Skip navigation

Broker Report Card

or Register to post new content in the forum

48 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 8, 2009 7:40 pm

[quote=BigCheese]B-

  I don't think any firm needs a defense. They should just tell you all the truth. It's a pay to play environment everywhere, and one of the worst offenders is Jones. Does the firm still say that the client comes first?If that were true, wouldn't Bill Gross be a bond manager that they must include?   Question: Does your advisory solutions program require revenue sharing agreements to participate? I would hope not...   BTW, LPL isn't much better, except we don't participate in any revenue sharing at our level. My firm is driven by revenue any way they can get it...[/quote]   Advisory Solutions used to require revenue sharing agreements, but they figured out that was wrong so instead raised all the fees.   LPL does have revenue agreements. They also have preferred funds with no tickets vs pricing all mutual funds with same ticket charges.
Dec 8, 2009 8:05 pm

[quote=Squash1][quote=BigCheese]B-

  I don't think any firm needs a defense. They should just tell you all the truth. It's a pay to play environment everywhere, and one of the worst offenders is Jones. Does the firm still say that the client comes first?If that were true, wouldn't Bill Gross be a bond manager that they must include?   Question: Does your advisory solutions program require revenue sharing agreements to participate? I would hope not...   BTW, LPL isn't much better, except we don't participate in any revenue sharing at our level. My firm is driven by revenue any way they can get it...[/quote]   Advisory Solutions used to require revenue sharing agreements, but they figured out that was wrong so instead raised all the fees.   LPL does have revenue agreements. They also have preferred funds with no tickets vs pricing all mutual funds with same ticket charges.[/quote]   I agree.  I don't like revenue sharing at all.  It stinks.  I don't care whether it's a conflict of interest or not.  If I were a client, I would preceive it to be, and that's all that matters.   Advisory Solutions never required it.  Basically, they were still receiving revenue sharing from any preferred funds they happened to use, but those were always refunded back to the client.  I believe they now refuse to even collect revenue sharing on those accounts.   My guess is that they are using Advisory Solutions to ween themselves off revenue sharing over time.  I think the legislative and regulatory handwriting is on the wall.  I can't believe revenue sharing is still allowed, and so widespread (virtually all major firms collect it).  But I guess it's like steroids in baseball.  If everyone is doing it, why not?
Dec 8, 2009 8:23 pm

B-

  That has always been a bone of contention for me as well. I don't like revenue sharing and I hope some day they just ban it entirely. I credit Jones for seeing the future (10 years later than everyone elese!). They probably know something is coming down the road to affect 12b-1's so they are preparing for a loss of revenue. It's smart and about time.   LPL does reduce ticket charges so I guess we do benefit, for me 1.67% of revenue goes to pay ticket charges (all products).
Dec 8, 2009 8:36 pm
hotair1:

[quote=Still@jones]
You really need to take a course in statistics…

The number of surveys you approximate disproves your point.
1.4% is statistically significant.
Jones is probably most reliable data since every office is the same and no manager.

What probably does skew these numbers is that Jones reps probably care about them more than the rest. Jones reps (Kool-Aide drinkers) are probably more likely to give all 10’s just to keep Jones at the “Top”.

A 9.5 for strategic focus does not make sense for Jones. They are on a hiring binge that is costing current reps alot of money. How can anyone agree with this? Building slowly through quality is good for Reps. Building quickly is good for the GPs. This one deserves a 4.0

 

  Says a failure... [/quote]

If you are going to insult me, please make it funny, clever or obscene...
Otherwise, you are just a waste of space.
Dec 8, 2009 8:42 pm

[quote=B24]So I have to ask you again, are the 1.4% in THIS survey a proxy for the entire population?[/quote]

Maybe we are agreeing and just don’t know it.

Randomly, 1.4% is more than enough. But, this is anything but random.
Probably the greatest deviation is because only jones reps care about these numbers.

Dec 8, 2009 8:54 pm
Still@jones:

[quote=B24]So I have to ask you again, are the 1.4% in THIS survey a proxy for the entire population?[/quote]

Maybe we are agreeing and just don’t know it.

Randomly, 1.4% is more than enough. But, this is anything but random.
Probably the greatest deviation is because only jones reps care about these numbers.

  Amazing how the advisors that care about these numbers are pretty much always with the firms that are ranked number 1...believe me...if LPL, RAY JAY, BofA/Merrill or any other firm were ranked number one, there RR's would be chirping about how good survey it was while all the rest would say it means squat!    Personally, I don't much care whether we are ranked or not, nor do I know, or care for that matter, whether it is a flawed survey....what I do know is that client's like it when they see it...whether it is JD Power or any other list maker!  
Dec 8, 2009 9:31 pm

I think it’s accurate, even though it is scientifically flawed.

Dec 9, 2009 1:34 am

Once you Jones guys get going…