Edward Jones Performance Exception

or Register to post new content in the forum

266 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.
Jan 27, 2009 9:49 am
Spaceman Spiff:

Sorry, my bad.  My assumption, which was just that, not something Jones has ever told anyone, was that because you folks had to have your own person responsible for compliance in your office that there wasn't the huge field supervision team at LPL like we have at Jones.

Sooth - let me say this back to you:  You're not as smart as you think you are.    



Put it this way...compared to my experience with wirehouse compliance, LPL compliance is generally far less adversarial because they tend to tread you more like an adult, and there is a series 24 on-site at each branch or supervising from a branch nearby.

Having said that, I have a home office principal who screens my email and supervises my trades because under the newer FINRA rules I cannot 'supervise myself'.  And...the audits are quite thorough.

Jan 27, 2009 10:07 am

RJ is the same way. Every annuity exchange is approved by someone in Compliance, often times after asking two or three followup questions. Mutual fund switches are often times questioned if the client signed form is different. If you are not OSJ, the difference is that compliance asks the OSJ, who then asks you. If you are OSJ, Hyman is correct that the firms need to supervise the supervisors.

Jan 27, 2009 9:22 pm
B24:

HR, that opinion does NOT exist at Jones.  They believe (or at least act like) anyone that leaves ends up losing half their book because none of the clients could bear to leave Edward Jones.

 
In one sense, they might be right in many instances.  Jones does a great job (as they should) of getting FA's to "sell Jones".  I think the FA's do this a lot to their detriment.  I, for one, do not use Jones's name as a big advantage.  Although I do use the current debacle in the industry to our advantage.  But I want to be sure that if I ever leave, my clients barely remember the name of the B/D I work for.  You will notice I have very little "Jones" crap around my office.  That's for a reason.  Don't get me wrong, I like our firm, I just have to protect my future.
By "protecting your future" I assume you mean your book of clients. I just started with Jones, so I still have that employment contract fresh in my mind. My understanding is that you are prohibited from suggesting that clients leave the firm while you are an employee, and you are also required to refrain from any solicitation of your clients for a duration of one year. They even go so far as to specify that you not solicit by any means directly or indirectly (with a whole list of possible methods). They consider any records of clients whether hand written, copied, or memorized (yeah, really) the property of EJ. Seems pretty air tight to me.
 
Anyway...what in the world could you do to "protect your future" given those stips? Or am I just misinterpreting the whole thing?
Jan 28, 2009 2:48 pm

Clients may come and go as they please.  If I leave Jones, they will be saying WTF did he go?  I have to go with MY GUY, not some "replacement".  I don't want clients to think they are investing with JONES, I want them to think they are working with ME. 

 
And FYI, I know for a fact that the non-compete is negotiable, along with the 3-year reimbursement.  Just have a good attorney.
Jan 28, 2009 4:04 pm

sounds like B24 has been doing some research.  Good for you.

Jan 28, 2009 11:17 pm
Spaceman Spiff:
Sooth - let me say this back to you:  You're not as smart as you think you are.    
 
Maybe, maybe not.  Just plenty smarter than you and most of the GPs that I knew of during my time there.  How's your dot going to look after the system updates over the weekend? 
Jan 29, 2009 8:14 am

B24, If a Jones (seg 2)  is put on goals and is let go..does the non-compete go away? Two from my class are going to go on goals this month. We where talking yesterday and they wondered if the non-compete goes away if they are "let go". They are both in the last year of the non-compete. About 28K? thanks

Jan 29, 2009 8:44 am

I don't know specifically.  All I know is, with a good attorney writing a letter to Jones ( as a response to their TRO), I don't think "they" will have a problem.  It seems to me that a firm can't fire you for underperformance, and then say, oh by the way, you can't work anywhere else, either.

Jan 29, 2009 9:20 am

If they are let go then the non-compete does not apply.  Just what B24 said, Jones can't have it every which way.

Jan 29, 2009 9:30 am
Soothsayer:
Spaceman Spiff:
Sooth - let me say this back to you:  You're not as smart as you think you are.    
 
Maybe, maybe not.  Just plenty smarter than you and most of the GPs that I knew of during my time there.  How's your dot going to look after the system updates over the weekend? 
 



You could very well be smarter than me.  It has happened once or twice before. 
 
My dot is going to look pretty good this month.  Better next month.  Thanks for asking. 
Jan 29, 2009 9:37 am
Spaceman Spiff:
Soothsayer:
Spaceman Spiff:
Sooth - let me say this back to you:  You're not as smart as you think you are.    
 
Maybe, maybe not.  Just plenty smarter than you and most of the GPs that I knew of during my time there.  How's your dot going to look after the system updates over the weekend? 
 



You could very well be smarter than me.  It has happened once or twice before. 
 
My dot is going to look pretty good this month.  Better next month.  Thanks for asking. 



What are you, an Indian (7 Eleven, not casino) woman?

Jan 29, 2009 12:49 pm
Soothsayer:

If they are let go then the non-compete does not apply.  Just what B24 said, Jones can't have it every which way.

I had my lawyer look over this agreement prior to accepting the position. There is  a standard non-solicit...you'll find this in several industries. Basically, "don't try to get any of your old clients to leave by any means whatsoever".
 
The second is the reimbursement of training costs. It doesn't specify whether you quit or get fired, it just says that your employment is terminated. I checked with EJ's legal department to get clarification b/c I thought it didn't apply if you got fired. Not the case. No matter whether termination was voluntary or involuntary, the statement applies. This was done on purpose to prevent people from abusing the system by "trying to get fired".
 
The cost of training decreases every full quarter following your 13'th month of employment, so if you only have one year left of the 3 year agreement, then the liability is for less than $75K.
 
Take particular note that neither agreement is a "non-compete". However, the second agreement does effectively create a non-compete based on the fact that $75K is a lot of money to most of us, and would make remaining in the industry cost prohibitive barring other circumstances.
 
That's what I meant when I said it was air tight. Legally, it's perfectly air tight and actionable if they so chose. Real experiences may be a different story.
 
Personally, I didn't apply for this job intending to quit, and I figured that if I got fired in under three years then this line of work probably wasn't for me.
Jan 29, 2009 2:03 pm

I can tell you for a fact, Jones negotiates, jsut like all the other firms.  I know of specific cases where they actually negotiated a smaller settlement (a SMALL % of the original amount) as well as voiding the non-compete language.

I doubt that they would be ahrd on someone they canned for lack of production.  I mean, it's not like the guy would have $50mm in assets.  He likely has less than 10.  The production on that wouldn't add up to the amount of the settlement.  So they could really care less.
Jan 29, 2009 2:18 pm

I'm not doubting you at all. Frankly, when it comes to what they HAVE done vs. what they CAN do...I simply have no idea. Hell, I don't even start till Monday, but I'm not going to have to worry about it cuz I'm gonna be a rock star!!!!

Jan 29, 2009 3:32 pm
Fud Box:

I'm not doubting you at all. Frankly, when it comes to what they HAVE done vs. what they CAN do...I simply have no idea. Hell, I don't even start till Monday, but I'm not going to have to worry about it cuz I'm gonna be a rock star!!!!

 
That's a great attitiude! Good luck with the journey...
Jan 29, 2009 5:08 pm

I wonder if he realizes this is life not a video game.

Jan 29, 2009 5:12 pm

All of the new people are "rock stars". Just like all the rock stars that are trying out for american idol!!! good luck to you!! I hope you have a lot of supplemental income and very little expenses.............that will make it much easier to stay a rock star!! Having to feed a family of three on one paycheck of 2k for 4 weeks can be a challenge if your transmissions goes out!! Once the salary goes away.....and it is all commision, it can be a challenge to be a rock star!!

Jan 29, 2009 5:44 pm

I've worked for 100% commision most of my adult life, so I'm very comfortable with a fluctuating income. I've got a wife that makes decent money and no kids (just 3 dogs). Financially, I can weather the storm. 

 
Besides, no rock star got to the top without spending years learning the craft, more years working their @ss off for crap money, a heluva lot of sacrifice, and a little luck.
 
I'm gonna be a rock star!!!
 
Jan 29, 2009 5:51 pm

That's good. Too many are not really prepared to deal with the first years. If you can focus on your business growing, and have a plan it will be easier to be a rock star. I know a lot of very good men who have struggle with having a young family and a stay home mom...best of luck to you rockstar!!

Jan 29, 2009 5:54 pm
Fud Box:

Hell, I don't even start till Monday, but I'm not going to have to worry about it cuz I'm gonna be a rock star!!!!