EJ - GP & LP changes
95 RepliesJump to last post
[quote=chief123] [quote=B24] [quote=chief123]I doubt it is better…I am guessing the GPs lost some money last year and want to prevent it from happening again. Also this makes another hoop to jump through… For basic producers, regular LP, but for you guys really knocking the cover off the ball, double secret LP… Same for GP, my guess is that they are going to limit the type of GP to regional leaders.[/quote]
That actually makes sense. Maybe GP's now get SLP or something similar. The reason this seems more appropriate is that why would a RL producing $1mm, netting 550K (net, bonus, etc.) get the same GP returns as a corporate GP with a $100K salary? Weddle's salary is only 250K I think. How they could separate basic LP I don't know. [/quote]
James D. Weddle 2006 $250,000 $11,682 $9,108,322 $9,370,004
2005 175,000 9,954 6,578,395 6,763,349
2004 175,000 8,508 4,053,790 4,237,298[/quote] Maybe I'm dense, but is this what this means? $250,000 (salary) + $11,682 (profit sharing) + $9,108,322 (GP) = $9,370,004
[quote=chief123]I doubt it is better…I am guessing the GPs lost some money last year and want to prevent it from happening again. Also this makes another hoop to jump through… For basic producers, regular LP, but for you guys really knocking the cover off the ball, double secret LP… Same for GP, my guess is that they are going to limit the type of GP to regional leaders.
That actually makes sense. Maybe GP’s now get SLP or something similar. The reason this seems more appropriate is that why would a RL producing $1mm, netting 550K (net, bonus, etc.) get the same GP returns as a corporate GP with a $100K salary? Weddle’s salary is only 250K I think. How they could separate basic LP I don’t know. [/quote]
I think the RL would deserve a decent share of GP simply because not only is he producing for the firm, he is taking on a pain in the neck job. A good RL anyway.
[quote=BigCheese]
Spiff-
The ship is listing. Can you imagine the comraderie and togetherness this decision will have for the limited partners? Just one more nail... What's the message? The growth model doesn't work for successful FA's because in these times, they are losing at least 20% of their pay i.e., no bonus, and the firm still grows at their expense. This is a feeble attempt to get them some money back, paid by the lesser producing limited partners. If I were you Spiff, I would get my brethren together and voice your opinion...maybe you will get them to reconsider.[/quote] Can a ship list based on conjecture? Can an imaginary torpedo from a U-Boat sink a battleship? You're acting like the original posting is a fact. I personally haven't heard anything about GP or LP being reworked. Nobody promised a bonus to me when I joined. They said if we are profitable, there will be a bonus. Well, Jones wasn't profitable for the last few trimesters, so there wasn't a bonus. We will eventually get back into the good bonus brackets and probably stay there for a while. That's the way it works. It doesn't mean the system is flawed. It's just the way the system works. Your anti-Jones radar is working overtime these days, foot. We've all heard this rhetoric from you before. Everything Jones does is bad. Everything foot does is good. And you want me to open my mind and consider the alternatives?It makes TOTAL sense to pay bonuses, when you don't make any profit. Just ask AIG.
This whole topic is absurd. They won’t change the structure of LP/GP because they don’t have to. If they want a certain GP or LP in the field to profit more than another they do what they all ready do. Provide a larger share of partnership to said individual. Period. End of story.
Well, I don’t think this was pulled out of thin air. I am sure what he is saying is true, we just don’t know the details. I’m not sure how that translates into a “listing ship”, but hey, whatever. All I have to say is, if OUR ship is listing, there are a LOT of ships at the bottom of the sea right now. This is sort of like when everyone was calling for the demise of Jones 5 or 6 years ago.
I can't see how they could justify making changes like that. Would it be based on tenure? Production? Does the GP over IS earn less than the GP over Mutual Funds? How about a guy like me who will have LP from both my home office time and my branch? The negative feedback from something like that would be huge. Ted would say that's a bunch of crap. If you're a partner in the firm, you're a partner in the firm. Period. [/quote] I don't think they can justify it Spiff. You already own more partnership the longer you are here and the more profitable you are. So in a way it's already structured toward the tenured people, which is totally fine. They have worked harder than the dude out 2 years. I honestly don't feel like this is even anywhere near true. Rumor Mill as usual. Why in the world would ANY company, not Jones, but ANY company change something that NOONE is complaining about. Especially something that the whole company was built on. Bunch of Rumor Mill[quote=oneof10,000]Being a Limited Partner has been a source of pride for me for over a decade but now I hear that that the Executive Committee is about to change how both GP & LP returns are calculated.
No more we’re all in this together. Starting in a month or so there will be different levels of both GP & LP. Some GPs will earn a higher rate on their GP than others and some LPs will earn a higher rate of return than other LPs.
Just doesn’t seem right. What would Ted say?
This whole topic is absurd. They won’t change the structure of LP/GP because they don’t have to. If they want a certain GP or LP in the field to profit more than another they do what they all ready do. Provide a larger share of partnership to said individual. Period. End of story.
I'm not sure, but because it is a securities offering, don't they have to run that by the SEC? And they can't offer more in any given year, right? At least LP?
It might make more sense to structure the offerings differently, as Hulk says as opposed to changing the whole thing.
Maybe they want to change the guarantee? Or place a ceiling on the return of LP (causing the excess to go to the GP? Or some other fund?
There are only two explanations for this potential change.
1- The GP's are concerned about their own welfare. 2- The GP's are concerned about the 500k+ producer subsidizing the growth model and continuing to receive NO BONUS (which was at least 20% of their total comp). My feeble mind tells me that item #1 is more important. If they do in fact go through with the change, GP or LP envy will ensue breaking down the image that all will continue to work together for the greater good. However, Spiff will continue to mentor and train the newbies affecting his abitlity to make Seg 4 (where bonuses if they are paid hit the 10% of comp threshold) and strive for the original pot of gold....GP. Only now there will be levels of partnership. It just doesn't sound good, and believe it or not, I doubt they will go through with it. Too much downside, unless the ship is listing and they are becoming desperate.[quote=BigCheese]There are only two explanations for this potential change.
1- The GP's are concerned about their own welfare. 2- The GP's are concerned about the 500k+ producer subsidizing the growth model and continuing to receive NO BONUS (which was at least 20% of their total comp). My feeble mind tells me that item #1 is more important. If they do in fact go through with the change, GP or LP envy will ensue breaking down the image that all will continue to work together for the greater good. However, Spiff will continue to mentor and train the newbies affecting his abitlity to make Seg 4 (where bonuses if they are paid hit the 10% of comp threshold) and strive for the original pot of gold....GP. Only now there will be levels of partnership. It just doesn't sound good, and believe it or not, I doubt they will go through with it. Too much downside, unless the ship is listing and they are becoming desperate.[/quote] Actually, I think #2 makes sense. If I were a 800K+ producer, and a large part of my income was reliant on the rest of the company, and on subsidizing growth (of the rest of that company), I would not be all that happy. Realistically, the change in income for a 800K+ prodcuer could be well over 100K per year. Between branch profit bonus, profit sharing, and LP (or GP) distributions, that adds up to a lot of dough. I don't think it affects smaller producers all that much.[quote=B24] [quote=BigCheese]There are only two explanations for this potential change.
1- The GP’s are concerned about their own welfare.
2- The GP’s are concerned about the 500k+ producer subsidizing the growth model and continuing to receive NO BONUS (which was at least 20% of their total comp).
My feeble mind tells me that item #1 is more important.
If they do in fact go through with the change, GP or LP envy will ensue breaking down the image that all will continue to work together for the greater good. However, Spiff will continue to mentor and train the newbies affecting his abitlity to make Seg 4 (where bonuses if they are paid hit the 10% of comp threshold) and strive for the original pot of gold…GP. Only now there will be levels of partnership. It just doesn’t sound good, and believe it or not, I doubt they will go through with it. Too much downside, unless the ship is listing and they are becoming desperate.[/quote]
Actually, I think #2 makes sense. If I were a 800K+ producer, and a large part of my income was reliant on the rest of the company, and on subsidizing growth (of the rest of that company), I would not be all that happy. Realistically, the change in income for a 800K+ prodcuer could be well over 100K per year. Between branch profit bonus, profit sharing, and LP (or GP) distributions, that adds up to a lot of dough. I don’t think it affects smaller producers all that much.[/quote]
I have to agree. At some point, these Seg 5 guys will start wondering why they are staying (so far there have been a few that are “exploring”).
BigCheese is the new username of the poster formerly known as footsoldier. How could you not know that?Why do people keep mentioning “foot?”
I think #2 makes sense also. In my area I have seen three seg 4/5 guys move in the last month, 7 in last 3 months, and 12 in the last 6 months… Those are producers that jones can’t afford to lose because the guys who are replacing them are seg 1/2 and that crushes profitbality
I would go back to what Hulk said. If they want to compensate those guys for being big producers, they'll give them more LP or GP whenever it comes out.
Why would you change a system that has worked for decades if you know the problem you are trying to solve is temporary? The firm isn't in any financial trouble. We're going to be, or at least should be, in a bonus bracket this trimester. We aren't hemmoraging Seg 4 & 5 guys. We've had 1 seg 4 guy in my region leave in the last 12 months (He jumped to some loser company called LPL). I believe it is the same all over the company. We're not losing more than average. I just won't believe the rumor is true until Weddle sends us an email telling us there is a drastic change.[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
I would go back to what Hulk said. If they want to compensate those guys for being big producers, they’ll give them more LP or GP whenever it comes out.
Why would you change a system that has worked for decades if you know the problem you are trying to solve is temporary? The firm isn’t in any financial trouble. We’re going to be, or at least should be, in a bonus bracket this trimester. We aren’t hemmoraging Seg 4 & 5 guys. We’ve had 1 seg 4 guy in my region leave in the last 12 months (He jumped to some loser company called LPL). I believe it is the same all over the company. We’re not losing more than average.
I just won’t believe the rumor is true until Weddle sends us an email telling us there is a drastic change. [/quote]
I don’t think Jones is losing Seg4/5 guys either. But my guess is some guys are “thinking about it” like Segment 3 guys do all of the time.
I think different regions perform differently. Leadership is one of the things that will keep some producing advisors put at Jones. But regions where there is bad leadership, or resentment… all bets are off.
But since we’re talking LP/GP - I have to agree with Spiff. Until Wind sends out that email, I won’t believe it.
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Spaceman Spiff]
I would go back to what Hulk said. If they want to compensate those guys for being big producers, they'll give them more LP or GP whenever it comes out.
Why would you change a system that has worked for decades if you know the problem you are trying to solve is temporary? The firm isn't in any financial trouble. We're going to be, or at least should be, in a bonus bracket this trimester. We aren't hemmoraging Seg 4 & 5 guys. We've had 1 seg 4 guy in my region leave in the last 12 months (He jumped to some loser company called LPL). I believe it is the same all over the company. We're not losing more than average.
I just won't believe the rumor is true until Weddle sends us an email telling us there is a drastic change. [/quote]
I don't think Jones is losing Seg4/5 guys either. But my guess is some guys are "thinking about it" like Segment 3 guys do all of the time.
I think different regions perform differently. Leadership is one of the things that will keep some producing advisors put at Jones. But regions where there is bad leadership, or resentment... all bets are off.
But since we're talking LP/GP - I have to agree with Spiff. Until Wind sends out that email, I won't believe it.[/quote] I had to read that twice before I caught that. That's hilarious!
The only people I have seen leaving the firm in my region have been
Seg 3 guys. I can’t think of one Seg 4 or Seg 5 guy leaving in the
past few years. I have to say our Region has great camaraderie and
leadership.
In the last 12 months 7 of us left EDJ in 1 region.
4 were Seg 5 5 were LP's 5 had greater than 10 years tenure at EDJ. 5 accounted for $400m in assets. It's happening. Maybe not to this extent in all regions, but there is an exodous.