I Do Not Hate Jones

or Register to post new content in the forum

36 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Dec 9, 2005 12:34 pm

Some of your goofy Jones boys think I hate Jones, y'all even get mad at me.  I do not hate anything.  I do try to point out the hypocrisy and inherent conflicts of interest that come with the industry and mix it with a little levity.  EDJ and others like AGE just do not want to admit that there is a huge conflict of interest between what is good for the firm, what is good for the broker and what is good for the client.   The RR values are easily compromised because it is laughable to think that you can be true to all three parties! 


<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 


When you break it down there is really no difference between the firms from the client perspective securities are securities.    The differentiation is only at the RR perspective – we are the ones managing the conflict of interest.    I maintain that this is virtually impossible to do over time.   At least I and a few others on this board acknowledge this!



The biggest mistake anybody in financial services can make is when they start believing that they can walk this line between yield to client, yield to broker and yield to firm.   Just ask yourself when you are looking for a 100 bonds for a client.  Tell me you are not interested in YTB (yield to broker).  Ask the manager of your bond desk how they get rid of bonds – just juice up the sales credit and out they go.   The fixed income desk at your firm is filled with the biggest hypocrites in the industry!  That mark up comes right out of the clients pocket and into the pockets of the desk, the firm and yours! 



The EDJ boys and a few other kids on this board have been intoxicated into thinking that this does not apply to them…which is really laughable.  It is just easy for me to have fun with these juiced up Jones boys!    An example of this was all of the spin the EDJers put on the $75 million settlement that was reached with US District Attorney (aka The Prosecutor) last year.  This was not a fine, it was a settlement with a prosecutor!  Here is the real story and time line…



Fall 2003 – John Bachman pens a letter that is published in all of the major newspapers about how Ed Jones is above all of this monkey business dealing with mutual funds…or in so many words; “Please don’t confuse Jones with these other criminals in our industry…”  Go ahead and read the letter and sum it up yourself.



Winter 2004 – The Wall Street Journal runs an article about the previously concealed Revenue Sharing practices that Ed Jones was involved in.   This triggers an SEC Investigation into the matter.



Summer 2004 – EDJ is under administrative investigation by the SEC.  The SEC Division of Enforcement makes a request that EDJ respond to a “Wells Submission”.  A Wells Submission is a formal administrative filing that requires a party to definitively answer a series of questions posed by the SEC.  Doug Hill et al is faced with a tough decision;  If they respond truthfully to the SEC questions then Bachman will look like he lied when he authorized this goofy letter to be published in all of the Newspapers in the fall of 2003.   Doug makes the call….and decides not to respond truthfully to some of the SEC questions and actually signs off on it!  You can speculate why?



Fall 2004  - The SEC obtain documents that clearly show that Doug Hill knowingly lied when he signed off on the Well Submission.  They refer the matter to the Department of Justice (aka Federal Prosecutor)  Jim Martin, the US District Attorney in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />St. Louis takes the referral from the SEC Division of Enforcement.   Martin is about to drop a multi-count indictment on Doug and the rest of the Jones boys.  Doug freaks out, he realizes that he could be baking cookies with Martha in a Federal Pen if they try to fight this and the firm could be exposed for what many would think are questionable business practices.  He decides it is better to settle with the US District Attorney and cough up the $75 million plus resign his post that Bachman hand picked him for.  (go team) Read the Settlement - it is a public document that says all of this!



[Doesn’t this sound like a Main Street American Activities that would make your clients proud!]



Winter 04-05  The EDJ spin doctors are busy.  They successfully re-cast the settlement as a fine and that the SEC has gone over the top on a Revenue Sharing Witch Hunt.   EDJ was a “victim” of over zealous regulators.  The brokers who do not want to taste the piss in their punch hold their noses and take a deep breath.  They keep doing what they know how to do…pumping those mutual funds.  Hoping that it will all blow over!



The big unknown is the outcome of the California AG claim.  No one can predict the outcome of this matter.  EDJ can not issue LPs with this CA AG claim hanging out there.  Which raises an interesting question; “Does the inability to raise capital say that there is already a capital problem?”  You can decide that for yourself!



Jones could loose BIG and trigger a capital crisis at the firm.  The EDJers think that talk of this is heresy and that I should be burnt at the stake for even thinking that a capital crisis could present itself at The Temple of Jones!   Their defense sounds a lot like other spins from the past; Ken Lay of Enron and Dick Liddy of General American both confused a capital crisis with a Public Relations problem.  They exemplify that for a financial service firm PR and Capital are one in the same!



OR EDJ could prevail and preach that EDJ was right and that these over zealous prosecutors have to be reigned in before they try to hunt down other innocent parties!



My main message to the EDJ and any RR is to have "Plan B" developed if you wake up one morning and find that your firm is under SIPC rescievership. So hope for the best and plan for worst 



I am all ears of any of you can refute any this.  I just enjoy shining the light on hypocrisy and providing another, albeit unpopular perspective.



Happy Holidays Everyone!



Love



Lance    



Dec 9, 2005 1:02 pm

CAN 'AH GETS AN AMEN FOR BROTHER LANCE?

Dec 9, 2005 3:05 pm

 AH MEN!!! EDJ DOES BELIEVE IN WRAP PROGRAMS, IT JUST BY PASSES THE IR.WHAT IS THIS PLAN CALLED THE 7-8 PREFERRED VENDORS .EDJ GPs RECEIVE AN ASSET BASED FEE EVERY YEAR THE FUNDS STAY AT THE FAMILIES AND ON TOP OF THAT 90% STAYS IN THE GPs pocket!!!! HELLO. THEY ALSO RECEIVE PART OF THE UPFRONT LOAD. EDJ NETTED ABOUT 240 MILLION IN 2004 ONE HALF OF THAT CAME FROM REVENUE SHARING.  ALSO THEY RECEIVE KICK BACKS FOR HAVING THE FUNDS HELD AT EDJ. THIS HAS TO BE ONE OF THE BIGGEST WRAP PROGRAMS AND ONLY 275 GPs benefit not the 8500 kool aid drinkers.HOW IS THIS IN THE CLIENTS BEST INTEREST?

Dec 9, 2005 7:21 pm

CAN I GET AN AMEN FOR BROTHER FREE ?

Dec 10, 2005 3:50 pm

AMEN..........FOR BROTHER FREE...

Dec 11, 2005 7:39 pm

Lance,


Synoptic and poignant, a masterpiece.  Can't wait for the reprisal from the juicers.

Dec 11, 2005 7:42 pm
FREE:

 AH MEN!!! EDJ DOES BELIEVE IN WRAP PROGRAMS, IT JUST BY PASSES THE IR.WHAT IS THIS PLAN CALLED THE 7-8 PREFERRED VENDORS .EDJ GPs RECEIVE AN ASSET BASED FEE EVERY YEAR THE FUNDS STAY AT THE FAMILIES AND ON TOP OF THAT 90% STAYS IN THE GPs pocket!!!! HELLO. THEY ALSO RECEIVE PART OF THE UPFRONT LOAD. EDJ NETTED ABOUT 240 MILLION IN 2004 ONE HALF OF THAT CAME FROM REVENUE SHARING.  ALSO THEY RECEIVE KICK BACKS FOR HAVING THE FUNDS HELD AT EDJ. THIS HAS TO BE ONE OF THE BIGGEST WRAP PROGRAMS AND ONLY 275 GPs benefit not the 8500 kool aid drinkers.HOW IS THIS IN THE CLIENTS BEST INTEREST?


Speak it Brother. Speak it.

Dec 13, 2005 7:25 pm

Lance,



You say that the settlement with the US Attny general can be found. All that I can find is info on the SEC website. If this is a settlement with US Attny general then tell me where to find it. As far as I can tell by reading the SEC website it looks as if it deals only with the SEC. I am just trying to figure this thing out. I got suspecious when Doung Hill tried to stay on as MP. This is after I heard from numerous GPs that he was not very well liked and they were glad to see him go.

Dec 13, 2005 7:33 pm

Here is the link to the Press Release from the DOJ (note: Not SEC)



http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/moe/press%20releases/archived%20pr ess%20releases/2004%20press%20releases/december/edward_jones .html



FBI, Postal Inspector and Securities Regulators were all in on this!



If you call the phone number they will fax you a copy of the settlement Page 2 of the settlment is interesting.



Cheers



Lance

Dec 13, 2005 9:05 pm

Lance,


Please post an up to date link as the above seems to be archieved somewhere.

Dec 13, 2005 9:18 pm

CJ



Just go to the US Attorney Eastern District of MO. Click on Press Releases. The next page click on Dec 2004 and you will see it. Sorry the link does not work, did you try copy and pasting it into your browser?



Anyway PM me with your fax if you want me to send you a hard copy of the settlement. Or just call Catherine Hanaway office (she is the the current AG for Eastern MO) and they will fax you out a courtesy copy of the press release and the settlement.

Cheers



Lance

Dec 13, 2005 10:37 pm
Dec 13, 2005 11:33 pm

This is good  Thanks CJ for putting this up! 

Dec 14, 2005 1:31 am

The funny thing is the Jones IR's are taking advantage of their clients by telling them they can switch for FREE, then going ahead and switching other investments for a new commission.


The Highly Ethical Jones is condoning CHURNING and BURNING, just a different name, but it's all the same, and their customers haven't a clue..................

Dec 14, 2005 5:55 pm

"Edward Jones also acknowledged that revenue sharing was one of several important factors in the selection of two Preferred Funds. With respect to the retention of funds as preferred, revenue sharing was again important among several considerations."


"In the Agreement, Edward Jones acknowledged that Edward Jones sometimes promoted....and on occasion encouraged, IRs, on a case-by-case basis, to consider revenue sharing in making recommendations to their customers to purchase certain mutual funds."


Do what's right for the client................... my a$$. 


Where are the juicers, kool-aid drinkers, clones, proudlp's, a-share peddling profit centers......?


They should be packing their [email protected] and going where they can get informed and really do what's in the best interests of their clients.  Not just think they are because they believe what they are told by a bunch of greedy criminals.

Dec 23, 2005 7:27 pm

BBD,


What do you think of your pref funds system in light of this?

Dec 23, 2005 7:29 pm

BPD,


I noticed you never responded to this thread so I thought I would remind you.

Dec 23, 2005 9:18 pm

Ex,



Revenue Sharing has been around for a long time. It is obviously being more fully disclosed now. To my knowledge EJ was the only firm sharing their revenue sharing with their advisors. This along with a three month period where they were allowing only preferred funds to count towards the diversification program is why they got into trouble. Several firms have revenue sharing disclosures on their public websites now. This is the the industry as we know it and will only become more and more so. We will be run, if we are not currently being run now, by lawyers. So be careful for what you wish for.



A couple of sites for you:



14 Brokerages pay $34 million in fines:

http://www.ajc.com/money/content/money/0605/09mutfunds.html



Royal Alliance Revenue Sharing Disclosure:

http://www.royalalliance.com/language/RAARSLong.pdf

/URL">



HD Vest Revenue Sharing Disclosure:

http://www.hdvest.com/investor-mutualfunds.html



LPL Revenue Sharing Disclosure:

http://www.lpl.com/html/disset.html



Wells Fargo Revenue Sharing Disclosure:

https://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/1856/195919ec7640a8/www.well sfargo.com/pdf/onlinebrokerage/mf_disc.pdf



SunAmerica Securities Revenue Sharing Disclosure:

http://www.aigfinancialadvisors.com/public/disclosures/reven ue-sharing.htm



FSC Securities Revenue Sharing Disclosure:

http://www.fscorp.com/EPProgramDisclosure.pdf



Securities America Revenue Sharing Disclosure:

http://www.securitiesamerica.com/downloads/Premier%20Fund%20 Families%20Rev%2011.05.pdf



RBC Dain Raucher Revenue Sharing Disclosure:

http://www.rbcdain.com/DRP1.0/Public_Site/Common_Pages/DRP_ 1.0VContentIndex/1,37981,1-5-12-9,00.html



There are MANY more, I think you get the idea.



And a question for you: If we were so into selling just the preferred funds because they were paying us revenue sharing, then why is American Funds our top selling Mutual Fund (Which is the one we receive the lowest amount of revenue sharing on.) and the second best selling fund family is/was Franklin, even though it wasn't even on our preferred list? You know why? I'll tell you why, we believed as EJ advisors that that is what was best for our clients. That's why! Not because of the revenue sharing. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!



BPD



P.S. Try and come up with a firm that does NOT do revenue sharing. I bet you can't.

Dec 23, 2005 9:41 pm

candybar,


But how many of the above firms took out a full page ad complaining about how bad the other firms were and that they would never do anything that wasn't in the customers best interest.


If that wasn't bad enough how many of the above firms had their managing partner/ceo resign effective the end of 2005?????

Dec 23, 2005 9:46 pm

CJ,



The ad never mentioned revenue sharing or the lack there of.



May I remind you. Revenue sharing was and is not illegal.



BPD