21 years with Edward Jones- ED HOOD

or Register to post new content in the forum

74 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.
Nov 19, 2007 10:16 am

My condolences, sad situation.

Nov 19, 2007 10:46 am

Yes it is a sad Story.. It's old news at this point.. The really sad part is why he took his life! WTF!

 
Miss J
Nov 19, 2007 10:55 am
MISS JONES:

Yes it is a sad Story.. It's old news at this point.. The really sad part is why he took his life! WTF!

 
Miss J
 
Yeah, I agree with you.  It was last month.  He was a GP and an RL for crying out loud.  He had a great career with Edward Jones.  Maybe the pending lawsuits will bring clarity to this situation.
Nov 19, 2007 11:24 am

Just do a Google search on William E. Hood and you'll get part of the story.

 
I'm sure the regulators are going to try the employer for failure to supervise. 
Nov 20, 2007 2:52 pm

654,

I googled..WOW..not what I expected from Ed. He seemed like a really genuine guy.  I guess he was a little more money motivated than the rest of us.  I wish his family well.
 
 
Nov 20, 2007 3:01 pm

I just hope the innocent clients are made whole. 

Nov 20, 2007 3:51 pm

It's amazing about how the nicest guys end up being thieves...

Nov 20, 2007 4:02 pm

I'm not going to bash Jones "truce", but having sat through sessions were long time vets will tell you to do things in which Jones Corporate is singing exactly the opposite, shows to me compliance is letting things pass through or slip through. 

I was in one meeting at a time when B shares were being drug through the coles, where the vet told us how easy this business was, and just "put 100k into American Balanced , B share."  We all laughed thinking he was joking.  He wasn't.   Actually got defensive when I stated compliance wouldn't let that fly, "I've been doing that same thing for years! I did it today!!" 
Nov 20, 2007 4:17 pm

I agree.. Not everyone is on the same page here at Jones.. But 'Oh well', That is at every firm.. I do what is right for my clients and try not to worry too much about the people giving our firm a bad name.  i.e. Ed Hood.

 
Miss J
Nov 20, 2007 5:37 pm

It is amazing what you can get to go through a compliance department with enough signatures from the clients.  I've never heard a conversation like spears was a part of at a Jones meeting, but it doesn't suprise me.   We get these red pieces of paper in branch mail every so often telling about people who got fired for this or that.  You can usually tell that it's someone desparate doing something stupid.  

 
Did anyone else find anything strange about the Tennessean's article.  Bell, the accountant, said he was innocent and only acting on Hood's instructions.  Innocent!?   Really??  He didn't know that Ed was stealing money?  How come Bell failed to file the income taxes?  Could it be because they would have shown all of the transactions and liquidations? 
 
Where were the poor woman's kids.  If they are making the arguement that she didn't know what she was doing when Ed had her sign paperwork, why didn't they have power of attorney?  Or at least duplicate copies of statements.  If my mom was in a nursing home  because she couldn't take care of herself anymore, and had a million bucks, I'd make darn sure I knew exactly what was happening in those accounts.  Greed kicks in after you learn facts like that and you start making plans for that money.  I've had discussions with benes over $5000 that got pretty heated.  I can't imagine what the conversation was like when the kids suddenly realized that $1.7 million was missing from mom's accounts. 
 
From his own actions I would make the assumption that Ed was guilty.  No contest.  But I don't think his family should be left with the thought that he was the only one at fault.  I do hope Jones makes the family whole.  With a settlement, not just because some arbitration judge tells them they have to. 
Nov 20, 2007 6:19 pm

My understanding was that the CPA was also the trustee!  If that is so once again who's watching the chicken coop?  I feel bad for Ed's family--Ed should have faced the music.

Greed can be so over powering to even the best of people.  I just don't think Jones should just write out a check for the full amount of losses and interest to the family--NOW!
Nov 20, 2007 6:21 pm

Correction to my last post, they should write out a check--sorry about that!

Nov 20, 2007 7:08 pm

I agree.  Settle with the family.  The arbitration case will most likely only prove that Ed was doing something wrong. 


 
My point was that Ed and EDJ are not the only ones "not watching the chicken coop."  Yes, Ed stole a lot of money that needs to be repayed.  The son deserves everything his mom was supposed to have left him.  But, I don't think that simply because Jones has deep pockets that we should be the only ones to make him whole.  That accountant cannot be completely innocent in this.  Maybe the arbitration case will prove me wrong.  We'll have to wait and see. 
Nov 20, 2007 7:25 pm

spiff,

 
This isn't the first time NASDR/FINRA will be reviewing a case of failure to supervise offense by your employer.  Whomever the "branch manager" (a.k.a. FSD) is or was for that region will be let go or transferred to another St.L job.  Happens everytime.  The worst part is that not only all of the broker's accounts will need to be reviewed but the oversight of all the BMs/FSDs that were reveiwing Mr. Hood's practice should come under investigation too.
 
Sure other firms have this happen, but they haven't run ads claiming their "purity" nor do other firms have rookies teaching rookies. Perhaps I over simplified your previous role at  EJ a tad much but fresh from college and teaching "newnew" seems to describe what you were doing. 
 
Hope you enjoy your turkey.....if you qualified for one.
Nov 20, 2007 11:46 pm
eddjones654:

spiff,

 
This isn't the first time NASDR/FINRA will be reviewing a case of failure to supervise offense by your employer.  Whomever the "branch manager" (a.k.a. FSD) is or was for that region will be let go or transferred to another St.L job.  Happens everytime.  The worst part is that not only all of the broker's accounts will need to be reviewed but the oversight of all the BMs/FSDs that were reveiwing Mr. Hood's practice should come under investigation too.
 
Sure other firms have this happen, but they haven't run ads claiming their "purity" nor do other firms have rookies teaching rookies. Perhaps I over simplified your previous role at  EJ a tad much but fresh from college and teaching "newnew" seems to describe what you were doing. 
 
Hope you enjoy your turkey.....if you qualified for one.



Plenty of other firms, in all channels, have been guilty of not sufficiently supervising a big producer.  It's the whole issue of greed winning out over ethics, and regrettably no firm is immune.

Nov 21, 2007 10:27 am

Spiff, I agree--the CPA needs to pay up too--along with some jail time too.  This is a sad story all the way around.  Though I left Jones 7 months ago--I feel sorry also for those young advisors who heard their regional leader get up in front of them at the meetings and say do what's best for the clients always.  Who do you learn to trust or believe?

 
Though quite a few of us give all the current Jones advisors some prodding for still being there---we really do not wish anyone ill will. 
 
This is a good time to wish all my fellow advisors from all firms a very Happy Thanksgiving.
May you enjoy many more happy and healthy holidays with your friends and family.
Nov 21, 2007 4:19 pm
joedabrkr:
eddjones654:

spiff,

 
This isn't the first time NASDR/FINRA will be reviewing a case of failure to supervise offense by your employer.  Whomever the "branch manager" (a.k.a. FSD) is or was for that region will be let go or transferred to another St.L job.  Happens everytime.  The worst part is that not only all of the broker's accounts will need to be reviewed but the oversight of all the BMs/FSDs that were reveiwing Mr. Hood's practice should come under investigation too.
 
Sure other firms have this happen, but they haven't run ads claiming their "purity" nor do other firms have rookies teaching rookies. Perhaps I over simplified your previous role at  EJ a tad much but fresh from college and teaching "newnew" seems to describe what you were doing. 
 
Hope you enjoy your turkey.....if you qualified for one.



Plenty of other firms, in all channels, have been guilty of not sufficiently supervising a big producer.  It's the whole issue of greed winning out over ethics, and regrettably no firm is immune.

 
A compliance department can only do so much, regardless of the firm.  All oversight is electronic, so if you simply get people to write checks to the wrong places, etc., I'm sure it can be done.  I don't feel that these isolated situations are ever the TRUE fault of the B/D (as far as major firms are concerned), but usually a reflection of the individual broker.  I would say, without hesitation, that all major B/D's are trying to do what's in the client's best interest (I say major B/D's, as there are still little chop shops out there swindling old people).  These are always sad situations, and never end well.
Nov 21, 2007 4:45 pm
Broker24:
A compliance department can only do so much, regardless of the firm.  All oversight is electronic, so if you simply get people to write checks to the wrong places, etc., I'm sure it can be done.  I don't feel that these isolated situations are ever the TRUE fault of the B/D (as far as major firms are concerned), but usually a reflection of the individual broker.  I would say, without hesitation, that all major B/D's are trying to do what's in the client's best interest (I say major B/D's, as there are still little chop shops out there swindling old people).  These are always sad situations, and never end well.
 
boy has spiffy and his ilk edumacated you well.  I didn't know you had spent any time doing compliance?  If all oversight is electronic then there would be no need for a Compliance department.  So you are awarethere is a big difference between local supervision and HO oversight. 
 
Just as an excercise check out the top GPs, RL or even the rep down the street at your firm on FINRA and see what sort of compliant history they have... some may be just a nasty as those employed at the "little chop shop". 
Nov 21, 2007 5:26 pm

Reading into the story it would be hard to track...CPA sets himself up to be trustee of her trust...FA sells stocks other investments over several years and has checks deposited into a trust in her name.   That is where the Field Services Rep at Jones would be able to tract to.  Then the trust sent checks out to other accounts at other financial institutions that really belong to the CPA and Ed.  The failure to supervise would have been when too much was being taken out and it not be tracked--however, you and I don't know if their was a field servies inquiry over the past year concerning this.

 
If nothing else it will fall on the shoulders of Edward Jones for the losses and failure to supervise--but if someone really wants to commit a crime--it is hard to prevent it.   What still gets me is that everyone who ripps off a client thinks they are going to get away with it or that it will never be discovered. 
Nov 21, 2007 9:30 pm

There is more to the story than you know.