EDJ Vouchers

or Register to post new content in the forum

10 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.
Jul 21, 2009 6:21 pm

EDJ sent me a voucher for $6 or so good for fees or trades. It apparently is the result of the revenue sharing charge. This is the second worthless payment for their wrong doing that I have received. I don't know how regulators think that is helping clients, but EDJ lawyers saved them alot of money.

Jul 21, 2009 6:57 pm

How much did you want to receive?  It's been a while since we had this revenue sharing is evil discussion.  This should be fun.

 
My question is how much did you personally lose as a result of revenue sharing?  Is there a way to quantify how much you as a shareholder should have received if those mutual fund companies hadn't participated in a revenue sharing agreement with EDJ?  Would it have been an extra 1% a year?  .25% a year?  or .0025% a year?  Let me answer that one for you.  Zero.  How much above what was stated in the prospectus did EDJ charge you to purchase and hold those funds?  Let me answer that one.  Zero. Zilch.  Nada.  The big goose egg.   
 
You can't make the argument that if EDJ didn't have the revenue sharing agreement in place you would have made more money.  It's simply not true.  Because there were other firms that also had revenue sharing agreements in place.  It wasn't just an EDJ issue.  It wasn't really even just an EDJ disclosure issue.  You should have seen the other brokerage firms hustle to get something on their websites that disclosed revenue sharing. 
 
So, it didn't cost you any more money for EDJ to participate in a revenue sharing agreement with the vendors, you would have been charged the same anywhere else, and you made money during the timeframe covered under that class action suit.  So, maybe the better question would be why did you get a check at all?  Seems like EDJ just paid you your second $6 voucher for nothing.  Congrats.  I'll bet that girl in your town that had that $10K net month would buy a stock for you so that you could use that voucher. 
 
And yes, the lawyers did save us a lot of money and made themselves a lot of money at the same time.  There is now better disclosure, not just at EDJ, but everywhere on revenue sharing.  Clients like you all over the country now have a credit they can use on their IRA fees this year (if they remember to tell their advisors to use them).  Seems like a win-win-win situation all around. 
Jul 21, 2009 7:31 pm

Spiff,
Don't get too defensive, I didn't ask for or want anything, my point was why waste the time and money sending former account holders vouchers. It was a money saver for EDJ, but it means nothing for former clients or for that matter current clients. It is just an exercise in futility. The money could have been better spent on the clients instead of lawyers as in most class actions. That is the real point.

Jul 21, 2009 7:39 pm
MR.D:

Spiff,
Don't get too defensive, I didn't ask for or want anything, my point was why waste the time and money sending former account holders vouchers. It was a money saver for EDJ, but it means nothing for former clients or for that matter current clients. It is just an exercise in futility. The money could have been better spent on the clients instead of lawyers as in most class actions. That is the real point.

 
Agreed, Unfortunately that is what the Courts decided, EDJ was just following the settlement as agreed!
Jul 21, 2009 7:50 pm

I know we have the best court system in the world,but this is one of of the weak points. Revenue sharing was widespread and probably the money was coming from promotional funds owned by the fund companies.Therefore in theory they can use it as they wish. The problem was that the client was not aware, and if that practice was not allowed, costs could be reduced. The same thing happens in the grocery business. Food companies raise product costs to pay slotting fees, reclamation center fees, and other fees that are inflated. In the financial business we need to be vary transparent and cost sensitive in order to regain our credibility.

Jul 21, 2009 7:54 pm

The regulators can't come up with a better way to punish wrongdoing but want to do something symbolic so that is what you get.

Jul 21, 2009 9:25 pm

Edward Jones has made ONE mistake.  Otherwise we are flawless. 

Jul 22, 2009 2:57 pm
Weddle Me:

Edward Jones has made ONE mistake. Otherwise we are flawless.





I know you are kidding WeeMe, but you still didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Jul 22, 2009 4:30 pm
Spaceman Spiff:

How much did you want to receive?  It's been a while since we had this revenue sharing is evil discussion.  This should be fun.

 
My question is how much did you personally lose as a result of revenue sharing?  Is there a way to quantify how much you as a shareholder should have received if those mutual fund companies hadn't participated in a revenue sharing agreement with EDJ?  Would it have been an extra 1% a year?  .25% a year?  or .0025% a year?  Let me answer that one for you.  Zero.  How much above what was stated in the prospectus did EDJ charge you to purchase and hold those funds?  Let me answer that one.  Zero. Zilch.  Nada.  The big goose egg.   
 
You can't make the argument that if EDJ didn't have the revenue sharing agreement in place you would have made more money.  It's simply not true.  Because there were other firms that also had revenue sharing agreements in place.  It wasn't just an EDJ issue.  It wasn't really even just an EDJ disclosure issue.  You should have seen the other brokerage firms hustle to get something on their websites that disclosed revenue sharing. 
 
So, it didn't cost you any more money for EDJ to participate in a revenue sharing agreement with the vendors, you would have been charged the same anywhere else, and you made money during the timeframe covered under that class action suit.  So, maybe the better question would be why did you get a check at all?  Seems like EDJ just paid you your second $6 voucher for nothing.  Congrats.  I'll bet that girl in your town that had that $10K net month would buy a stock for you so that you could use that voucher. 
 
And yes, the lawyers did save us a lot of money and made themselves a lot of money at the same time.  There is now better disclosure, not just at EDJ, but everywhere on revenue sharing.  Clients like you all over the country now have a credit they can use on their IRA fees this year (if they remember to tell their advisors to use them).  Seems like a win-win-win situation all around. 
I think you missed the point. The point is not how much would you have made, the question is how much EDJ profited as a result of your decision without the client being aware....Better disclosure has come because of the lawsuit.
Jul 23, 2009 10:37 am

Agreed.  But, disclosure didn't change anything.  At the end of the day, what was gained? 




 
I didn't miss the point.  I was just trying to start an interesting discussion.  We've had so many other discussions on here recently that are just plain retarded that I thought this might be a nice diversion.  I've been told before that I like to hit the hornet's nest with a stick just to see what happens.  This was one of those situations.