Jones Attrition

Butkus,

If you think the anti-Jones posters are trying to attritt Jones even more, I think you're wrong.  We simply want people to know what they are truly getting into, not just the rose colored picture that the RL paints at the recruiting lunch or the hype that is pushed at the recruiting broadcasts hosted in the regions every quarter. 

Also, why would the really big-hitters leave other than the ability to really plan for their retirement and to have control of their book.  I heard of a Jones guy in Georgia, top-5 in the firm over $1 million in production, who took a BM job with AG Edwards because he would have control of his book and could sell it when he gets ready to retire.  At Jones he would have to just walk away from it and leave it to someone Jones approves to go into his office.  Probably a GP's relative who couldn't make it on his own.  Having a leader like that leave is certainly significant and you know Jones kept the lid on it the best they could.  "Don't let the new guys learn that someone making so much money could possibly be unhappy at Edward Jones."

Good luck at keeping who you can!!

I would like to see the parameters they use to publish the number. IF,before I went to heaven, I mean Independent, I was the last soldier standing from my training class in 2002…with many of my former colleages in the same boat, how can it be?  Let’s see, can someone drinking Koolaid help me, hire 250-300 per MONTH, and only grow a couple hundred per year…doesn’t sound real good.  That couple hundred, again, is spread across 3 countries.  The success rate would have to be only 10% for a newbie.  Is this good?  I mean, screw the numbers they give out…again…hire 250 per MONTH, and grow by 192 for 06.  Can I get some help with that BUTKUS.

Lol, something doesn’t add up…

I am honestly thankful to God that I did enough due diligence before I entered the business and chose a broker I could start and stay with.

Ed Jones and Ameriprise are NOT places to have a long term career.

AG Edwards is.

[quote=Butkus]

Attrition declined to 11.9% overall for 2006. For gross production of $300K - $500K it was 2%, $500K - $750K it was 2%, and above $750K it was 1%.

[/quote]

But, today's $192K producer could become a $312K producer in 2-3 years, and the $285K producer might be at $510K in 5 years.  And, that's exactly who keeps leaving.  Jones is a story of the "haves" and "have nots".  Not much in the middle.  That's how it was when I was there, and it doesn't seem much has changed.  I wasn't a $300K producer when I left either, but I sure the hell am now. 

Nice Post Butkus (or should I say butt kiss):

Let's examine the numbers you posted.  41.6% of the people that are leaving EDJ are producing over $300,000.  If we go from the 80/20 rule:  2000 reps are producing over $300,000 so therefore Jones is losing 832 producing IR's, oops FA's, per year.  That's 70 FA's per month. 

I'd love to hear the Regional Leader get up and announce we are losing 70 FA's per month of the people that are producing over $300,000.  Mr. ButtKiss you should look into the statistics before you think that they are low!

So what is the unimpeachable source of these statistics?

[quote=vbrainy]

AG Edwards is.

12% attrition would be about 1200 per year. I would guess that would include only those with a can sell, where there was some attrition for those who did not pass the Series 7 or make it through Eval/Grad. The numbers seem intuitive to me, and they match my perception for my region.

Perhaps the quality of the anti-Jones posts has something to do with their apparent ineffectiveness.

Sooth hit the nail on the head.  My last 18 months at EDJ, the top 3 "up and comers" in my region defected.  These guys were Seg 3 or fairly new Seg 4, with a straight up trajectory.  They were frequently touted by the RL, NIRSS and other Seg 5 brokers in the region as the models for us lowly Seg 1 and 2's to emulate.  Same with a new Seg 4 I know in the region next door, he was on conference calls with new IR's and paraded up at the Summer Regional to share his wisdom on how to be a new/new fast starter.

Lots of others left, some of whom would have eventually found success and several who probably never will.  But the ones that matter most, the future 500k-1M producers, are having a hard time justifying staying when they can see all the money they are leaving on the table.

The real big producers occasionally leave, but most of them are enjoying an easy life, so there isn't much incentive to move.  (If you make $250k in Podunk, MO, your standard of living is not going to change if you make $400k, you already hide your spending from your neighbors as it is because you make more than anyone else in your town, plus you only really work about 20 hours a week).

When I could see my peers taking home twice what I did at other firms, using products that could annuitize their business, I couldn't see staying either.  There were other reasons I left, but the main one was I got sick of waiting.  Sure, in 5 more years I would have been cruising at EDJ, but I could do it in a few months somewhere else now. 

I'm by no means a big producer, but my GDC for the year so far is over 60k.  In the last 6 months, I've added over $4m to fee based accounts at an average of 1%.  When I left last year, I'm sure it was as another "failed IR" who "couldn't cut it."  No, actually I was an IR who looked at my future at EDJ and compared it with my future elsewhere, and decided I should be the one with the Fararri, Weddle has enough of them already.

92% of Segment 3 brokers are with the firm 10 years later.

[quote=Butkus]92% of Segment 3 brokers are with the firm 10 years later.[/quote]

No way I call BS on this made up statistic!

In my region we have lost over 20% of our segement 3 and up brokers in the past 2 years. 

I think ButtKiss got that statistic when he was sitting in the Acceleration meeting where I remember Jim Reginer stating, "We don't lose anybody once they make it to Segment 3." 

I would also say that the statistic may be true, understanding that most of Jones' IR's have not been with the firm for 10 years.  Jones' growth really happened in the 90's with Sloop running the Growth Department. 

So you take all the old-timers and the kool-aid drinkers who make it past segment 3 and they are skewing the numbers. 

I am a comfortable segment three joneser and leaving.....the opportunity cost is simply too high.

How I worked twice as hard for half as much for so long, I have no idea.  I guess I was just another koolaid junkie that was 'snowed' by the bureaucracy that we've come to know as 'Jones'.  Higher 'expectations' (to pay the exorbitant salaries of the 'heads of state'), continual flip-flops on philosophy, countless NASD & SEC violations for me to explain to my clients, etc) have really made life at Jones a whole lot less enjoyable than once promised.  I have made it in my eyes.  I am not a non-hacker, but I have been schooled to their game through experience.  I do between $200k and $250k per annum and live quite comfortably.....but, I will live even more comfortably very soon.

For you guys that are in denial (Butkus), keep sluggin' away.  Nobody (that I know) really gives one damn what you do or whether or not you approve of our defections.  However, when you do wake up and smell the coffee just remember that you heard it here first from people that have worn the very shoes in which you're walking.

Good day. 

[quote=gad12]

[quote=Butkus]92% of Segment 3 brokers are with the firm 10 years later.[/quote]

No way I call BS on this made up statistic!

[/quote]

I second that.

I think he meant that 92% of Jones brokers still with the firm after 10 years are segment 3.  (that was a joke)

I don’t think that stat is too far off. Based on what I have witnessed in

these forums, as well as what I see first-hand in my region, I think the

attrition is very regionalized. In my region (granted we are only about 80

advisors), we have only lost 2 segment 3 and above advisors in the last

year. And I would say that about 75% of those 80 are segment 3 and

above. One of those two people left the industry.



Now, from what it sounds like from posters, there is higher attrition in

other regions. I just don’t really get much information from other

regions. But I am sure it is higher than in my region.



I assume that there are about 5000 segment 3 advisors (out of 10,000)

and above (this is wild speculation on my part). If there was 8% attrition,

that would mean about 400 leave every year. I really doubt it is much

higher than that. Despite what you all say in your posts, our advisors are

not leaving in “droves”. A buddy of mine that started in 2000 was right

around # 5000 in the company. We now have over 10000. So an

increase of 5000 in 6-7 years is pretty good growth.



This post is merely an attempt to make facts a little more clear. Some of

it is guess work, but I made some pretty educated guesses. I don’t hink

it’s quite as bad as some “anti-Jonesers” think. My guess is that in certain

areas, defections are infectious. I also think it has to do with regional

leadership and other regional factors. JMO.

Broker 24,

Maybe it is not as bad as some of us make it out to be I'll give you that.

But look at the facts of your own post and you'll realize that 92% over 10 yrs as Butkus said is grossly overstated.

Facts

Your region - 80 advisors - 60 of which are seg 3.

2 left last year.  That makes 3.3%  2/60

Multiply by 10 YEARS makes 33.3% are gone.  Not 8% as Butkus claimed.  Meaning 67% after 10 years retention. 

And I believe your region is probably lower turnover than average.  At least it is MUCH lower than my region is.

Also just keeping the facts straight.

9753 sales people as of Feb 06, and 6136 as of Feb 2000.  Those numbers are from the SEC filings.   So growth of 600 odd brokers net, per year, in three countries.  Doesn’t seem so great, given the numbers that are pumped through training.

[quote=EDJ4now]

When I could see my peers taking home twice what I did at other firms, using products that could annuitize their business, I couldn't see staying either. 

[/quote]

Everybody has a different reason for leaving.  For me, it was never about the money or percentage of net payout.  It was about being treated as if you were some sort of inferior POS compared to to the son, daughter, son-in-law, nephew (insert any nepotism here) of a former top producer who put up a bigger number than I did, but it didn't matter that they got a $50 million, $80 million, $130 million (insert any obscene number here) head start.  And then the thought that one of these idiots would surely one day be annointed as my "Regional Leader" was more than I could take.  I had that "straight up trajectory" too, but it was nothing compared to several other in my region.  If I lose in a fair fight where the playing field is level, that's one thing.  But, to watch really average or below average people be named GPs of the firm based on somebody else's work from 15-20 years ago is nothing short of ridiculous.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.  Life's not fair.  And it will never be perfect.  But, I couldn't stand by and have my nose rubbed in it day in and day out, either.

Question of the day:



Leave Jones for Wachovia??



What say you all?

Not a bad idea. I’m looking at them as well.

9753 sales people as of Feb 06, and 6136 as of Feb 2000.

Does anyone remember the montra by Bachman and Hill for 10K reps by 2000? No wonder they are changing course. The numbers say everything. They keep hiring 200 per month and they are losing 1800 per year somewhere. It can't be all newbies.

Smell the coffee. The reason they are moving to some form of fee based alternative is because they have to. Or the attrition of producers will continue and the numbers won't look much different in another 7 years.

[quote=Soothsayer]

Everybody has a different reason for leaving.  For me, it was never about the money or percentage of net payout.  It was about being treated as if you were some sort of inferior POS compared to to the son, daughter, son-in-law, nephew (insert any nepotism here) of a former top producer who put up a bigger number than I did, but it didn't matter that they got a $50 million, $80 million, $130 million (insert any obscene number here) head start.[/quote]

Yeah, there was that too.  In my case I genuinely liked a couple of those guys (not all of them, a couple of a-holes too), and help I received from one of them when I was struggling is probably why I am still in the biz today. 

It wasn't just about the money for me either (although it was nice to add to, rather than deplete, savings last year), but the second class treatment from St Louis.  I had a few issues arise in the last 18 months or so I was there that cost me quite a bit of $$ where EDJ could have easily helped me out, but didn't.  When a GP basically told me that a benefits change they made benefited a lot of IR's, and that a few of us would lose several thousand dollars, and I was in the second group, tough s---, I actually opened the recruiter letter that came that day. 

Shortly before I left, my RL conference called me with the GP in StL because he knew I was upset.  There was an issue where some fairly large upcoming medical bills would possibly not be covered by the new (and for me much more expensive) health insurance.  I was told that while I was technically right that it would not be covered, I shouldn't worry about it, because "trust me, if you get hit with a $50,000 hospital bill that the insurance won't pay, we will take care of it for you."  Not surprisingly, when I asked the GP to put that in writing, he declined.

My experience has been whenever I am told "trust me, you won't get screwed," I am about to get screwed.

[quote=Soothsayer][quote=EDJ4now]

When I could see my peers taking home twice what I did at other firms, using products that could annuitize their business, I couldn't see staying either. 

[/quote]

Everybody has a different reason for leaving.  For me, it was never about the money or percentage of net payout.  It was about being treated as if you were some sort of inferior POS compared to to the son, daughter, son-in-law, nephew (insert any nepotism here) of a former top producer who put up a bigger number than I did, but it didn't matter that they got a $50 million, $80 million, $130 million (insert any obscene number here) head start.  And then the thought that one of these idiots would surely one day be annointed as my "Regional Leader" was more than I could take.  I had that "straight up trajectory" too, but it was nothing compared to several other in my region.  If I lose in a fair fight where the playing field is level, that's one thing.  But, to watch really average or below average people be named GPs of the firm based on somebody else's work from 15-20 years ago is nothing short of ridiculous.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.  Life's not fair.  And it will never be perfect.  But, I couldn't stand by and have my nose rubbed in it day in and day out, either.

[/quote]

I sort of agree, in that I don't want it rubbed in my face.  However, most of the indies of the world talk about how great it is to "own" your business and be able to sell it.  Well, if I had a 100million office and was ready to retire, it better damn well be going to my son, daughter, son-in-law, nephew (insert any nepotism here).  Basically, seeing an office going to a relative and being pissed is just jealousy (hey, I'm jealous when I see it).  But it doesn't make it wrong.  It is actually very, very right.  I would think it was even worse if Jones DIDN'T allow nepotism.  Imagine all those years and assets, and you can't even give it to a relative?  Hey, it's not perfect, but it's not unfair.  Someday they may come up with a better way of compensating retiring brokers (through reduced payouts to successor), but until then nepotism works.

[quote=gad12]

Broker 24,

Maybe it is not as bad as some of us make it out to be I'll give you that.

But look at the facts of your own post and you'll realize that 92% over 10 yrs as Butkus said is grossly overstated.

Facts

Your region - 80 advisors - 60 of which are seg 3.

2 left last year.  That makes 3.3%  2/60

Multiply by 10 YEARS makes 33.3% are gone.  Not 8% as Butkus claimed.  Meaning 67% after 10 years retention. 

And I believe your region is probably lower turnover than average.  At least it is MUCH lower than my region is.

Also just keeping the facts straight.

[/quote]

Gad, you might be right.  I don't really know, honestly.  Numbers can be twisted and interpreted so many different ways.  I just think the attrition issue is a bit overblown. However, there are definitely some hot-button issues that lead to the attrition.  I think if they tackle each of them, it will go a long way in reducing it (which they have done a fair job of the last 18 months). 

[quote=Broker24]

I sort of agree, in that I don't want it rubbed in my face.  However, most of the indies of the world talk about how great it is to "own" your business and be able to sell it.  Well, if I had a 100million office and was ready to retire, it better damn well be going to my son, daughter, son-in-law, nephew (insert any nepotism here).  Basically, seeing an office going to a relative and being pissed is just jealousy (hey, I'm jealous when I see it).  But it doesn't make it wrong.  It is actually very, very right.  I would think it was even worse if Jones DIDN'T allow nepotism.  Imagine all those years and assets, and you can't even give it to a relative?  Hey, it's not perfect, but it's not unfair.  Someday they may come up with a better way of compensating retiring brokers (through reduced payouts to successor), but until then nepotism works.

[/quote]

I think the problem most people have is not nepotism, but that some beneficiary of nepotism who couldn't sell a life preserver to a drowning man is held up as a shining example for us lowly new/new's to emulate.  My experience was that many of these guys were genuinely hard working and humble about the huge leg up they were given, but some were obnoxious jerks who actually believed that because Daddy gave them 100mm in AUM they were smarter than you were. 

And St Louis always considered them fast starting geniuses while those of us who really were building a business were treated like idiots for not being more like them.

[/quote]

I think the problem most people have is not nepotism, but that some beneficiary of nepotism who couldn't sell a life preserver to a drowning man is held up as a shining example for us lowly new/new's to emulate.  My experience was that many of these guys were genuinely hard working and humble about the huge leg up they were given, but some were obnoxious jerks who actually believed that because Daddy gave them 100mm in AUM they were smarter than you were. 

And St Louis always considered them fast starting geniuses while those of us who really were building a business were treated like idiots for not being more like them.

[/quote]

That is exactly what happens. 

[quote=Butkus]92% of Segment 3 brokers are with the firm 10 years later.[/quote]

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results"

When I made Seg 3, it was 85% of those who make segment 3 go on to have profitable careers at Edward Jones.  Now it’s 92%.  They must be doing something right.

The newbie kool-aid drinkers will believe any statistics they're given by the RL's. They are just glad to have the job and don't know any better. The rest of us Know that it's bull. The attrition rate is much higher and will increase by one more soon - just have to add the names from the Do Not Call list into my scheduled calls for the day I leave so the kids in St Louis can give them a ring.

Just kidding.

9753 sales people as of Feb 06, and 6136 as of Feb 2000. Those numbers are from the SEC filings. So growth of 600 odd brokers net, per year, in three countries. Doesn’t seem so great, given the numbers that are pumped through training.

But Hulk, were the other firms pushing 200 new brokers per month through

their training programs?



Truthfully, I don’t think that these numbers are a good metric for the quality

of firms. Still, one has to wonder how good the training really is.

[quote=eyes wide open] 9753 sales people as of Feb 06, and 6136 as of Feb 2000.  Those numbers are from the SEC filings.   So growth of 600 odd brokers net, per year, in three countries.  Doesn’t seem so great, given the numbers that are pumped through training.

I hate edward jones. All they do is cherry pick statistics in an attempt to mislead. Like Nick murray says, you can cherry pick statistics and in some way be technically correct, but all you are really doing is lying.

I hate edward jones. All they do is cherry pick statistics in an attempt to mislead. Like Nick murray says, you can cherry pick statistics and in some way be technically correct, but all you are really doing is lying.

[quote=Philo Kvetch] But Hulk, were the other firms pushing 200 new brokers per month through

their training programs?



Truthfully, I don’t think that these numbers are a good metric for the quality

of firms. Still, one has to wonder how good the training really is.[/quote]



No, Mr Kvetch, other firms were making acquistions for growth as opposed to training new brokers.



And I would agree with you that these numbers are not a good measure for quality of firm. I don’t remember making statements to the contrary.

[quote=Incredible Hulk] [quote=Philo Kvetch] But Hulk, were the other

firms pushing 200 new brokers per month through

their training programs?



Truthfully, I don’t think that these numbers are a good metric for the

quality

of firms. Still, one has to wonder how good the training really is.[/

QUOTE]



No, Mr Kvetch, other firms were making acquistions for

growth as opposed to training new brokers.



And I would agree with you that these numbers are not a good measure

for quality of firm. I don’t remember making statements to the contrary.



[/quote]



How about your previous post for a statement to the contrary?



I, too, find it humorous, but for a whole 'nother reason.

[quote=joedabrkr]

[quote=Incredible Hulk] [quote=eyes wide open] 9753 sales people as of Feb 06, and 6136 as of Feb 2000. Those numbers are from the SEC filings. So growth of 600 odd brokers net, per year, in three countries. Doesn’t seem so great, given the numbers that are pumped through training.[/quote]



Were you around in 2000? I’ve seen numbers for the “major firms” and their growth, or lack thereof, for the same set of years. Very few brokers that were scratch starters made it anywhere from 2000-2001. [/quote]We’re not talking about other firms, we’re talking about “the world’s greatest sales force”. Stop trying to deflect the conversation…[/quote]



Deflection or Comparison? Someone decided to make the suggestion that EDJ is a terrible firm because of the slow growth of the firm over a short time horizon. I simply tried to give a newbie some perspective, but thanks for the help though.

[quote=Philo Kvetch] [quote=Incredible Hulk] [quote=Philo Kvetch] But Hulk, were the other

firms pushing 200 new brokers per month through

their training programs?



Truthfully, I don’t think that these numbers are a good metric for the

quality

of firms. Still, one has to wonder how good the training really is.[/

QUOTE]



No, Mr Kvetch, other firms were making acquistions for

growth as opposed to training new brokers.



And I would agree with you that these numbers are not a good measure

for quality of firm. I don’t remember making statements to the contrary.



[/quote]



How about your previous post for a statement to the contrary?



I, too, find it humorous, but for a whole 'nother reason.[/quote]



If I need to 'splain everything to you, my comment regarding “success” was directed toward success of growing the firm, not quality.



I would again default to your comment that these are not the metric that should be used to measure quality.

Yes, it’s a poor metric to judge the quality of the firm. Particularly in light of

the fact that there are many, many other reasons to doubt the quality of

Edward Jones.

Hulk, they must of given you the koolaid with the magic potion that makes your "st I N K" turn green!!!!

LOOK!...In the sky, its a bird... its a plane.......... does someone smell.... K-O-O-L-A-I-D ??? 

YES- AND IT IS THE INCREDIBLE HULK...     <= (ACTUAL PICTURE)

I crack me up!!!... Ohh, come on Hulk, lighten up, after all, your my favorite koolaid terd and I would never flush you..... SWOOOSH.... woops!!!!!

I only “cherry-picked” stats because someone in this thread had said that his friend was broker 5000 in the year 2000, and now the firm was over 10,000.  I was just tryiing to make the point that the growth has not been as good as the propoganda is intimating

doneWjones, the sooner you leave the better…are you even old enough to be licensed? Seriously, my 5 year old has deeper thoughts than you.

entertaining…hahaha so this is why I lurk on sites like this one since I’m not an fa guru jest for pure enjoyment of reading quips from posters like donewjones & discrediableHulk.

[quote=eyes wide open]I only "cherry-picked" stats because someone in this thread had said that his friend was broker 5000 in the year 2000, and now the firm was over 10,000.  I was just tryiing to make the point that the growth has not been as good as the propoganda is intimating[/quote]

My "Can Sell" date was 3/1/1999...the 5000th guy was some turban wearing dude in England...I think he has something to do with 9-11

[ love to hear the Regional Leader get up and announce we are losing 70 FA's per month of the people that are producing over $300,000.  Mr. ButtKiss you should look into the statistics before you think that they are low![/quote]

 I'd love to hear the son of a bitch stand up and explain a system of equitably dispersing those left assets to more than one CHOSEN GOLDEN broker.  I mean, you deal the accounts around so that more than one broker gets a piece.  Isn't this what happens at other firms when someone leaves?  Don't they (Merril, Barney, AG) call it chumming?  Example: one Barney broker leaves Barney, and has 500 accts, w/ $50 million AUM, don't they pass those 500 accts around to the other 50 brokers left?  I've heard the term chumming, and it was explained to me as said.  It seems very fair to me.  However at Jones, those that are happy are almost always those that "inherited" $30+ million in assets.