Jones increasing ACAT/termination fee to $95
I saw a monthly statement today and see they are going to make it even tougher to move on 9/15/09 (I think). So much for the old days of low/no ACAT out fees. If you’re going Indy Labor Day weekend, this is something to consider…it might be worth going a week or two earlier…or it will just give you a way to motivate your clients to move quicker.
Yep, you’re correct. I find it a bit strange that at a time when we are bringing in 8 accounts for every 1 we transfer out (stat from a Seg 5 friend of mine) it becomes necessary to raise those fees. Weddle says that it is because we provide such personal service to our clients and because there are so many steps and people involved in closing those accounts and preparing the tax records at the end of the year that it is a great value for our clients to be charged close to what is the industry average. I find that statement to be a bit, um, shady. I don’t often say something like that about Jones.
I agree with Bachmann...if a client doesn't want to work with us it should cost them nothing to leave.Actually, I saw a market study of fees, and I think they feel they can just stay in the same range as everyone else. But, strategically, I guess it's a good move for them to help prevent FA's that leave from moving accounts. Although it sucks if you are moving, it makes good strategic sense. The only people you impact are FA's and clients that are choosing to LEAVE. And no, I am not harboring resentment against anyone leaving Jones, I am just saying from a strategic perspective, it's not a bad move.
I agree with B24…they are assholes.
[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
I agree with Bachmann...if a client doesn't want to work with us it should cost them nothing to leave. [/quote] Yes, you definitely lose a little something when you reverse yourself against this idea....it has a sense of honor to it whereas "everyone else does it" kinda sucks (every firm uses that line, not just Jones).[quote=Spaceman Spiff] Yep, you’re correct. I find it a bit strange that at a time when we are bringing in 8 accounts for every 1 we transfer out (stat from a Seg 5 friend of mine) it becomes necessary to raise those fees. Weddle says that it is because we provide such personal service to our clients and because there are so many steps and people involved in closing those accounts and preparing the tax records at the end of the year that it is a great value for our clients to be charged close to what is the industry average. I find that statement to be a bit, um, shady. I don’t often say something like that about Jones.
I agree with Bachmann…if a client doesn’t want to work with us it should cost them nothing to leave. [/quote]
8 accounts for every 1 transferring out? I think I would be a little suspicious too. It would not be necessary. I guess I can call some more Jones prospects that are on the fence. Nothing like creating a sense of urgency.
I remember when I was told at EDJ, that the $40 IRA fee was what we paid to the IRS and we were just passing it on to the client.
Jim Weddle’s getting sort of used to soft-peddling lies lately, isn’t he? Goes right back to the whole “we’re not part of the Protocol because we’re protecting clients privacy”.
Yeah, I don’t agree with the whole Protocol thing. We should be part of it. Period. Protecting client’s privacy is a silly excuse. I would be OK with “Why should we make it easier for FA’s to take clients from our firm?” At least it would be honest.
However, I am OK with Weddle back-peddling on Bachman's ideas. Bachman was a great leader for many years, and really spurred the growth at this firm. But many of his notions were very old-school, and Weddle has done (IMHO) and exceptional job at getting us out from under that. I am not going to argue whether all of his decisions are good or bad, I jsut have to give him some credit for bucking the trend on so many issues at Jones. We finally seem to be catching up to the rest of the industry with technology, products, etc. We're still not quite there, but we are close (although from what I am told by a few Merrill transfers, our tech platform is now better than what they had at Merrill just a few years ago - I have no idea whether that is true or not).BigCheese has taken over for footsoldier.
Jones is the greatest firm in the world. Just ask Weddle. 95 isn’t the end of the world. Just competitive.
And the service you provide your clients pay for in higher fees. Just more crap that your firm shoves down your throat. Spiff…looks to me like you are starting to scratch your head.
[quote=B24] Yeah, I don’t agree with the whole Protocol thing. We should be part of it. Period. Protecting client’s privacy is a silly excuse. I would be OK with “Why should we make it easier for FA’s to take clients from our firm?” At least it would be honest.
[/quote]
Should be part of it. Period.?? or you would be okay with "why should we make it easier for…"
Were you for the war before you voted against it? Period?
Off topic on this point, but from EDJ standpoint, with the disparity between brokers coming and going from/to protocol firms, no way should we sign up.
We say we didn’t sign up because of client privacy. Those that signed up say its for the clients benefit. Both are bologna in my opinion.
Doug Hill is the smartest guy there… no sarcasm…
I have heard that some FA’s left Jones and transfered most of the account but left a minimum ($5) to keep the account from closing. This would leave the next FA in that office having the closing charge applied to their P&L.
I think with the incredible level of service this firm provides, we could easily charge a $1500 IRA fee and still win every award known to man.
You non-Jonesies have no friggin' clue just how awesome we are. No. Friggin'. Clue.[quote=B24] Yeah, I don’t agree with the whole Protocol thing. We should be part of it. Period. Protecting client’s privacy is a silly excuse. I would be OK with “Why should we make it easier for FA’s to take clients from our firm?” At least it would be honest.
However, I am OK with Weddle back-peddling on Bachman’s ideas. Bachman was a great leader for many years, and really spurred the growth at this firm. But many of his notions were very old-school, and Weddle has done (IMHO) and exceptional job at getting us out from under that. I am not going to argue whether all of his decisions are good or bad, I jsut have to give him some credit for bucking the trend on so many issues at Jones. We finally seem to be catching up to the rest of the industry with technology, products, etc. We’re still not quite there, but we are close (although from what I am told by a few Merrill transfers, our tech platform is now better than what they had at Merrill just a few years ago - I have no idea whether that is true or not).[/quote]
You know, I’ve looked around at what others have … and we do have better technology than most. Well integrated, simple to use. Our intranet search engine sucks, and the green screens commands are archaic but nothing’s perfect. I’m imagining that our new bond platform’s gonna be suh-weeet. I’m inspired in general to work for Jim Weddle. He’s a great leader.
I don’t know what went on under Bachman - all I’ve ever known is Jim Weddle in this business. I give credit where credit is due. But I don’t think you can be honest part of the time, just like you can’t buy and hold only when it feels good.
[quote=Incredible Hulk]
We say we didn’t sign up because of client privacy. Those that signed up say its for the clients benefit. Both are bologna in my opinion.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but this is absolute horsesh*t and you should read what chief counsel wrote in his argument. I did. Stop pushing crap on people.
Locked-
Are you Spiff in drag? Jones may have good technology now...imagine being down for as much as a week because the satellite was lost and had to be re-pointed across the country. Jones management didn't care if the office was a top producer or a new new out of the gate, they all had to be re-pointed. That was then, so now you have decent integration and soon you will be like the rest of us with a new bond inventory tool. Can't wait...[quote=Spaceman Spiff]Yep, you’re correct. I find it a bit strange that at a time when we are bringing in 8 accounts for every 1 we transfer out (stat from a Seg 5 friend of mine) it becomes necessary to raise those fees. Weddle says that it is because we provide such personal service to our clients and because there are so many steps and people involved in closing those accounts and preparing the tax records at the end of the year that it is a great value for our clients to be charged close to what is the industry average. I find that statement to be a bit, um, shady. I don’t often say something like that about Jones.
I agree with Bachmann...if a client doesn't want to work with us it should cost them nothing to leave. [/quote] I completely agree. Especially if the reason a client is leaving a firm, happens to be that their FA isn't helping them in anyway. I was actually looking at the transfer fee page on Joneslink today and noticed the note that it will be going up. Funny thing is, I transferred in 4 accounts for a guy today from Robert Baird and after the FA demolished their account, they charged him $175 per account to transfer it to me. Tell me thats not a load.[quote=BigCheese] Locked-
Are you Spiff in drag?
Jones may have good technology now…imagine being down for as much as a week because the satellite was lost and had to be re-pointed across the country. Jones management didn’t care if the office was a top producer or a new new out of the gate, they all had to be re-pointed.
That was then, so now you have decent integration and soon you will be like the rest of us with a new bond inventory tool. Can’t wait…[/quote]
… well, I do like the way rouge can make A shares seem the cheapest way to go on a $15,000 buy.
I hope Jones is providing vasoline to their clients.
[quote=MJ][quote=Spaceman Spiff]Yep, you’re correct. I find it a bit strange that at a time when we are bringing in 8 accounts for every 1 we transfer out (stat from a Seg 5 friend of mine) it becomes necessary to raise those fees. Weddle says that it is because we provide such personal service to our clients and because there are so many steps and people involved in closing those accounts and preparing the tax records at the end of the year that it is a great value for our clients to be charged close to what is the industry average. I find that statement to be a bit, um, shady. I don’t often say something like that about Jones.
I agree with Bachmann...if a client doesn't want to work with us it should cost them nothing to leave. [/quote] I completely agree. Especially if the reason a client is leaving a firm, happens to be that their FA isn't helping them in anyway. I was actually looking at the transfer fee page on Joneslink today and noticed the note that it will be going up. Funny thing is, I transferred in 4 accounts for a guy today from Robert Baird and after the FA demolished their account, they charged him $175 per account to transfer it to me. Tell me thats not a load.[/quote]We just submitted ACAT paperwork on 2 Baird Accounts last week and they told our client it would be $200 per account.
The FA working in my office transferred a Smith Barney (maybe Merrill?) account a few months ago. There were separate brokerage accounts set up for each of 8 529’s for his grandkids (among a few other accounts). Not sure why, since 529’s are all held at fund families - he could have had them all linked to one account. Point is, it cost him $90 PER ACCOUNT to transfer them. So yes, it cost him $720. Our FA told him to find out the cost in advance, which he did, and the guy still wanted to transfer.
Ya my guy paid $700 bucks for 4 accounts. Thats not necessary. I’m still trying to figure out why the client has to pay the crappy advisor, to move to a good one.
How can these firms even start to justify the fee. It’s a cheap shot to their clients. How can one firm charge $35 and another $95. I guess the 95 fee is from a much more talented paper pusher.
Consumers need to be aware of how the big wirehouse aren't for the investor anymore or the broker. I think a lot more brokers are figuring this out and cutting their ties as well as the consumer.You are not a good advisor Windy. He paid $700 to move from one crappy advisor to another.Ya my guy paid $700 bucks for 4 accounts. Thats not necessary. I’m still trying to figure out why the client has to pay the crappy advisor, to move to a good one.
You can’t tell me the back office costs have gone up in a deflationary environment. This move by Weddle reeks of protectionism.
This
could be my cynicism but his weekly “corner” and FA feedback forums
have taken an increasingly aloof tone and defensive tone, dismissing
any criticism or critique of him & firm practices. I wonder if the
market, cost cutting, and bonus brackets are not taking a toll on him.
[quote=MJ]Ya my guy paid $700 bucks for 4 accounts. Thats not necessary. I’m still trying to figure out why the client has to pay the crappy advisor, to move to a good one.
You are not a good advisor Windy. He paid $700 to move from one crappy advisor to another.[/quote]
WTF is up with you guys and this “Windy” thing. I’m not this a-hole your calling me. Seriously.
If you have some warm EJ clients, give them a quick call and this may move them on over to you. I like changes for everyone else. Makes life here a little easier.
[quote=hotair1] [quote=MJ]Ya my guy paid $700 bucks for 4 accounts. Thats not necessary. I’m still trying to figure out why the client has to pay the crappy advisor, to move to a good one.
You are not a good advisor Windy. He paid $700 to move from one crappy advisor to another.[/quote]
WTF is up with you guys and this “Windy” thing. I’m not this a-hole your calling me. Seriously.[/quote]
Of course you are. There can’t be two people like that.
[quote=Moraen] [quote=MJ] [quote=hotair1] [quote=MJ]Ya my guy paid $700 bucks for 4 accounts. Thats not necessary. I’m still trying to figure out why the client has to pay the crappy advisor, to move to a good one.[/quote]
You are not a good advisor Windy. He paid $700 to move from one crappy advisor to another.[/quote]
WTF is up with you guys and this "Windy" thing. I'm not this a-hole your calling me. Seriously.[/quote]
Of course you are. There can't be two people like that.[/quote]
Two people like what?
This doesn't work. The account minimum is the Transfer Tee + Annual Fee. This way if the client decides to bail we keep the difference. oh, and I think raising the fee blows. I hate my bank, insurance company, cell phone company, cable company. What do they have in common? FEES!!!!!!I have heard that some FA’s left Jones and transfered most of the account but left a minimum ($5) to keep the account from closing. This would leave the next FA in that office having the closing charge applied to their P&L.
[quote=Moraen] [quote=MJ] [quote=hotair1] [quote=MJ]Ya my guy paid $700 bucks for 4 accounts. Thats not necessary. I’m still trying to figure out why the client has to pay the crappy advisor, to move to a good one.[/quote]
You are not a good advisor Windy. He paid $700 to move from one crappy advisor to another.[/quote]
WTF is up with you guys and this "Windy" thing. I'm not this a-hole your calling me. Seriously.[/quote]
Of course you are. There can't be two people like that.[/quote] You still haven't figured out how to properly use your and you're.
?
You must have loved this “Windy” character, to be projecting him on other people. You could atleast pick someone worth a crap. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or hell even Ron Jeremy.
Remember that time you and Axl Rose wooed that crowd together at the county fair?
I’m seriously…
You need to RESPECT MY AUTHORITI!!!! Chill dudes, I'm not this Windy Fart guy.Hey Windy! Thought you’d left. Posting from your Blackberry as you doorknock today?
3rd, Just to be fair to Windy. He only get 250k rollovers via door knocking so he switched to cold calling which was more effective for him.
I feel very welcome to this forum, thanks to this Windy dude. Not sure what he did or what happened but I’m sensing you don’t like him.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
Hey EDJ guys, does the Green Machine ever cover incoming ACAT fees for a client moving over to Jones? I had a client move to a state in which I'm not registered, and she would be the only client I have in that state, so I decided to urge her to seek someone locally. All the RJ guys she talked with were goons, so I encouraged her to look up some of the Jones guys locally and she found one she liked. The ACATs get processed, RJ hits her for outgoing fees on several accounts (4-5 I think) and she assumed that Jones would reimburse her for it, because that's what RJ did when we moved from AGE originally.
Word from her Jones guy is that he "can't do that because it would be 'buying accounts' and Jones doesn't believe in that." All together, it's about a $250,000+- relationship.
Does this guy have the leeway to handle this internally, or is it a company-wide policy to never reimburse ACAT fees?
[quote]Does this guy have the leeway to handle this internally[/quote]
... he'd better not let anyone know about it, if he does. I'd be friggin' furious.So, does that mean that you guys universally don’t have the leeway to reimburse any ACAT fees?
I know for a fact that an FA can accept the charges for a Jones fee. The procedures to do it are outlined on our system. However, it does not indicate anything about outside fees. That would have to be addressed with someone in the home office.
I know that it gets a bit hairy if there is a fee charged by another firm that comes over as a negative cash debit in an IRA account. Since it is not a fee charged by the current firm, the fee cannot be reimbursed, even by the client, into their IRA. Funds to cover it would either need to go in as contributions or securities liquidated within the account to cover it.So then ... "Sorry Mr. Client, I can't compensate you for the ACAT fees MSDW charged. But at least I can do this ... I can help you with the IRA fees here, which will help offset those costs." Hadn't thought of it that way. Intriguing.I know for a fact that an FA can accept the charges for a Jones fee. …
I told the lady to demand a lifetime suppy of the little 2 Chiclet gum boxes you guys give out. She’s going for it. She may even push the envelope and ask for one of the Edward & Jones halter tops that all of you guys make your BOAs wear on Fridays. I hear it’s crazy up in there at the end of the week!
The FA can choose to cover the charges. Maybe they’re just too high for some noob FA to cover. Kraft Mac n’ Cheese just went up!
I'm still waiting to see a BOA that could fit into a halter top! Is there a rule against hiring decent looking chicks to man the phones?I told the lady to demand a lifetime suppy of the little 2 Chiclet gum boxes you guys give out. She’s going for it. She may even push the envelope and ask for one of the Edward & Jones halter tops that all of you guys make your BOAs wear on Fridays. I hear it’s crazy up in there at the end of the week!
Jones FA's can cover the transfer fee's. I've done it plenty of times. You just have to go through compliance and you get to not pay a bill at home. But hey, it's worth it if its a big account.
Here is the deal on ACATS. I think it is okay for Jones to raise their termination fee to the industry standard but in so doing they should provide the industry standard in service. To my knowledge they are one of the few firms that does not electronically transmit the cost basis with a ACAT transfer. Every other transfer I have had from other firms does…very cheesy not to. I consider that part of a client’s expectation of service.
If the prior firm has the cost basis, we receive it with the transfer. I'm looking at a recent transfer now, to make sure. I think the main problem is that most of the time, the prio firm before transfering to Jones, doesn't have a cost basis. or are you saying it doesn't get transfered out to other firms, when transferring FROM Jones?Here is the deal on ACATS. I think it is okay for Jones to raise their termination fee to the industry standard but in so doing they should provide the industry standard in service. To my knowledge they are one of the few firms that does not electronically transmit the cost basis with a ACAT transfer. Every other transfer I have had from other firms does…very cheesy not to. I consider that part of a client’s expectation of service.
Another thought on the termination fee…My current firm charges for an IRA after they have had the IRA for a year…EDJ charges upfront for that custodial fee.
What is the industry practice??If the prior firm has the cost basis, we receive it with the transfer. I'm looking at a recent transfer now, to make sure. I think the main problem is that most of the time, the prio firm before transfering to Jones, doesn't have a cost basis. or are you saying it doesn't get transfered out to other firms, when transferring FROM Jones?[/quote] That's exactly what I am saying!![quote=noggin]Here is the deal on ACATS. I think it is okay for Jones to raise their termination fee to the industry standard but in so doing they should provide the industry standard in service. To my knowledge they are one of the few firms that does not electronically transmit the cost basis with a ACAT transfer. Every other transfer I have had from other firms does…very cheesy not to. I consider that part of a client’s expectation of service.
you can choose to do whatever you want. This is considered buying business. Field Supervision will not allow for it, and it cannot be allowed as a gift either. Sorry, that's what I've been told.The FA can choose to cover the charges. Maybe they’re just too high for some noob FA to cover. Kraft Mac n’ Cheese just went up!
you can choose to do whatever you want. This is considered buying business. Field Supervision will not allow for it, and it cannot be allowed as a gift either. Sorry, that's what I've been told. [/quote] Lock, Thats not true at all. I have paid for a clients transfer fees many times. You have to call your Field Supervisor and they initiate the re-imbursement, as well as taking the fees out of your paycheck. I've done this without a doubt more than I can count on my hands. They allow it everyday, they just won't pay for it. Noggin - Ahh. I did not know that we do not transfer out cost basis to other firms. That doesn't make much sense.[quote=UNDERMINDED]The FA can choose to cover the charges. Maybe they’re just too high for some noob FA to cover. Kraft Mac n’ Cheese just went up!
MJ- Sing them your song "Leave Me Alone"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5KAJw4y8wEJones does a lot of things that make little sense. The cost basis is just one of many. My take on the fee increase is more about revenue generation than being in line with the industry. If you have a large number of accts moving out, might as well ding the client one more time. I don’t like the practice at all, but when you open an acct, you agree to the fee by signing the forms.
or how about. “All i wanna say is that, they don’t really care about us” or “Dirty Diana, nawwww”
That's the strange thing. There aren't a large number of accounts moving out. It's either that or other places are losing a ton more than we are.Jones does a lot of things that make little sense. The cost basis is just one of many. My take on the fee increase is more about revenue generation than being in line with the industry. If you have a large number of accts moving out, might as well ding the client one more time. I don’t like the practice at all, but when you open an acct, you agree to the fee by signing the forms.
I hope with the increase they can manage to start doing the right thing and transfer the cost basis info. It makes no business sense not to - in my experience, the clients who I ACAT out of Jones vow never to go back because they get pissed about the cost basis not moving. For a firm that claims to be the most moral firm known to humankind it’s funny how they not only treat leaving reps poorly they also feel the need to punish clients for leaving.
???
And exactly what good does that data do the company? Sweet lord, get a grip and let your mind wander free a little bit from frigging St. Louis. Do you have any idea at all how much that statement runs against the soul of Ted Jones and John Bachmann?
I’d just as soon believe that there’s no universe where Edward Jones wouldn’t share that with their former clients - even if I’m wrong.
BioFreeze, it is that kind of outlook that makes it easy for me to pull accounts from Jones. (with the exception of having to deal with the cost basis thing) I suppose if you change Doctors you think your previous Doctor shouldn’t forward your medical records to your new Doctor. After all isn’t it your responsibility to know your own medical history.
wired is correct.
How can any of you call yourselves "professionals" if you don't know how much the transfer out cost is, let alone how much Jones charges (and if you absorb the cost). And if you are too nervous to call the other firm that's what the BOA is for. bunch of weeniesoh No edj is raising their fees…not to stop you indy guys, but to keep up with the industry…
ameriprise fee $100 ameritrade fee $75 charles schwab fee $50 first clearing fee $95 LPL fee $95 merrill lynch fee $75 morgan keegan fee $110 raymond james fee $100 ubs fee $150 pershing fee $75-$95 varies wells fargo fee $75 fees are part of this business and at some point, everyone will be increasing them......If the prior firm has the cost basis, we receive it with the transfer. I'm looking at a recent transfer now, to make sure. I think the main problem is that most of the time, the prio firm before transfering to Jones, doesn't have a cost basis. or are you saying it doesn't get transfered out to other firms, when transferring FROM Jones?[/quote] That's exactly what I am saying!![/quote] According to Joneslink, Jones sends out a cost basis statement to the client a few business days after transfer.[quote=MJ][quote=noggin]Here is the deal on ACATS. I think it is okay for Jones to raise their termination fee to the industry standard but in so doing they should provide the industry standard in service. To my knowledge they are one of the few firms that does not electronically transmit the cost basis with a ACAT transfer. Every other transfer I have had from other firms does…very cheesy not to. I consider that part of a client’s expectation of service.
If the prior firm has the cost basis, we receive it with the transfer. I'm looking at a recent transfer now, to make sure. I think the main problem is that most of the time, the prio firm before transfering to Jones, doesn't have a cost basis. or are you saying it doesn't get transfered out to other firms, when transferring FROM Jones?[/quote] That's exactly what I am saying!![/quote] According to Joneslink, Jones sends out a cost basis statement to the client a few business days after transfer.[/quote] The REAL reason is that Jones doesn't subscribe to the cost basis network, they would rather have the BOA's spend time working on that. It is, I guess a cost saving measure on their part. Having a cost basis statement sent a few days later is a LOT different than sending it electronically with the transfer. Clients that were moved over in qualified accounts never get a cost basis statement......Jones says they don't need to track that but if you don't how can you properly judge performance?? Oh well, the Jones saga continues....[quote=noggin][quote=MJ][quote=noggin]Here is the deal on ACATS. I think it is okay for Jones to raise their termination fee to the industry standard but in so doing they should provide the industry standard in service. To my knowledge they are one of the few firms that does not electronically transmit the cost basis with a ACAT transfer. Every other transfer I have had from other firms does…very cheesy not to. I consider that part of a client’s expectation of service.
[quote=noggin]
The REAL reason is that Jones doesn't subscribe to the cost basis network, they would rather have the BOA's spend time working on that. It is, I guess a cost saving measure on their part. Having a cost basis statement sent a few days later is a LOT different than sending it electronically with the transfer. Clients that were moved over in qualified accounts never get a cost basis statement......Jones says they don't need to track that but if you don't how can you properly judge performance?? Oh well, the Jones saga continues....[/quote] Why would you need anything from Jones to track performance? Why would it matter? You can get any performance info you need from Morningstar, right? Why would you want to keep anything one of us dumb EDJ guys sold your client anyway? We only sold it to them for the revenue sharing.If the prior firm has the cost basis, we receive it with the transfer. I'm looking at a recent transfer now, to make sure. I think the main problem is that most of the time, the prio firm before transfering to Jones, doesn't have a cost basis. or are you saying it doesn't get transfered out to other firms, when transferring FROM Jones?[/quote] That's exactly what I am saying!![/quote] According to Joneslink, Jones sends out a cost basis statement to the client a few business days after transfer.[/quote] The REAL reason is that Jones doesn't subscribe to the cost basis network, they would rather have the BOA's spend time working on that. It is, I guess a cost saving measure on their part. Having a cost basis statement sent a few days later is a LOT different than sending it electronically with the transfer. Clients that were moved over in qualified accounts never get a cost basis statement......Jones says they don't need to track that but if you don't how can you properly judge performance?? Oh well, the Jones saga continues....[/quote] Jones now subscribes to the cost-basis system. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble.[quote=MJ][quote=noggin][quote=MJ][quote=noggin]Here is the deal on ACATS. I think it is okay for Jones to raise their termination fee to the industry standard but in so doing they should provide the industry standard in service. To my knowledge they are one of the few firms that does not electronically transmit the cost basis with a ACAT transfer. Every other transfer I have had from other firms does…very cheesy not to. I consider that part of a client’s expectation of service.
[quote=Spaceman Spiff][quote=noggin]
The REAL reason is that Jones doesn't subscribe to the cost basis network, they would rather have the BOA's spend time working on that. It is, I guess a cost saving measure on their part. Having a cost basis statement sent a few days later is a LOT different than sending it electronically with the transfer. Clients that were moved over in qualified accounts never get a cost basis statement......Jones says they don't need to track that but if you don't how can you properly judge performance?? Oh well, the Jones saga continues....[/quote] Why would you need anything from Jones to track performance? Why would it matter? You can get any performance info you need from Morningstar, right? Why would you want to keep anything one of us dumb EDJ guys sold your client anyway? We only sold it to them for the revenue sharing. [/quote] Now Spaceman, I was playing all nice and then you had to go stomp on me like that. Not very nice..... I was talking about the things I sold to them when I was at Jones which according to the agreement that I signed when I was employed at Jones I was not allowed to retain when I left. Reconstructing cost basis is a problem, which would be a lot easier if Jones would send that cost basis electronically as nearly every other firm does....Well there ya go noggin.
Sorry noggin. I was in kind of a pissy mood this morning.
I've never understood why our industry isn't an open book. Wouldn't it be great if there was one master database out there that tracks you by social security/tax id number. All firms are required to post all buys/sells there so that one database could track tax info. The IRS would have much more specific info. Clients wouldn't have to stress about losing cost basis info when switching firms or when they clean out their files and throw important papers in the trash. And FAs wouldn't have any worries about transferring clients because all of the tax info is available on that database that isn't proprietary to any one firm.[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
Sorry noggin. I was in kind of a pissy mood this morning.
I've never understood why our industry isn't an open book. Wouldn't it be great if there was one master database out there that tracks you by social security/tax id number. All firms are required to post all buys/sells there so that one database could track tax info. The IRS would have much more specific info. Clients wouldn't have to stress about losing cost basis info when switching firms or when they clean out their files and throw important papers in the trash. And FAs wouldn't have any worries about transferring clients because all of the tax info is available on that database that isn't proprietary to any one firm. [/quote]Privacy issues.
A national data base for medical records would make sense, too, but they are having a hard time getting that in place.
But in 50 years we'll all have a chip in our skulls that will allow all banks, hospitals, major retailers, police and government agents to keep track of us.
And a 3 digit number stamped across our foreheads.
And a 3 digit number stamped across our foreheads.
Barcode is more like it.
[quote=Spaceman Spiff] And a 3 digit number stamped across our foreheads.
Barcode is more like it.[/quote]
We already know who you are, Windy. It don't take a barcode to read: loser
Wow! Jones now transfers cost basis!?! Next you will be telling me Jones has running water and electricity in their offices. I will have to try a new ACAT soon. Six weeks and no Jones ACATs coming in. I have been to busy taking money from Merrill and the CitiMorg to hit Jones up recently.
Thats because no accounts are leaving Jones, not because you haven’t “got” to it yet
Jesus Windy, just leave some things alone. Wired makes a joke and you get all serious. You wonder why people bash us? Lighten up.
And regarding the cost basis, remember WE have to have the cost basis in order to transfer it. I can't tell you how many accounts I have ACAT'd in that had no cost basis from other firms. That's the problem - most securities that have been in existance with one client for more than 10 years or so (transferred among various firms) probably does not have cost basis (unless it was re-constructed). The inter-firm cost basis transfer system has not been around very long.If I was “Windy” I would, but I’m not so I won’t.
liar Windy would be on here telling us all it's not him with his new screenname if we had pegged someone else for him.If I was “Windy” I would, but I’m not so I won’t.
What a stupid thing to say. Other than what I took from my old place when I went independent, 90% of my transfer in accounts are Jones accounts...and yes...they are still coming. I don't seek them out and I don't twist arms, but when you have mostly Jones guys in your market and a few of them don't know what the heck they are doing and/or are too busy to service what they have, transfers from Jones are inevitable. My personal experience has been that I transfer in close to ten times what I transfer out to Jones. Much of it has to do with some poor stock picking (and more recently bond picking) and service issues (probably due to having too many clients). When you grow up and get a decent-sized book, transfers will happen to you too. I think I do a pretty doggoned good job, but you can't please everybody and bear markets will quickly show you which clients you took that you shouldn't have. Better decide you like your crow, because it's just a matter of time until you're eating some.Thats because no accounts are leaving Jones
What a stupid thing to say. Other than what I took from my old place when I went independent, 90% of my transfer in accounts are Jones accounts...and yes...they are still coming. I don't seek them out and I don't twist arms, but when you have mostly Jones guys in your market and a few of them don't know what the heck they are doing and/or are too busy to service what they have, transfers from Jones are inevitable. My personal experience has been that I transfer in close to ten times what I transfer out to Jones. Much of it has to do with some poor stock picking (and more recently bond picking) and service issues (probably due to having too many clients). When you grow up and get a decent-sized book, transfers will happen to you too. I think I do a pretty doggoned good job, but you can't please everybody and bear markets will quickly show you which clients you took that you shouldn't have. Better decide you like your crow, because it's just a matter of time until you're eating some.[/quote] Wind is only in his 1st year. Of course there won't be any transfer outs yet, the clients haven't had time to gauge his ability. Even if he was a bad advisor, his (and any other newbies) clients probably think "Crap, we just spend 3 meetings rolling over our accounts to him already, I really really don't feel like seeking out another new advisor to roll our money too yet." By the 3rd or 4th year you'll see the transfer outs for the clients who you just can't please no matter how hard you try, as well as transfer-outs for the rinky-dink $4,000 accounts you set up in your first few months and never talked to the client again.[quote=MJ]Thats because no accounts are leaving Jones
This Windy guy is gonna be pissed when he finds out all my trash talk is being blamed on him. I don’t have any $4000 accounts. I go for money, not number of accounts. By the way, you took me too literal on the “No accounts leaving Jones”. It’s a fact that most Jones clients are happy. It’s amazing the trash talk about Jones, but the minute 1 person says anything about Jones being good, the Indy guys ban together in a fortress of indy hate, bashing down on the men that are Jones FA’s. It’s comparable to the bully in grade school that picked on everyone and talked trash to everyone, but then got punched in the nose by the dorky kid and cried like a baby.
Wind, actually, they tend to only do it in response to dumb-a$$ comments from Jones guys.
no prob. i will refund it w/ACAT
Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/whats-firms/jones-increasing-acattermination-fee-95