Technology at EJ
142 RepliesJump to last post
RANKFUNDS SPIFFY…get all your damn Putnam funds and have your BOA make a call list and and and…tell them EDJ’s research has moved the funds to an “underperform” list and move them toooooo toooooo toooooo tooooooooooo AMERICAN FUNDS!! YAHOOOOO…KACHING!!! Its okay if you do this to Maxstud…
I would like to ask how having a preferred funds list is any more controversial than a company, like UBS for example, selling its own self managed funds to their clients? I never see this mentioned along side commentary on EDJ’s mutual fund practices.
Spears, you must have had a good month. You're all over the place!
And thank god Putnam is off the list. About 6 years too late! I think my only Putnam funds are from ACAT's in. Those guys are AWFUL. I also have a few Putnam/Allstate annuities in my book (change of broker stuff), and there is absolutely NOWHERE to hide among their subaccounts. They're down and average of like 18-20%!! Honestly, I don't like exchanging annuities on clients, but I am almost forced to because of the performance.
Because it's no fun to bash UBS or SB or ML. Too many Jones & former Jones guys on this forum. It's just natural.I would like to ask how having a preferred funds list is any more controversial than a company, like UBS for example, selling its own self managed funds to their clients? I never see this mentioned along side commentary on EDJ’s mutual fund practices.
Broker24…I will look the other way if you want to call on your putnam clients and stop the bleeding…
This is defendable in my opinion. When they were giving trip points for preferred funds only, that was a conflict of interest. If there is no compensation or penalty for using those funds, but independent research only, then there's no problem with it. Unfortunately those of us that were newbies did not understand the behind the scenes comp going on and used to think this was the way it was in the hey-day of rev. sharing on P&L. They fixed that after the WSJ article! and rev. sharing settlements. RJ Keeps a "highly recommended" list of mutual funds, which RJ advisors can consider as another source of research. Their track record is quite good from what I've been told.I would like to ask how having a preferred funds list is any more controversial than a company, like UBS for example, selling its own self managed funds to their clients? I never see this mentioned along side commentary on EDJ’s mutual fund practices.
That would net me about twelve bucks. Besides, most of my clients are with Edward Jones Funds American Funds.Broker24…I will look the other way if you want to call on your putnam clients and stop the bleeding…
I’ve only got about $250K in Putnam which includes just under $100K in those old PCM contracts. Most of that is in their asset allocation funds, which aren’t horrible.
CIB - so Amex or ML or UBS giving a higher payout on proprietary funds (instant net and therefore conflict of interest to the FA) is defendable and the preferred list isn't. C'mon. That's a stretch to make Jones look bad and you know it. The non preferred funds not counting on the trips was a really long time ago and it didn't work that way for very long. You're really reaching with this one. So what's the difference between RJ's "highly recommended" list and Jones' preferred list? It's another source of research and not a conflict because why? How is that different than the Jones guys doing research? Our preferred list has a terrific track record. Barron's ranks American Funds #1 over the last decade, Hartford #5, Franklin #7, Oppy #11, Van Kampen #13, Lord Abbett #22, and Goldman #36. Also, all of the focus list are in the top 50. That means ALL of the fund families that Jones recommends are among the best, if not the best as of right now. Now, if they would just teach us how to use them, everything would be fine.To move on the preferred list, you gotta pay!!!@>@>Yes, they moved it from the preferred list to the focus list. Too many lists around here. Currently on the focus list is AllianceBernstein, DWS Scudder, Federated, Pioneer, MFS, and soon to be Putnam. It’ll be interesting to see if one of those families gets bumped up to the preferred list.
[quote=bspears]Its okay if you do this to Maxstud…[/quote]
No worries I have never invested anyone in Putnam or whatever other fund you had you panties in a bunch about. Was it comstock that the EJ guy moved you former clients from? I’m not as stupid as you were when I joined Jones. Glad to see your IQ has gone through the roof since you left. (sw) Still trying to figure out that LPL computer system? By the way since I mentioned it have your figure out why your tech charge argument is so fucking stupid a first year business student could point it out to you?
Stud & Spacehead, To quote the cliche “those who live in glass houses…” I used to have to go on the roof of my building to clear snow off my dish so I could get my computer to work. Are you still hit with $1300 a month P&L expense for your dish. Will Jones let you on Rrep’s website or are they still policing your access to information. UBS does not pay more for the using proprietary funds in fact they pay less in their wrap programs and the A share structure is in line with industry norms. Open your eyes and move beyond the Kool-Aid, look at Ivy, Quaker Strat., Davis, Alger, etc. for some fund options. Hey, you might want to look at a Hedge fund or two. Oh, yeah you don’t have access to financial instruments that can lesson clients risk while not correlating to Growth Fund of America. RJ’s research on the fund side is not based on revenue sharing agreements nor is FINETs. Do you have access to Lipper Data and Morningstar yet? Check them out they seem to have had a bit of success in the fund evaluation arena. "A terrific track record until you drop them off the “list” six years after they have blown up-Way to be proactive! I can assure you that LPL and most other independents’ technology blows EJ’s away. Do you still have to pay for advertising. Do the math… you have most of the downsides of an independent without the upside of ownership and high payout. I love driving by my former RL’s Jones office seeing the ever expanding rust stains on his ugly dish.
Max is having a bad month…I have to say if your so fucking smart, why are you still at the green machine dumbass…
This is defendable in my opinion. When they were giving trip points for preferred funds only, that was a conflict of interest. If there is no compensation or penalty for using those funds, but independent research only, then there's no problem with it. Unfortunately those of us that were newbies did not understand the behind the scenes comp going on and used to think this was the way it was in the hey-day of rev. sharing on P&L. They fixed that after the WSJ article! and rev. sharing settlements. RJ Keeps a "highly recommended" list of mutual funds, which RJ advisors can consider as another source of research. Their track record is quite good from what I've been told. CIB - so Amex or ML or UBS giving a higher payout on proprietary funds (instant net and therefore conflict of interest to the FA) is defendable and the preferred list isn't. C'mon. That's a stretch to make Jones look bad and you know it. The non preferred funds not counting on the trips was a really long time ago and it didn't work that way for very long. You're really reaching with this one. So what's the difference between RJ's "highly recommended" list and Jones' preferred list? It's another source of research and not a conflict because why? How is that different than the Jones guys doing research? [/quote] Spiff, you read my post wrong or I wasn't clear. I was trying to defend Jones' "preferred list." My point was that what RJ is doing really isn't any different than what Jones is doing, and as long as Jones isn't giving extra comp any more, it isn't a valid argument against Jones. I was also saying that when many of us were newbies, we thought preferreds were preferreds because of research, not revenue sharing, and we were wrong. Jones did correct the situation when they fixed rev. sharing on P&L to AUM percentage. CIB[quote=NOLA_Advisor]I would like to ask how having a preferred funds list is any more controversial than a company, like UBS for example, selling its own self managed funds to their clients? I never see this mentioned along side commentary on EDJ’s mutual fund practices.
CIB - I did misread your statement. My apologies.
wired - wow, 3 whole posts and you feel comfortable enough to start bashing already. Well, not like we needed another one, but welcome anyway. Your gross assumptions about Jones tells me you've been gone way too long to really know what you are talking about, so until you get the lay of the land and get to know what you don't know, I'd suggest you shut your mouth. BTW, you can't assure me of squat as far as technology goes because you don't have a clue what technology I have right now. You only know what you had when you left. To answer your questions - yes there is still a P&L charge, but the only thing I use the satellite for is a video link. We moved to T1 a long time ago. We now use SunGard's financial planning station, Morningstar's hypo system for funds and annuities. I know where to get Lipper ratings. BTW, if you're using Morningstar and Lipper as a research source you're a complete idiot. They don't do any research. They just publish ranks based on performance and some other concrete data. They are data compilers. Period. Hedge funds. Good idea. You mean like this one: http://registeredrep.com/advisorland/citi_blow_up_04_29_2008/ I'm sure all of those clients really appreciate their advisor trying to "lessen" their risk. Thanks for the info on the other mutual fund families. I didn't know there were more than 8 families out there.Spiff I am sure glad you didn't take over my office. I would have had real competition.
The young man just advertised a dinner with a market update from (drum roll please)
Putnam. Must be slower out west.
Geez...take a breath. Looks like someone has gotten a few inches under your skin... I can't understand how the system doesn't censor the f-bomb when you can't even say shit without an asterisk. Shit seems so harmless in comparison, given that it simply evolved from the acronym stamped on containers of dried manure, advising sailors to "ship high in transit" so the manure wouldn't get wet, producing methane gas, producing a problem when someone went below deck to inspect with a lantern... update: After viewing this post, I stand corrected...apparently with the new forum, we can cuss like sailors without any fear of censorship...fire away, Max...[quote=bspears]Its okay if you do this to Maxstud…[/quote]
I’m not as stupid as you were when I joined Jones. Glad to see your IQ has gone through the roof since you left. (sw) Still trying to figure out that LPL computer system? By the way since I mentioned it have your figure out why your tech charge argument is so fucking stupid a first year business student could point it out to you?
[quote=Indyone]
[/quote]
This is an urban legend and is not true. The word is derived from the old english ‘scitte’. The legend is much cooler, though.
I hoped to pass that one off, but you blew me out of the water…sh*t!!!
Sorry to out you like that...I should have let it ride for a bit!
Well the 'legend' of the F-bomb came from the Anglo-Dutch wars. When in bivouac, and to boost morale, the King ordered that a special tent was to be erected and reserved for soldiers to have 'conjugal' visits. In order to distinguish this tent from the rest of the encampment, a sign was posted reading, "Fornication Under Consent of the King"; or as the soldiers called it, the F.U.C.K. tent.