Ray Jay

or Register to post new content in the forum

13 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.
Dec 28, 2006 2:20 pm

What do the Ray Jay reps have to say about their firm since they canceled their fee in lieu of comission accts., and introduced their own private share class of annuities??

Dec 28, 2006 4:03 pm

Woah, when did RJFS or RJA cancel their Advisory platforms?  I hadn't heard a word about that one...

Dec 28, 2006 4:14 pm

They still have advisory...just not fee in lieu of commissions...

Dec 29, 2006 9:31 am

The annuity thing is a non-event for me. Annuities only where appropriate, and they just got commissions back to the real world.


As I move to fee-based, it doesn't matter anyway. We can do no-load annuities and include them in the advisory fee platform. I like that.

Dec 29, 2006 12:57 pm
$$$$$:

What do the Ray Jay reps have to say about their firm since they canceled their fee in lieu of comission accts., and introduced their own private share class of annuities??


Where are you getting your information?  And learn how to spell.

Jan 6, 2007 3:42 pm
CIBforeveryone:

The annuity thing is a non-event for me. Annuities only where appropriate, and they just got commissions back to the real world.


As I move to fee-based, it doesn't matter anyway. We can do no-load annuities and include them in the advisory fee platform. I like that.



You should put the thinking cap on before speaking. If you are an independent you don't need your brain weak dealer banning street products for their own reasons not the clients or producers interest. The annuity policy is corrupt and it's a way of steering production into more selfish dealer platforms at the producers and clients expense.


It's just another proprietary game and RJFS is no longer an independent firm. They spend all their time growing the wirehouse gene of the firm.



Jan 6, 2007 6:23 pm

Weel said. I agree, and I am still on the fence about joining such a firm.

Jan 7, 2007 5:40 pm
Farmboy:
CIBforeveryone:

The annuity thing is a non-event for me. Annuities only where appropriate, and they just got commissions back to the real world.


As I move to fee-based, it doesn't matter anyway. We can do no-load annuities and include them in the advisory fee platform. I like that.



You should put the thinking cap on before speaking. If you are an independent you don't need your brain weak dealer banning street products for their own reasons not the clients or producers interest. The annuity policy is corrupt and it's a way of steering production into more selfish dealer platforms at the producers and clients expense.


It's just another proprietary game and RJFS is no longer an independent firm. They spend all their time growing the wirehouse gene of the firm.





My take is that it was a move to eliminate the dramatically higher payouts on some annuities than others out of fear of future regulatory action. I will admit I don't like to see a b/d controlling product, but as I said, it is really a non-event for me, so I've moved on.


Jan 9, 2007 7:21 am

farmboy are you with ray jay?

Jan 9, 2007 9:57 am

I think it was potentially well-intentioned but a very inappropriate action for an "indy" b/d.  They should have left market forces to address the issue.

Jan 9, 2007 9:59 am

well said. do you see car manufacturers or dealers caping the profit they make off the consumer. Hell no. let the market bear what it can bear. econ 101 for god's sake!

Jan 17, 2007 2:05 am

Indyone,



What is the difference between fee in lieu of commission and "advisory"?

Sorry if this is a bad question, but I am currently working in private banking

and the terms are unfamiliar.



Thanks!

Jan 17, 2007 1:21 pm

I believe, and anyone with better information can feel free to correct me on this, that fee in lieu is simply a brokerage account where the client pays an asset-based fee instead of a commission.  FIL accounts require no additional license beyond the 7/63 combo (I think).


An advisory relationship requires that the rep, or at least the firm, is registered as an investment advisor.  This relationship also assumes that there is a fiduciary relationship, that advice is an integral part of the relationship (as opposed to incidental), and I believe, that the rep must have a 65 or 66 securities license.


Having had a 65 since I started in fee-based, my knowledge of FIL accounts is limited, to be honest...