Skip navigation

Revenue Sharing

or Register to post new content in the forum

94 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.
Jun 6, 2006 5:36 pm

Folks, I'm enough of an accountant to know that if Revenue Sharing amounts to 5% of revenues, then it brings in about 5% of net income.  I don't have any idea how Jones' accountants figure it, but from my super-powers, that means that if RS goes away, Jones would take about a 5% hit.  I'm sure that hurts, but I doubt we can all go celebrate their ultimate demise over it.

Jun 6, 2006 8:03 pm

Not1ofthem--Wrong.  Go back to school.

MY POINT is that revenue sharing is not really earned income.  It doesn't come from any Jones rep placing a trade--nor is much (if any) ever shared with the broker.  Jones keeps about 90% of all revenue sharing dollars. 

LOOK AT THIS WAY: Funny how a firm that claims that they are so against fee based accounts and wrap programs derives over 50% of all their profit from....ONGOING REVENUE SHARING FEES.  If that's not the epitome of hypocracy--I don't know what is.  Jones has essentially elimnated the possibility of incurring losses by guaranteeing themselves an income stream.  The GP's have annuitized their income.  They promote and participate in the very thing they choose to not allow their IR's to do so.  How can that NOT piss you off if your a Jones IR?   In 2002, there was no bonus for IR's--yet GP returns were the 5th highest on record?

Those of you who are in your third fourth, or even fifth year at Jones think your at someplace special.  News flash--It's special for the GP's and not for you.  You only think it is because you never earned over 100k-150k before and now that you are--you think Jones is responsible for your success.  You follow the mantra like a second religion. 

Truth is most of you are clueless about much of what else is out there and when challenged, are incapable of spouting much more than the company line.  That's why they have so many meetings at Jones--to keep the "message" ingrained in your skulls.  They know that once original thought surfaces you will be looking elsewhere fairly soon.

This is a great business to be in--and you can do well for yourself and your clients.  Fact is that BOTH can be better served as an indy and certainly not at Jones.   

Jun 6, 2006 8:11 pm

Revenue Sharing is not really earned income therefore it is not used to cover any type of overhead expense?  Pretty weak statement.  None of it goes to cover employee salaries, building maintenance, LP payout ect ect?

Simple formula Revenue - Expenses = Income, it doesnt matter if the salesperson directly creates the revenue or if its paid by a company to do business with another company.

Schools out Zacko.

Jun 6, 2006 8:36 pm

NOT1OFTHEM is a ruse. It's another name change.

He can't agree with you Zacko, because he is Not One Of THEM-

THEM=I R / Regular GUY/ LP

He's either Guest1  or another just like him.

He LOVES the Revenue Sharing Formula- he sleeps with it.

Jun 6, 2006 8:56 pm

You defend a major source of revenue and the largest source of net profit for your firm for the very assets you have on the books IN YOUR BRANCH--yet recieve little or none of the benefits?  Now, that's priceless!!!

Jun 6, 2006 9:04 pm

I wasnt defending anything, I was questioning your accounting.  I have never seen in any business where any form of revenue is pure profit.  I’m really just saying that your wrong about the pure profit statement.

Jun 6, 2006 9:09 pm

[quote=munytalks]

NOT1OFTHEM is a ruse. It's another name change.

He can't agree with you Zacko, because he is Not One Of THEM-

THEM=I R / Regular GUY/ LP

He's either Guest1  or another just like him.

He LOVES the Revenue Sharing Formula- he sleeps with it.

[/quote]

NOT1OFTHEM never defended revenue sharing either, he just stated an accounting opinion.  Its funny that you read so much into the post that isnt there.  Do you see communinst under every rock as well?

Jun 6, 2006 11:14 pm

Ok for all of you that won't take the time to read the 10K. Straight from the horses mouths.

There are regulatory proposals being considered that could significantly impact the disclosure and potentially the amount of compensation that broker-dealers derive from mutual funds and annuity products. The Partnership believes it is likely in the future that broker-dealers will be required to provide more disclosure to their clients with respect to payments received by them from the sales of these products. It is also possible that such payments may be restricted by law or regulation.

The Partnership derived 67% of its total revenue from sales and services related to mutual fund and annuity products in the first three months of 2006 and 68% in the first three months of 2005. The Partnership derived 30% of its total revenue for the first three months of 2006 and 34% for the first three months of 2005 from one mutual fund vendor. Significant reductions in the revenues from these mutual fund sources could have a material impact on the Partnership's results of operations.

So those of you who think we are blowin smoke up your rear making comments that EDJ could be in real trouble if RS is changed by the regulators, your firm at least feels there is concern if you don't.

Jun 6, 2006 11:29 pm

[quote=Maxstud][quote=munytalks]

NOT1OFTHEM is a ruse. It's another name change.

He can't agree with you Zacko, because he is Not One Of THEM-

THEM=I R / Regular GUY/ LP

He's either Guest1  or another just like him.

He LOVES the Revenue Sharing Formula- he sleeps with it.

[/quote]

NOT1OFTHEM never defended revenue sharing either, he just stated an accounting opinion.  Its funny that you read so much into the post that isnt there.  Do you see communinst under every rock as well?

[/quote]

Communists under EVERY rock? NO, but I must ask, are you always so paranoid? I was speaking to Zacko- why do you feel you must defend Not1ofthem? Are you feeling guitly about something?

Jun 6, 2006 11:31 pm

I read that as all revenues not just revenue sharing, agree?

Jun 7, 2006 12:13 am

Partly correct Max.

Most are unaware that at least 95% goes directly to the bottom line. Zacko's point. Imagine if 63% of your net income was suddenly gone. You would have to figure out how to replace it.

Clearly the GP's are smart enough to have contingency plans. What say you Guest1. Care to comment?

Jun 7, 2006 12:18 am

[quote=munytalks][quote=Maxstud][quote=munytalks]

NOT1OFTHEM is a ruse. It's another name change.

He can't agree with you Zacko, because he is Not One Of THEM-

THEM=I R / Regular GUY/ LP

He's either Guest1  or another just like him.

He LOVES the Revenue Sharing Formula- he sleeps with it.

[/quote]

NOT1OFTHEM never defended revenue sharing either, he just stated an accounting opinion.  Its funny that you read so much into the post that isnt there.  Do you see communinst under every rock as well?

[/quote]

Communists under EVERY rock? NO, but I must ask, are you always so paranoid? I was speaking to Zacko- why do you feel you must defend Not1ofthem? Are you feeling guitly about something?

[/quote]

Your post are very funny keep it up I love them.  Speaking to Zacko on a public board, try pm it much more direct.  I'm not defending Not1ofthem, just pointing out that fact that your post that he said he loves revenue sharing when his post didnt even imply that at all. Also to answer your direct question, no I dont feel guilty, hungry right now but not guilty.

Really keep posting you crack me up!!!
Jun 7, 2006 12:21 am

[quote=footsoldier]

Partly correct Max.

Most are unaware that at least 95% goes directly to the bottom line. Zacko's point. Imagine if 63% of your net income was suddenly gone. You would have to figure out how to replace it.

Clearly the GP's are smart enough to have contingency plans. What say you Guest1. Care to comment?

[/quote]

I really don't know if I have the energy or even the desire to try and correct this 95% bottom line bs.  So if I decide I do I'll come back and try to explain it, but I doubt if its worth the effort.

Jun 7, 2006 12:22 am

[quote=Maxstud]

Revenue Sharing is not really earned income therefore it is not used to cover any type of overhead expense?  Pretty weak statement.  None of it goes to cover employee salaries, building maintenance, LP payout ect ect?

Simple formula Revenue - Expenses = Income, it doesnt matter if the salesperson directly creates the revenue or if its paid by a company to do business with another company

[/quote]

I'll try by reposted the above quote.  

Good luck
Jun 7, 2006 1:24 am

If the EDJ GPs are only concerned about lining their pockets as you say, then we will have wrap accounts very shortly. If/When we do have wrap accounts, you will tell us that it is only for them to make more money, while you tell us now that wrap accounts are good for the clients. I look forward to the day when this is the topic of debate…

Jun 7, 2006 1:40 am

Max-

Your theory would have more validity if YOU shared evenly with the owners. Unless you are one.

60M from the EDJ Brokerage. 88M as a result of overrides or other companies. 172M from Mutual fund and 35m from Insurance.

There's the grocery store model. Nothing wrong or illegal about their businesses or their model. But what they tell us is usually the exact opposite of what they do. When you can't grow and you are losing vets at the same rate that you bring new ones on, clearly change is imminent.

Jun 7, 2006 3:58 am

[quote=footsoldier]

Max-

Your theory would have more validity if YOU shared evenly with the owners. Unless you are one.

60M from the EDJ Brokerage. 88M as a result of overrides or other companies. 172M from Mutual fund and 35m from Insurance.

There's the grocery store model. Nothing wrong or illegal about their businesses or their model. But what they tell us is usually the exact opposite of what they do. When you can't grow and you are losing vets at the same rate that you bring new ones on, clearly change is imminent.

[/quote]

First things first, I am ONLY discussing the assertion that 90-95% of the revenue sharing is PURE PROFIT, it is NOT.  There is no such thing as pure profit in business, there is ALWAYS overhead and it doesnt matter if the revenue is directly generated from a salesperson or from a meteor dropped from the sky, someone needs to pay the guy that picks up the cash inside the meteor. In other words there are expenses that the business pays and that is deducted from ALL revenue.  I cannot explain it more clearly, I could ask the CPA I league bowl with to explain it but I would feel to stupid to ask such a question.  So I would maintain this is not a theory but a basic accounting fact.

Grocery store model??? Please if you have been involved in any other business in your life you would KNOW this is how business is done.  Businesses make deal with other businesses to do business.

News flash: Golden Rule is he who has the gold makes the rules.  I have never been involved in any business, little league sporting event, bowling leage, or frikin PTA meeting that people ddidn't put thier personal interest ahead of yours or anyone else's.  Grow up and learn that or you'll be whining about why your kid doesn't get to start the game ahead of the coaches kid for the rest of your life.  Everyone is in it for themselves so if you worried about the greedy GP your worrying about the wrong thing.
Jun 7, 2006 4:00 am

PS I love my clients.  Thank you and goodnight

Jun 7, 2006 4:35 am

Guest1?  He ran off like a little bitch when he was outed on another thread. 

Maxstud is now using analogies with meteors, comets, lightning, things dropping from the sky.  Holy sh*t, he's about to go GP on me, and start quoting the bible and different psalms to back up the Jones position.  So, here's the question:

If revenue sharing were to cease tomorrow, what part of the Jones overhead would go away proportionately, if at all?  What capital is Jones risking, pledging, or holding captive by participating in their various revenue sharing agreements? 

I have long maintained that the revenue sharing payments that Jones receives largely funds the training costs (trainers, plane tickets, meals and rooms at the Westport, 24K annual salaries, etc.) for all of the "stuff" that they seem to endlessly, mindlessly, and blindly throw at the wall.  If those agreements are compromised in any way, your Regional Growth Leader will be looking for a new way to "voluntold". 

Jun 7, 2006 5:26 am

Zacko states "LOOK AT THIS WAY: Funny how a firm that claims that they are so against fee based accounts and wrap programs derives over 50% of all their profit from....ONGOING REVENUE SHARING FEES"

Where did you get your accounting degree? Let me guess: Corky's University.  "PURE PROFIT"...where are you coming up with this stuff? 

To answer Soothsayer, if revenue sharing payments went away, overhead would be reduced substantially simply by foregoing the revenue sharing disclosure related paperwork, dedicated team, lawyer fees, etc.

Who cares which about how much of profit is derived by revenue sharing? 

Maybe you would also care about how much profit is derived from annual account fees? transfer fees? TOD fees?

What about Raymond James? How much profit is derived from ticket charges?  This whole thread is rediculous.  You should know better Zacko.  I now think much less of you.