how many licensed individuals are permitted in ONE location before that location MUST be registered as a “branch”?

That’s a good question, I’m glad you asked.  I honestly don’t know.  We use the “branch” term pretty loosely around here, but I don’t know exactly how they are registered. 

Well in a recent sugg Weddle says, that" He does not believe that Jones should abandon the One FA office." In fact he goes on to say that he believes. “The great majority of two-financial advisor offices simply do not work well”. That should answer your question. I’m not sure why someone would support a model, they don’t think works.

not relevant. Like he would spill the beans in the sugg box! I remember how he talked about A shares being “in the best int of our clients”, too, right up until he announced the formation of a fee-based program task force. Think of the behind-the-scenes politics he needs to employ against the “old guard” to change these things.

I am torn about what jones sees in the one-man office.  I think they either see it as one of their differentiating factors, or they believe there are negative business ramifications to doing it (i.e. what happens to the assets if one of them leaves - do they go to the other advisor?  Does a new person get them?  Do you get to pick your own “team”, or is an advisor “assigned” to your office?  Who decides if you will have multiple FA’s in the office?  How do you agree on out-of-pocket overhead?  Also, they may feel it could lead to teams leaving en masse).

Said and done, there’s a distinction to be made about having your own office and being a trainee. Once you’ve qualified - and that distinctly appears in the opening post here - you get your own office.

Locked, I think you hit on a good point.  I think maybe Advisory Solutions (dare I bring it up) is going to solve some of these issues.  Why?  Because I think the goal is to have new FA’s be more profitable before they get their own office.  How do you get them profitable, consistently?  Recurring revenue.  Once they are consistently profitable, they are making a contribution to the firm.  Lower the overhead for non-performing “assets” (i.e. newbie FA’s), and you improve your firm profit.

Just to be clear, I don’t believe Jones is talking about changing the structure of the one man offices.  I think they are simply looking for a way to great a high growth model without the issues associated with that kind of model.  If you can take areas like Orlando, Boston, or LA where there are significant assets, but virtuallly no Jones presence and grow it rapidly, but cost effectively at the same time, it benefits everyone involved.  

I would agree with that model. It might scare the people coming into the business, who it really isn’t for. I think the people who won’t make it, will end their career before it starts, instead of sippin on the titty (salary) for a few months and getting in their office before deciding to leave. They’ll probably quit the first few weeks of doorknocking.

Its called Location Rich Market. Phonenix, Tornonto, LA soon, more in the future. Centralized training, boa support from the beginning, trainers so the veterans aren’t overwhelmed, etc. FAs “graduate” to their own office. Not changing our model at all, just better systems for new FAs to succeed. Goal is to have 250 plus succesful offices in large markets

makes a ton of sense. I did my first several months out of my bedroom; not ideal!! Certainly was no admin support…and all of the newnews failed

Having left Jones 2 1/2 years ago and going indy after spending 14 years at Jones as a seg 4.  I am the branch manager for 2 FA’s one is 15 miles away and one is 60 miles away.  Though technology and personal visits it is very easy to manage these offices.  If Jones does the start ups in one building it would be a smart move.  For all the reasons listed I would have a branch manager S-24 in that office and based their pay based on success of the new FA’s and asset gathering…also I would require the new FA’s to hit seg 2 substained 2 cycles to get their own office.  The amount of money saved at Jones would be $$$$$$$$$$$…also I believe the quality of training would increase.  Plus the new BM could control the wholesellers who screw up new FA’s.  If Jones does this I would have to give them a lot of credit!

Agreed, all these original thoughts and good ideas after I left the green machine, makes me want to go back

I haven’t heard a peep about this yet, but it sounds fantastic. In this scenario the best newbies could take over offices, the strugglers get the training they need and the ones not working can’t just sit at their house all day.

If Jones would have had this available they’d hold onto guys like still@jones, instead he’s crushing it at an insurance firm who got a fully trained and functional advisor for nothing and Jones wasted $40k paying him, training him, and getting him his licenses.

It may be the best idea a Jones person has had since Doug Hill introduced the concept of revenue sharing to John Bachmann.

Spiff-

I think your comment about the profitable FA’s producing more is a difficult thing.  There are a ton of guys in my region, and around the rest of the firm, who are Seg 4 producers averaging $25-30K a month.  They’re pretty comfortable there.  Other than bigger bonuses and bigger paychecks, what’s in it for them to making more money?  What kind of additional effort will they have to put out to do it?  How do you motivate folks like that to go from Seg 4 to Seg 5? 

This COULD be the best move with we hired Windy!

Spiff, I agree wholeheartedly.  However, I think that’s why Jones puts the profit bonus program in place.  And I wouldn’t do it based on segments, I would do it based on consistent production.  IOW, I might make segment 4 one month by hitting a few homeruns - but it doesn’t mean I should still get a higher payout if my production drops in the future (even though I am “segment 4”).  I assume you were sort of suggesting this, but just my $0.02.