[quote=EDJ4now]

When I could see my peers taking home twice what I did at other firms, using products that could annuitize their business, I couldn't see staying either. 

[/quote]

Everybody has a different reason for leaving.  For me, it was never about the money or percentage of net payout.  It was about being treated as if you were some sort of inferior POS compared to to the son, daughter, son-in-law, nephew (insert any nepotism here) of a former top producer who put up a bigger number than I did, but it didn't matter that they got a $50 million, $80 million, $130 million (insert any obscene number here) head start.  And then the thought that one of these idiots would surely one day be annointed as my "Regional Leader" was more than I could take.  I had that "straight up trajectory" too, but it was nothing compared to several other in my region.  If I lose in a fair fight where the playing field is level, that's one thing.  But, to watch really average or below average people be named GPs of the firm based on somebody else's work from 15-20 years ago is nothing short of ridiculous.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.  Life's not fair.  And it will never be perfect.  But, I couldn't stand by and have my nose rubbed in it day in and day out, either.

Question of the day:



Leave Jones for Wachovia??



What say you all?

Not a bad idea. I’m looking at them as well.

9753 sales people as of Feb 06, and 6136 as of Feb 2000.

Does anyone remember the montra by Bachman and Hill for 10K reps by 2000? No wonder they are changing course. The numbers say everything. They keep hiring 200 per month and they are losing 1800 per year somewhere. It can't be all newbies.

Smell the coffee. The reason they are moving to some form of fee based alternative is because they have to. Or the attrition of producers will continue and the numbers won't look much different in another 7 years.

[quote=Soothsayer]

Everybody has a different reason for leaving.  For me, it was never about the money or percentage of net payout.  It was about being treated as if you were some sort of inferior POS compared to to the son, daughter, son-in-law, nephew (insert any nepotism here) of a former top producer who put up a bigger number than I did, but it didn't matter that they got a $50 million, $80 million, $130 million (insert any obscene number here) head start.[/quote]

Yeah, there was that too.  In my case I genuinely liked a couple of those guys (not all of them, a couple of a-holes too), and help I received from one of them when I was struggling is probably why I am still in the biz today. 

It wasn't just about the money for me either (although it was nice to add to, rather than deplete, savings last year), but the second class treatment from St Louis.  I had a few issues arise in the last 18 months or so I was there that cost me quite a bit of $$ where EDJ could have easily helped me out, but didn't.  When a GP basically told me that a benefits change they made benefited a lot of IR's, and that a few of us would lose several thousand dollars, and I was in the second group, tough s---, I actually opened the recruiter letter that came that day. 

Shortly before I left, my RL conference called me with the GP in StL because he knew I was upset.  There was an issue where some fairly large upcoming medical bills would possibly not be covered by the new (and for me much more expensive) health insurance.  I was told that while I was technically right that it would not be covered, I shouldn't worry about it, because "trust me, if you get hit with a $50,000 hospital bill that the insurance won't pay, we will take care of it for you."  Not surprisingly, when I asked the GP to put that in writing, he declined.

My experience has been whenever I am told "trust me, you won't get screwed," I am about to get screwed.

[quote=Soothsayer][quote=EDJ4now]

When I could see my peers taking home twice what I did at other firms, using products that could annuitize their business, I couldn't see staying either. 

[/quote]

Everybody has a different reason for leaving.  For me, it was never about the money or percentage of net payout.  It was about being treated as if you were some sort of inferior POS compared to to the son, daughter, son-in-law, nephew (insert any nepotism here) of a former top producer who put up a bigger number than I did, but it didn't matter that they got a $50 million, $80 million, $130 million (insert any obscene number here) head start.  And then the thought that one of these idiots would surely one day be annointed as my "Regional Leader" was more than I could take.  I had that "straight up trajectory" too, but it was nothing compared to several other in my region.  If I lose in a fair fight where the playing field is level, that's one thing.  But, to watch really average or below average people be named GPs of the firm based on somebody else's work from 15-20 years ago is nothing short of ridiculous.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.  Life's not fair.  And it will never be perfect.  But, I couldn't stand by and have my nose rubbed in it day in and day out, either.

[/quote]

I sort of agree, in that I don't want it rubbed in my face.  However, most of the indies of the world talk about how great it is to "own" your business and be able to sell it.  Well, if I had a 100million office and was ready to retire, it better damn well be going to my son, daughter, son-in-law, nephew (insert any nepotism here).  Basically, seeing an office going to a relative and being pissed is just jealousy (hey, I'm jealous when I see it).  But it doesn't make it wrong.  It is actually very, very right.  I would think it was even worse if Jones DIDN'T allow nepotism.  Imagine all those years and assets, and you can't even give it to a relative?  Hey, it's not perfect, but it's not unfair.  Someday they may come up with a better way of compensating retiring brokers (through reduced payouts to successor), but until then nepotism works.

[quote=gad12]

Broker 24,

Maybe it is not as bad as some of us make it out to be I'll give you that.

But look at the facts of your own post and you'll realize that 92% over 10 yrs as Butkus said is grossly overstated.

Facts

Your region - 80 advisors - 60 of which are seg 3.

2 left last year.  That makes 3.3%  2/60

Multiply by 10 YEARS makes 33.3% are gone.  Not 8% as Butkus claimed.  Meaning 67% after 10 years retention. 

And I believe your region is probably lower turnover than average.  At least it is MUCH lower than my region is.

Also just keeping the facts straight.

[/quote]

Gad, you might be right.  I don't really know, honestly.  Numbers can be twisted and interpreted so many different ways.  I just think the attrition issue is a bit overblown. However, there are definitely some hot-button issues that lead to the attrition.  I think if they tackle each of them, it will go a long way in reducing it (which they have done a fair job of the last 18 months). 

[quote=Broker24]

I sort of agree, in that I don't want it rubbed in my face.  However, most of the indies of the world talk about how great it is to "own" your business and be able to sell it.  Well, if I had a 100million office and was ready to retire, it better damn well be going to my son, daughter, son-in-law, nephew (insert any nepotism here).  Basically, seeing an office going to a relative and being pissed is just jealousy (hey, I'm jealous when I see it).  But it doesn't make it wrong.  It is actually very, very right.  I would think it was even worse if Jones DIDN'T allow nepotism.  Imagine all those years and assets, and you can't even give it to a relative?  Hey, it's not perfect, but it's not unfair.  Someday they may come up with a better way of compensating retiring brokers (through reduced payouts to successor), but until then nepotism works.

[/quote]

I think the problem most people have is not nepotism, but that some beneficiary of nepotism who couldn't sell a life preserver to a drowning man is held up as a shining example for us lowly new/new's to emulate.  My experience was that many of these guys were genuinely hard working and humble about the huge leg up they were given, but some were obnoxious jerks who actually believed that because Daddy gave them 100mm in AUM they were smarter than you were. 

And St Louis always considered them fast starting geniuses while those of us who really were building a business were treated like idiots for not being more like them.

[/quote]

I think the problem most people have is not nepotism, but that some beneficiary of nepotism who couldn't sell a life preserver to a drowning man is held up as a shining example for us lowly new/new's to emulate.  My experience was that many of these guys were genuinely hard working and humble about the huge leg up they were given, but some were obnoxious jerks who actually believed that because Daddy gave them 100mm in AUM they were smarter than you were. 

And St Louis always considered them fast starting geniuses while those of us who really were building a business were treated like idiots for not being more like them.

[/quote]

That is exactly what happens. 

[quote=Butkus]92% of Segment 3 brokers are with the firm 10 years later.[/quote]

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results"

When I made Seg 3, it was 85% of those who make segment 3 go on to have profitable careers at Edward Jones.  Now it’s 92%.  They must be doing something right.

The newbie kool-aid drinkers will believe any statistics they're given by the RL's. They are just glad to have the job and don't know any better. The rest of us Know that it's bull. The attrition rate is much higher and will increase by one more soon - just have to add the names from the Do Not Call list into my scheduled calls for the day I leave so the kids in St Louis can give them a ring.

Just kidding.

9753 sales people as of Feb 06, and 6136 as of Feb 2000. Those numbers are from the SEC filings. So growth of 600 odd brokers net, per year, in three countries. Doesn’t seem so great, given the numbers that are pumped through training.

But Hulk, were the other firms pushing 200 new brokers per month through

their training programs?



Truthfully, I don’t think that these numbers are a good metric for the quality

of firms. Still, one has to wonder how good the training really is.

[quote=eyes wide open] 9753 sales people as of Feb 06, and 6136 as of Feb 2000.  Those numbers are from the SEC filings.   So growth of 600 odd brokers net, per year, in three countries.  Doesn’t seem so great, given the numbers that are pumped through training.

I hate edward jones. All they do is cherry pick statistics in an attempt to mislead. Like Nick murray says, you can cherry pick statistics and in some way be technically correct, but all you are really doing is lying.

I hate edward jones. All they do is cherry pick statistics in an attempt to mislead. Like Nick murray says, you can cherry pick statistics and in some way be technically correct, but all you are really doing is lying.

[quote=Philo Kvetch] But Hulk, were the other firms pushing 200 new brokers per month through

their training programs?



Truthfully, I don’t think that these numbers are a good metric for the quality

of firms. Still, one has to wonder how good the training really is.[/quote]



No, Mr Kvetch, other firms were making acquistions for growth as opposed to training new brokers.



And I would agree with you that these numbers are not a good measure for quality of firm. I don’t remember making statements to the contrary.

[quote=Incredible Hulk] [quote=Philo Kvetch] But Hulk, were the other

firms pushing 200 new brokers per month through

their training programs?



Truthfully, I don’t think that these numbers are a good metric for the

quality

of firms. Still, one has to wonder how good the training really is.[/

QUOTE]



No, Mr Kvetch, other firms were making acquistions for

growth as opposed to training new brokers.



And I would agree with you that these numbers are not a good measure

for quality of firm. I don’t remember making statements to the contrary.



[/quote]



How about your previous post for a statement to the contrary?



I, too, find it humorous, but for a whole 'nother reason.