GP eligibility/selection at EDJ

Why post on here rather than just make a phone call to someone in your company?

[quote=peanutbroker]Why post on here rather than just make a phone call to someone in your company?[/quote]

Because he wants the truth, not the company line.

The truth is you’ll never become a GP

[quote=bankrep1]The truth is you'll never become a GP[/quote]

And YOUR truth is that you'll never become a real broker.

A few points:
1) To become a GP as an "IR" of the firm, you have to simultaneously be a "Regional Leader".  However, not all regional leaders are GPs.  Our old friend Guest 1 would be one such example.

2) Becoming a GP is largely a political process.  Partners invite in other partners who they want to be partners with.  If you're not one of those people, you'll never become a GP.

3) The percentage of those who have earned their GP stripes having never spent a single day as a broker in the field continues to increase as a percentage of those with the title.  (This is a disturbing trend, as it signals "The Club" keeps getting cozier and cozier, and even more and more political.

4) The chances of ever becoming a GP are far less than 1 in 100 for any person working at the firm presently.  Most of those serving as GPs today came to work for EJ when the firm was much, much smaller (before the explosive growth of the 90s that they somehow think they can duplicate.)  Their chances of becoming a GP was something like 1 in 25.  In other words, many of them were never really all that good, all that smart, or all that talented in the first place.

Thanks for the input Sooth. I was there

several years and left in April, and really

don’t have contacts left I can ask. And I really

could not figure out how come some were GP’s

while others, who did a lot of "volunteering"

and production too were not…



I had to leave because my production was

lower than that of a peanutbroker…

[quote=knucklehead]

[quote=bankrep1]The truth is you’ll never become a GP[/quote]

And YOUR truth is that you’ll never become a real broker.

In a partnership a General Partner is responsible for managing the company in some way and takes on more personal liability then a Limited Partner.(get it limited?)  So if you belong to a partnership but do not act in a management type of position then you cannot be a General Partner.  This would apply to any partnership not just EDJ, an example would be a oil and gas partnership.  I learned most of the above studying for my series 7 a few years back.

[quote=Maxstud]In a partnership a General Partner is responsible for managing the company in some way and takes on more personal liability then a Limited Partner.(get it limited?)  So if you belong to a partnership but do not act in a management type of position then you cannot be a General Partner.  This would apply to any partnership not just EDJ, an example would be a oil and gas partnership.  I learned most of the above studying for my series 7 a few years back. [/quote]

And you would be wrong.  A partnership needs only one general partner capable of assuming risk.  There must be at least one general partner but there can be more, just like there must be one limited partner but there are often several, even many.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a general partner doing nothing to manage the partnership.  Typically the general partners will contribute more capital to the partnership in return for their general partnership status and could ultimately be held liable for their share of the debts of the parnership.

The benefit to being a limited partner has nothing to do with the limited role in managment--it has to do with the limited liability in the event the partnership goes belly up.

Lucky for you Series 7 didn't ask any questions based on your ridiculous understanding of limited partnerships.

How exciting my first put/newbie flame.

NASD Wrote:
"The benefit to being a limited partner has nothing to do with the
limited role in managment–it has to do with the limited liability in
the event the partnership goes belly up."

From my old study materials:

"A limited partner does not have the right to manage the affairs of the partnership.  If a limited partner engages in management, he will lose his limited liability and become liable to creditors as a general partner"

I guess I would have to admit that I may be wrong on the GP role, althought the quote above gives me a small glimmer of hope that I’m not.

What is your point?  Are you trying to argue that limited partners are called limited partners because they do not have management duties?

NASD-

The limited partnership offerings at EDJ is the GP's way of adding to the coffers. Many believe including myself, that they do it to pay for expenses that would have been incurred by the GP's. For example the slow transition to a wired world is going to cost if memory serves 200M. With all the litigation currently, legal costs have skyrocketed, not to mention the fines imposed or settlements, I am guessing the partnership may in fact be restoring the capital base either required by the regulators or desired by management.

And NASD nothing is wrong with them doing it this way. Except the doublespeak...Ted Jones always said that he wanted to share the profits with people who did the work. Well if that really were the case, would there not be many more GP's participating in the company profits?

Or look at it from a different perspective. If we are to buy the notion that Jones owned only an income participation from Hartford Mutual Funds dating back to their inception in 96, and then received a 70M buyout this past year to cease the relationship, why don't they treat their LP's the same way when they cash out? Doublespeak to the core. Its not what they say, it's how they act. And NASD the only option if its offered is yeah or neah. No negotiation.

So what say you now? Tell me that all the companies you have worked for over your career are similar and the industry is corrupt. 

foot - what kind of negotiation do you want to have with Jones?  I don't know that they could make it any easier to become a LP at Jones.  If you are home office staff you put in a few years, keep in good graces and they say here you go.  Granted it's more difficult in the field, but we definitely make more money than the avg home office worker while we're waiting for the LP offer to come our way. 

If you have an LP interest I think you should feel fortunate that Ted didn't set it up differently.  He could just as easily have had only the Management Committee as the GPs and everyone else as LPs.

Also, if you had a lot more GPs sharing the company profits then it really wouldn't be a big advantage to being a GP.  Of course then you wouldn't have that to complain about would you? 

SS-

Congrats you will go far with the firm. I thought I would never ever say this out of respect for those who died in Jonestown, South Africa, but enjoy your juice. It is very intoxicating.

I am telling the truth. It only pays to be an EQUITY participant. Hopefully you have determined how much bond exposure you need and included your LP in the calculation.

Regarding Ted. I doubt he would have approved of the current management and their willingness to create conflicts of interest.

[quote=footsoldier]

SS-

Congrats you will go far with the firm. I thought I would never ever say this out of respect for those who died in Jonestown, South Africa, but enjoy your juice. It is very intoxicating.

I am telling the truth. It only pays to be an EQUITY participant. Hopefully you have determined how much bond exposure you need and included your LP in the calculation.

Regarding Ted. I doubt he would have approved of the current management and their willingness to create conflicts of interest.

[/quote]

Footsoldier:

This is an interesting comment. It shows how truly effective the "Jones Urban Legands" were in hazing our thought process while employed at Jones.

Let's look at Ted for example:  Is the glass half empty or half full-

In the book "Edward Jones- A History from 1871 to 2003" the story is documented how Ted fought with his father, Edward Sr. on NOT including his sisters' in any share of the family business. This greatly disturbed Edward Sr. There was MUCH conflict between Ted and Edward Sr. and Ted eventually stormed out of the office, retreated to his farm and did not report to work for several days. Edward Sr. sent his cousin, Jack Phelan to negotiate Ted's return- of course his return was contingent upon the Sisters' NOT getting any share of the Family Business.

Ted used to refer to himself as "something of a communist" regarding his views on business.

So, tell me: A man who cheat his own sister's out of an inheritance would not "roll over in his grave" at the antics of the General Partners of today -

He would stand straight up and applaud.

For the record, Jonestown is not a part of South Africa.  It is/was located in Guyana. 

Sooth-

Geographically challenged. Thanks for the clarification. When I google Jim Jones I found this quote on their website http://www.guyana.org/features/jonestown.html;

Conformity

The character of a church . . . can be seen in its attitude toward its detractors.
--Hugh Prather, "Notes to Myself"

*********

I can't take credit for this but does it not get to the heart of the matter when it comes to the IR's who can't or won't look at the facts and have nothing to say but attack. Actions or attitudes speak loud.

Footsoldier- Your endless yapping reminds me of a person who is not and will not be happy wherever they are. I hope that you find a situation that you can be happy in so that you may be your true contented soul.

Ahhh grasshopper-

I have found the enchanted land. Peace, love, rock and roll....

Kumbaya Mr. Noggin. Kumbaya.

[quote=noggin]Footsoldier- Your endless yapping reminds me of a person who is not and will not be happy wherever they are. I hope that you find a situation that you can be happy in so that you may be your true contented soul.[/quote]

Noggin...Foot is just getting the "venom" out. This forum is a lot cheaper than therapy, a lot safer than a one-night-stand, more health concsious than over eating, and easier on the head than going out and getting drunk!

Foot - for a while I thought you might be an LP.  However, I'm beginning to think I am wrong.  Let me see if I can explain the Jones LP to your simple, one track mind.  I have a $10,000 piece of the LP pie.  I had to put down $2000 for it.  Jones floated a loan for the rest.  Guaranteed me 7.5% interest.  Minimum.  How would your clients like a 7.5% non callable bond?  Paid it off this year without any additional dollars out of my pocket.  Now every month $62.50 goes into my MMKT.   In Oct and Feb they pay out the "equity" portion above the 7.5% guarantee.  As of the end of August that amount is just shy of $1000.  According to the LP page the annualized return for the year is currently 23%.  The downside: it's taxable and I can't compound it.  Instead I'll use the money to fund my Roth, buy new golf clubs, spend it on my next trip.  Whatever I choose.

At this point I have three goals at Jones.  1) Keep raising my income by 40%/yr   2) Get profitable by the next LP offering   3) Work my butt off until I can be one of those evil GPs who know all the secrets of how to make money from mother Jones. 

Hopefully my simple explanation has given you and others some insight into the Jones LP.  Maybe instead of getting the venom out here you should focus more on how you can make yourself profitable enough to get in on the next LP.  Oh yeah, you don't have to take it if they offer it.  Just tell them they can keep the Kool-aid.   

Have a great weekend. - Spiff

Spaceman-

Thanks for the laugh before the weekend.

I was beginning to think you took things too seriously but reading your take on LP made me laugh !

Glad you were there to get my share when I departed!

SS-

Still qualify for a ROTH. Too bad.

SPACEMANSPOOF,

 I don't think I understand.

At this point I have three goals at Jones.  1) Keep raising my income by 40%/yr   2) Get profitable by the next LP offering   3) Work my butt off until I can be one of those evil GPs who know all the secrets of how to make money from mother Jones. 

 If you are not profitable - how do you have the LP you so eloquently explained?

By the way when is the next LP offering. Last one that I know of was in 2000.

All LP/GP is is a carrot that they dangle over most of the IRs heads for their careers to use them (note, I said use) as a profit center.  Most IRs could care less if they get an offering. 

SS-

I grant you the internal rate of return is better using other peoples money. At first glance, you have the impression that its such a great deal and then you realize the GP's are charging interest, aren't they?

Also if you ever have a chargeback and they graciously offer to have you pay it back over 3-6 months, at first you think what a great company. And then they send you a form saying you will be paying prime +1.5. Makes me scratch my head who is helping who!

Bring it on, I can't wait to hear how negative I am.

Forget becoming one of those next, evil GPs. You can bet that it is not

going to happen for you.

I can’t remember who said it, but from what I have heard from the Jones
guys, all the GPs are from when the firm was young or they knew the
right people in St. Louis. All I can say is don’t fall into the b.s. of
ownership. Some of the top producers at the firm, the few who produce
over a mm, have about 250k+ in a LP, I might be wrong but I would think
that the bonus structure at a wirehouse might be better. There is too
much b.s. to get an LP much less a GP, and the size has got to be
dwindling down significantly b/c of the number of reps, the big GPs
don’t want to hand over their piece of the pie. Weddle made over 4mm
last yr and various other guys I think about 7 or so made several mm as
well, so enough said.

I started this thread and have picked up the following:

[quote=midtown]I started this thread and have picked up the following:
1) The chance of any IR becoming a GP is virtually nil.
2) The expansion of the GP ranks must be tied to the "healthy growth"
    obsession of the firm; i.e., there must be more and more IR's to
    increase revenues so current GP's don't take a revenue cut.
3) Even among those at Jones there seems to be confusion, if not
    misunderstanding, if not total lack of knowledge of what their true
    compensation is and realistic expectations of what future rewards are.
4) Spaceman Spiff needs to see a shrink...
[/quote]

1.I agree with you.

2. I don't think the GP's ranks will be increased significantly in the next few years.

3. I think most reasonable IR's do understand their compensation.

4. Spaceman may be naive but he certainly doesn't need a shrink. Without a doubt, Footsoldier does however.

Noggin-

You must still be with the mother ship. Congrats on your ability to tune out to the real world outside.

[quote=midtown]I started this thread and have picked up the following:
1) The chance of any IR becoming a GP is virtually nil.
2) The expansion of the GP ranks must be tied to the “healthy growth”
    obsession of the firm; i.e., there must be more and more IR’s to
    increase revenues so current GP’s don’t take a revenue cut.
3) Even among those at Jones there seems to be confusion, if not
    misunderstanding, if not total lack of knowledge of what their true
    compensation is and realistic expectations of what future rewards are.
4) Spaceman Spiff needs to see a shrink…

1.I agree with you.

2. I don't think the GP's ranks will be increased significantly in the next few years.

3. I think most reasonable IR's do understand their compensation.

4. Spaceman may be naive but he certainly doesn't need a shrink. Without a doubt, Footsoldier does however.[/quote]

From an outsider's perspective...

1.  We're unanimous here...obviously there are relatively few of these, and there's at least some among the ranks that believe the selection process is not a fair one.  I tend to agree with that.

2.  I agree that the GP ranks will see very little increase.  It may be that new GPs are added only when a GP leaves.

3.  I have a hard time believing that reasonably intelligent advisors don't understand how they're paid.  That being said, I can think of at least a couple Jones reps I know that are probably clueless...

4.  I've spoken with Footsoldier and I'd count him among the more intelligent and ethical Jones reps I've spoken to.  He's entitled to his views and I believe that he'll make the jump out when the time is right.  I also believe that he'll be a successful indy and a much happier person.  I completely agree with moving when the time is right, and obviously Foot isn't there yet.  Spiff is, as you say, a bit naive, although I think he means well.

My disclaimer...although I've been recruited at various times in my career by three highly successful Jones advisors, I've never worked there, so my impressions are built solely on observation, this forum, and what my Jones friends tell me.  Obviously, these impressions can be inaccurate...but I don't believe them to be far from the truth.

[quote=DRAPALA]

 If you are not profitable - how do you have the LP you so eloquently explained?

[/quote]

There were some people offered in 2003 who had no profit.  In fact, some with no profit were offered more than those who had a profit.  That's when I hit the door.  I had always been told that the #1 criteria in determining LP was profitablility.  When the GPs violated their own #1 criteria to take care of who they wanted to take care of, I figured out that you couldn't rely on or trust anything that they said. 

[quote=DRAPALA] If you are not profitable - how do you have the LP you so eloquently explained?

There were some people offered in 2003 who had no profit.  In fact, some with no profit were offered more than those who had a profit.  That's when I hit the door.  I had always been told that the #1 criteria in determining LP was profitablility.  When the GPs violated their own #1 criteria to take care of who they wanted to take care of, I figured out that you couldn't rely on or trust anything that they said.[/quote]

Here you have exhibit 1 as to why there are a lot of angry ex-Jonsers here.

[QUOTE]

There were some people offered in 2003 who had no profit. In fact, some
with no profit were offered more than those who had a profit. That's when I
hit the door. I had always been told that the #1 criteria in determining LP
was profitablility. When the GPs violated their own #1 criteria to take care of
who they wanted to take care of, I figured out that you couldn't rely on or
trust anything that they said.

[/quote]

As far as I know there hasn't been an LP offering since 2000! Although
this "firm" has informed the SEC that they are looking at offering an LP this
year there it can always be recalled.

The question about my LP is simple.  I was a home office employee for about 5 years before I jumped to the field.  I might have actually trained footsoldier in his early days.  I got my first LP in 2000.  I was one of the people they offered the LP to in 2003 even though I wasn't profitable.  I hadn't been out of the home office very long and my GP back there took care of me.  Jones could have said too bad,  your office isn't profitable, so thanks for the hard work, but you don't get to play this time.   

I don't need a shrink and he says I can stop coming to see him in just a couple more sessions. 

I have no misconceptions about how the LP/GP works at Jones.  I know there are a lot of different compensation structures out there.  Jones may not be the best, but is far from the worst.  Foot just seems so dissatisfied with Jones that he's willing to vent the "anti-Koolaid" talk, I figured someone might want to actually try to explain how the LP really works.  I know the GP position may be pie in the sky for a lot of Jones IRs, but so are the top exec jobs for whatever company you are in.  It's all politics when you start looking at those positions.  I envy some of the indies at times becase they only have to think about their own office politics.  But then that's why they're indy. 

Finally, BrokerRecruit, you are flat wrong about Jones IRs not caring about ever getting an LP offering.   For those of us who are at Jones because we like it here, LP is VERY important. 

Oh yeah, Foot - you may want to check the eligibilty limits on the Roth IRA.  Especially if you’re MFJ.  I’ll be you can put in just as much as I can

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

I was one of the people they offered the LP to in 2003 even though I wasn't profitable. 

[/quote]

I've heard many times that this assumption or rumor is just that.  Here is the proof in black and white. 

The true story comes out! A GPs pet given a plum office. I knew there was some sort of edge for spaceman. Typical at Jones and a perfect example of why I left.

How does the fact that somebody else gets something for nothing affect you?

[quote=ezmoney]The true story comes out! A GPs pet given a plum office. I knew there was some sort of edge for spaceman. Typical at Jones and a perfect example of why I left. [/quote]

Are you kidding me?  The plum office is just the beginning.  He also was offered Limited Partnership without a dime of profitability.  His own words, "my GP back there took care of me."  It is exactly that kind of "taking care of" that I couldn't take another minute of.  Sooner or later, you need to let natural selection run its course.  The talented people should move to the top of an organization based on merit, skill, dedication, sacrifice, education, work ethic, leadership ability, etc.  People like Spiff continually getting something for nothing is tough to stomach for the guy or gal that has had to scratch and bite for every scrap. 

I would bet you my right arm that within Spiff's region there is a scratch starter or two who took the risk, and then weathered the difficult process of starting an office from scratch, and put a few grand of profitability on the board, only to be shut out in the LP offering.   

[quote=Soothsayer]

I would bet you my right arm that within Spiff's region there is a scratch starter or two who took the risk, and then weathered the difficult process of starting an office from scratch, and put a few grand of profitability on the board, only to be shut out in the LP offering.   

[/quote]

How does that affect you?

ezmoney - who said I got a plum office?  Did you read the part about one of my goals is to get profitable?  Plum office and get profitable don't usually go together.  I did take over a small office, but I assure you it wasn't ezmoney from that point on.  It also had nothing to do with GPs pulling strings.  I just happened to call the RL at a time when he needed a new IR to fill an office.   

The reason I like working for Jones is that they do take care of their own.  I really wasn't expecting an offer.  I was nowhere near profitable.  In fact I was still in Seg 1 at the time.  The GPs in my old department looked at the fact that the majority of my time since the previous offering was spent in their department.  So, they made a request to at least make a small offer.  The powers that be agreed. Very few other companies would do things like that. 

Sooth - Something for nothing?  Six years at the home office isn't really a lot, but it's hardly nothing.  Now, had I gone to a $50 Mil office that would have been worth talking about.  The one I took over, most of you wouldn't even have wasted your time on.  It just happened to be close to home and available. 

OK, enough about me.  So, how's your month going?

My month will be be a new personal best (by a considerable amount), and I'll get to keep about 68-70% net of expenses.

BTW, thanks for asking.

[quote=Knows Wall St.]

How does that affect you?

[/quote]

I am never one to expect special treatment, only fair and equitable treatment.  The situation described in this case is neither fair, nor equitable, to others who have done so much more.  It "affects me" because officers of the company lied, or at least misrepresented (numerous times I may add), what would qualify an individual for participation in the partnership offering.  Get it? 

A Hartford insurance wholesaler I know in the southeast was given a 100 mill office by a jones vet. I mean this guy came from nowhere and now he stands up and gives talks to the rookies about what it takes to suceed at Jones. What a bunch of BS!

Meanwhile I start from scratch in 2002, make seg 3 in 11 mths and win two trips inside of 15 mths, and I get nothing when a big office opens up 10 miles north of me. Jones brings in some failing rep from California to take over the office. After that I left that crappy firm. I hate that firm!!

AGE does the same as Jones. I guess it’s a St. Louis thing.<!–
var SymRealOnLoad;
var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}

SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;

//–>

[quote=ezmoney]

A Hartford insurance wholesaler I know in the southeast was given a 100 mill office by a jones vet. I mean this guy came from nowhere and now he stands up and gives talks to the rookies about what it takes to suceed at Jones. What a bunch of BS!

Meanwhile I start from scratch in 2002, make seg 3 in 11 mths and win two trips inside of 15 mths, and I get nothing when a big office opens up 10 miles north of me. Jones brings in some failing rep from California to take over the office. After that I left that crappy firm. I hate that firm!!

[/quote]

OK, so some other guy got an office.  Life is not fair, and if you spend a second dwelling on something like that you spent too much time.

Had the guy from California been around longer?  Is it possible that Jones management was not sure if you were "on board" or not?

The mere fact that you're whining about it after you left the firm indicates that you may have been sending negative signals while you were there.  Perhaps on one of those trips you were overheard bitching over a drink in the bar.  Perhaps you were simply seen sitting in the bar with another guy who they don't like.

There are reasons why things happen the way they do, and it's not some sort of conspiracy against you, or in favor of the other guy.  Jones wants to make money and just like all corporations they make their moves with people as if they were pieces on a chess board.

[quote=Knows Wall St.] 

Jones wants to make money and just like all corporations they make their moves with people as if they were pieces on a chess board.[/quote]

If their business moves are being equated with moves in a chess game, then I've got news for you.  They are being checkmated.  How many advisors who now work for LPL and Raymond James started at Jones?  Jones paid their training and licensing costs only to create stiff, permanent competition to their business model. 

Jones business moves look more to me like teenage first cousins in heat at a West Virginia family reunion.   

[quote=Soothsayer]

Jones business moves look more to me like teenage first cousins in heat at a West Virginia family reunion.   

[/quote]

At Jones you are only a razor blade away from being replaced. Interchangeable parts come to mind. They could care less if you succeed. I remember many times when the highest producing vet would say to me that I was in the sweet spot. Not making enough profit to matter, and more importantly not a drain to his bonus payout because I was covering my overhead and home office costs.

That was motivating.

Your only a razorblae away from being replaced anywhere.

hmmmm…let me think…I wonder if I’m underperforming…maybe I should fire myself…

If you don’t meet the minimum of your indy b/d, you will be forced to find a new b/d. So yes even you’re expendable.

ez…that’s correct in most situations, although I think my B/D will give you an opportunity to increase production the following year before just cutting you loose.  However, in my first full year at my indy B/D, I’m well over the $125K gross to maintain my own OSJ.  From what I understand, if I’m below that, I’d probably just have to affiliate under another OSJ to stay with my current B/D.  I expect to be 50-60K over the minimum this year, so I don’t thing I’ll have any problem staying ahead of their minimum and I don’t feel any pressure to produce or be cut loose.  Frankly, if you go indy full-time and can’t maintain $125K/year, you should probably be looking for another line of work anyway.

[quote=Indyone]ez...that's correct in most situations, although I think my B/D will give you an opportunity to increase production the following year before just cutting you loose.  However, in my first full year at my indy B/D, I'm well over the $125K gross to maintain my own OSJ.  From what I understand, if I'm below that, I'd probably just have to affiliate under another OSJ to stay with my current B/D.  I expect to be 50-60K over the minimum this year, so I don't thing I'll have any problem staying ahead of their minimum and I don't feel any pressure to produce or be cut loose.  Frankly, if you go indy full-time and can't maintain $125K/year, you should probably be looking for another line of work anyway.[/quote]

You've been in the business for seventeen years--17 years--and you're doing less than $200,000 gross?

I can’t see how you’re making it on your gross.

[quote=ezmoney]I can’t see how you’re making it on your gross.[/quote]

What is your payout?

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=ezmoney]I can't see how you're making it on your gross.[/quote]

What is your payout?
[/quote]

Regardless of payout, the question is how a guy who has been in the business for 17 years can be doing less than 200.

[quote=ezmoney]I can't see how you're making it on your gross.[/quote]

EZ...I'm netting almost 70% of my gross as an independent.  When I left the bank last summer, I was running about 350K and netting less than I do today...because I was getting about 35% of the gross.

I took my best clients and left many behind figuring that inside of five years I would have a much more efficient business.  Frankly, many that I left behind were CD whores, complainers and one-night stands.  About 60% of my revs are recurring.  I'd rather that number be about 80% but it takes time to build a predominantly fee-based business and you have to eat while you're building...

[quote=Knows Wall St.]

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=ezmoney]I can’t see how you’re making it on your gross.[/quote]What is your payout?[/quote]

Regardless of payout, the question is how a guy who has been in the business for 17 years can be doing less than 200.

Wiz, I'm confident that I'll easily surpass my bank gross within five years.  The first year is naturally slower because of all of the transfer paperwork, learning a new platform, etc.  I think your friend's numbers are perhaps a bit skewed (perhaps because he headhunts for non-independent B/Ds), but if he's in the ballpark, it may have something to do with reps wanting to downshift a bit while maintaining their income level, and the fact that indies often have to deal with tasks related to running a business that they didn't have to deal with before.  I even have to order my own paperclips.

I'm honestly not sure why the average LPL rep's gross is relatively low, but I've hazarded a few guesses in the past...reps in the partners program that solely refer business and revenue share...licensed assistants, etc.  All I know is that there were close to 100 million dollar producers in the firm last year, so no doubt the firm is capable of supporting mega-producers.  The fact that they've allowed small producers to work with the platform doesn't have any bearing on my success as far as I can tell.

The longer you're in this business, the more you'll come to realize that it's not all about the money once you are making a comfortable living...it becomes about the quality of your life.  I work 40 hour weeks and make about 10K/month, which supports a good quality of life here in the midwest.  I'll naturally make more going forward, but I don't feel a burning pressure to constantly increase my production to survive.

Indy,



A couple of questions for you:



How much of that $10k is recurring revenue?



Do you have an assistant?



If not, do you think you’ll have one in 5 years?

About 70% of my revs are recurring and I have a part-time assistant.  She costs me on average $1,500/month…trending toward $2,000/month as my production is trending toward $20K/month.  She costs me about 10% of my monthly gross and is my single largest expense, but she’s worth every penny I pay her and I expect that 10% figure to drop as my production recovers from the move…

So when your assistant is not there, you are answering your own phone? What about when you are in an appointment? What about when you are taking a CPA to lunch? Have you ever called your doctor’s office and the docter answered? This will encourage your HNW to refer their friends. Yeah right?





70% are recurring, what do you do in the office for 40 hours each week? Silly me, you have 1153 posts, I know.

Oh my gosh, heaven forbid a client leave a voice mail message. I wouldn’t

equate KYC with medical school there, Wizzy. Wow, at Edward Jones, they

have people sit and wait for the phone to ring…cool. And all those new

people that last 6 months are working every second they’re in the office.

Edward Jones is the best…everyone should work there. You must be like the

wizard in that movie about Oz. Obviously some people think the higher

payout is the salvation, which it is not if you don’t have a growing business.

But having control of your expenses is meaningful because you can hire

TWO full time assistants if you want, and not wait for someone to say you

can. So two people can take messages at the same time! And you may have

that new fangled email thing by now, so eventually you see that is an

efficiency tool when used properly.

[quote=The Wizard] [quote=Knows Wall St.]

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=ezmoney]I can’t see how you’re making it on your gross.[/quote]What is your payout?[/quote]

Regardless of payout, the question is how a guy who has been in the business for 17 years can be doing less than 200.

She's always there...just works for the accountants the rest of the time.  When she's at lunch, the accountant's people answer my phone.  As far as HNW clients, my average has been steadily climbing since I left the bank and purged a lot of time-wasting clients from my book.

As far as what I do with all my time, I do a little accounting work (which I'm seriously considering giving up), I spend a fair amount of time earning those recurring revenues, I do some transactional work, community involvement (currently running the local United Way campaign) and I do some prospecting.  Sure, I average about 3 posts/day...some days more, some less.  This doesn't take much time and I try to post useful information and give something positive to the online community.  You could learn from that.

Given the hostility of your posts, I'm done responding to you on the off chance that you're yet another reincarnation of the old VP of paperclips.  If you're not, you might want to tone it down a bit...I don't require your approval to live a satisfying life...get over yourself.

Cowboy93,

It’s investment reps like you, and your firms, that think an assistant “just sits there and waits for the phone to ring” that keep Edward Jones at the TOP of the client satifaction surveys. Next time we are at the top of a survey and someone says “Oh they rig the surveys, oh they have no HNW clients, oh their clients are small potatoes…” I will refer forum readers and writers to your above post.



When you think you are the smartest person in the room Mr. Fastow, maybe you are not.

Joe Da Broker wrote:

As Indyone has implied, there are many ‘non-traditional’ reps in the LPL system, and each gets a rep number and counted into that headcount.



*Every CPA “partner” is assigned a rep number and counted amongst that total.

*Every licensed sales assistant as well. He/She is getting a salary, and then perhaps picking up some production with a joint number under their rep.

*I know personally of a TPA who has affiliated with an LPL rep, and picks up about 100k on “orphan” 401k’s. Not big business compared to a wirehouse rep, but nice supplemental income for him, and a little bit of extra income to his OSJ supervisor.

*Semi-retired advisors transitioning their book to another under a joint production number.

*junior advisors also get their own broker number and go into the headcount.



Most of the reps I know who are serious full time advisors are doing north of 200k, most of them well above that figure. But the average is skewed by others.



--------------------------------

Joe,

So are you saying that LPL really hasn’t grown as much as their published numbers? They are counting the TPA next door in their numbers? That’s interesting.



“Anything to get the value of the company up so we can take it public Bob.”

Wow…I wonder what witty response I’ll get…

Indyone wrote:



…"I don’t require your approval to live a satisfying life…"



Indyone, that’s just it, this board is your life. And if you don’t want everyone’s approval what’s up with all the posts? You just couldn’t wait for my reply and had to post a “Hey, I’m waiting for your approval.” post.



The word is not witty, it’s pitty.

Hey Joe…I think we’ve got another mensa candidate…

[quote=The Wizard]Joe Da Broker wrote:

As Indyone has implied, there are many ‘non-traditional’ reps in the LPL system, and each gets a rep number and counted into that headcount.



*Every CPA “partner” is assigned a rep number and counted amongst that total.

*Every licensed sales assistant as well. He/She is getting a salary, and then perhaps picking up some production with a joint number under their rep.

*I know personally of a TPA who has affiliated with an LPL rep, and picks up about 100k on “orphan” 401k’s. Not big business compared to a wirehouse rep, but nice supplemental income for him, and a little bit of extra income to his OSJ supervisor.

*Semi-retired advisors transitioning their book to another under a joint production number.

*junior advisors also get their own broker number and go into the headcount.



Most of the reps I know who are serious full time advisors are doing north of 200k, most of them well above that figure. But the average is skewed by others.



--------------------------------

Joe,

So are you saying that LPL really hasn’t grown as much as their published numbers? They are counting the TPA next door in their numbers? That’s interesting.



“Anything to get the value of the company up so we can take it public Bob.”

[/quote]

Frankly, I neither know nor care if LPL has grown as much as their published numbers.  It makes absolutely no difference to me.

What matters to me is that their technology works and their service continues to be robust, and that they keep their noses clean.

If they don’t, the reality is that I own my business under the terms of my contract, and I operate under my own brand name.  So, while it would be inconvenient, I could always fire LPL and move my business to another B/D if they at some point failed to deliver on any of the above.  There might be some client attrition, but nothing like moving from wire-wire, bank-wire, Jones-Wire, or others.

"Mr. Client, after much consideration I have decided that my clients interests would be better served for reasons X,Y, & Z if joedabrkr & co was to fire LPL and custody assets and execute transactions in the future with b/d XYZ Inc.  You can continue to work with me in the manner to which you’ve been accustomed, you reach me at the same phone number, and find me at the same office.  None of that changes.  All we’re really doing is deciding that the hamburger at the McDonalds on the West side of town is offered on slightly better terms than the hamburger on the East side of town. I’ll have the paperwork on your desk tomorrow."

And meanwhile my b/d is not allowed to contact clients for about 30 days under the terms of my contract.

Ironically, I think it’s this very competition among indy b/d’s, as well as LPL’s culture and understanding of this competition, that will keep them honest and focussed on delivering the best possible value and service to their reps.  I’m not being naive.  I just think management is smart enough to understand the playing field, and that their best bet on the future is to leverage their scale to offer the best platform for their reps.  That simple.  So it would be my hope and expectation that I’m at LPL for the very long term.  But if it doesn’t work out that way, I have an exit strategy that offers me many options.  "Begin with the end in mind."

Try to find that attitude at your local Smith Barney Rubble office, or Mother Merrill.

What is curious, if it's true that LPL assigns producer numbers to registered support people, is the way the important numbers are affected.

It is possible to conclude that the number of producing reps is actually closer to half of the published numbers if registered sales assistants are being counted.

Why would they do that?  Why would they intentionally understand important numbers like "average assets under management" and "average gross revenue per representative"

A cynic might conclude that the reason is so that they can claim to have the most reps since they can't claim to have the most assets, highest average or be on top of any of the other benchmarks.

What's the saying?  Figures never lie, but liars always figure?  Something like that.

Wasn't that funny how Joe called Smith Barny, Smith Barney Rubble?  Gotta love that mature adult humor.

Wizzy…just post a link to the Jones recruiting website and be done with it.

Geez. I think everyone knows that Jones is the only place to be ethical and

successful. Everyone else is a bunch of crooks, and NONE of their clients are

satisfied…that’s why Jones has the highest avg AUM/advisor (er, rep) I

guess…



A new advisor (I’m sorry, represntative) simply doesn’t require full time help

to service their clients, because they have none.

[quote=Knows Wall St.]

What is curious, if it’s true that LPL assigns producer numbers to registered support people, is the way the important numbers are affected.

It is possible to conclude that the number of producing reps is actually closer to half of the published numbers if registered sales assistants are being counted.

Why would they do that?  Why would they intentionally understand important numbers like "average assets under management" and "average gross revenue per representative"

A cynic might conclude that the reason is so that they can claim to have the most reps since they can't claim to have the most assets, highest average or be on top of any of the other benchmarks.

What's the saying?  Figures never lie, but liars always figure?  Something like that.

Wasn't that funny how Joe called Smith Barny, Smith Barney Rubble?  Gotta love that mature adult humor.

[quote=Cowboy93]Wizzy...just post a link to the Jones recruiting website and be done with it. Geez. I think everyone knows that Jones is the only place to be ethical and successful. Everyone else is a bunch of crooks, and NONE of their clients are satisfied..that's why Jones has the highest avg AUM/advisor (er, rep) I guess...

A new advisor (I'm sorry, represntative) simply doesn't require full time help to service their clients, because they have none.[/quote]

The Kool-Aid is flowing so thick, I can't decide if Wizzy is a new rep that's swallowed his RL's take on independents and is faithfully regurgitating it, or Holder with another pseudonym.  At any rate, it's the same old tired Jones spin on independents designed to keep the troops chugging that special juice.  I wonder if he's done any research on the numbers of Jones reps who've come from Raymond James and LPL to Jones vs. the number that has left Jones for those firms.  A logical person would almost have to conclude that RJ & LPL perhaps aren't quite so evil if successful Jones reps are moving to them in meaningful numbers and there's not but a trickle, if that, coming the other way.  More likely, he just takes what his leaders tell him as the unbiased truth.  That's his perogative as is working at Jones, but that doesn't make life as an independent any less fulfilling for me.  Ride on, Cowboy...

Yeah, but how in the world can you be credible when you’ve admitted that you do less than 200 in your 17th year?

(sigh) Ladies & gentlemen, this is exhibit one as to why Nasty/Put/KWS has no credibility here anymore.  He knows my history as he is a dedicated student of this board.  He knows that I managed institutional/trust money starting in 1989, had a stint as CFO of a publicly traded company in 1997, and went back to my first love, investments at the end of 1998 when my CFO job migrated to Memphis as a result of a merger.  I got my first retail licensing at that point and was in a bank program from roughly that point until mid-2005 when I left and went indy.

As a portfolio manager in the late 80's and early-mid 90's, I didn't really have clients.  The clients had personal trust officers that were their primary point of contact.  Even so, I managed to make some friends with this limited customer contact and had a few follow me when I went to the bank program, even though I'd been out of the trust are for well over a year and was not their primary account manager. At the bank, I took a basically dormant program and added nearly 50 million in new assets in roughly six years while I was there, much of which named the bank trustee and couldn't follow me, some of which was mis-priced by my boss and not profitable, and some of which I flat out did not want.  During my first year as an independent, I culled these from my book and took all but 6 accounts that I targeted and most of those six I still consider in play...just a bit slow to react.  I've added over six million in new assets the first year while speding a lot of time moving and servicing the accounts that followed me.

I probably could have produced twice what I did this year, but I focused on recurring revenue and was willing to take much less up front to get paid for the ongoing nature of the relationship.  Putsy/Nasty will tell you that these people will leave me because I'm screwing them.  He's a fool...and time will prove it.  These people know exactly what they are paying and far from screwing them, my velocity is less than 70bps.

The end result is that Put Nasty would have you believe that I've spent the last seventeen years developing a book of business that is just now reaching $200K in annual revenues...that's just an example of how he likes to twist the truth to suit his fancy.  Don't believe for a minute that he did not know the facts that I outlined above, and don't believe for a minute that he didn't accuse me of lying about my series seven test score.  I had to post a scanned copy of it without my personal information to once again, prove him wrong.  Feel free to search these boards...the image should still be out there.  The point is, Put Nasty long ago ruined his credibility by being caught many times spewing wildly inaccurate information as fact when even a person of modest intelligence should have known better.  Eventually the forum moderators get sick of his antics and misinformation and give him the boot.  Just like the fungus he is, he keeps coming back under new names to be a prick to anyone that has exposed him as a clueless fool in the past.  I vowed not to respond to him anymore, but in the interest of setting the record straight for anyone who isn't on to him by now, I guess I'll have to occasionally post corrections to his constant stream of misinformation.  Rest assured, I will keep any interaction with this worthless fool to a bare minimum.

Well said Indy. Well said!

OK, how is it that you think you have credibility as a 200 grand
producer after eight years–is that right, 1998 to 2006 seems like
eight years.



If you’re going to sneer about thrity five years of increasing
responsibility you should be able to explain such a mediocre
performance.



I did close to 300 grand in my third year as a transaction oriented
broker in a bear market, thirty years ago.  The way you talk I
thought you were doing at least a million.

You lie.

You never did $300,000 in your third year in 1962 or whenever you were in business.  I will never believe you.

Ever, ever.  You are a sad liar.

[quote=BankFC]

You lie.

You never did $300,000 in your third year in 1962 or whenever you were in business.  I will never believe you.

Ever, ever.  You are a sad liar.

[quote=Knows Wall St.] [quote=BankFC]

You lie.

You never did $300,000 in your third year in 1962 or whenever you were in business.  I will never believe you.

Ever, ever.  You are a sad liar.

[/quote]

I said "close to 300" it was 278 something--the year was calendar 1974, the first full year of listed options trading.
[/quote]

You were a high wire act. Your exit from production is now becoming more clear.

Just to settle a few numbers questions:  As of the end of 2005 LPL's Average payout was $150K per producer with 6481 producing reps (not including home office employees, partners program, licensed assistants, etc).  There were 2940 OSJ's.

Information was taken from the 9th Annual Independent Broker Dealer Guide.

Put, I don't owe your feeble mind any more explanation than I've already given.  I'm at least as qualified to opine as you are given your history.  You are using one metric to judge performance, bragging about your production and then have the gall to tell me I'm ripping people off...what was your velocity back then...400 bps?

...and BTW, you wouldn't have done that level of production, or anything close to it in my market, so get off your horse, fungus.

[quote=Indyone]

Put, I don’t owe your feeble mind any more
explanation than I’ve already given.  I’m at least as qualified to
opine as you are given your history.  You are using one metric to
judge performance, bragging about your production and then have the
gall to tell me I’m ripping people off…what was your velocity back then…400 bps?

...and BTW, you wouldn't have done that level of production, or anything close to it in my market, so get off your horse, fungus.

[quote=Indyone]

I’m at least as qualified to opine as you are given your history. 

You know what it is...how many more times do you have to be proven wrong?  Remember when you were all screwed up about the differences between the 65 & 66?  That's just one example of you speaking when you didn't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

[quote=Indyone]

You know what it is…how many more times do you
have to be proven wrong?  Remember when you were all screwed up
about the differences between the 65 & 66?  That’s just one
example of you speaking when you didn’t know your ass from a hole in
the ground.

mmmm…hang on…I’m going to go try and find it…you deserve more humiliation because you don’t know when to stop…

Oh good, I can hardly wait.

http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2499&amp ;KW=65+66&PN=0&TPN=2

You are such a fool...did you honestly believe that I wouldn't find it?

How's that crow tasting, flood newbie?

[quote=Indyone]

http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2499&amp ; ;KW=65+66&PN=0&TPN=2

You are such a fool...did you honestly believe that I wouldn't find it?

How's that crow tasting, flood newbie?

Keep reading...you're obviously more feeble-minded than I even estimated...

You remind me of the little kid who's just been pounded by the school bully, but gets up again and again, flailing at the bully only to be pounded again...and again...and again.

You should learn when to stay down.

[quote=Knows Wall St.]OK, how is it that you think you have credibility as a 200 grand producer after eight years--is that right, 1998 to 2006 seems like eight years.

If you're going to sneer about thrity five years of increasing responsibility you should be able to explain such a mediocre performance.

I did close to 300 grand in my third year as a transaction oriented broker in a bear market, thirty years ago.  The way you talk I thought you were doing at least a million.
[/quote]

Is the problem here that Indy is building his business the right way? That his take on the business is it's a marathon, not the 100 yard dash strategy you hooked onto?

I bought my last car from a burned out options trader, was that you?

Wait, couldn't be, I wasn't fleeced.

Of course, if I had been fleeced it would have been my own fault.

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=Knows Wall St.]OK, how is it that you think
you have credibility as a 200 grand producer after eight years–is that
right, 1998 to 2006 seems like eight years.

If you’re going to
sneer about thrity five years of increasing responsibility you should
be able to explain such a mediocre performance.

I did close to
300 grand in my third year as a transaction oriented broker in a bear
market, thirty years ago.  The way you talk I thought you were
doing at least a million.
[/quote]

Is the problem here that Indy is building his business the right way? That his take on the business is it's a marathon, not the 100 yard dash strategy you hooked onto?

[quote=Indyone]

Keep reading…you’re obviously more feeble-minded than I even estimated…

You remind me of the little kid who's just been pounded by the school bully, but gets up again and again, flailing at the bully only to be pounded again...and again...and again.

You should learn when to stay down.

[quote=Big Easy Flood]I don't believe you get a choice.  You must take the Series 66, as I said the Series 65 is for people who do not hold a Series 7.[/quote]

How's that?  Are you satisfied or are you going to get up and take another ass-whuppin'?

[quote=Indyone]

[quote=Big Easy Flood]I don’t believe you get
a choice.  You must take the Series 66, as I said the Series 65 is
for people who do not hold a Series 7.[/quote]

How's that?  Are you satisfied or are you going to get up and take another ass-whuppin'?

Which exam should I take: Series 65 vs. Series 66?
Candidates that have met or will meet the co-requisite of the Series 66 exam, would elect to take the Series 66 instead of the Series 65 exam due to its brevity, scope and relative level of difficulty.  Candidates for the Series 66 exam must also pass the Series 7 exam.  Those candidates that are not eligible to sit for the Series 66 exam can sit for the more lengthy and onerous Series 65 exam which carries no prerequisite or co-requisite.

As I said, in order to be allowed to take the Series 66 you must have a Series 7, or plan to get one (your 66 will not be valid until you pass Series 7.)

Series 65 is for people who do not have, and do not intent to take, Series 7.

The relationship to Series 63 is this.  Both Series 65 and 66 will satisfy the Series 63 requirement in states that require a 63.

These days the only people who take Series 63 are those who are ill informed about the availability of the 65/66 substitution.

There are still a few states that do not require the Series 65 or 66, in those states rookies may be encouraged to take Series 63 by short sighted management that doesn't realize the power of being ready for what is coming instead of simply satisfying the current requirement.

There are states that never did require the Series 63, but have adopted the Series 65 or 66.  In those states there would be no need to take Series 63 because it's not required, and if you seek registration in a state that does your 65 or 66 will substitute for the 63.

[/quote]

You're dodging the issue...that quote was on the previous page in that thread and quoted lower on the same page I posted.  You said it and it was flat-out wrong.  Some here might have a shred of respect for you if you'd just acknowledge that you were wrong and move on.

As for me, I'm done with this.  I've proven my case and there's nothing you can say to undo your error.

What a wasted afternoon...you're pathetic.

[quote=Indyone]

As for me, I'm done with this.  I've proven my case and there's nothing you can say to undo your error.

Indyone & putsy/newbie et.al what do your posts have to do with the topic at hand.  Please take your mud slinging to the PMs. Thanks

Yeah, in a weak moment, I took Nasty’s bait and started slinging.  I’d be happy to not exchange blows at all to be honest, but sometimes, it’s difficult to resist.  This was a pretty ugly hijack, I’ll confess…

I thpught this topic was GP selection at Jones…

Indyone wrote:



“What a wasted afternoon…you’re pathetic.”

-----------------------------------------------

I’d say at 1172 posts it’s been more than one wasted afternoon. If 10 posts is an afternoon, then 1172 posts is 4 months. Yikes.

[quote=Cowboy93] Wizzy…just post a link to the Jones recruiting website and be done with it.

Geez. I think everyone knows that Jones is the only place to be ethical and

successful. Everyone else is a bunch of crooks, and NONE of their clients are

satisfied…that’s why Jones has the highest avg AUM/advisor (er, rep) I

guess…



A new advisor (I’m sorry, represntative) simply doesn’t require full time help

to service their clients, because they have none.[/quote]



IMO the reason Jones still calls us Reps is because of the ongoing bickering about “advising” vs “selling.” If I recall, and I most certainly could be mistaken, some CFP, CFA, RIA or some other group is suing the NASD because brokers misrepresent themselves as "advisors."

In any case, my clients don’t call me IR or FA, they call me Incredible.

[quote=Incredible Hulk] [quote=Cowboy93] Wizzy...just post a link to the Jones recruiting website and be done with it.
Geez. I think everyone knows that Jones is the only place to be ethical and
successful. Everyone else is a bunch of crooks, and NONE of their clients are
satisfied..that's why Jones has the highest avg AUM/advisor (er, rep) I
guess...

A new advisor (I'm sorry, represntative) simply doesn't require full time help
to service their clients, because they have none.[/quote]

IMO the reason Jones still calls us Reps is because of the ongoing bickering about "advising" vs "selling." If I recall, and I most certainly could be mistaken, some CFP, CFA, RIA or some other group is suing the NASD because brokers misrepresent themselves as "advisors."
In any case, my clients don't call me IR or FA, they call me Incredible.[/quote]

badump crash!!!!

WTF??

[voice over intercom] "paging Mr. Incredible, please come pickup your ego at the front desk please, it appears you've lost your mind"

[quote=The Wizard]Indyone wrote:

"What a wasted afternoon...you're pathetic."
-----------------------------------------------
I'd say at 1172 posts it's been more than one wasted afternoon. If 10 posts is an afternoon, then 1172 posts is 4 months. Yikes. [/quote]

Check your math, junior...it's been 16 months and an average of under 2.5 posts per day (I believe your average is higher).  You might also try to get back on topic and quit hijacking threads to sling feeble insults at me.