GP eligibility/selection at EDJ

or Register to post new content in the forum

112 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.
Sep 2, 2006 8:20 am

Can someone in the know please shed light on how the GP's are selected.

Having been on a Jones trip with 2 home office GP hosts, I could not
figure out why they were GP's while revenue producer reps doing $500k+

are still just LP's. One rep in particular was a 20 yr EDJ vet who had also

done several of the Goodknight programs. Is the GP makeup of mostly
home office people as opposed to those in the field just due to
familiarity like a good old boy network? Is there a minimum $
production required of reps for becoming a GP?

Sep 2, 2006 8:53 am

Why post on here rather than just make a phone call to someone in your company?

Sep 2, 2006 11:21 am
peanutbroker:

Why post on here rather than just make a phone call to someone in your company?



Because he wants the truth, not the company line.

Sep 2, 2006 11:24 am

The truth is you'll never become a GP

Sep 2, 2006 11:29 am
bankrep1:

The truth is you'll never become a GP


And YOUR truth is that you'll never become a real broker.

Sep 3, 2006 12:09 pm

A few points:
1) To become a GP as an "IR" of the firm, you have to simultaneously be a "Regional Leader".  However, not all regional leaders are GPs.  Our old friend Guest 1 would be one such example.


2) Becoming a GP is largely a political process.  Partners invite in other partners who they want to be partners with.  If you're not one of those people, you'll never become a GP.


3) The percentage of those who have earned their GP stripes having never spent a single day as a broker in the field continues to increase as a percentage of those with the title.  (This is a disturbing trend, as it signals "The Club" keeps getting cozier and cozier, and even more and more political.


4) The chances of ever becoming a GP are far less than 1 in 100 for any person working at the firm presently.  Most of those serving as GPs today came to work for EJ when the firm was much, much smaller (before the explosive growth of the 90s that they somehow think they can duplicate.)  Their chances of becoming a GP was something like 1 in 25.  In other words, many of them were never really all that good, all that smart, or all that talented in the first place.

Sep 4, 2006 5:25 pm

Thanks for the input Sooth. I was there

several years and left in April, and really

don't have contacts left I can ask. And I really

could not figure out how come some were GP's

while others, who did a lot of "volunteering"

and production too were not...



I had to leave because my production was

lower than that of a peanutbroker...

Sep 4, 2006 7:47 pm
knucklehead:
bankrep1:

The truth is you'll never become a GP



And YOUR truth is that you'll never become a real broker.





So you work at EDJ

Sep 7, 2006 7:42 pm

In a partnership a General Partner is responsible for managing the company in some way and takes on more personal liability then a Limited Partner.(get it limited?)  So if you belong to a partnership but do not act in a management type of position then you cannot be a General Partner.  This would apply to any partnership not just EDJ, an example would be a oil and gas partnership.  I learned most of the above studying for my series 7 a few years back.

Sep 7, 2006 7:51 pm
Maxstud:

In a partnership a General Partner is responsible for managing the company in some way and takes on more personal liability then a Limited Partner.(get it limited?)  So if you belong to a partnership but do not act in a management type of position then you cannot be a General Partner.  This would apply to any partnership not just EDJ, an example would be a oil and gas partnership.  I learned most of the above studying for my series 7 a few years back.


And you would be wrong.  A partnership needs only one general partner capable of assuming risk.  There must be at least one general partner but there can be more, just like there must be one limited partner but there are often several, even many.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with a general partner doing nothing to manage the partnership.  Typically the general partners will contribute more capital to the partnership in return for their general partnership status and could ultimately be held liable for their share of the debts of the parnership.


The benefit to being a limited partner has nothing to do with the limited role in managment--it has to do with the limited liability in the event the partnership goes belly up.


Lucky for you Series 7 didn't ask any questions based on your ridiculous understanding of limited partnerships.

Sep 8, 2006 8:45 am

How exciting my first put/newbie flame.

NASD Wrote:
"The benefit to being a limited partner has nothing to do with the
limited role in managment--it has to do with the limited liability in
the event the partnership goes belly up."

From my old study materials:

"A limited partner does not have the right to manage the affairs of the partnership.  If a limited partner engages in management, he will lose his limited liability and become liable to creditors as a general partner"

I guess I would have to admit that I may be wrong on the GP role, althought the quote above gives me a small glimmer of hope that I'm not.

Sep 8, 2006 8:54 am

What is your point?  Are you trying to argue that limited partners are called limited partners because they do not have management duties?

Sep 14, 2006 9:52 am

NASD-


The limited partnership offerings at EDJ is the GP's way of adding to the coffers. Many believe including myself, that they do it to pay for expenses that would have been incurred by the GP's. For example the slow transition to a wired world is going to cost if memory serves 200M. With all the litigation currently, legal costs have skyrocketed, not to mention the fines imposed or settlements, I am guessing the partnership may in fact be restoring the capital base either required by the regulators or desired by management.


And NASD nothing is wrong with them doing it this way. Except the doublespeak...Ted Jones always said that he wanted to share the profits with people who did the work. Well if that really were the case, would there not be many more GP's participating in the company profits?


Or look at it from a different perspective. If we are to buy the notion that Jones owned only an income participation from Hartford Mutual Funds dating back to their inception in 96, and then received a 70M buyout this past year to cease the relationship, why don't they treat their LP's the same way when they cash out? Doublespeak to the core. Its not what they say, it's how they act. And NASD the only option if its offered is yeah or neah. No negotiation.


So what say you now? Tell me that all the companies you have worked for over your career are similar and the industry is corrupt. 

Sep 14, 2006 11:20 am

foot - what kind of negotiation do you want to have with Jones?  I don't know that they could make it any easier to become a LP at Jones.  If you are home office staff you put in a few years, keep in good graces and they say here you go.  Granted it's more difficult in the field, but we definitely make more money than the avg home office worker while we're waiting for the LP offer to come our way. 


If you have an LP interest I think you should feel fortunate that Ted didn't set it up differently.  He could just as easily have had only the Management Committee as the GPs and everyone else as LPs.


Also, if you had a lot more GPs sharing the company profits then it really wouldn't be a big advantage to being a GP.  Of course then you wouldn't have that to complain about would you? 

Sep 14, 2006 2:12 pm

SS-


Congrats you will go far with the firm. I thought I would never ever say this out of respect for those who died in Jonestown, South Africa, but enjoy your juice. It is very intoxicating.


I am telling the truth. It only pays to be an EQUITY participant. Hopefully you have determined how much bond exposure you need and included your LP in the calculation.


Regarding Ted. I doubt he would have approved of the current management and their willingness to create conflicts of interest.

Sep 14, 2006 3:18 pm
footsoldier:

SS-


Congrats you will go far with the firm. I thought I would never ever say this out of respect for those who died in Jonestown, South Africa, but enjoy your juice. It is very intoxicating.


I am telling the truth. It only pays to be an EQUITY participant. Hopefully you have determined how much bond exposure you need and included your LP in the calculation.


Regarding Ted. I doubt he would have approved of the current management and their willingness to create conflicts of interest.



Footsoldier:


This is an interesting comment. It shows how truly effective the "Jones Urban Legands" were in hazing our thought process while employed at Jones.


Let's look at Ted for example:  Is the glass half empty or half full-


In the book "Edward Jones- A History from 1871 to 2003" the story is documented how Ted fought with his father, Edward Sr. on NOT including his sisters' in any share of the family business. This greatly disturbed Edward Sr. There was MUCH conflict between Ted and Edward Sr. and Ted eventually stormed out of the office, retreated to his farm and did not report to work for several days. Edward Sr. sent his cousin, Jack Phelan to negotiate Ted's return- of course his return was contingent upon the Sisters' NOT getting any share of the Family Business.


Ted used to refer to himself as "something of a communist" regarding his views on business.


So, tell me: A man who cheat his own sister's out of an inheritance would not "roll over in his grave" at the antics of the General Partners of today -


He would stand straight up and applaud.


Sep 14, 2006 7:34 pm

For the record, Jonestown is not a part of South Africa.  It is/was located in Guyana. 

Sep 14, 2006 11:08 pm

Sooth-


Geographically challenged. Thanks for the clarification. When I google Jim Jones I found this quote on their website http://www.guyana.org/features/jonestown.html;


Conformity


The character of a church . . . can be seen in its attitude toward its detractors.
--Hugh Prather, "Notes to Myself"


*********


I can't take credit for this but does it not get to the heart of the matter when it comes to the IR's who can't or won't look at the facts and have nothing to say but attack. Actions or attitudes speak loud.

Sep 15, 2006 3:52 am

Footsoldier- Your endless yapping reminds me of a person who is not and will not be happy wherever they are. I hope that you find a situation that you can be happy in so that you may be your true contented soul.

Sep 15, 2006 9:24 am

Ahhh grasshopper-


I have found the enchanted land. Peace, love, rock and roll....


Kumbaya Mr. Noggin. Kumbaya.