New Jones Minimum Production Levels Coming?

I am very suprised it has taken this long given their business model!

22k - Heard from my Regional Leader yesterday

Also there will no longer be "meeting" expectations. You will now either be "exceeding" or "below" expectations. 1 red line and you've got to be above it.

That is interesting!!  That means old world Seg 4 Advisor would need to have a 4 month average of 8400 and that will go to 21k to stay off goals?  I must be misunderstanding....

I'm not sure how the segment expectations will work. I do know that currently, production standards level off at $18k/month and that will go to $22k/month.

With the old production standards, Segment 2 is $8k, Segment 3 is $15k, Segment 4 is $27k, Segment 5 is $40k.

The problem Weddle sees is that people were stagnating at Segment 3, and in some cases, those branches still were not profitable. If they're going to stagnate, it must be at $22k/month now rather than $18k.

The levelling off occurs at Year 5 which was $18k. It will now be $22k. They're simply raising that red line, and throughout your first 5 years, your production standards have been based on the steady increasing slope of the line up to $18k. Regardless of Segments, everyone's production standards will go up during their first 5 years due to an increased slope from 0 up to $22k.

You are misunderstanding.  Where did you come up with the $8400 number? 

Goals has nothing to do with your segment.  It has to do with what percentage of standard you are.  And that has to do with your tenure in the biz.  For me standard is $27k a month.  If I get to down a $10,800 4 month rolling average (40% of standard), then I go on goals.  40% is the magic number.  Once you hit that mark you hit all the wrong radar screens. 

We basically have one line on our chart right now.  You are either meeting or not meeting.  You get nothing special for exceeding other than a pat on the back from your RL once in a while.  If you are above the meeting line you can still go on div trips and due diligence trips, but you might not be up to your standard.  If you're not meeting, then not only do  you not get to go on the trips, but you also start to get hassled from the home office folks to get your numbers up. 

The raising of the expectations bar is simply inflationary.  It costs more to run an EDJ office today than it did in 1995 or 1985.  So, they're raising expectations to get more profit from the branches.  You know what's going to happen with this deal?  Jones is going to be more profitable.  Because there are a ton of Seg 4 offices out there right now that are skating along at $19-20K a month.  They're not getting any pressure from anyone to actually do Seg 4 numbers.  Those folks were skating along at $16-17K gross a few years ago when the minimum was at $15K.  Those folks figured out a way to get up to that $18-19K figure to keep themselves in good graces with Jones.   Now, they're going to have to work just a little bit harder.  And they'll settle in at $23-25K gross in a year or so.  But Jones will be more profitable in the end for it.  Which makes my LP happy.   

It shouldn't affect anyone other than that group of people who may be coasting right above the red line right now.  Now, it may affect the number of FAs we have going on Div Trips for the two cycles or so after they raise the bar.  But that will be temporary also.   

To add to what Spiff said, don't think of Segments as standards. They are simply merit badges. Your expectations come from 1 thing: commission. It's all about the numbers. If you hit your numbers, you'll progress through the segments.

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

You are misunderstanding.  Where did you come up with the $8400 number? 

Goals has nothing to do with your segment.  It has to do with what percentage of standard you are.  And that has to do with your tenure in the biz.  For me standard is $27k a month.  If I get to down a $10,800 4 month rolling average (40% of standard), then I go on goals.  40% is the magic number.  Once you hit that mark you hit all the wrong radar screens. 

We basically have one line on our chart right now.  You are either meeting or not meeting.  You get nothing special for exceeding other than a pat on the back from your RL once in a while.  If you are above the meeting line you can still go on div trips and due diligence trips, but you might not be up to your standard.  If you're not meeting, then not only do  you not get to go on the trips, but you also start to get hassled from the home office folks to get your numbers up. 

The raising of the expectations bar is simply inflationary.  It costs more to run an EDJ office today than it did in 1995 or 1985.  So, they're raising expectations to get more profit from the branches.  You know what's going to happen with this deal?  Jones is going to be more profitable.  Because there are a ton of Seg 4 offices out there right now that are skating along at $19-20K a month.  They're not getting any pressure from anyone to actually do Seg 4 numbers.  Those folks were skating along at $16-17K gross a few years ago when the minimum was at $15K.  Those folks figured out a way to get up to that $18-19K figure to keep themselves in good graces with Jones.   Now, they're going to have to work just a little bit harder.  And they'll settle in at $23-25K gross in a year or so.  But Jones will be more profitable in the end for it.  Which makes my LP happy.   

It shouldn't affect anyone other than that group of people who may be coasting right above the red line right now.  Now, it may affect the number of FAs we have going on Div Trips for the two cycles or so after they raise the bar.  But that will be temporary also.   

[/quote]

Spiff I totally disagree... I think those people will seriously consider leaving now... And now jones just gave up a $18K/month guarantee for a new guy in an industry that has a probably close to a 15% success rate..

I also don't see the increase cost...technology cheaper(regardless of what they bill you), real estate(revolving) so that shouldn't be more, the only increase cost I see to edj is training and failing...

LPL has to be licking there chops...

One of my lpl osj friends has got numerous calls from the home office about leads they are getting from EDJ(this leaked out in my area last month)..

You do run your own LPL office, right?  Your rent doesn't ever increase?  Your utility bills don't increase?  You don't ever give your assistant a raise?  Your health care premiums never go up? 

Must be nice to live in the perfect indy world of zero inflation. 

Evidently everything Jones ever changes around here results in a mass exodus.  Seems like everytime something changes someone gets on this forum and says "People are going to be leaving and going independant." 

Don't kid yourself into thinking the LPL people are licking their chops.  Now, will some of those people who can't figure out how to get from $20K a month to $23K a month ($3 mil in Advisory should do the trick), decide to leave?  Probably.  But I don't expect it will be a big deal.  More than likely what will happen is that they'll just up their production a bit to make sure their name stays off the spreadsheets at home office.  And to make sure they win the trips.   

Oh yeah, as to the hiring costs, I've not seen any numbers that support your claim that our training costs have increased.  The volume of trainees hasn't increased, the failure rate hasn't increased, and the incremental training costs (HQ salaries, equipment, etc) have only gone up slightly.  In fact, there haven't been HQ salary increases in more than a year (stagflation).  So that's not  real valid argument either.  In fact, with the new push for every FA to start with some assets, and preferrably an office to work out of, the success rate has more than likely increased slightly.  Not enough to keep Jones from looking at the way we're growing and making some changes, but at least a small step in the right direction. 

Looks like more reps will be heading to LPL!

I do not know if that is a good thing or bad.

I don't think this will have much of an effect on how frequently people leave and go to LPL, or any other firm. I think the main effect will be that some FA's who are just coasting along, will now have to pickup their production a bit.

Independent BDs like ours will pick up a good deal of brokers in the coming few years.  The Jones business model, and many others, were designed for the markets and enviornmnet of the 80s and 90s where ever increasing numbers of clients fed a dramatically advancing (and reasonably stable) equity market accompanied by ever lower intrest rates. 

The present and forseeable enviornment will witness further (we believe dramatic) shrinkage in both client base and numbers of industry professionals.  Naturally, this will mean lower incomes for those remainaing in the business, and for those who wish to maintain their lifestyle, independence is a great solution for those with the ability to run their own business.

The current minimum production level of $18k gross per month is not attainable in the current deep recession.  Makes you wonder why Edward Jones is considering increasing that minimum at this time.  With average daily production at $650 per day or $13K per month, raising the minimum production line is a  sign that the General Partners are out of answers.   This is what happens when a managment team becomes out of touch with the realities of their business model.   An increased minimum will do nothing for overall gross revenue for Edward Jones and may just have the opposite effect.  It would be interesting to know how many vets are investigating going independent at this time...my guess is that number would be far higher than anyone in St. Louis would suspect!  For what its worth, I am exploring all options at this time while the General Partners play with lines!

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

You do run your own LPL office, right? Nope different b/d Your rent doesn't ever increase? Hasn't yet..  Your utility bills don't increase? Not terribly...  You don't ever give your assistant a raise?  Your health care premiums never go up?  Jones healthcare is a joke..  Also their premiums should be going down with the more younger people they add.

Must be nice to live in the perfect indy world of zero inflation.  I didn't say that.... But why replace a $18K producer with a newbie who has done nothing.."bird in the hand in better than two in the bush".. or something like that.

Evidently everything Jones ever changes around here results in a mass exodus.  Seems like everytime something changes someone gets on this forum and says "People are going to be leaving and going independant." 

Don't kid yourself into thinking the LPL people are licking their chops.  Now, will some of those people who can't figure out how to get from $20K a month to $23K a month ($3 mil in Advisory should do the trick), decide to leave?  Probably.  But I don't expect it will be a big deal.  More than likely what will happen is that they'll just up their production a bit to make sure their name stays off the spreadsheets at home office.  And to make sure they win the trips.   

[/quote]

[quote=AbovedaLine]

The current minimum production level of $18k gross per month is not attainable in the current deep recession.  Makes you wonder why Edward Jones is considering increasing that minimum at this time.  With average daily production at $650 per day or $13K per month, raising the minimum production line is a  sign that the General Partners are out of answers.   This is what happens when a managment team becomes out of touch with the realities of their business model.   An increased minimum will do nothing for overall gross revenue for Edward Jones and may just have the opposite effect.  It would be interesting to know how many vets are investigating going independent at this time...my guess is that number would be far higher than anyone in St. Louis would suspect!  For what its worth, I am exploring all options at this time while the General Partners play with lines!

[/quote]

I have also noticed that GP returns have decreased dramatically over the last 3 years.. Some of that you can blame on the market... but Weddle when from $10 Mil in GP to $3 Mil last year... That is a huge drop..

They need to look into the idea of a branch for rookies..

As usual, you guys are all WAY over-analyzing this.  They upped the minimums a few years ago....no "mass exodus".  It will not affect the guys consistently doing over 250K per year, which is at least half the advisors at the firm.  It will not affect the guys out 4 years or less (yet).  So it really only affects the longer-term FA's that can't actually produce more than 250K.  And truth be-told, if you can't do more than 250K, than a captive firm is not really economically feasible (too much overhead).  Honestly, being independant is probably the most logical thing for a lot of these 10- year, 225K producers.

There is also a bigger picture going on here.  Jones is migrating towards a fee-based environment (for many reasons).  If we kept standards at 18K per month (or 15K where they used to be), you could realistically have 20mm in AUM and still be above the line.  IMHO, it's not fair to the firm or to the other advisors in the area that could be prospecting in your area if you are going to just give up at $20mm. 

[quote=AbovedaLine]

The current minimum production level of $18k gross per month is not attainable in the current deep recession.  Makes you wonder why Edward Jones is considering increasing that minimum at this time.  With average daily production at $650 per day or $13K per month, raising the minimum production line is a  sign that the General Partners are out of answers.   This is what happens when a managment team becomes out of touch with the realities of their business model.   An increased minimum will do nothing for overall gross revenue for Edward Jones and may just have the opposite effect.  It would be interesting to know how many vets are investigating going independent at this time...my guess is that number would be far higher than anyone in St. Louis would suspect!  For what its worth, I am exploring all options at this time while the General Partners play with lines!

[/quote]

Ummm...it is in my branch.  As well as in all of the other branches in my region that have to hit that number, with the exception of 2 branches.  Just because YOU can't hit it, doesn't mean the rest of us can't.    

How long have you been with Jones?  Obviously not long enough to realize that Jones has done this from time to time in the past.  You evidently weren't around when it went from $15K to $18K.  I was.  I didn't see a mass exodus to indyworld. 

I think you are absolutely wrong with your comment about the GPs being out of answers.  If you'll listen, they're giving us the answers.  Advisory Solutions, FAST, MAP, new vendors on the annuity and insurance side of things, new relationships with places like Fidelity on the mutual fund front.  I could name a lot more.  All of that is designed to help you build your business so that you can hit that $18K a month figure.  Whether or not you choose to utilize them is completely up to you.  So, if you still think they're out of answers, perhaps you should start listening instead of talking. 

Good luck in your search through all of the options out there.   My LP thanks you for it. 

"The current minimum production level of $18k gross per month is not attainable in the current deep recession.  "

So if you can't

I am 4 years out and hitting the minimums.  I just did a quick visual of our produciton screens.  33 FA's are over 20K in trailing 4 gross average (out of like 70 FA's).  Of the FA's that are under 20K, only 12 have more than 4 years with Jones. 

The depths of 2008 created some problems, but IMHO, our region appears to be performing better than pre-2008 levels.  We are a full year past that.  We have 7 FA's averaging over 40K per month.

Squash, one thing I will agree with - you don't replace someoen that is producing 18K a month with some newbie.....but that's assuming that the 18K producer is still continuing to grow.  Jones is less concerned about the 3-7 year guy doing 15-18K, but growing his business, and more concerned about the 12-15 year guy (or more) doing 18K but dying a slow death and living off 12b-1's and a few maturing bonds.

The problem at Jones is that you have a LOT of FA's that are just asleep at the wheel.  That's fine if you are indy and can do 200K gross and walk away with 100-150K net, and nobody gets hurt.  But in the captive world (EDJ, wires, etc.) producing that little is just painful for the firm.  Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's just the nature of the beast.  The firm has to grow it's revenue like every other public firm or partnership in the world.

[quote=B24]

The problem at Jones is that you have a LOT of FA's that are just asleep at the wheel.  That's fine if you are indy and can do 200K gross and walk away with 100-150K net, and nobody gets hurt.  But in the captive world (EDJ, wires, etc.) producing that little is just painful for the firm.  Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's just the nature of the beast.  The firm has to grow it's revenue like every other public firm or partnership in the world.

[/quote]

This is very true.  For the guy who bought into Jones's "make your number and we'll leave you alone" and was happy at $15k gross, he will reach a point when he decides it is better to make 60-75% of his $200k instead of 40% of the $275-300k he is going to be forced to now produce.  In the long run this should make Jones more profitable but you could lose some marginal people who just don't want to work any harder.  Now the pain of moving will be perhaps be less than their fear of being bugged about not meeting expectations, etc.  But he won't take every client--if he was giving that kick ass of service he would be growing just from referrals.  So you get a harder charger in there to build on what's left and he knows he has to get to $22k/month from the get go.

An existing indy office with low overhead can make a nice profit on a $150-200k broker by paying out at 60% and keeping the rest...so LPL corporate doesn't stand to benefit as much as the OSJ who adds some people.  Maybe already knows EJ people around and this compels some of them to look hard at a change.

Yeah, that's the tough aprt about marginal prodcuers at Jones.  They are usually marginal because they don't work very hard, and don't service their clients very well.  As a result, if they try to leave it will be very hard to replace all of the income, as much of it was passive  (12b-1's, maturing bonds, etc.), and many of those clients will not know them very well.  On the flipside, most bigger producers ARE bigger producers because of their service, so clients are more inclined to move with them.

You have to stop pushing the FAST software as something that is state of the art......

Minimums have to raise because the Jones management needs to insure profitabliity. Call it inflation, anything you want, the bottom line is their model breeds complacency regardless of the brillance of Spiff, and the good business minded reps will leave eventually. Most do.

Spiff before you start and tell us how wonderful Jones is....we already know your story ad nauseum. Jones is the greatest firm in the land, blah blah blah blah.

You call yourself a financial advisor, gross 240K and net 95K. If you had the moxie to go indy you net 150K. 55K a year for 15 years at 5% you have lost 1.225M.

Go home and tell the wife the truth about your firm. Someday you will get it. Probably way too late to save you, but at least there is hope for others who choose to control their own destiny. I ain't got a green line at LPL, just a friggin bottom line. After all that's the only thing that matters.

Spaceman,

" I think you are absolutely wrong with your comment about the GPs being out of answers.  If you'll listen, they're giving us the answers.  Advisory Solutions, FAST, MAP, new vendors on the annuity and insurance side of things, new relationships with places like Fidelity on the mutual fund front." 

First you forgot about include the "Five Year Plan"  and the "British Experiment" in your list of answers that the GP's have provided Edward Jones FAs, how could your forget two very helpful "answers?"

 All these "answers" and still daily production is at $650 per day, how can that be?  As for your LP, if I decide to go independent I can guarantee that your LP won't be happy.  From my perspective, if Edward Jones had figured out a way to cut down on its vet defections in a material way over that past 10 years we would not be having this discussion.  But they failed to meet the needs of vets and their defection has hurt the firm.  The GPs need to address defection in a serious way instead of  "redrawing lines".  If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.  Good luck with your LP, I know it could use some real help as does mine! 

spaceman,

How many decades did your SPURN nei HATE Fidelity?  How much investment was lost to that "smart choice"?

UK never made a profit in HOW MANY YEARS???   Yet keep plowing money into Canada which hasn't made a profit in 15 YEARS (check the link for the 10-K) ????

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/815917/000106880010000036/0001068800-10-000036-index.htm

check out Section 11 and you'll appreciate the main reason for increased production levels.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/815917/000106880010000036/jones10k.htm#item11

[quote=B24]

....  IMHO, it's not fair to the firm or to the other advisors in the area that could be prospecting in your area if you are going to just give up at $20mm.  [/quote]

I'm not quite sure I understand the premise here ... you mean to say that if an Edward Jones FA is producing $260000 a year, it makes a difference how he's producing it? The guy has 200 accounts. Each one has $100K, in an AdSol producing 1.35% ... and he's a bad boy??? The FA doesn't have any obligation to the rest of the firm, so long as he is running an ethical profitable business.

What said slothsome FA will sooner or later find out, is that Jones is going to park another enterprising young man (and another, and another) right on his doorstep to eat his proverbial lunch ... because the company will see that sloth boy doesn't have an adequate market share.

one of many fallacies that the ignorant FA's choose to look the other way.  You don't see MikeeDee's or Starbucks expanding on every corner anymore? Now its about profitablitliy, Jones can't afford to think differently.

I am suprised Weddle hasn't shut down Canada. That seems fairly obvious to anyone who can understand a balance sheet. Isn't he an accountant? If you haven't made money EVER even in the good economic years, why would that possibly change with all the challenges we face today?

Seems to me the only reason to raise minimums in the States isn't because of complaceny as much as trying to continue the growth mode. Something has to give and it looks like its going to fall on the US advisor to increase production or leave Jones (one way or another).

foot - again?  Really?  Don't you ever get tired of trying to convince me that I'm doing the wrong thing by staying at EDJ?  And you have the nerve to tell us that we've heard my story ad nauseum?  Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?  Don't  you have anything constructive to add to this conversation? 

above - The Five Year Plan?  What does that have to do with your original statement, or my rebuttal, about being able to hit minimum standards right now?  I agree with B24 that if your not hitting those numbers right now and you're out more than 4 or 5 years it's because you're not working very hard.  It has very little to do with what planning the firm as a whole does.  And the UK has/had even less to do with it.   That number is about an FAs ability to produce.  Pure and simple.  FAs have been doing it for years without fancy software or platforms.  Through all kinds of business cycles.  Some can.  Some can't.  If you can't, perhaps you shouldn't even try. 

What "needs" did EDJ fail to meet for the veterans?  Did they fail to provide adequate stocks, bonds, and mutual funds for them to offer their clients?  Did they fail to offer them adequate planning tools to utilize with those clients?  Did they fail to offer them competitive wages?  If you could give me some examples of these "needs" I'd be more than happy to discuss them.  

exej & foot - just an update for you - Weddle has given Canada a profitability deadline.  I don't remember what it is and I don't care enough to go look it up.  But, management agrees with you that if it's not profitable, it needs to go. 

exej - I'd bet we lost a lot less to Fidelity than they did to us.  I don't remember ever losing a client to Fidelity, but I sure remember taking a bunch of them. If I recall correctly, the only reason we didn't have a relationship with Fidelity all along is because they went no load many years ago.  Prior to that they were one of our preferred partners.  Of course that's not what they were called back then, but the concept is the same.  So in my way of thinking we didn't spurn them, they spurned us.  Now, I still don't like the way Fidelity runs it's business.  I think it's dangerous for the average person to have control of their own financial affairs.  Giving hundreds of thousands of people immediate access to the markets without an intermediary like you and I is one of the reasons our markets are so crazy these days.  But that opinion isn't just Fidelity specific.  The same can be said for Vanguard, Scottrade,  TDAmeritrade, and Schwab. 

It's a little late for a deadline don't you think for Canada. Are they still hiring there? Seems like a very stupid business decision to continue to pour your profitable dollars down the drain. But at least they have you guys in the States to pay for it.

I just read Jones brutal facts, and while it's remarkable that they have the guts to openly discuss their problems, I have little confidence that they can solve them. Jones was built as a small rural brokerage. That is their culture and mindset. Their marketing plan is still door-to-door, perfect for small town mid-America but terrible for metropolitan areas(and unsafe for women). The fact that Jones is completely unable to work in a different culture(England, Canada) is indicative of their underlying problems. We don't adequately compete in fee based business(AD SOL is it???), and a new FA can't make a living selling them. The general partners are still telling Ted Jones stories when it is obvious that a new business plan is critical. And if and when(doubtful) Jones ever does gain significant market share, it will be bought out by the competition and taken either public or private. I just don't find the Jones model either sustainable or impressive.

Navet,

I'm not sure of your background with Jones, but I can give you some perspective:

1. Jones is LIGHTYEARS from where it was just a few years ago.  Weddle has been making rapid-fire changes for the better, and part of that involves new blood.  However, you can't just fire Regional Leaders and veterans, so a lot of that old-school culture is going to persist for some time.

2. Yes, Jones' culture is hard to shift.  The high-cost business model is what makes it very expensive to work in another country.  I don't think you can build it from scratch.  But I wouldn't sue UK and Canada as benchmarks for anything.

3. The number of positive changes they have made over the past 5 years is remarkable.  And they continue to roll out new initiatives all the time. 

4. Advisory Solutions is just the first iteration of their fee-based platform.  There is MUCH more to come, including a UMA account (unified account that includes multiple asset types - stocks, bonds, funds, etc.), added models, and additional flexibility.  But as is the case with Jones, they tend to lag the market in terms of new services and features.  They need to take it one step at a time.

Honestly, I think their two biggest stumbling blocks are their recruiting/development/training/new FA process, and the one-man office structure.  Both of these are huge drains on resources (financial and manpower), and impediments to financial growth for the firm.  If they could lick these two, that would help them immensely.  The other stuff (products, advisory programs, technology, etc.) are all simple fixes.  The solutions are out there for them to implement.  But those first two require a complete change of mindset.

I also found it interesting how much they addressed the issue of veteran FA income being too reliant on the results of the firm and the market.  IMHO, they need to reward their bigger producers better, to the detriment of the lower producers.  If you produce $1mm, your net margin could go from 55-60% in good years to 38-40% in bad years (like 2008/2009), even if your production and branch profit stayed the same.  Not much incentive there to keep working for the "man". 

I don't think they should change their model(one man office) because that is who they are... Just like Walmart is the low price place(not comparing the two just using an example)... Walmart sells what their customers want, they aren't trying to compete with Whole Foods in the "new organic" wave , but will offer enough new products to retain clients. They completely destroy mom and pop grocery markets and most regionals, but they stick to their model and it works.

Jones should do the same..Doorknocking works, with the DNC list and everyone and their mother joining networking and leads groups and call SBA owners, a huge market is left open.. Are they all millionaires? No, but a growing number of people have rather large 401k rollovers and doorknocking is a guaranteed way to meet that person.

I enjoy ragging  on Jones as much as the next guy(as a former EDJer) but their plan isn't any better or worse than any of the wirehouses(ML owned by bank, MS bailed out by chinese, SB bailed out by gov't then by MS, Wachovia bailed out by Wells, who then was bailed by gov't, LPL owned by private equity)... Jones didn't get bailed out, didn't finance their growth with the money of others(hoping for a sweet IPO) and yet we crap on them for their business model..

McDonalds sell hamburgers and fries..... Some idiot made a movie about what would happen if you ate there 3 times a day for 30 days.(He should be shot for having such a stupid idea, but he got his 15 minutes)... Media said McD's was bad, destroying kids life's etc.... Guess what they still sell hamburgers and fries and still supersize items(just not as big, however they still charge the same price)... Sure they offer salads, yogurts and some other stuff now, but they sell hamburgers...

EDJ sells MFs, big name stocks and bonds.... sure they offer advisory, VAs, life insurance... But they sell MFs, big name stocks and bonds....Will it hurt a client, probably not, are there better investments(aren't there always regardless of the products), but they still keep going... Are their account smaller than wirehouse? Of Course... So to combat that they have more households. It isn't rocket science... Either you have bigger accounts with less of them or smaller account and more of them..

Full Disclosure: Not at EDJ anymore (did a 3 year stint).. Now indy..

Great comments Squash. I understand what you are saying, particularly with regards to McDonalds and Walmart. But I have seen both McD's and Wallyworld change significantly over the years. McD adding latte, breakfast, kids play areas, walmart adding grocery and putting in med clinics. I don't see much in the way of inovation with Jones. It added Adv Sol, but years after other wirehouses had the product. It's still a 70's based rural door to door stock and bond and mf house. I think it will continue to survive, making partners a nice income, yet stay under the radar of the big buyout firms. I don't see any chance of market domination. Now, survival is fine, but it's not something to be very proud of. And if growing the number of FA's to 12000 is required to meet it's long term GP + LP commitments, I see big trouble ahead. Jones doesn't have the management expertise to handle a large number of FA's. It doesn't have the capability to train them(and please don't try to say that the current training department full of non-licensed inexperienced wannabe's can do the job). I believe that someone is going to come up with a better mousetrap for new FA success, but I don't see any way for that to happen at Jones. And my question to newer FA's is, "is it in your best interest to stick around for an LP that may be unsustainable"?

Survival is better than what happened to the banks and wires.... none of them survived... Survival works... The whole idea of the industry is survival..

All firms suck at training...

There isn't a better mousetrap for FA success....ever.

Sure the LP is sustainable...the more who leave, the more goes back into the pot... will the lp offering be as big as it was? No... Will it return what is has? Probably not, but still will put up better returns then the S&P 500...

Great points again Squash. I don't know if I follow your logic about LP sustainability. If LP gets stronger when new FA's quit, and LP's get stronger when FA's stay, then the brutal facts don't make much sense. The company is concerned with making the FA more profitable. As the business model gets more crowded, then a diminishing return may eventually prevail. And as the business model changes from a high churning transaction base, to a fee base, is EJ going to be capable of making an efficient change? There is already a problem of FA's leaving for greener pastures, such as yourself. I think the key to success in this(and every other business) in the future is the ability to manage change. I don't feel confident that Jones has that ability. I'm trying to face this issue rationally and objectively. Don't mean to bitch. But I need to decide in the next year wether to stay or not.

[quote=navet]

Great points again Squash. I don't know if I follow your logic about LP sustainability. If LP gets stronger when new FA's quit, and LP's get stronger when FA's stay, then the brutal facts don't make much sense. The company is concerned with making the FA more profitable. As the business model gets more crowded, then a diminishing return may eventually prevail. And as the business model changes from a high churning transaction base, to a fee base, is EJ going to be capable of making an efficient change? There is already a problem of FA's leaving for greener pastures, such as yourself. I think the key to success in this(and every other business) in the future is the ability to manage change. I don't feel confident that Jones has that ability. I'm trying to face this issue rationally and objectively. Don't mean to bitch. But I need to decide in the next year wether to stay or not.

[/quote]

The more people who leave(assuming they have LP, since they have to give it back when they leave) means the returns will go that much further because the LP pool will shrink.. Also returns will do better because the offerings will be smaller(instead of 25k LP, it will be 10-15K).  I think they are set-up perfectly for switch to fee.. They push mutual funds already.. CFA managed....creating a recurring revenue stream on their biggest asset...

I was a pud producer.. did like $105k i think.... DIdn't like the idea of commission only... wanted to manage accounts, so i left... still not a huge producer(<500k)  but I take home 90% so my income is decent..

Squash,

I literally just fell out my chair, and as my head hit the frozen icicles of hell, I swear I saw pigs fly by. 

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me we have socialized medicine.

[quote=icebear48]

Independent BDs like ours will pick up a good deal of brokers in the coming few years.  The Jones business model, and many others, were designed for the markets and enviornmnet of the 80s and 90s where ever increasing numbers of clients fed a dramatically advancing (and reasonably stable) equity market accompanied by ever lower intrest rates. 

The present and forseeable enviornment will witness further (we believe dramatic) shrinkage in both client base and numbers of industry professionals.  Naturally, this will mean lower incomes for those remainaing in the business, and for those who wish to maintain their lifestyle, independence is a great solution for those with the ability to run their own business.

[/quote]

If the number of industry professionals decrease how are incomes going to dramatically decrease?  More likely would be a scenario where you will see more clients, but lower margins and commissions resulting in having to manage more clients and assets to make the same amount of money.

[quote=B24]

Navet,

I'm not sure of your background with Jones, but I can give you some perspective:

1. Jones is LIGHTYEARS from where it was just a few years ago.  Weddle has been making rapid-fire changes for the better, and part of that involves new blood.  However, you can't just fire Regional Leaders and veterans, so a lot of that old-school culture is going to persist for some time.

2. Yes, Jones' culture is hard to shift.  The high-cost business model is what makes it very expensive to work in another country.  I don't think you can build it from scratch.  But I wouldn't sue UK and Canada as benchmarks for anything.

3. The number of positive changes they have made over the past 5 years is remarkable.  And they continue to roll out new initiatives all the time. 

4. Advisory Solutions is just the first iteration of their fee-based platform.  There is MUCH more to come, including a UMA account (unified account that includes multiple asset types - stocks, bonds, funds, etc.), added models, and additional flexibility.  But as is the case with Jones, they tend to lag the market in terms of new services and features.  They need to take it one step at a time.

Honestly, I think their two biggest stumbling blocks are their recruiting/development/training/new FA process, and the one-man office structure.  Both of these are huge drains on resources (financial and manpower), and impediments to financial growth for the firm.  If they could lick these two, that would help them immensely.  The other stuff (products, advisory programs, technology, etc.) are all simple fixes.  The solutions are out there for them to implement.  But those first two require a complete change of mindset.

I also found it interesting how much they addressed the issue of veteran FA income being too reliant on the results of the firm and the market.  IMHO, they need to reward their bigger producers better, to the detriment of the lower producers.  If you produce $1mm, your net margin could go from 55-60% in good years to 38-40% in bad years (like 2008/2009), even if your production and branch profit stayed the same.  Not much incentive there to keep working for the "man". 

[/quote]

Exactly!  Can you imagine the savings and the lower cost of recruiting if they put 3 FA's per office to share one assistant? 

Legend ,

We believe the domestic client base, and the "profitable investment opportunity base" are also shrinking dramatically.  In our opinion this will dramatically reduce incomes of so called traditional brokers.  Personally I entered the business in 1973 and witnessed a flat equity market until August of 1982.  At that time a big day was thirty million shares ( like Bunker Hunt day ).  In those days few domestic households had a large Wall Street intrest, since then CNBC and the like have made a daily football game of the equity market.  Those days are gone, consider the global indebtness and take a look at recent bond market activity. 

Please call me if you wish to discuss this.

doesn't a location with 3 or more brokers have to be registered as a "branch" with one isn't it a "sub-branch"?

[quote=B24]

Squash,

I literally just fell out my chair, and as my head hit the frozen icicles of hell, I swear I saw pigs fly by. 

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me we have socialized medicine.

[/quote]

Is this because i am defending jones? or you disagree with what I am saying...

[quote=icebear48]

Legend ,

We believe the domestic client base, and the "profitable investment opportunity base" are also shrinking dramatically.  In our opinion this will dramatically reduce incomes of so called traditional brokers.  Personally I entered the business in 1973 and witnessed a flat equity market until August of 1982.  At that time a big day was thirty million shares ( like Bunker Hunt day ).  In those days few domestic households had a large Wall Street intrest, since then CNBC and the like have made a daily football game of the equity market.  Those days are gone, consider the global indebtness and take a look at recent bond market activity. 

Please call me if you wish to discuss this.

[/quote]

The number of investors are increasing due specifically to 401ks... Back in your "hey day" it was all pensions and untouchable money, 40 yrs with same company... Now everything is portable, 5-8yrs til a job change... The amount of people needing advice and having a $250K portfolio is increasing...

Welcome to 2010......it is nice to see you are still with us..

Time will tell (of course), but we bvelieve that the number of 401K participants (and sponsors) will continue to shrink dramatically.  After all, when you feel you may not have a job?  When you are struggleing to hang onto your life style and mortguage, do you contribute to your 401K?  Do employers who are going to pay billions in additional health care costs, and looking at declining sales and rising borrowing costs continue 401K matches.  We can easily make a case for the theory that much economic growth in say the first six yeas of the new century were fuled by home mortguage loans and leverage!   And, that's just the begenning, you need to learn to think outside the box. 

You are right, times have changed.  What is going on right now is historically unprecidented, those who do not adapt will propably not survive in this industry (certainly not with the lifestyles they have enjoed in the past few years)

[quote=squash2]

[quote=B24]

Squash,

I literally just fell out my chair, and as my head hit the frozen icicles of hell, I swear I saw pigs fly by. 

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me we have socialized medicine.

[/quote]

Is this because i am defending jones? or you disagree with what I am saying...

[/quote]

There's an open office in the next town over from me.  I think you have the "Jones stuff". 

[quote=icebear48]

Time will tell (of course), but we bvelieve that the number of 401K participants (and sponsors) will continue to shrink dramatically.  After all, when you feel you may not have a job?  When you are struggleing to hang onto your life style and mortguage, do you contribute to your 401K?  Do employers who are going to pay billions in additional health care costs, and looking at declining sales and rising borrowing costs continue 401K matches.  We can easily make a case for the theory that much economic growth in say the first six yeas of the new century were fuled by home mortguage loans and leverage!   And, that's just the begenning, you need to learn to think outside the box. 

You are right, times have changed.  What is going on right now is historically unprecidented, those who do not adapt will propably not survive in this industry (certainly not with the lifestyles they have enjoed in the past few years)

[/quote]

Even with all the bad news... 401ks are still portable...so it creates a market place for people who never would have invested otherwise...

I agree that the industry is changing....I think there is an over abundance of advisors 60+ that are going to be retiring in the next few years and create a giant gap(since firms can't figure out how to get new FA's to last)... I also think when compensation gets cut down, people in the industry are going to decide that this job isn't worth it..

[quote=B24]

[quote=squash2]

[quote=B24]

Squash,

I literally just fell out my chair, and as my head hit the frozen icicles of hell, I swear I saw pigs fly by. 

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me we have socialized medicine.

[/quote]

Is this because i am defending jones? or you disagree with what I am saying...

[/quote]

There's an open office in the next town over from me.  I think you have the "Jones stuff". 

[/quote]

I just don't like when they get picked on for no reason... when other firms don't even exist anymore...just a different model that is hard to understand...

[quote=navet]

Great comments Squash. I understand what you are saying, particularly with regards to McDonalds and Walmart. But I have seen both McD's and Wallyworld change significantly over the years. McD adding latte, breakfast, kids play areas, walmart adding grocery and putting in med clinics. I don't see much in the way of inovation with Jones. It added Adv Sol, but years after other wirehouses had the product. It's still a 70's based rural door to door stock and bond and mf house. I think it will continue to survive, making partners a nice income, yet stay under the radar of the big buyout firms. I don't see any chance of market domination. Now, survival is fine, but it's not something to be very proud of. And if growing the number of FA's to 12000 is required to meet it's long term GP + LP commitments, I see big trouble ahead. Jones doesn't have the management expertise to handle a large number of FA's. It doesn't have the capability to train them(and please don't try to say that the current training department full of non-licensed inexperienced wannabe's can do the job). I believe that someone is going to come up with a better mousetrap for new FA success, but I don't see any way for that to happen at Jones. And my question to newer FA's is, "is it in your best interest to stick around for an LP that may be unsustainable"?

[/quote]

You don't really know much about EDJ do you?  If you did, you'd know that those trainers probably have more licenses than you do.  ALL of them are licensed.  Many of them have some state specific licenses that you may or may not have to have.  They spend countless hours in training themselves to get you prepared to run your EDJ office.  No, most of them don't have experience in a Jones office.  Some of them do have experience in the trenches.  Just off the top of my head I know of 5 of them that were EDJ FAs at one time or who worked for other brokerage firms before they decided they wanted to go into training.  Just because you've never run an office, doesn't mean you don't have the ability to teach someone else how to do it. 

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think that Jones doesn't have the management experience to handle a large number of FAs?  Spend a little time looking at the partner's bios on Joneslink and you'll find that many of the people in key areas in the firm have MBAs or other management degrees.  I'm not sure they're any less qualified to run big firms than the folks who attempt it as places like Morgan or BAC/MER. 

Well thought out Spiff.  However, who said that management at BAC, WFC etc. was qualified.  Most all large frim management is, in our view, incompetent (and/or greedy) in one respect or another.  This incompetence is, we believe, a hugh factor in our present delema.  As to MBA's, well, in my personal experience this more often than not creates an ego problem, which is not necessarily a good management tool.

If I were a manager of training, an absolute must would be I would want winners , reps who succeeded at the most basic level, the FA, to train all newbies. I recognized when I went through the training that I was more educated about the biz than the trainers.

Jones did have 1 or 2 vets  per training class and that was where I spent my time. The trainers were a complete waste of manpower and money. Given it was a sales position and that the firm hired people from a variety of backgrounds, they probably had no choice but to dumb it down. Before Spiff takes this personal, it isn't intended to incite a diatribe....just my 2 cents.

If you run a business like its your own, you look at every aspect and training costs are significant. So much so, that  they sometimes go after reps if they leave within a few years. Intersting it seems they are more interested in getting you through and out rather than really train about the biz, until you leave. Then they want reimbusement...

I'm not sure that you can EVER have the perfect training/management setup at a large firm.  In fact, I think probably the most qualified people in all respects are at very small firms, where you would get hands-on training from the principles.

At large firms, you are likely either a career "management guy" (i.e. no experience in the trenches), or you are an advisor.  It is very difficult to have large numbers of experienced, talented, well-rounded individuals, that are happy to take a huge paycut to be a trainer.  It doesn't exist in almost any organization.

However, I would venture to say that there are more former high-producing FA's at Jones now in top management positions than at almost any other large firm.  And the ONLY way this has worked is because of the partnership structure, where much of their compensation comes in the form of GP/LP returns.  Otherwise, there would have been no way to pay these guys enough to walk away from $500K+ FA jobs in the field.

In addition to that, Jones has a mandatory management rotation program, so most top managers have worked (or will eventually work) in numerous different roles/departments throughout the firm.  I know most love to bash Jones, but they really are trying to do it right.  I just believe that their culture/philosophy has been both a benefit and a hindrence to the firm in many respects (one-man office, A-share fund focus, kool-aide culture, etc.).

Aside from the GP in charge of training, the classroom level trainers are not licensed and never sat accross from a client. They spout out new FA kool-ade, and can't anwer a good question. The best statement I ever heard one make is "what's the difference between a new E/J FA and a pizza?...A pizza can feed a family of four". Of course, the problem is that as FA numbers grow, there is probably no other way to train large numbers of FA's. The people best capable of training them are more experienced FA's, and they are too busy. So the new FA is taught a little about products(very little) and how to knock on doors. Unfortunately, that is probably better than what other companies do. So when you come down to it, it's simply survival of the fittest. And if the fittest survive, I would think it is in there best interest to move to the highest payout. So, if Jones is going to grow market share, it will have to find a way to keep more FA's.

I agree with that.  If you only had to train 1000 new FA's per year (and maybe 250 of those are transfer brokers) versus 3000, only to see 2000 leave, you could employee a fraction of the training staff, use less home-office space, maintain higher-quality trainers, spend less on travel/hotel/meals, etc.

On top of that, with less turnover, you get more tenure, which means more production, which means higher net income to the firm, etc.  However, I know one of the firm's concerns is the number of FA's that have "peaked" and are either in decline or are approaching retirement.  We have a lot of long-term FA's with the firm 15-30 years that may produce a lot, but are not growing.  So the firm needs to continue hiring new FA's to eventually absorb those practices and build growing offices.  This is one of the reasons (as some often complain) that they do not give $100mm offices to one person.  You do that, and you can be fairly certain there won't be much growth.  But you give $25mm to 4 guys, and they are now set, but have lots of incentive to grow.

[quote=icebear48]

Time will tell (of course), but we bvelieve that the number of 401K participants (and sponsors) will continue to shrink dramatically.  After all, when you feel you may not have a job?  When you are struggleing to hang onto your life style and mortguage, do you contribute to your 401K?  Do employers who are going to pay billions in additional health care costs, and looking at declining sales and rising borrowing costs continue 401K matches.  We can easily make a case for the theory that much economic growth in say the first six yeas of the new century were fuled by home mortguage loans and leverage!   And, that's just the begenning, you need to learn to think outside the box. 

You are right, times have changed.  What is going on right now is historically unprecidented, those who do not adapt will propably not survive in this industry (certainly not with the lifestyles they have enjoed in the past few years)

[/quote]

I find a couple of things about you interesting.  First, there are no less than 9 spelling errors in your previous post (not to mention the punctuation/grammar issues).  Not to be the spell check nazi, but when one has that many errors, it becomes difficult to believe there is an intelligent person behind the screen name.   Second, you keep saying "we" rather than "I".  Are you not capable of original thought?  Are you afraid to take a stand on your own?  Why is it "we"?

You may be the brightest mind this site has ever known (I'm pretty dumb, so you are probably smarter than I) but it certainly doesn't come across that way.

[quote=navet]

Aside from the GP in charge of training, the classroom level trainers are not licensed and never sat accross from a client. They spout out new FA kool-ade, and can't anwer a good question. The best statement I ever heard one make is "what's the difference between a new E/J FA and a pizza?...A pizza can feed a family of four". Of course, the problem is that as FA numbers grow, there is probably no other way to train large numbers of FA's. The people best capable of training them are more experienced FA's, and they are too busy. So the new FA is taught a little about products(very little) and how to knock on doors. Unfortunately, that is probably better than what other companies do. So when you come down to it, it's simply survival of the fittest. And if the fittest survive, I would think it is in there best interest to move to the highest payout. So, if Jones is going to grow market share, it will have to find a way to keep more FA's.

[/quote]

I usually reserve this comment for folks like foot (BigCheese to the noobs around here), but I'll use it for you in this instance.  You're an idiot.  In order to get up in front of the trainees and deliver that training, poor as you might think it is, those folks have to be licensed.  Period.  You want to know how I know?  I was one.  Series 7, 63, 24, and Insurance Licensed.  I was going to take the 9 and 10 (at least I think that's what they were, I could be wrong) but I decided I'd like being an FA more than a HQ Team Leader or Department Leader.  All before I left the safety and security of the corporate offices.  While I was there we had at least three people who had been in the field with Jones and come into the home office.  Two who had been with firms like Merrill and left there.  One guy had about $20 million that he managed while he was an ATL.  Like I said before, not all of them have experience as an FA, but some of them do. 

While I agree with you that Jones needs to find a way to keep more of it's new FAs, I don't believe the answer lies within the training department.  I believe it has more to do with what happens in the field.  The interaction with local FAs, mentors, field trainers, etc.  A person in the home office who is trying to track dozens of new FAs can't keep up with everyone at the same time. 

This business will always be about the survival of the fittest.  The only way for Jones to up the ante on retaining more new FAs is to either A)give them a helping hand ( which they are doing right now) or B) only hire transfer brokers (which they are focusing on).  There's too much emotion, attitude, motivation, and other non-teachable skills required for this position that even if you had the most well thought out training program in the industry, you'd still have high attrition.  Most people can only hear NO so many times before they give up.  It's always going to be that way. 

Foot - you're correct on the dumbing it down.  Just like public education, you have to teach to the lowest common denominator.  You can't effectively teach long division to third graders who don't have their basic math facts down pat. 

[quote=Incredible Hulk]

[quote=icebear48]

Time will tell (of course), but we bvelieve that the number of 401K participants (and sponsors) will continue to shrink dramatically.  After all, when you feel you may not have a job?  When you are struggleing to hang onto your life style and mortguage, do you contribute to your 401K?  Do employers who are going to pay billions in additional health care costs, and looking at declining sales and rising borrowing costs continue 401K matches.  We can easily make a case for the theory that much economic growth in say the first six yeas of the new century were fuled by home mortguage loans and leverage!   And, that's just the begenning, you need to learn to think outside the box. 

You are right, times have changed.  What is going on right now is historically unprecidented, those who do not adapt will propably not survive in this industry (certainly not with the lifestyles they have enjoed in the past few years)

[/quote]

I find a couple of things about you interesting.  First, there are no less than 9 spelling errors in your previous post (not to mention the punctuation/grammar issues).  Not to be the spell check nazi, but when one has that many errors, it becomes difficult to believe there is an intelligent person behind the screen name.   Second, you keep saying "we" rather than "I".  Are you not capable of original thought?  Are you afraid to take a stand on your own?  Why is it "we"?

You may be the brightest mind this site has ever known (I'm pretty dumb, so you are probably smarter than I) but it certainly doesn't come across that way.

[/quote]

...you are probably smarter than me.   

Sorry, couldn't stop myself. 

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

[quote=navet]

Aside from the GP in charge of training, the classroom level trainers are not licensed and never sat accross from a client. They spout out new FA kool-ade, and can't anwer a good question. The best statement I ever heard one make is "what's the difference between a new E/J FA and a pizza?...A pizza can feed a family of four". Of course, the problem is that as FA numbers grow, there is probably no other way to train large numbers of FA's. The people best capable of training them are more experienced FA's, and they are too busy. So the new FA is taught a little about products(very little) and how to knock on doors. Unfortunately, that is probably better than what other companies do. So when you come down to it, it's simply survival of the fittest. And if the fittest survive, I would think it is in there best interest to move to the highest payout. So, if Jones is going to grow market share, it will have to find a way to keep more FA's.

[/quote]

I usually reserve this comment for folks like foot (BigCheese to the noobs around here), but I'll use it for you in this instance.  You're an idiot.  In order to get up in front of the trainees and deliver that training, poor as you might think it is, those folks have to be licensed.  Period.  You want to know how I know?  I was one.  Series 7, 63, 24, and Insurance Licensed.  I was going to take the 9 and 10 (at least I think that's what they were, I could be wrong) but I decided I'd like being an FA more than a HQ Team Leader or Department Leader.  All before I left the safety and security of the corporate offices.  While I was there we had at least three people who had been in the field with Jones and come into the home office.  Two who had been with firms like Merrill and left there.  One guy had about $20 million that he managed while he was an ATL.  Like I said before, not all of them have experience as an FA, but some of them do. 

While I agree with you that Jones needs to find a way to keep more of it's new FAs, I don't believe the answer lies within the training department.  I believe it has more to do with what happens in the field.  The interaction with local FAs, mentors, field trainers, etc.  A person in the home office who is trying to track dozens of new FAs can't keep up with everyone at the same time. 

This business will always be about the survival of the fittest.  The only way for Jones to up the ante on retaining more new FAs is to either A)give them a helping hand ( which they are doing right now) or B) only hire transfer brokers (which they are focusing on).  There's too much emotion, attitude, motivation, and other non-teachable skills required for this position that even if you had the most well thought out training program in the industry, you'd still have high attrition.  Most people can only hear NO so many times before they give up.  It's always going to be that way. 

Foot - you're correct on the dumbing it down.  Just like public education, you have to teach to the lowest common denominator.  You can't effectively teach long division to third graders who don't have their basic math facts down pat. 

[/quote]

Spiff, good points.  Your first point is dead-on.  You cannot possibly adequately prepare someone for this field of work (if they are starting new).  I can't think of one firm that can hire new trainees froms cratch and send them out to build a book.  I am talking about rookie, newbie, no-network type of guys.  The only thing I will disagree with is that I think the folks in the field (at least in my area) are way too thin right now to offer much in the way of training.  We have like 20 newbies in various stages of the pipeline, and not enough vets to go around.  And beyond that, not all fo those vets are people you really want training newbies. JMHO.

Your second point (emotion, attitude, etc.) hits the nail on the head.  Some stuff just can't be taught.  I have know guys here that gave up after just a few months because it was "sooooo hard".  In reality, for many, the business is not what they thought it would be (prospects walking in off the street to sign up for financial plans and some great investments).  I have then met other guys that have been pounded into the sand, put on goals, barely getting by, and they just keep on pushing.  They won't give up.   Many eventually leave (not on their own), but many eventually make it, and end up thriving, due to their tenacity.  It really takes a certain mindset, and something in your background that makes you "do it".  Usually, it's either someone where there simply is no thought of failure, where the only way they leave is kicking and screaming.  Or they are the guy that is simply too young and inexperienced to realize how hard this is.  They have not been spoiled yet by big salaries in the corporate world, and see that they have the opportunity to make more than they imagined (they are also not stressed over the mortgage, wife, and kids they need to support yet).  So they just put their nose to the grindstone and bang it out.

[quote=Incredible Hulk]

[quote=icebear48]

Time will tell (of course), but we bvelieve that the number of 401K participants (and sponsors) will continue to shrink dramatically.  After all, when you feel you may not have a job?  When you are struggleing to hang onto your life style and mortguage, do you contribute to your 401K?  Do employers who are going to pay billions in additional health care costs, and looking at declining sales and rising borrowing costs continue 401K matches.  We can easily make a case for the theory that much economic growth in say the first six yeas of the new century were fuled by home mortguage loans and leverage!   And, that's just the begenning, you need to learn to think outside the box. 

You are right, times have changed.  What is going on right now is historically unprecidented, those who do not adapt will propably not survive in this industry (certainly not with the lifestyles they have enjoed in the past few years)

[/quote]

I find a couple of things about you interesting.  First, there are no less than 9 spelling errors in your previous post (not to mention the punctuation/grammar issues).  Not to be the spell check nazi, but when one has that many errors, it becomes difficult to believe there is an intelligent person behind the screen name.   Second, you keep saying "we" rather than "I".  Are you not capable of original thought?  Are you afraid to take a stand on your own?  Why is it "we"?

You may be the brightest mind this site has ever known (I'm pretty dumb, so you are probably smarter than I) but it certainly doesn't come across that way.

Follow the links in my profile to my websites, Professional Bio, and newsletters.  Perhaps I am not more intelligent than you, but I almost certainly have a greater diversity of experinece than most here.

[/quote]

Spiff-

As ususal, it comes down to you denegrating someone else when they disagree with you. A higher percentage of the trainers back in the 90's had no clue how to sell, but knew what to teach. In fact, just like you, they wanted to take over an office and was told one way to get that was to stay in home office ane then move out in the field. Obtaining a license doesn't make you qualified to teach others about the industry. If however, you are teaching them how to pass examinations I am in your corner.

Having someone teach you about selling when they rarely had that experience caused the FA's in the field to tell you do what they tell you at class and then when you get back we'll teach you how to survive. It's a shame that the mentality existed , but it was fairly unanimous amongst those in the field that the trainers had no clue how to make it. But they knew the hamburger....

Certainly we can agree on this point can't we or are you going to call me an idiot too? After all these years...I think I know your answer...Spiff...it takes one to know one...

 Spiff..

As usual you have the biting tone of defense at all times. Your crack about your LP always makes me smile and tells me you are the kind of rep Jones covets.. Here's an update I found out about last night talking to an FA on the west coast (an old friend of mine).

Apparently there is an OSJ who is offering 90% payout to the under 300K producers to work under his firm. He's one of the biggest players out there (98% payout from LPL) his production is north of 2M and he works on 8% of others production. He provides office space, office staff, just about everyhting but benefits. The reps are netting close to 80% grossing what you gross and guess what no production limits, not trips hanging on profitablity, and he's recruiting strategy is Jones reps period.

Your LP is never going to grow, and I know that the 10-20K(or whatever the amount was) you invested even if it earned 15% is absolutely meaningless. I may be an idiot, you are the eipitome of a Jones drone. Your average and always will be. But you are the best supreme time waster I have ever read on these forums.And when you hit the doldrums, and you will, watch management use your constant diatribes on these forums against you. After all big brother is watching every keystroke you make.

[quote=BigCheese]

 Spiff..

As usual you have the biting tone of defense at all times. Your crack about your LP always makes me smile and tells me you are the kind of rep Jones covets.. Here's an update I found out about last night talking to an FA on the west coast (an old friend of mine).

Apparently there is an OSJ who is offering 90% payout to the under 300K producers to work under his firm. He's one of the biggest players out there (98% payout from LPL) his production is north of 2M and he works on 8% of others production. He provides office space, office staff, just about everyhting but benefits. The reps are netting close to 80% grossing what you gross and guess what no production limits, not trips hanging on profitablity, and he's recruiting strategy is Jones reps period.

Your LP is never going to grow, and I know that the 10-20K(or whatever the amount was) you invested even if it earned 15% is absolutely meaningless. I may be an idiot, you are the eipitome of a Jones drone. Your average and always will be. But you are the best supreme time waster I have ever read on these forums.And when you hit the doldrums, and you will, watch management use your constant diatribes on these forums against you. After all big brother is watching every keystroke you make.

[/quote]

Who is he?

PM ME

[quote=xej1984]

doesn't a location with 3 or more brokers have to be registered as a "branch" with one isn't it a "sub-branch"?

[/quote]

So perhaps 2 would be a better plan

[quote=I am legend]

[quote=xej1984]

doesn't a location with 3 or more brokers have to be registered as a "branch" with one isn't it a "sub-branch"?

[/quote]

So perhaps 2 would be a better plan

[/quote]

You could probably cut at least 35-40% of branch overhead by just having two FA's in an office versus one.  Most FA's at Jones could share one BOA, and many of the offcies would not need additional space, jsut some extra furniture.  Granted, the overall size of newer offices would be larger than historical norms, and some expenses could not be saved (2x furniture, 2x computers, etc.), and some office may need two BOA's, but company-wide, you could probably save 30% of branch overhead by doing this.  In addition, you could save on a lot of new-office buildouts.  From a firm persepctive, you could retain a lot more assets when FA's leave (bad for departing FA).  I already know many of my legacy FA's best clients, as I see them and talk to them quite a bit, and know a lot about them.  This would be bad if he ever left the firm (prior to leaving my office).

It all just makes sense for Jones to do this.

They would also save on Kool Aid delivery fees.

Does Jones still have those satilite dishes from the 80's?

If so antique collectors may be interested in purchasing them, might be a revenue source ? Unless they still use them!  

[quote=Greenbacks2]

They would also save on Kool Aid delivery fees.

Does Jones still have those satilite dishes from the 80's?

If so antique collectors may be interested in purchasing them, might be a revenue source ? Unless they still use them!  

[/quote]

No, no satellites.  There may be some old legacy offices that still need them if they can't get DSL or better speed into the office, but most have DSL or T1 connections now for internet and streaming video-on-demand.  I've been in my new office for about 2.5 years (I was previously in my house for 8 months and in a GK office for a year), and I never had a satellite.

[quote=BigCheese]

Spiff-

As ususal, it comes down to you denegrating someone else when they disagree with you. A higher percentage of the trainers back in the 90's had no clue how to sell, but knew what to teach. In fact, just like you, they wanted to take over an office and was told one way to get that was to stay in home office ane then move out in the field. Obtaining a license doesn't make you qualified to teach others about the industry. If however, you are teaching them how to pass examinations I am in your corner.

Having someone teach you about selling when they rarely had that experience caused the FA's in the field to tell you do what they tell you at class and then when you get back we'll teach you how to survive. It's a shame that the mentality existed , but it was fairly unanimous amongst those in the field that the trainers had no clue how to make it. But they knew the hamburger....

Certainly we can agree on this point can't we or are you going to call me an idiot too? After all these years...I think I know your answer...Spiff...it takes one to know one...

[/quote]

Denegrating?  He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, but yet he continued to argue his point.  In my mind, that makes him an idiot.  Or just plain stupid.  You pick. 

Just so you know, the trainers that were in your KYC/EvalGrad/PDP classes didn't write the material they were teaching.  Just like your professors in college didn't write the textbooks they were using.  But, they know what to tell you and how to deliver what you need to learn.  The vast majority of the material was originally created by guys like Al McKenzie, Jack Phelan, Jack Cahill, and some other GPs who's names I can't remember right now, who did have sales experience.  Lots of it.  You think some trainer came up with the Hamburger?  Why do you think they call it the Jack Phelan close?  You don't have to hear that close directly from Jack Phelan to know how to use it. 

The classroom training was designed to be the starting point.  It was never meant to be the only sales training you received.  The mentor relationship is the real world connection.  We all knew that what we were teaching was a great 100 level course, but the best training was going to be by fire on the phone with a prospect or at the doorstep. 

As to your comment about obtaining a license not qualifying you to teach others in the industry, you are correct, in theory.  However, there are many jobs in this industry where you are required to have a license in order to do your job, even though your job has nothing to do with sales.  The only reason those instructors are licensed is because the industry says they have to be.  If Jones could get away with not having to pay for all those licenses and CE fees, they would. 

In a perfect world the best FAs come teach the  new folks exactly how to sell, prospect, and run their businesses.  Not gonna happen.  So, Jones trains the ATL to do the best they can and expects the FA to seek out what other knowledge he or she feels they need. 

[quote=B24]

[quote=Greenbacks2]

They would also save on Kool Aid delivery fees.

Does Jones still have those satilite dishes from the 80's?

If so antique collectors may be interested in purchasing them, might be a revenue source ? Unless they still use them!  

[/quote]

No, no satellites.  There may be some old legacy offices that still need them if they can't get DSL or better speed into the office, but most have DSL or T1 connections now for internet and streaming video-on-demand.  I've been in my new office for about 2.5 years (I was previously in my house for 8 months and in a GK office for a year), and I never had a satellite.

[/quote]

I've still got a dish outside my building, but I'm not sure it's actually used for anything.  I might be able to pick up Pakistani TV with it.  Who knows. 

IS JONES GOOD???

Thanks for proving my point spiffy. The fact that all those "great" trainers were from the '70s or earlier proves my point that jones is out of date and unable to change outside of it's culture. But you love the koolade so more power to you. I still don't see any way that jones will ever be a big player in the industry. They hire on the cheap, train on the cheap, but use the old fecal matter against the wall strategy(whatever sticks, wins). It's just not a very impressive organization. Hey, everyone can't play for the yankees, the league needs nationals and royals too.

Excellent Navet!!!!

[quote=navet]

Thanks for proving my point spiffy. The fact that all those "great" trainers were from the '70s or earlier proves my point that jones is out of date and unable to change outside of it's culture. But you love the koolade so more power to you. I still don't see any way that jones will ever be a big player in the industry. They hire on the cheap, train on the cheap, but use the old fecal matter against the wall strategy(whatever sticks, wins). It's just not a very impressive organization. Hey, everyone can't play for the yankees, the league needs nationals and royals too.

[/quote]

If you're going to consider places like BAC/MER and MSSB as the Yanks, then I'm happy playing for the Nats or even the Royals.  You're right that Jones doesn't have the market penetration with some of the HNW folks.  We have our fair share (which has grown over the last two years), but we still don't have the status that you get when you flash your Morgan Stanley biz card.  I'd consider Jones more like the Cardinals.  We're just simple Midwest people who don't like a bunch of flashy players (or the egos that go along with them), but we get the job done and have a very loyal fan base. 

OK, back to the training.  But first, a question - When did Markowitz write his original paper on MPT?  1995?  2002? 1987?  Give up?  1952.  But yet every Morningstar report that you run has MPT stuff all over it.  Does that mean that what he came up with in 1952 is obsolete in 2010?  Not hardly.  The same holds true with some of the training techniques.  What you probably don't know about the training material is that it gets rewritten every few years.  I think in the time that I was there we had three rewrites.  Things like the Hamburger, Jack Phelan close, and asking open ended questions made it through each rewrite because they don't go out of date.  You think doorknocking is out of date?  Funny, it still works for me when I do it.  You think that calling people and asking them to buy something is out of date?  Funny, it still works for me when I do it.  So, what exactly is it that you think is so out of date with Jones?   

What would you change to make them more up to date?  Consider yourself Jim Weddle talking to a group of brand new FAs.  What do you tell them about being an FA in 2010?  What are the top 10 things a new FA in 2010 absolutely must know before he makes his first contact? 

At the end of the day, starting in this business is really just about contacts.  We can argue and split hairs all day about Jones' methods, but does ANY other major firm train its newbies any better to close business?  Honestly.  Name one firm that is "GREAT" at sales training for newbies.  Still waiting.  Now?  Anybody?

Like Jones or not, Jones has one of the best training programs in the industry.

That is why I have said for years learn from them as much as you can. Hit their benchmarks for three years minimum and then look at all options. Their training is as good as it gets (and its not very good in my opinion) which is a sad commentary on our industry.

Jones has its niche. If you are an independent type personality, all the stuff that comes with working within  a corporation, will drive you to look elsewhere as it did me. I am thankful for my nine years at Jones. It helped me learn how to hunt, the most critcal aspect of being an FA.

What I couldn't do at Jones, I am now able. To be complely without conflicts when I make a recommendation. Only recently could the argument be made that EDJ has changed its stripes, and even at that it still isn't competitive with the rest of the industry.

What I like most about what I am doing now is I have removed the layers of expense that I paid for and got little back. Someday, Spiff, B and others will see the distinction. When the pain of staying is worse than the pain of leaving you will know it.

I'm sure glad I don't have to worry about this anymore.

It always seemed like these production level increases would happen at exactly the wrong time for me when I was at Edward Jones.  The last one hit exactly during the same month where my line was about to level off.  It was ironic that the last one hit very close to the end of the bull market as well.

Jones is a great firm.  I have no beef with Jones.  I still think they could benefit with trying to retain some of the 4, 5, and 6 year guys rather than just shuffling them in and out like light bulbs.  When one burns out you just slap another one in the socket.  With the amount of assets being handed out to Goodknights, Legacy guys, and other assorted Asset Inheritors it always was kind of rankling how they made the true "new new" toe the line.

I'm still friend with about 20 guys at the firm.  The truth is that there is no "one size fits all" prescription for success.  It takes a combination of hard work plus a sprinkling of good luck.  You want to try to keep your BOA, catch some of the inherited assets being passed out, and be in the right place at the right time.

I notice some of the guys struggling are always flipping BOAs.  One of the guys I used to compete with inherited a ten year BOA along with the fistful of dollars from the asset handoff.

One of the dillema's at the five year point is that your trails are still miniscule so they don't really help much when the leg gets kicked out from under the market.

It's been a gruelling two years.  I enjoyed my time at Jones but am happy at my new home.  It's nice to be able to step away for a week and not have the world end. 

I notice at other firms most new guys join teams.  I think that's the ticket.  Join a team, mentor under an experienced FA, learn the business, and increase your odds of success.  Going new new can be done but it's like spinning a roulette wheel.

Good luck guys.

I agree completely, Big C. The fact that the kool-ade drinkers won't critique their own company indicates how deeply imbedded Jones problems are. Senior management spelled out the big issues in the "brutal facts", yet the Umpa Lumpas still push their wheel barrows.

[quote=navet]

I agree completely, Big C. The fact that the kool-ade drinkers won't critique their own company indicates how deeply imbedded Jones problems are. Senior management spelled out the big issues in the "brutal facts", yet the Umpa Lumpas still push their wheel barrows.

[/quote]

You've never heard me critique Jones?  Really?  On the flip-side, why would I just take a big dump all over them like everyone else seems to do?  There's a lot they do right, and when people constantly revert back to old, tired lines (e-mail, revenue sharing, whatever), simply don't understand reality ("it's a ponzi scheme!"...."LP is a crock!"....."Jones is in financial trouble!"), or lean on things that are completely immaterial to the overall firm (Canada, UK), it just irritates the shit out of me.

Now, when people want to talk about things that really MATTER (the training process, the newbie hiring, the A-share focus, single-FA offices, weak advisory options, etc.), I have NO problem weighing in on that, as many of those things bother me.  But let's get past the things that are simply stupid arguments.

[quote=navet]

I agree completely, Big C. The fact that the kool-ade drinkers won't critique their own company indicates how deeply imbedded Jones problems are. Senior management spelled out the big issues in the "brutal facts", yet the Umpa Lumpas still push their wheel barrows.

[/quote]

I see you ignored my question in my last post.  You're pretty quick to bash Jones, but do you really have any solutions to what you see are the glaring defects in their business plan?  If you do, perhaps you should give Weddle a call and tell him how he should be running the firm. 

Where do you think a lot of those brutal facts came from?  Do you really think the GPs who haven't been in the field for years got together one day and decided to make a list of what they thought was wrong with the firm and pulled that list out of their ears?  Those guys talk constantly to the top producers in the firm and get input from them.  They listen to the RLs and hear what they have to say.  They get suggbox wires daily with suggestions from vets and rookies alike.  Sometimes they actually take action on what they hear.  It's much quicker with Weddle than it was with Bachmann or Hill.  Where's Morgan Stanley's list of brutal facts?  Where's BAC/MER's list of problems?  If I'm going to hitch my wagon to someone else's train, I want it to be a company that can at least admit it's faults.  Jones has always been good, sometimes too good (full page ad in the WSJ good), at tooting their own horn.  They're getting better at admitting their faults. 

I didn't give you the solution to the brutal facts? So you admit that these great experienced, innovative leaders of ours don't have the answers? It's a typical kool-ade drinking copout to respond to critisism with a "then you solve it" answer. That's why Jones has little chance of overcoming the "brutal facts". Our great leaders are sitting on their rich asses hoping that someone can actually come up with an answer. They aren't likely to do it. I give them credit for asking the question. What is needed is some truly innovative thought. Not likely in that environment. I wish it were different.

Wow, I have been gone for awhile and  I return and it's the same old thing. Spiff talking about Jones and not admitting the facts.  I am thankful I saw the light two years ago and came to LPL. Spiff I wish you and your LP well.

spiff,

you speak as if the group of gps is a democratic society....are you for real?

Your firm "tooted their own horn" in the WSJ and what happened a few months later......ooopsie

It's my experience in many communications with Spiff, if you disagree with him, you are considered idiotic. He is the epitome of a footsoldier (my former surname). Takes orders well, repeats the same old controlled message if confronted by the enemy or perception of an enemy. Oh and  derives pleasure in dialogue,  lots of it.

hey spiffy,

If Weddle says so it must be true?

Last 3 paragraphs

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2010/04/12/story3.html?b=1271044800%5E3167971

navet - You seem to be very good at telling us that Jones is doing it all wrong.  You seem to be very lacking in your ability to do anything other than throw stones.  So, I'll give you some of my thoughts to show you what I mean:  Jones doesn't do a good enough job training us past our initial training program.  Sure, learning how to doorknock and call on stocks and bonds is important, but so is learning more about investing, MPT, and portfolio construction.  Most of what we learn is OTJ training.  I think Jones could do very well by it's newer FAs if they would add a week long class specifically on portfolio construction and investing theory.  Actually teach our new FAs why they shouldn't own all large cap value stocks and long term bonds.  I think part of that class should be case study based.  Give them a statement like they're going to get from a prospect and have them dissect it.  Most of our new FAs haven't ever even seen a statement from places like Morgan or Merrill, much less know how to tear it apart and figure out what's going on inside it.  It's like teaching the new class of doctors how to be nurse practicioners. 

Beyond that, I think there should be ongoing training available for those who want it.  Not the fluff CE stuff that we take every year, but intense, CFP like training.  Web based learning is very convenient and should be relatively inexpensive to produce.  Jones does a decent job teaching business management with Visions and BDW, but they suck at actually teaching us how to do what we do for a living. 

OK, your turn.

foot -  if you would come up with some new discussion points, I wouldn't have to continually say the same thing over and over again.  You're a broken record.  Evidently I'm the flip side of the same record.  I called navet an idiot in this particular case because he was acting like one.  He was factually wrong, but yet continued to argue his point about the trainers. 

exej - I guess I should have used some sort of emoticon with my comment about the WSJ.  I agree with you that the full page ad telling the world how great we are was the most stupid public relations move ever.  It's no wonder the regulators came after us not long after it was printed. 

What are you trying to get at with the last post?  It's not a secret that Canada isn't profitable.  Having a $1mil a month loss on the Canadian operation isn't really significant in the big picture.  Do I wish it would go away?  Yes.  Do I think it will impact me materially enough to notice if it does?  Nope.   

Spiff, great reply, thanks. Too busy right this minute to answer in detail. But exactly what I was getting at. My other questions are about "efficient" prospecting practices. Later

How the hell are you guys still talking about this. The thread was about the new minimum production requirements which was addressed in less than 1 page of the thread. Give it a rest god these forums are retarded now

You guys spend all day beating a dead horse

Considering the lack of activity on this dead blog, I'm surprised anyone is complaining about a conversation people are having. If you don't like the discussion then move on. Spiff, as far as my facts being wrong, I'd say wrong compared to what? You were back in training 10 years ago. I've been there several times over the last two, and if you call the ATL's highly trained then you have never been around a great training department. Granted, this industry doesn't have great training, but that is no reason to accept status quo. Particularly, when by Jones own admission, retention and FA productivity is a problem. Yet, Weddle still buys into door to door selling even today, judging by his answer to that question in his e-mail column. If that's an example of Jones innovation, then the company is stagnant at best.

Retention has very little to do with the ATLs.  They aren't trained to be great sales people.  They are trained very well to deliver the content that has been designed for the new EDJ FAs.  And unless the quality has gone down drastically since I left, they do that very well.  I will say that there is only one person that I actually worked with that is still in my old department.  Why he hasn't left to take over an office is beyond me.  I know a couple others that are still there, but I never worked in the classroom with them, so I don't know how good they are. 

I completely disagree with you on the doorknocking side.  There are only a handful of ways that you can prospect - doorknocking, cold calling, seminars, networking, and mass mailing.  None of them are perfect.  Doorknocking is time consuming, but it's incredibly cheap marketing.  Cold calling is tedious, can be expensive, and takes a lot of discipline to pull off well.  Seminars and mass mailing are expensive and have a really low response rate.  Networking, unless you already have a networking base built, isn't really feasible for most new FAs. 

Interestingly enough, Jones doesn't discourage any of them.  In fact, beyond the initial training, they don't really care how you prospect, just that you do enough of whatever you do to hit your production goals.  I heard of one guy out east somewhere who stood outside his office during busy times of the day and just handed out fliers of some kind to people passing by.  They were some kind of survey or response card, so he put a little drop by outside his office so people could drop them in there whenever they wanted.  Wann Robinson, big FA in FL, spent a ton of money in his first couple of years taking attorneys and CPAs and other referral sources out to lunch everyday.  I heard the number was something like $90K on credit cards.  He also mass mailed something to pretty much everyone in the state at one time.  Todd Osterhage, now a GP in HQ, did a ton of seminars.  I've got lots of stories about how guys built their businesses. 

Doorknocking works in my area.  If it didn't work anywhere else, we'd be hearing about it.  There is constantly a contingent of new FAs that says doorknocking is outdated.  Well, when it stops working altogether everywhere, then maybe it's time will have passed.  Or when all of the municipalities in the country pass a no soliciting rule we'll have to switch tactics.  But for now, I agree with Weddle that doorknocking is the best way to introduce a new FA to a community and ask for business.  The thing I like the most about doorknocking is that there aren't issues like caller ID or DNC lists when you're doorknocking.  If someone has a doorbell, ring it.  The writer's suggestion that new FAs failed because people were skeptical of someone doorknocking is just a copout.  You can't tell me that if you knock on 5000 people you can't find a few hundred people who are willing to talk with you.  Even if you only got 1 out of 10 that's still 500 prospects.  Surely out of those you can find 100 or so to do some kind of business with.  I just don't buy it that doorknocking doesn't work.   

Hey spiff when does this new plan take effect?

Isn't it a bit disingenuious to ask new FA's to doorknock to get the office ultimately and the reason the ATL's are there is because they want a leg up and start with an office and some clients. I know you still have to doorknock but you aren't doing it the old fashioned way, just another easier path.

Having said that, I know that the GP's ran the ATL's ragged and they deserved that office after going through that gauntlet (see Spiff I can appreciate what you did), but its not walking the talk.

[quote=squash2]

Hey spiff when does this new plan take effect?

[/quote]

If you are talking about the new production minimums, I don't know.  That decision is above my pay grade.  Lots of changes like that are announced at Summer Regional Meetings and then put into effect in the next few months.  My RL hasn't mentioned anything about it specifically.

[quote=BigCheese]

Isn't it a bit disingenuious to ask new FA's to doorknock to get the office ultimately and the reason the ATL's are there is because they want a leg up and start with an office and some clients. I know you still have to doorknock but you aren't doing it the old fashioned way, just another easier path.

Having said that, I know that the GP's ran the ATL's ragged and they deserved that office after going through that gauntlet (see Spiff I can appreciate what you did), but its not walking the talk.

[/quote]

Relatively few of the ATLs actually make the transition to the field.  Very few of those take over choice offices that you would consider big.  In my tenure there, I know of one guy who took over an office that was bigger than $20mil.  And he didn't make it in that office and is now out of the business.  Out of all of the others, probably 10 or so people, there were some that got $10-12million, but most of them were $5-10mil.  Two or three are back in the home office after a couple years. 

Most of them want to stay in the STL area, because that's where they live.  $20+ millinon offices just don't pop up in the metro area.  When they do, they're taken by folks already in the region, transfer brokers, new FAs without offices, and then maybe they'll look at a home office person. 

Most of the ATLs that I worked with weren't there originally with the purpose of taking over an office eventually.  I think they eventually transition to that thought process when they see some of the hiring choices STL makes and figure if HE can do it and make that kind of money, surely I can.  That's the way it was with me.  I took the ATL job because I liked the teaching part of the gig.  That department looks good on your Jones resume and the GPs of that area have some pull in other parts of the firm.  Most of my friends that I worked with are now either Seg 4 or 5 FAs around the country or department leaders or GPs elsewhere in the firm.   

[quote=icebear48]

Legend ,

We believe the domestic client base, and the "profitable investment opportunity base" are also shrinking dramatically.  In our opinion this will dramatically reduce incomes of so called traditional brokers.  Personally I entered the business in 1973 and witnessed a flat equity market until August of 1982.  At that time a big day was thirty million shares ( like Bunker Hunt day ).  In those days few domestic households had a large Wall Street intrest, since then CNBC and the like have made a daily football game of the equity market.  Those days are gone, consider the global indebtness and take a look at recent bond market activity. 

Please call me if you wish to discuss this.

[/quote]

You have been in the bus. since 1973 ? What kind of loser are you still posting forums and not retired. Yeh Great Idea for all of us to take your advice. You need to retire and get a real life

I am running my own firm, and have no intention of retireing.  Every so often I come on here looking for a good broker or two, which I then attempt to hire, unfortunately, you are not such an individual.

This still rumor or has anyone verified any more details?

I think we're past the rumor stage.  We're just waiting for the final details. 

OK...please post Monday if you have time.

[quote=icebear48]

I am running my own firm, and have no intention of retireing.  Every so often I come on here looking for a good broker or two, which I then attempt to hire, unfortunately, you are not such an individual.

[/quote]

I recently joined this web forum, after passively lurking here for years. The comment you responded to above, is unfortunately a bit more standard here than it should be.

Personally, I'd really like it if you would share some of your thoughts about your experiences from 73 until 1983.  I believe that we are in a very similar market, and our "1983 moment is likely 3-5 yrs out. I'm especially concerned about inflation, rising rates, falling bond prices, and the effect it might have on my practice. I've been in the biz since 1992.

The enviornment from 73 - 83 for me was a trader's market, and with far less volitility than is the case today.  Although a stagnent market in terms of the averages it was possible to make money trading and rotating from sector to sector in those days.  Toward the end of that period the very high intrest rates presented an exceptional opportunity.

Are we 3-5 years from a 1983 moment?  No, I doubt that for a number of reasons:  unbelievable debt levels in all sectors, nearly 500 trillion in outstanding derivatives, an out of control and incompetent regulatory aparatus.  There are too many shoes yet to drop.  Then there is the most incredable political situation in which the United States finds itself.

Just one example, consider the recent SEC proposal concerning restrictions on 12B-1 fees and the possibility of allowing broker dealers to set comissions on some fund share classes.  the implications of this are HUGH if funds are a primary part of one's business.  Yet, I have seen no comments about this on here!

The coming years do indeed represent a great opportunity for those who are smart enough and lean enough to survive, and are willing to WORK.  Call me at 218-681-7344 until 4:00PM CDT and we can discuss further.

You from Duluth??

No, the western side of the state, near Grand Forks.

am suprised Weddle hasn't shut down Canada. That seems fairly obvious to anyone who can understand a balance sheet. Isn't he an accountant? If you haven't made money EVER even in the good economic years, why would that possibly change with all the challenges we face today? Seems to me the only reason to raise minimums in the States isn't because of complaceny as much as trying to continue the growth mode. Something has to give and it looks like its going to fall on the US advisor to increase production or leave Jones (one way or another)

Because it would cost more to disband Canada than the cost it will take to get to break-even.

We've been over this before.