Interesting Stuff
Edward Jones is having their brokers sit for the Series 66. Could this be a prelude to a fee based platform rollout?
[quote=Starka]Edward Jones is having their brokers sit for the Series 66. Could this be a prelude to a fee based platform rollout?[/quote]
depends upon how many of them can pass!
Now that is interesting. Darn. this is usually a slam dunk when sitting down with EDJ clients who get CHURNED cause EDJ can't do advisory business.
The 66 is a breeze.
First they have to get the license. Then the partners have to figure out which funds should participate (read between those lines). The fee structure will be 25% above the street (same as their SMA program). And their reps will get 40% on the payout. Weddle probably has a calculator that works, and has figured out that the partners can make more money embracing rather than fighting the trend.
One rumor I heard was that they might use ETF's. No revenue sharing so I would doubt that. But who knows maybe they are realizing they have to be more current with their offerings. But first they have to get off that dreadful satellite based system. They do have (or will have) new capital with the recent offering, so it is plausible that change may be in the wind. That's code for as long as the partners don't have to pay for it.
[quote=joedabrkr]
[quote=Starka]Edward Jones is having their brokers sit for the Series 66. Could this be a prelude to a fee based platform rollout?[/quote]
depends upon how many of them can pass!
[/quote]
You mean the same people who already passed the 7?
footsoldier -
Highly doubtful EJ would embrace ETFs. Their “philosophy” is that
actively managed funds are much more preferable to (mostly) static
indexes. And then of course there is no revenue sharing with ETFs. The
Jones legal/compliance people are so unfamiliar with ETFs that EJ had
to institute an ETF recission policy earlier this year. Essentially EJ
did not send out prospectuses with ETF purchase confirms. Thus
regulators
forced EJ to offer to reimburse ETF buyers the full purchase price plus
interest. Unbelievable in this day and age. St Louis is a bit removed
from Wall St but you’d think at least some of the current investment
reality would find its’ way to Jones by osmosis…
[quote=Maxstud]
[quote=joedabrkr]
[quote=Starka]Edward Jones is having their brokers sit for the Series 66.
Could this be a prelude to a fee based platform rollout?[/quote]depends
upon how many of them can pass! [/quote]You mean the same people
who already passed the 7? [/quote]
Yes, Max, people who have passed the Series 7.
What’s your point?
[quote=Starka] [quote=Maxstud]
[quote=joedabrkr]
[quote=Starka]Edward Jones is having their brokers sit for the Series 66.
Could this be a prelude to a fee based platform rollout?[/quote]depends
upon how many of them can pass! [/quote]You mean the same people
who already passed the 7? [/quote]
Yes, Max, people who have passed the Series 7.
What’s your point?[/quote]
66 is easier then the 7. Well from what I’ve studied so far at least, of course the 7 wasn’t very hard either.
[quote=Maxstud] [quote=Starka] [quote=Maxstud]
[quote=joedabrkr]
[quote=Starka]Edward Jones is having their brokers sit for the Series 66.
Could this be a prelude to a fee based platform rollout?[/quote]depends
upon how many of them can pass! [/quote]You mean the same people
who already passed the 7? [/quote]
Yes, Max, people who have passed the Series 7.
What's your point?[/quote]
66 is easier then the 7. Well from what I've studied so far at least, of course the 7 wasn't very hard either.
[/quote]
Again, what's your point?
[quote=midtown]footsoldier -
Highly doubtful EJ would embrace ETFs. Their “philosophy” is that
actively managed funds are much more preferable to (mostly) static
indexes. And then of course there is no revenue sharing with ETFs.
[/quote]
There’s the key issue!
[quote=Starka]
[quote=Maxstud] [quote=Starka] [quote=Maxstud]
[quote=joedabrkr]
[quote=Starka]Edward Jones is having their brokers sit for the Series 66.
Could this be a prelude to a fee based platform rollout?[/quote]depends
upon how many of them can pass! [/quote]You mean the same people
who already passed the 7? [/quote]
Yes, Max, people who have passed the Series 7.
What’s your point?[/quote]
66 is easier then the 7. Well from what I’ve studied so far at least, of course the 7 wasn’t very hard either.
[/quote]
Again, what's your point?
[/quote]That Joe's joke is stupid.
Just so I understand Max, you’re saying that if a significant number of Jones
reps fail attain a Series 6, that would have no impact on the firm’s ability to
deliver a fee based platform to it’s brokers? No offense, but I think that’s a
naive stance. And frankly, I fail to see the humor in that.
I'm curious to see if this causes more or less interest in Jones. For many years they've systematically steered IR's away from fee-based platforms, and other b/d's that offer them at the same time. Now if they're telling IR's that fee-based business is a viable option will there be a exodus of advisors who want a platform that has the kinks worked out and is perhaps more robust?
Time will tell...
[quote=FreedomLvr]
I’m curious to see if this causes more or less interest in Jones. For many years they’ve systematically steered IR’s away from fee-based platforms, and other b/d’s that offer them at the same time. Now if they’re telling IR’s that fee-based business is a viable option will there be a exodus of advisors who want a platform that has the kinks worked out and is perhaps more robust?
Time will tell...
[/quote]The only thing I was trying to comment on was Joe's post, that I read as a joke, saying that EDJ brokers would as a whole be unable to pass the 66. I took it as a joke because of this at the end of his sentence. The official reason that we all are taking the series 66 is not because EDJ is absolutely going to do fee based biz, although in my urban region all the IR's are in favor of adding that as an option for our clients. Weddle has said that they should have a announcement by December whether they believe it's a option EDJ should offer.
Oops didn’t mean to quote Freedom on that one. Sorry.
How old are you gals? Grow-up.
I understand that brokers at Jones are being told that the reason for getting
the Series 6 is for ther verbiage ob their business cards. In other words, so
they can call themselves “Financial Advisors” or some such. If this is true,
isn’t it interesting how far around the bend the NASD/Spitzer/SEC cabal is
pushing firms?
EDJ bought a software bundle to improve our financial planning capabilities and we are being told to be able to access and use the complete package we have to be series 66 licensed. If your not you can only access a portion of the software.
[quote=Maxstud]
[quote=Starka]
[quote=Maxstud] [quote=Starka] [quote=Maxstud]
[quote=joedabrkr]
[quote=Starka]Edward Jones is having their brokers sit for the Series 66.
Could this be a prelude to a fee based platform rollout?[/quote]depends
upon how many of them can pass! [/quote]You mean the same people
who already passed the 7? [/quote]
Yes, Max, people who have passed the Series 7.
What’s your point?[/quote]
66 is easier then the 7. Well from what I’ve studied so far at least, of course the 7 wasn’t very hard either.
[/quote]
Again, what's your point?
[/quote]That Joe's joke is stupid.
[/quote]
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Get back to us if you pass the test....
[quote=Maxstud]EDJ bought a software bundle to improve our financial planning capabilities and we are being told to be able to access and use the complete package we have to be series 66 licensed. If your not you can only access a portion of the software. [/quote]
That seems to be a bit of an overkill, don't you think? You don't need a 66 to use the firm's planning software. Jones could just as easily formed it's own RIA (if in fact it hasn't already), then made the brokers IARs. QED, an no one needs to lose time in production for an unnecessary test.
[quote=Starka]
[quote=Maxstud]EDJ bought a software bundle to improve our financial planning capabilities and we are being told to be able to access and use the complete package we have to be series 66 licensed. If your not you can only access a portion of the software. [/quote]
That seems to be a bit of an overkill, don't you think? You don't need a 66 to use the firm's planning software. Jones could just as easily formed it's own RIA (if in fact it hasn't already), then made the brokers IARs. QED, an no one needs to lose time in production for an unnecessary test.
[/quote]Thats the story and since no one at HQ called for my opinion that's all I know. Don't you think it would be even more overkill to have everyone take the test just to put financial adviser on business cards?
Maybe they have a fee based idea that they feel is going to be implemented but haven't made it public yet.
That’s my point. The explanation that makes the most sense is that they plan to roll out a fee based platform, and they want everyone up to speed license-wise. Has St. Louis made the 66 a requirement for all brokers, whether you want it or not? What are the ramifications for those who fail the test?
Well, this entire topic puzzles me, as an official statement was made
about a month ago that we’d be having a fee-based system some time in
the near future and that they’re currently “working out the kinks.”
(Finally…sigh)
[quote=Starka]
[quote=Maxstud]EDJ bought a software bundle to improve our financial planning capabilities and we are being told to be able to access and use the complete package we have to be series 66 licensed. If your not you can only access a portion of the software. [/quote]
That seems to be a bit of an overkill, don't you think? You don't need a 66 to use the firm's planning software. Jones could just as easily formed it's own RIA (if in fact it hasn't already), then made the brokers IARs. QED, an no one needs to lose time in production for an unnecessary test.
[/quote]
I believe you do need a series 66 to be an IAR. In my firm we have software that is accessible to the brokers (registered representatives) and a more enhanced planning version that is accessed only if you are an IAR. The main difference is the planning capabilities of the IAR side vs the investment product focus of the RR side.
It all has to do with the Merrill rule. It is very picky. I just had a flyer I wanted to send out rejected because I use the terms Retirement Planning and Insurance Planning. Have to change it to "Analysis"... sheesh.
Its very simple…IR’s in the field will be testing for the 66…all new hires will take 7 and then 66 from here on out. We will have fee base choices and like annuities, we will charge a lower fee than the rest of you…and will exploit it to no end. As Weed dle said the demographics are changing and where the baby boomers were acumulating(trading)…they now will be protecting and getting distributions. This will mean the money will become very stale and non moving…so we have to eat right…and walllaaa fee base is okay. You change with the times…and actually it sounds better than Merril or SBarney using it to smooth out their earnings for their shareholders. We’re doing it because it is right for the client and we do everything for the client or my family…whichever comes first.
[quote=babbling looney][quote=Starka]
[quote=Maxstud]EDJ bought a software bundle to improve our financial planning capabilities and we are being told to be able to access and use the complete package we have to be series 66 licensed. If your not you can only access a portion of the software. [/quote]
That seems to be a bit of an overkill, don't you think? You don't need a 66 to use the firm's planning software. Jones could just as easily formed it's own RIA (if in fact it hasn't already), then made the brokers IARs. QED, an no one needs to lose time in production for an unnecessary test.
[/quote]
I believe you do need a series 66 to be an IAR. In my firm we have software that is accessible to the brokers (registered representatives) and a more enhanced planning version that is accessed only if you are an IAR. The main difference is the planning capabilities of the IAR side vs the investment product focus of the RR side.
It all has to do with the Merrill rule. It is very picky. I just had a flyer I wanted to send out rejected because I use the terms Retirement Planning and Insurance Planning. Have to change it to "Analysis"... sheesh.
[/quote]
Unless the rules have changed in the last five years or so, the 66 isn't necessary for an IAR. (Of course, the rules for our industry seem to change hour by hour!)
This has been a question of mine for some time...
Do you have to be 65 or 66 licensed in order to charge fees? I can understand that you do if you are "fee only." But what if you have both fees and commissions (50/50)?
Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/whats-firms/interesting-stuff