Jones Pays

or Register to post new content in the forum

785 RepliesJump to last post



  • 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.
Feb 2, 2005 5:47 pm

Guest 1 are a stubborn silly little Jonesie now aren't ya! But I have  so much fun aggravatin y'all!  Especially a goofy boy with that one big ear and that nose a smiggen off center like ya got! 

You ain't payin no attention what I am sayin'. And I what I am sayin' is that NO ONE knows what is going to happen with all these fancy court proceedings.

All I know is IF ANY of those gussied up plaintiff lawyers or that Californi man get a big judgement againt the Edward D. Jones company y'all are in a whole bunch of trouble with those nice SIPC folks.  Now that ain't my opinion that just what the law says.

Now I showed' y'all how that could happen - but is sounds to me like ya convinced yoselves that ya' got nothin' to worry about.  Ain't that a lot like playin' with yoselves (feels good when no ones watchin ya... but it aint real) 

And as I said before this is only what we all know, its whatsja don't know that will nuke ya'.

I think there might somethin BIG cummin at y'all and y'all only got about $400 mill to play with.  Is that enough? ONLY THE SHADOW KNOWS

Feb 2, 2005 5:59 pm

Lance yop are so fiull of yourself. You are quick to point out when someone makes a claim that can not be validated and yet that is all you do. You stated $800,000,000 in fines/lawsuits.. Gee, the SEC and FEDS get 75mill and yet you think the plantiffs lawyers and CA AG will get 800mill ! Give me some of what you are smokin to go with my koolaide. You're good at insulting others but I think you are the one that is the joke.

Feb 2, 2005 6:03 pm

Got ya' all riled up now!

Yo sure are a funny boy!

Feb 2, 2005 6:17 pm

Riled up? Don't think so. Just good at spotting BS and I m seeing it with you. many on this board have negative feeling towards Jones, and that is ok. But at least when Zacko and a few others post, they speak the trust and not what they WISHED would happen. That is what you are doing here. Are you even in this business? Are you any good at it? Thought so..

Feb 2, 2005 6:34 pm

I ain't a wishin' nothin' on nobody.  I am only tellin y'all what could happen....sounds to me like yo the one that be wishin' son!

But yo right about a couple of things.

I am not even in the busines, I don't know nothin' about any of those fancy net capital computations or those customer reserve reconcilliations, or that Federal Reserve Regulation T Requirements or those real confusin NASD Rules of Fair Practice. And I certainly do not know how to predict the outcome of a real big law suit like y'all can!

And even if I was in the business I wouldn't be any good at CONvincin nice people to trust me with their life savins like y'all.  I would be terrible at tellin' those people the truth.

Right now it sounds like EDJ plan is a lot of hope!  And I got to tell you Son...Hope ain't much of a plan.

Feb 2, 2005 6:50 pm

fancy net capital computations? reserves? reg T.. Yeah, that is heady stuff alright. What if the 75mill was off balance sheet reserves?.. Hmm would that mess up yOur fancy computations. IT'S THE CAPITAL STUPID!  You can't even get that right..

Feb 2, 2005 7:38 pm

Off Balance Sheet Reserves!....That sounds like Enron!   What else those boys hidin' in dem der Off Balance Sheet Reserves!

Feb 2, 2005 7:53 pm

I think this is the longest thread we've had and I got the ball rollin'!!!

Feb 2, 2005 8:21 pm

Hee, hee....uwec86 said "ball"

Guest1 - save your breath.  You don't sound like a broker so stay out of this.  I am a broker.  The reality of it is (like I said before) EDJ (GP's) have done serious harm to the firm.  Having said that, for anyone to suggest that there is any way anyone in any posistion of authority would allow EDJ to be fined into (basically) closing their doors is ludicrous.  An 800 million dollar fine is no good for Jones, their clients, the MFD firms or the NASD who was aware of revenue sharing from the get go.  I think we will have our collective drawers dropped, get our butts spanked, and have to explain to clients and prospects what's going on for some time. It's as though the regulatory powers that be are astonished at the ENTIRE process of revenue sharing from its logisitics to its disclosure since the beginning.   

Feb 2, 2005 8:58 pm


That is a silly argument. Have you every heard of that great financial institution with its thousands of employees and tens of thousands of clients...General American? DEAD! And they had a lot more capital and assets than EDJ does. The courts and regulators do not care about ALLOWING things to happen....they would rather see a larger company fail. The NASD is all about rule enforcement is does not care about firm survival..only customer protection.

How about the DOJ? They put Arthur Andersen out -the worlds largest accounting firm. Do you know what AA thought? AA thought that they were above the law! Kinda like those goofy Geeps in St Louis lyin' to the SEC.

Again, my position is that EDJ is in a very precarious position and if I were an EDJ broker I would worry about your credibility with your clients and plan to exit ASAP..afterall its the clients that are payin y'all not the goofie HOmies!

How 'bout Drexel Burnham...DEAD!

Feb 3, 2005 1:32 am

Is there anyway to killfile someone on this board?

Feb 3, 2005 5:23 pm

what is "killfile"?

Feb 4, 2005 1:04 am
Lance Legstrong:

what is "killfile"?

I dunno but it doesn't sound too

Feb 6, 2005 7:35 pm
Investor isn't being told how revenue-sharing affects him
Charles Jaffe -- Your Funds
Originally published February 6, 2005
Fund investors were promised good medicine to combat the industry's problems.

But increasingly the cures of "transparency" and "disclosure" turn out to be placebos, and investors just got the latest example.

As part of settlements with federal regulators, brokerages such as Edward D. Jones & Co. and Morgan Stanley had to disclose revenue-sharing deals they made with big fund companies. In addition, fund companies are beginning to disclose how these deals work too, although the information is buried in the "statement of additional information," the second part of a prospectus that shareholders only see if they go searching for it.

Revenue-sharing fees are legal, as long as the arrangements are properly disclosed. Regulators have an issue with brokerages that create "preferred" lists without revealing that the firm earns extra compensation whenever an investor moves money into the favored funds.

Think of it like paying for shelf space in a grocery store, where the maker of cereal or spaghetti gives the grocer a little incentive for getting the best placement on the racks, the spots seen by the most customers.

Edward Jones posted its revenue-sharing disclosure on the firm's Web site Jan. 13, noting that it earned $82.4 million in revenue-sharing dollars during the first 11 months of 2004 from its seven "preferred" fund companies, American, Federated, Goldman Sachs, Hartford, Lord Abbett, Putnam and Van Kampen.

Technically, that money was incidental to shareholders, rather than coming directly from the customer's pocket. The way revenue-sharing deals work, if a customer deposits $10,000, the fund company takes a part of its management fee and turns it over to the brokerage as a bonus. The consumer does not directly pay anything extra, although in an industry with the big profit margins of the fund world, you know at least some of the cost trickles down eventually.

In the case of Edward Jones, nearly 60 percent of the money the company earned selling fund and annuity products in 2003 came from revenue-sharing deals. More than 95 percent of the firm's fund shares historically have been in the preferred fund companies.

The biggest payment came from the American funds, which actually had the lowest fees; that's a good sign, showing that brokers were not necessarily out to enrich the mother ship by pushing investors into lesser fund families.

In fact, it's clear that many Edward Jones brokers - often in one-person offices - were unaware of the way the deals worked, and stuck with the preferred list mostly because those were the only issues for which Jones sponsored educational briefings. That practice of limited briefings has stopped.

But because the disclosure doesn't make it entirely clear exactly how each revenue-sharing deal works, there is little to be drawn from looking at the numbers. There's no way to say that clients who were steered to a firm paying a big incentive were done any form of injustice.

So you get disclosure, but don't know what to do with it, and it doesn't help you make any sort of investment decision.

That's not real help.

Morgan Stanley, by the way, apparently felt the revenue tallies added so little to the process that it didn't actually disclose them on its Web site, instead making a statement that describes how revenue sharing works and who it has agreements with.

Fund firms aren't giving much more data in their disclosures, and since investors almost never actually call for the statement of additional information, the filings are just more meaningless sugar pills.

Regulators hope to give the information more muscle when they require "point-of-sale" disclosures, where brokers and planners will have to tell a customer at the time of a purchase just where all the dollars go.

Assuming the new disclosures become mandatory, they will make people aware of the issue.

It still won't change anything. Cerulli Associates, a Boston research firm, did a recent study showing that "preferred" investments get as much as 10 times the flow of funds not on a brokerage's list.

Disclosure won't change that.

It's as if the company making the spaghetti put a label on the box saying that 5 cents from every dollar went to pay for better display on the shelves. If there's nothing to indicate that money comes directly from the consumer's pocket - and in point-of-sale disclosures, nothing will say that revenue sharing increases the customer's out-of-pocket cost - buying habits won't change.

"It's a red flag that says: 'Oh, you investor, be aware that there are special deals being made here,' " says Geoff Bobroff, an industry consultant. "But there is no way an ordinary consumer can figure out what this translates to. If they don't see that they are directly paying more - and that's not in there - they can't draw any real conclusions from this."
Copyright © 2005, The Baltimore Sun
Feb 8, 2005 6:19 pm

Edward Jones has been hiring 200 brokers per month for several years, at least 10 years.  That's 2,400 per year, 24,000 in 10 years.  After 5 years, 8 out of 10 are no longer with the firm.  Beware investors, you may be a lab rat for a soon to fail door to door salesman.  

Feb 8, 2005 8:35 pm

Edward Jones has been hiring 200 brokers per month for several years, at least 10 years.  That's 2,400 per year, 24,000 in 10 years.  After 5 years, 8 out of 10 are no longer with the firm.  Beware investors, you may be a lab rat for a soon to fail door to door salesman.  

"Just follow the recipe and you will be successful"  Sounds like a great idea for a T-shirt 

Feb 8, 2005 8:50 pm

Shouldn't that read, "Just follow the recipe and Jones will be successful?"

Feb 8, 2005 11:31 pm

John Hickey, executive director of Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition, knocks on the door of the Edward Jones building Tuesday in Maryland Heights, where the broker does TV broadcasts to its affiliates. Hickey was trying to present a letter to managing partner Douglas Hill protesting the company's support of privatizing Social Security.
(J.B. Forbes/P-D)

Alternate Captions Doug Hill Knocks on the door of the Edward Jones building mumbling "I thought I had a whole year to clean out my desk"

A new Jones Broker in Maryland Heights won the Prospector Award for being the first broker to ever cold call the home office.

Edward Jones brokers who "wash out" are required to personally return sales posters and, as an incentive, are given cool cab driver hats.

A shareholder of Putnam Voyager knocks on the door of Edward Jones to request and updated prospectus which is expected to include the "kickback stuff" 

Feb 9, 2005 11:04 am

09/02/05 - News and city section

City broker claims £188,000 over 'anti-Semitism'
By James Rossiter City Correspondent, Evening Standard

A former employee of a City stockbroker is claiming £188,000 compensation for alleged racial discrimination.

Samuel Jacobs, 34, who is of Jewish origin, is claiming constructive dismissal against the firm Edward Jones which has 9,000 offices around the world and a turnover of £1.3billion.

According to documents submitted to an industrial tribunal, he says the company failed to investigate "complaints relating to anti-Semitic remarks". Mr

Jacobs has also made allegations of money laundering.

He is reported to have complained to the Financial Services Authority about UK money laundering and stated that "everyone has laundered some money at some time or another".

Edward Jones denies all the claims.

Mr Jacobs left the firm in November 2003 and sued in February last year.

Feb 9, 2005 12:38 pm

Social Security should survive, but plan ahead, speakers say

Feb 9, 2005

Nothing is going to change right now.

But before Congress alters Social Security, area stock brokers are encouraging Yumans to plan for retirement.

Three area investment representatives with Edward Jones hosted a free, one-hour satellite broadcast, "The Future of Social Security," at their offices on Tuesday.

The educational program was open to anyone, said Charles Cordery, investment representative with Edward Jones.

"We do try to keep people informed," he said. "And we are hearing a lot right now about Social Security."

How about a nationwide broadcast on "How to determine what you are being charged by a broker, and where does his loyalty lie"