Broker Report Card
Here come the Jones people comparing it to being Indy, when Indy reps aren’t surveyed in this report.
OhVey here we go again
Good to UWEC backThis report is flawed… Jones is one of the places that has no branch management so how do they rank so high?
Also "freedom from pressure to sell certain products" for EDJ the firm with preferred funds you have to be kidding me.. Registered Rep's research department is even poorer than it forum control.i am surprised UBS did not lead in anything. lol. oh well. going to send this to my buddies still left there.
Take it with a grain of salt and consider who they survey. They survey registered readers. Do you think every RL in the country has a Registered Rep subscription (shake your head YESSSSSS)?
If you look at the article, it tells the number of surveys completed. These are approximations, but..... Edward Jones 385 MSSB 120 Merrill 100 UBS 67 Wachovia 193 Now, there are something like 65,000 reps among these 5 firms, and they surveyed a total of like 875 (is 1.4% a proxy for the entire population?). I am guessing that the real top producers (other than at Jones) could care less about the survey, and don't bother responding. I am guessing that most of the satisfied reps don't bother responding. More than likely, it's the disgruntled employees (again, other than at Jones) that are responding at most of these other firms. So it's not that the results are inaccurate per se, they are just skewed in a very biased way. I still believe that there is a higher % at Jones that are happy compared with some of the other firms right now, but if you actually surveyed EVERY FA, the results would be MUCH closer than this.interesting.
i think its pretty spot on
(ex jones which i have no idea)
wachovia securities has tanked the most as a firm in this subprime meltdown
[quote=Squash1]This report is flawed… Jones is one of the places that has no branch management so how do they rank so high?
Also "freedom from pressure to sell certain products" for EDJ the firm with preferred funds you have to be kidding me.. Registered Rep's research department is even poorer than it forum control.[/quote] That's because most Jones reps don't know the difference between a preferred and non-preferred fund, much less know they can sell something that isn't on the list.[quote=Squash1]This report is flawed… Jones is one of the places that has no branch management so how do they rank so high?
Also "freedom from pressure to sell certain products" for EDJ the firm with preferred funds you have to be kidding me.. Registered Rep's research department is even poorer than it forum control.[/quote] There is not pressure to sell the preferred funds. Sure, they don't provide the same amount of research or resources on the non-preferreds, but I think every Jonesy on here will agree that we do not receive any flack for going non-preferred.MB, you are 100% correct. There is no pressure to sell Preferred at all. In fact, I am probably more than 50% non-preferred at this point, and I have never had one question or comment on it.
However, it is aggrevating that there is absolutely no coverage of non-preferred funds (other than thru the advisory program, which I use). But my list of non-preferred fund families is about 4 or 5, so it's not a lot of funds to keep track of (I use just a few funds from those other families).[quote=B24]MB, you are 100% correct. There is no pressure to sell Preferred at all. In fact, I am probably more than 50% non-preferred at this point, and I have never had one question or comment on it.
However, it is aggrevating that there is absolutely no coverage of non-preferred funds (other than thru the advisory program, which I use). But my list of non-preferred fund families is about 4 or 5, so it's not a lot of funds to keep track of (I use just a few funds from those other families).[/quote] I agree, but then again, when you think about it, that would require a hell of a lot of research if they were going to cover non-preferreds, with the sheer number of approved funds out there. The lack of any information does bug me, though. Even just easy access to breakpoint schedules and fact sheets would be nice.[quote=MsBroker]There is not pressure to sell the preferred funds. Sure, they don’t provide the same amount of research or resources on the non-preferreds, but I think every Jonesy on here will agree that we do not receive any flack for going non-preferred. [/quote] What would you define as pressure? Or is pressure undertones ok?
It may seem like pressure to those without your level of mutual fund knowledge B24.It’s not the pressure not to sell non preferred funds. It’s the fact that they aren’t covered, the fact that the wholesalers can’t call on you out of the blue. How will you learn about them?? From your American Funds wholesaler?
[quote=B24]MB, you are 100% correct. There is no pressure to sell Preferred at all. In fact, I am probably more than 50% non-preferred at this point, and I have never had one question or comment on it.
However, it is aggrevating that there is absolutely no coverage of non-preferred funds (other than thru the advisory program, which I use). But my list of non-preferred fund families is about 4 or 5, so it's not a lot of funds to keep track of (I use just a few funds from those other families).[/quote] There doesn't need to be a tacit pressure to sell, just no assistance to buy other funds (i.e. no research, no mention of the funds availibility, etc). I remember a conversation early on with a vet who told me that if I sold a non-preferred fund and there was an issue with it that Jones would not support me with any sort of issues that arose. Just the thought that up until recently there was some subverted approval of Putnam funds (and now Oppenheimer) over other families is a little questionable.Noggin nailed it. It's not really pressure. They just make it so much easier to sell Preferred families (especially for newbies). Unless you came from another firm, there is a 99% chance you are going to just start selling preferred funds. And I'm not saying that's bad. If a newbie actually followed the actual model portfolios, they would be fine, and this is the safest way to start your career. But at some point, it would be nice to pull up quick info on funds in our system (as you can with the Preferred funds), and not have to go to the fund family websites. Yes, as someone said, that would require tremendous additional resources. And since Jones focuses on A shares, they need to use fund families that essentially provide most of the asset classes (and there are few good ones out there, even among our Preferred families). So this excludes many GREAT fund families like First Eagle, IVY, etc. that are great at a few things, but can't really provide a full portfolio. But what about PIMCO/Allianz, Blackrock, and others that DO provide full lineups? In reality, it is this A-share biased that leads to coverage of only a handful of fund families (oh, and that revenue sharing thing).It’s not the pressure not to sell non preferred funds. It’s the fact that they aren’t covered, the fact that the wholesalers can’t call on you out of the blue. How will you learn about them?? From your American Funds wholesaler?
I've never heard of that at Jones. Is that a wirehouse thing?it may not be “pressure”. But when they roll out a preferred or structured product with two sales days left in the month or they extend the sales days in the month only for those two products, they know what they are doing.
PIMCO has A-shares.
Just remember what you learned in training, you’ll never hurt anyone selling American Funds, Putnam Funds, or Hartford Funds…oh wait
Yeah but they don't share revenue... at Jones you have to do both..PIMCO has A-shares.
CIT bonds anyone
Yeah but they don't share revenue... at Jones you have to do both..[/quote] Right, and they don't quite have the sexy 5.75% rip on the front end...[quote=SometimesNowhere]PIMCO has A-shares.
On a side note, looking at “On Wall Street” payout grid comparison, they list wires, regionals, and then in a separate box EDJ… Some guy is probably like “WTF do we call them”…
On a side note, they know there niche and are exteremely profitable..kind of like walmart, but without the power.Please take note of the thread address .. "What's up at Firms?". So I'd say in response ... here come the Indy's sticking their noses where it doesn't belong. Nine plus ratings across the board, when the rest are getting 7s? Conclusively, we like our place more than wires like theirs. Props to Edward Jones for smoking the other wirehouses.Here come the Jones people comparing it to being Indy, when Indy reps aren’t surveyed in this report.
Once again, as always, and forever ... EDJ#1
[quote=B24]Take it with a grain of salt and consider who they survey. They survey registered readers. Do you think every RL in the country has a Registered Rep subscription (shake your head YESSSSSS)?
If you look at the article, it tells the number of surveys completed. These are approximations, but..... Edward Jones 385 MSSB 120 Merrill 100 UBS 67 Wachovia 193 Now, there are something like 65,000 reps among these 5 firms, and they surveyed a total of like 875 (is 1.4% a proxy for the entire population?). I am guessing that the real top producers (other than at Jones) could care less about the survey, and don't bother responding. I am guessing that most of the satisfied reps don't bother responding. More than likely, it's the disgruntled employees (again, other than at Jones) that are responding at most of these other firms. So it's not that the results are inaccurate per se, they are just skewed in a very biased way. I still believe that there is a higher % at Jones that are happy compared with some of the other firms right now, but if you actually surveyed EVERY FA, the results would be MUCH closer than this.[/quote]You really need to take a course in statistics...
The number of surveys you approximate disproves your point.
1.4% is statistically significant.
Jones is probably most reliable data since every office is the same and no manager.
What probably does skew these numbers is that Jones reps probably care about them more than the rest. Jones reps (Kool-Aide drinkers) are probably more likely to give all 10's just to keep Jones at the "Top".
A 9.5 for strategic focus does not make sense for Jones. They are on a hiring binge that is costing current reps alot of money. How can anyone agree with this? Building slowly through quality is good for Reps. Building quickly is good for the GPs. This one deserves a 4.0
Says a failure...
You really need to take a course in statistics…
The number of surveys you approximate disproves your point.
1.4% is statistically significant.
Jones is probably most reliable data since every office is the same and no manager.
What probably does skew these numbers is that Jones reps probably care about them more than the rest. Jones reps (Kool-Aide drinkers) are probably more likely to give all 10’s just to keep Jones at the “Top”.
A 9.5 for strategic focus does not make sense for Jones. They are on a hiring binge that is costing current reps alot of money. How can anyone agree with this? Building slowly through quality is good for Reps. Building quickly is good for the GPs. This one deserves a 4.0
It’s not the pressure not to sell non preferred funds. It’s the fact that they aren’t covered, the fact that the wholesalers can’t call on you out of the blue. How will you learn about them?? From your American Funds wholesaler?
While I believe the bolded statement to be true during your tenure at EDJ, it hasn't been the case since the rev sharing debacle. I get called on/emailed by a dozen or more non-preferred fund families.
Hiring binge? Once again, you prove you deserved to be let go by Jones. In addition to not selling, you weren't even listening to what was going on.
Jones, among all the major wirehouses, has been the most consistent in hiring FAs - regardless of the economic climate.I had an Empirical Political Analysis prof from Cameroon that had a great saying: "You don't have to eat the entire elephant to know the meat is tough." This concept applies well to statistics.
1.4% is statistically significant.
This report card continues to reflect the obvious. Jones brokers are generally more passionate than other firms in responding to this survey because they genuinely feel their firm is superior to the wires.
And that Spiffy probably has responded to the survey...at least once."Still" stop making comments about Jones, failures cannot help the argument..
Please take note of the thread address … “What’s up at Firms?”.[quote=LuvIndy]Here come the Jones people comparing it to being Indy, when Indy reps aren’t surveyed in this report.
So I’d say in response … here come the Indy’s sticking their noses where it doesn’t belong. Nine plus ratings across the board, when the rest are getting 7s? Conclusively, we like our place more than wires like theirs.
Props to Edward Jones for smoking the other wirehouses. [/quote]
Are you trying to say that Indy’s don’t have firms? Or that because our firms are smaller we don’t matter?
Personally, I think that Jones reps are happier by and large. The ones that aren’t leave. They have no promissory note they have to pay if they leave.
If a wirehouse rep is unhappy, they may (or may not) have something to pay back. But they can “stick it to the man” by complaining on the report card. Makes perfect sense.
Also, many wirehouse reps may be afraid to leave the firm because they don’t feel like they could succeed without all of the support they get.
Regardless, the survey is probably fairly accurate. Although I will say that if you are building a study, that their methodology is flawed. There are a lot of threats to validity that are not eliminated. So the survey is far from scientific.
[quote=Moraen] [quote=LockEDJ] [quote=LuvIndy]Here come the Jones people comparing it to being Indy, when Indy reps aren’t surveyed in this report. [/quote]
Are you trying to say that Indy's don't have firms? Or that because our firms are smaller we don't matter?
.[/quote] Nope. However, one might think the survey suggests that; insofar as they weren't included. I'm only pointing out that this thread exists within the What's Up at Firms location, as opposed, say, to the RIA/Independent area. And hence, this thread itself began in the right area.
I know that. That was my point...why DON'T they follow someone like PIMCO?PIMCO has A-shares.
I would be guessing...
PIMCO won't participate with Jones through the back door.I know that. That was my point...why DON'T they follow someone like PIMCO?[/quote] I think we were making the same point, then. There is no legitimate reason to not follow PIMCO. The only one I can see is that they don't "profit share", which, if true, is bulls#it. Maybe I am too jaded for my young career, but it seems that there are sometimes things that have no decent, logical, client-centered explanation.[quote=SometimesNowhere]PIMCO has A-shares.
That is the exact reason… Calamos wanted to become a preferred fund and were told $5-10MM investment upfront… Who do you think pays for the the trips(diversification, to and from St louis, tempe)?
[quote=Still@jones] [quote=B24]Take it with a grain of salt and consider who they survey. They survey registered readers. Do you think every RL in the country has a Registered Rep subscription (shake your head YESSSSSS)?
If you look at the article, it tells the number of surveys completed. These are approximations, but..... Edward Jones 385 MSSB 120 Merrill 100 UBS 67 Wachovia 193 Now, there are something like 65,000 reps among these 5 firms, and they surveyed a total of like 875 (is 1.4% a proxy for the entire population?). I am guessing that the real top producers (other than at Jones) could care less about the survey, and don't bother responding. I am guessing that most of the satisfied reps don't bother responding. More than likely, it's the disgruntled employees (again, other than at Jones) that are responding at most of these other firms. So it's not that the results are inaccurate per se, they are just skewed in a very biased way. I still believe that there is a higher % at Jones that are happy compared with some of the other firms right now, but if you actually surveyed EVERY FA, the results would be MUCH closer than this.[/quote]You really need to take a course in statistics...
The number of surveys you approximate disproves your point.
1.4% is statistically significant.
Jones is probably most reliable data since every office is the same and no manager.
What probably does skew these numbers is that Jones reps probably care about them more than the rest. Jones reps (Kool-Aide drinkers) are probably more likely to give all 10's just to keep Jones at the "Top".
A 9.5 for strategic focus does not make sense for Jones. They are on a hiring binge that is costing current reps alot of money. How can anyone agree with this? Building slowly through quality is good for Reps. Building quickly is good for the GPs. This one deserves a 4.0
[/quote] You obviously didn't read my post thoroughly. Yes, 1.4% is statistically relevant when done randomly. However, as I pointed out, I do not believe the numbers are random. I believe there is some definite biases in the results. They are not intentional, but are there regardless. I truly believe that all of the EDJ RL's know that surveys only go to registered readers. Therefore, all RL's are probably registered. RL's will naturally give glowing reviews, as it is in their best interest. In addition, most newbies are too stupid to know about Reg Rep yet, so have not signed up. So there is a natural biased towards veterans. Again, EDJ veterans are generally happier, since most that are unhappy leave (and they all have LP, so again, have an interest in the survey coming out well). It's called survivor biased. On the wirehouse side, most experienced vets don't give a flying fukc about doing some stupid survey, as they have no vested interest in the results. The firm is either good or bad for them and their clients or not. They don't care about what a few hundred other advisors think. As a result, the only ones that respond to the survey are the ones that hate the firm and want to see them go up in flames. So I have to ask you again, are the 1.4% in THIS survey a proxy for the entire population?
The only thing I will say in defense of Jones on this and the PIMCO question is that they try to stay away from fund families with too many "ecclectic" offerings. PIMCO has too many funds that don't fit neatly into Jones' model or are too aggressive in nature for them (long/short funds, absolute return strategies, derivative-enhanced equity funds, etc.). I don't know Calamos very well, other than one or two funds. Do they have a broad enough offering of decent funds?That is the exact reason… Calamos wanted to become a preferred fund and were told $5-10MM investment upfront… Who do you think pays for the the trips(diversification, to and from St louis, tempe)?
B-
I don't think any firm needs a defense. They should just tell you all the truth. It's a pay to play environment everywhere, and one of the worst offenders is Jones. Does the firm still say that the client comes first?If that were true, wouldn't Bill Gross be a bond manager that they must include? Question: Does your advisory solutions program require revenue sharing agreements to participate? I would hope not... BTW, LPL isn't much better, except we don't participate in any revenue sharing at our level. My firm is driven by revenue any way they can get it...[quote=BigCheese]B-
I don't think any firm needs a defense. They should just tell you all the truth. It's a pay to play environment everywhere, and one of the worst offenders is Jones. Does the firm still say that the client comes first?If that were true, wouldn't Bill Gross be a bond manager that they must include? Question: Does your advisory solutions program require revenue sharing agreements to participate? I would hope not... BTW, LPL isn't much better, except we don't participate in any revenue sharing at our level. My firm is driven by revenue any way they can get it...[/quote] Advisory Solutions used to require revenue sharing agreements, but they figured out that was wrong so instead raised all the fees. LPL does have revenue agreements. They also have preferred funds with no tickets vs pricing all mutual funds with same ticket charges.[quote=Squash1][quote=BigCheese]B-
I don't think any firm needs a defense. They should just tell you all the truth. It's a pay to play environment everywhere, and one of the worst offenders is Jones. Does the firm still say that the client comes first?If that were true, wouldn't Bill Gross be a bond manager that they must include? Question: Does your advisory solutions program require revenue sharing agreements to participate? I would hope not... BTW, LPL isn't much better, except we don't participate in any revenue sharing at our level. My firm is driven by revenue any way they can get it...[/quote] Advisory Solutions used to require revenue sharing agreements, but they figured out that was wrong so instead raised all the fees. LPL does have revenue agreements. They also have preferred funds with no tickets vs pricing all mutual funds with same ticket charges.[/quote] I agree. I don't like revenue sharing at all. It stinks. I don't care whether it's a conflict of interest or not. If I were a client, I would preceive it to be, and that's all that matters. Advisory Solutions never required it. Basically, they were still receiving revenue sharing from any preferred funds they happened to use, but those were always refunded back to the client. I believe they now refuse to even collect revenue sharing on those accounts. My guess is that they are using Advisory Solutions to ween themselves off revenue sharing over time. I think the legislative and regulatory handwriting is on the wall. I can't believe revenue sharing is still allowed, and so widespread (virtually all major firms collect it). But I guess it's like steroids in baseball. If everyone is doing it, why not?B-
That has always been a bone of contention for me as well. I don't like revenue sharing and I hope some day they just ban it entirely. I credit Jones for seeing the future (10 years later than everyone elese!). They probably know something is coming down the road to affect 12b-1's so they are preparing for a loss of revenue. It's smart and about time. LPL does reduce ticket charges so I guess we do benefit, for me 1.67% of revenue goes to pay ticket charges (all products).Says a failure... [/quote][quote=Still@jones]
You really need to take a course in statistics…
The number of surveys you approximate disproves your point.
1.4% is statistically significant.
Jones is probably most reliable data since every office is the same and no manager.
What probably does skew these numbers is that Jones reps probably care about them more than the rest. Jones reps (Kool-Aide drinkers) are probably more likely to give all 10’s just to keep Jones at the “Top”.
A 9.5 for strategic focus does not make sense for Jones. They are on a hiring binge that is costing current reps alot of money. How can anyone agree with this? Building slowly through quality is good for Reps. Building quickly is good for the GPs. This one deserves a 4.0
If you are going to insult me, please make it funny, clever or obscene...
Otherwise, you are just a waste of space.
[quote=B24]So I have to ask you again, are the 1.4% in THIS survey a proxy for the entire population?[/quote]
Maybe we are agreeing and just don’t know it.
Randomly, 1.4% is more than enough. But, this is anything but random.
Probably the greatest deviation is because only jones reps care about these numbers.
Amazing how the advisors that care about these numbers are pretty much always with the firms that are ranked number 1...believe me...if LPL, RAY JAY, BofA/Merrill or any other firm were ranked number one, there RR's would be chirping about how good survey it was while all the rest would say it means squat! Personally, I don't much care whether we are ranked or not, nor do I know, or care for that matter, whether it is a flawed survey....what I do know is that client's like it when they see it...whether it is JD Power or any other list maker![quote=B24]So I have to ask you again, are the 1.4% in THIS survey a proxy for the entire population?[/quote]
Maybe we are agreeing and just don’t know it.
Randomly, 1.4% is more than enough. But, this is anything but random.
Probably the greatest deviation is because only jones reps care about these numbers.
I think it’s accurate, even though it is scientifically flawed.
Once you Jones guys get going…
Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/whats-firms/broker-report-card