Edward Jones sales person. He said Yah…howd you know. What a freakin disaster that was…true story. I just laughed and moved on.
Drinking 4 cups of coffee and eating yellowjackets from the corner gas station is no way to start your day B24....[/quote] !! What's a Yellowjacket? It sounds like a southern thing.[/quote] B24- They are the energy pills that truckers take to stay awake....they are always at the counter at the BP that I stop at on the way in to the office.... I guess it is a regional thing...[quote=noggin][quote=B24]Again, I wish someone could explain to me, in simple terms, how it is a Ponzi scheme? How is Jones ANY different from any other company? The want to grow their business to benefit the pockets of the owners? Why does Apple want to grow their business? Why does Bank of America need Merrill Lynch? Why would and RIA want to bring on more advisors under them? It’s ALWAYS about the owners pockets. No matter how you cut it, it’s always the case. You can criticize Jones’ strategy to get there all you want, I don’t care. I don’t always agree with how they do business either. But if you call Jones’ business model a Ponzi scheme, then every for-profit business is a Ponzi scheme. I think some people are confused by the meaning of “Ponzi” scheme. For the record, a Ponzi scheme has nothing to do with owners making money on the backs of their employees. To compare what Enron was doing to Jones is just idiotic. Enron was basically hiding liabilities in offshore LLC’s, and siphoning money from the firm. Explain to me exactly how Jones is doing anything remotely close to that?
Good to hear. Next obvious question is…
What bracket are you in for the trimester? Here is or at least was the Jones accounting miracle called the bonus system. Let's assume the bonus bracket was 25% here is the breakdown. If an FA had 100K of bonusable profit the breakdown is as follows... 20%- 5% First 20K generates 1K bonus 20%-10% Second 20K of bonusable profit generates 2K 20%--15% Third 20K of bonusable profit generates 3K 20%-20% Fourth 20K of bonusable profit generates 4K 20%-25% Remaining bonusable profit genrates 5K Total bonus is 15K out of 100K bonusable profit. When management say the bonus bracket is 25% its really 15%...again very fuzzy math in my book. They also receive 60% of the gross and then keep 85% of the additional profit that they are willing to share with the FA. And when one factors in the extraordinary high expenses that reps can't control (still paying 1300 month for your technology?) that comes out before the bonusable profit it didn't take me long to realize the cards were stacked against me. The numbers above represent a 600k producer netting 240K before bonus for a reference. In this example, the bonus if annualized is 18.75% of compensation. This is why the bonuses had to be re-instated because the producers have been subsdizing the money losing operations of Jones.[quote=BigCheese]Good to hear. Next obvious question is…
What bracket are you in for the trimester? Here is or at least was the Jones accounting miracle called the bonus system. Let's assume the bonus bracket was 25% here is the breakdown. If an FA had 100K of bonusable profit the breakdown is as follows... 20%- 5% First 20K generates 1K bonus 20%-10% Second 20K of bonusable profit generates 2K 20%--15% Third 20K of bonusable profit generates 3K 20%-20% Fourth 20K of bonusable profit generates 4K 20%-25% Remaining bonusable profit genrates 5K Total bonus is 15K out of 100K bonusable profit. When management say the bonus bracket is 25% its really 15%...again very fuzzy math in my book. They also receive 60% of the gross and then keep 85% of the additional profit that they are willing to share with the FA. And when one factors in the extraordinary high expenses that reps can't control (still paying 1300 month for your technology?) that comes out before the bonusable profit it didn't take me long to realize the cards were stacked against me. The numbers above represent a 600k producer netting 240K before bonus for a reference. In this example, the bonus if annualized is 18.75% of compensation. This is why the bonuses had to be re-instated because the producers have been subsdizing the money losing operations of Jones. [/quote] No doubt the bonus structure is tough for a middle of the road producer...it is good for the very large producer and good for the newbie. Good for the newbie because all their expenses are paid and they get some salary to start etc...at the expense of the middle of the road brokers. Had a buddy of mine leave Jones for just that reason. When I hit that point, who knows, maybe I will too. However, there are plenty of pluses with Jones that make people stay and you can bash all you want, but for some people there is no better place to be. Money isn't everything to some...as long as you are making a good living. Someone very wise once told me...you may make a big chunk more money by going to work for (fill in name here)....the bad news is, then you have to work for them! That includes, LPL, RJ and any other Indy shop. While you are not truly "working for them"...you need to deal with them on a regular basis. Again, there is a distinct posibility that in 5 years I could be with one of them, I wouldn't rule that out, however, at this point Jones is the only place I want to be!Hey KMan-
The distinction is they work for me. I can fire them anytime (it would be a huge pain in the buttocks) and take my clients somewhere else. LPL is not FA friendly, due to staff cuts, and lack of industry tenure...Jones is better. As Spiff says I pay for it...and he is right. The only question I have for you is how do you construe anything I said previously as bashing? Was it my reference to fuzzy math? Or how about the comment that cards being stacked against me? I am serious about this. I have wondered for a long time if Jones reps especially on this forum are very sensitive. Is there anything that I said that isn't correct?Nope…
How do you get a one armed ex-jones Indy retard out of a tree?
[quote=BigCheese]Hey KMan-
The distinction is they work for me. I can fire them anytime (it would be a huge pain in the buttocks) and take my clients somewhere else. LPL is not FA friendly, due to staff cuts, and lack of industry tenure...Jones is better. As Spiff says I pay for it...and he is right. The only question I have for you is how do you construe anything I said previously as bashing? Was it my reference to fuzzy math? Or how about the comment that cards being stacked against me? I am serious about this. I have wondered for a long time if Jones reps especially on this forum are very sensitive. Is there anything that I said that isn't correct?[/quote] Cheesey - I am not overly sensitive, I just went and read some of your earlier posts and found several that could be constituted as "bashing"...although you will say they are all true, but the truth is that you are so far removed from EDJ that you don't know what is true now and what isn't. And of course Noggin and bspears will chime in and back up everything you say. In reality, I can leave Jones and take my book with me as well, albeit with a bit more difficulty legally speaking. I know lots of ex Jones guys who took 85% of their book when they left. I will tell you...no question about it there are lots of negatives about every firm, but Jones has greatly improved in the 3 years I have been here...from email (lol..way overdue and still kinda sh*tty)....to Advisory Solutions (great product but still need to add stocks)...to BondNet (coming this year and looks awesome!)...Anytime since i've been here that FA's ask for a specific improvment be it technology, product or service...Management has responded and if it hasn't been changed it is in the works. I give a lot of credit to Weddle, he has this firm bursting its way into the 1990's.......but be sure...he will have us up to speed and even ahead of the game over the next several years. I just think we keep beating the same dead horse, Jones, wires and Indy are very different animals and cannot be compared. What might be a perfect setup for one Broker is a total ClusterF*&^% for another. It makes for fun arguments on here, but when people are making bold negative statements about a firm they left 3 -4 even 5 or more years ago, it's just ridiculous. Just my opinion!Ok Kman-
Here is another arrow in your bashing quiver... I am placing a large second-to-die policy next week, a sizable estate to protect 8.5M. Premium is 127K. I get 90% of the target which is 100k or so gross. At Jones I would get 36K and the general agency at Jones would take another 10% off the top before your 60/40 split equalling the 36K. One ticket...difference s 64K!!! That's probably more than Spiff or you net in a year. (That's bashing!!!) They are hosing you for the benefit of them. Someday you guys will wake up and smell the coffee.How much did the GP of the Great White North make?
Kaa luu kukuu?? (or whatever those hosers sang)Hey, back to the origin of this post, HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD ANY “REAL NUMBERS” BEHIND HOW MUCH EJ SPENDS ON CANADA AND ENGLAND?
I looked at the 10k report from the origin of the post but there's no dollar details- only conceptual statements. Anyone ever heard a GP utter any dollar details? I would think GPs might know a little sumpin-sumpin about this. Any ex-GPs out there? Bartow? Wasler? Fess? Gilman? Roger Thomas? Dougie da gwoff gwoff gwoff guy? Oh that's right you're still a GP just an ex MP.Go away … you’re a loser.
This just in…Weddle has just announced that the Jones UK operation has been sold.
http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091023/FREE/910239992/1094/INDaily01
So if RR is acccurate and Canada and the UK represented 300M out of 3.8B why would anyone think they wouldn’t put Canada up for sale?
WHEN YOU LOSE MONEY, and its a small revenue generator, WHY KEEP IT?Obviously, Weddle is not going to come out and state that they are shopping Canada. Maybe they are and we just don’t know it. Just like we didn’t know they were shopping UK.
I only see three answers: they are shopping Canada, they think they can eventually be profitable going on the same course, or they will do something dramatic to improve it’s profitability (i.e. use multi-FA offices, consolidate it’s home office operations, etc.). Canada probably produces $150mm. That’s maybe $3-4B in AUM. That’s no small operation. I think they are shopping it, although I have not really followed it’s growth trajectory. I don’t know how quickly it is growing, if at all, on a net basis.
The fourth option is to name Spiff in charge, and then everything will be fine again. He can tell others about the good ol days of Bachman et al.
Of course Volt will be named "turtle" as part of his entourage. And B...well you will be the sounding board of reason. (notice volt no disparaging remarks about YOUR wife) Have a great weekend...gents.Have you seen the chicks turtle is banging? I’d be honored.
Never said anything negative about your wife Cheese, except you should give her more attention than you give the Jones 10-k.
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/10/19/daily48.html
Says this new firm employs 500 in 10 offices, how many of those Jones offices are going to be consolidated. How do you all see that happening if Canada is next?Never said anything negative about your wife Cheese, except you should give her more attention than you give the Jones 10-k.
Volt- I am a renaissance kind of guy. I can multi-task!Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/whats-firms/ej-money-losing-international-operations