Revenue Sharing Review at EJ

Dec 12, 2005 3:32 am

Forgive me for re-introducing this topic again, but I am not yet clear on it from the anti-Jones people here.

It is my understanding the revenue sharing issue dealt primarily with a failure to verbally disclose that revenue sharing was taking place for the 7 preferred fund families, even though the practice was disclosed in the prospectus. The change now is that the revenue sharing is also disclosed verbally.

I also understand that EJ at one time included revenue sharing as part of the criteria for awarding diversification trips, but pulled this back on their own before the investigation began.

Is this understanding correct? And is EJ's past revenue sharing practices substantially different from the other firms?

I should add that I am proud to work at Jones and have yet to have a client reject a preferred fund because of my verbal disclosure of revenue sharing.

Dec 12, 2005 4:28 am

You work there and don’t understand the system!!!  Drink up…

Dec 12, 2005 1:24 pm

No, I don’t understand why so much is made of it here.

Dec 12, 2005 1:37 pm

butkus, my thoughts on it are much more than that.  Most selling agreements don't involve additional fee to play deals beyond basic rev. sharing that already exists in traditional pricing.  Where jones took it farther is they got $$$$ on top of that w/o it being disclosed to clients and unargueably causing its sales force to steer clients to those funds.  In terms of the trips - they may have pulled them back as you state but what if the suit never came to light?  Would jones have changed it still?  Also, jones IRs receive bonuses based on p/l of their office.  One of the easiest ways to makes this happen is to do business w/ the preferreds.  Do you disclose this to your clients?  Is this disclosed in the prospectus?

Beyond that, all the kool-aid drinkers on this post get on and spout how Jones is the only firm out there looking after the client; I believe this if the client in that sentence was the GPs.

Dec 12, 2005 3:13 pm

P/L credits are no longer tied to the preferred fund families.  Has not been for almost a year.  There is now a line item on the P/L called “asset holding credit” which takes all assets into account (stocks, bonds, all mutual funds, UITs, money market funds, etc.) when calculating indvididual branch profit.  I am not pining for Jones, but I think it is important that we have the facts straight on this forum.

Dec 12, 2005 3:33 pm

Again, you EJ geeks  don't get it.    Doug Hill and the other GPs LIED on their Wells Submission to the SEC.  When the SEC realized that EDJ/Hill knowingly submitted inaccurate statements (aka lied)to  the SEC referred to the US Attorney office in Eastern Missouri. (aka THE PROSECUTOR)   Rather than face a multi-count CRIMINAL indictment Doug et all coughed up a $75 million SETTLEMENT (aka not a fine) and Doug agreed to step down as MR. BIG.   Lieing to the SEC is what Martha went down to the Federal Pen for!   

What do you guys feel about your bosses lyin' to the Feds

As always

Lance

Dec 12, 2005 4:03 pm

Thx soothsayer - I appreciate the info and setting me straight.

Dec 12, 2005 4:04 pm

Any idea though on how they weigh all of the assets?  That is, do some products get more weighting toward p/l v others?

Again, thx.

Dec 12, 2005 11:48 pm

Only based on total aum in the branch, it has nothing to do with what the assets are.

Dec 13, 2005 11:07 pm

So where is the problem here?

Lance, you might substantiate the fraud charge, as Martha Stewart went to jail but Doug Hill is not.

Dec 13, 2005 11:27 pm

Martha was a idiot and rather than admitting she lied to the SEC and settle with them she chose to fight it in Federal Court -she lost!



Most of the Jones boys on this post still think that Jones paid a $75 million FINE to the SEC for revenue sharing practices. WRONG!



EDJ entered into a deferred settlement with the US Attorney (aka The Prosecutor) for the Eastern District of MO. Part of that settlment was a $75 million payment. The last time I looked the US Attorney Office was a part of the Department of Justice not the SEC!



Ya see fellas it is illegal to knowingly submit inaccurate (lie)information on an SEC Wells Submission. When that happens the nice people from the SEC refer the matter to the DOJ for prosecution! Doug and the big boys decided to lie about the revenue sharing stuff. They were facing Federal Indictment abd Doug would have been arrested on a series of criminal charges…why else would they have shelled out $75 million to THE PROSECUTOR?   



Read my post “I do not hate Edward Jones” it has the time line for you… or just call the US Attorney office in St. Louis they will provide you with copy of the settlement agreement.

Dec 14, 2005 4:17 am

A link supporting your claim would be nice.

Dec 14, 2005 4:44 am

ButtHead



Just go to my " I do not hate Jones thread" somebody posted the
official press release from the US PROSECUTOR about the settlement



My claim doesn’t need any support…just call US Attorney office at
314-539-7719 and they will fax you a copy of the December 2004
Settlement.



Note: this is NOT the SEC this is Federal Prosecutors.  Prosecutors enter into settlements with criminals



All I am telling is the truth, its the Geeps and Creeps at HQ who making claims.



Have A Wonderful Night … ButtHead



Love and Kisses



Lance


Dec 14, 2005 6:40 am

THIS IS GREAT................

California Dreaming.................

Dec 14, 2005 8:00 pm

[quote=Butkus]No, I don't understand why so much is made of it here.[/quote]

It's pretty simple, really. The firm that's spent so much time telling its sales force, the public and the competition what they "did it right" and "looked out for the client", was, in fact, rewarding their reps more to sell a select group of mutual funds.

They were sending people on trips (call them whatever you like, it's Amway meets Wall Street to have trip contests, and "sales contests" is exactly what they look like to customers) based in part on their sales in select funds, again, based on the firm and rep being paid more to tell these funds over others. The concentration of the firm's sales within the select families was massive. All while not telling the client of the conflict on interest, all while claiming the did a better job of protecting the client.

The SEC was disturbed enough by this is issue a massive fine and personally fine the senior officer of the firm. This wasn't your usual slap on the wrist.

Dec 14, 2005 10:59 pm

[quote=Butkus]A link supporting your claim would be nice.[/quote]

Have you read it?  Care to respond?

I can't wait to hear the new spin.

Dec 15, 2005 5:08 am

[quote=Butkus]

So where is the problem here?

Lance, you might substantiate the fraud charge, as Martha Stewart went to jail but Doug Hill is not.

[/quote]

Butkus

That's because Doug "3 Mil" Hill was allowed to pay a fine of 3 million Dollars and resign from Edward Jones as Managing General partner, or GO TO JAIL...  Your comparison is not even close.

I can post the articles for you, they have been listed on here many, many times, even though you don't read the WSJ it has been documented many times, it is a FACT................

You've been drinking way too much KOOL AID

Arrogance is no excuse for knowledge.....

Dec 15, 2005 5:11 am

Butkus

Here it is:   Thanks to csmelnix........

csmelnix
Groupie



Joined: June 01 2005
Posts: 68 Posted: Dec. 10 2005 at 12:11pm | IP Logged It's all about what's best for the client! Edward Jones Mutual Fund Scandal OverviewFrom the mid 1990s until the present, Edward Jones has had selling agreements with upwards of 240 different mutual fund families. Seven (7) of those mutual fund families became known as Edward Jones’s “Preferred Families” of funds. The Preferred Families included American Funds, Federated Investors, Goldman Sachs Funds, Hartford, Lord Abbett, Putnam Funds and Van Kampen Investments.

The mutual funds in the Preferred Families paid extra incentives to Edward Jones in return for Edward Jones soliciting/recommending its clients to purchase these funds. The SEC determined that the incentives were worth tens of millions of dollars each year to Edward Jones, on top of the commissions and other fees Edward Jones received for selling Preferred Families funds. The incentives proved to be powerful motivators, as more than 95% of all Edward Jones mutual fund sales were made in these 7 Preferred Families.

However, this incentive program was not adequately disclosed to the clients of Edward Jones. This left clients of Edward Jones unaware that Edward Jones had a strong motivation to recommend the purchase of the Preferred Families to the exclusion of the other fund families they could recommend, regardless of the client’s best interests.

Federal and State Regulators Take ActionIn December 2004, Edward Jones settled the charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC, press release, Order Instituting Proceedings) and, the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD, press release, Letter of Acceptance Waiver and Consent), which are the governing bodies of the securities industry, as well as charges brought by the New York Stock Exchange. The charges involved Edward Jones’s failure to disclose to investors the extra incentives it received for recommending certain mutual funds. To settle the charges, Edward Jones paid a total of $75 million dollars.

On the date that this settlement was released, the California Attorney General (press release, Complaint) filed an additional suit against Edward Jones. The California Attorney General stated that he did not believe that the $75 million settlement was sufficient. The California Attorney General also stated that Edward Jones could have accepted up to $300 million in improper payments.

Edward Jones has also entered into a settlement with the securities regulators in its home state of Missouri. In the settlement Edward Jones stipulated and agreed to findings that it failed to adequately disclose the revenue sharing arrangements to Missouri residents and agreed to pay fines totaling $1.5 million. (press release)

What You Can Do

If you have lost money while invested with Edward Jones, please contact us today. We can determine whether Edward Jones violated your rights.

We help people who have suffered losses as the result of investment fraud such as this and will work on your behalf to recover losses that you have sustained.

Dec 15, 2005 5:20 am

Butkus

New Revenue sharing at Edward Jones:

GP to new IR "Bend over" it's time you learn about Revenue Sharing........you get the SHAFT, GP'S get the GOLD.................OH, YEA...............

Isn't that easy..................

Dec 17, 2005 2:23 pm

I didn’t see anything here suggesting Doug Hill faced criminal charges.  

Dec 17, 2005 2:37 pm

Butkus-

Maybe you are having a tough time reading.  Open your eyes and it is amazing what you can and will find out.  And that applies to working at Jones as well.

Dec 17, 2005 9:49 pm

Butkus=Vega

Vega=Idiot.

Dec 19, 2005 3:50 am

The assertion was that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I don’t see that referenced in any of the links. Perhaps someone could paste the specific evidence with the link.

Dec 19, 2005 1:46 pm

I don't know if he faces or faced criminal charges - but having been hit w/ the $3 million fine and forced to resign isn't anything to brag about. 

Oh, how I remember Doug on the ol' webcast telling us to just sell our clients a good growth and income fund and they'll thank you later.

Dec 19, 2005 2:13 pm

[quote=Butkus]The assertion was that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I don't see that referenced in any of the links. Perhaps someone could paste the specific evidence with the link.[/quote]

Doug Hill wasn't actually charged with a crime, so that makes it ok.

Bill Clinton didn't actually have intercourse with Monica Lewinsky, either......

Dec 19, 2005 3:34 pm

Doug made a deal with the US Prosecutor!

Criminals or those faced with criminal proceedures are the only people that make deals with US Prosecutors!

Doug made a deal with the US Prosecutor therefor Doug is a criminal!

End of Story!  Adios Doug

Dec 19, 2005 10:17 pm

I was addressing the claim made by Lance Legstrong:

"Rather than face a multi-count CRIMINAL indictment Doug et all coughed up a $75 million SETTLEMENT (aka not a fine) and Doug agreed to step down as MR. BIG.   Lieing to the SEC is what Martha went down to the Federal Pen for!"  

Dec 19, 2005 11:36 pm

What is your point butkus? Is it  to say that Hill and Co are not criminals because they settled rather than argue their case in court?  You are on thin ice here pal. 

As for clients not rejecting funds that have revenue sharing agreements with your firm,  of course they have not rejected them.  You guys have yet to come clean on how those agreements truly hamper your ability to provide objective advice.(How many non-preferreds you recommended lately?)

Hill was censured by the regulators.  Your firm was fined for its practices and forced to reform.  Quit parsing words to trying to lessen the negative implications of the FINE (albeit you call it a settlement payment) and forsed resignation of 3'mil.

Quit your coy attempts at appearing ignorant to the real situation at your firm. It is transparent as hell.

Dec 19, 2005 11:55 pm

Dead on Exdrone - it's like Butkus is feeling that since it's not a criminal case it's ok.  Tammy and Jim Bakker never properly disclosed to all their clients that there money was being used for personal profit and enjoyment either. 

Spin it however you wish, as far as I see jones certainly didn't make sense of investing when it came to the benefits of using the prefered funds!

Dec 20, 2005 3:30 am

[quote=Lance Legstrong]

Doug made a deal with the US Prosecutor!

Criminals or those faced with criminal proceedures are the only people that make deals with US Prosecutors!

Doug made a deal with the US Prosecutor therefor Doug is a criminal!

End of Story!  Adios Doug

"Adios Doug!" sounds like a great topic for a new thread on this forum.  Who wants to start "turning the worm?"

[/quote]
Dec 20, 2005 5:46 am

I ate the worm once late one night.  I had a nasty hangover the next day…

Dec 20, 2005 12:45 pm

[quote=joedabrkr]I ate the worm once late one night.  I had a nasty hangover the next day.......[/quote]

But at least you don't have worms now 

Dec 20, 2005 3:13 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=joedabrkr]I ate the worm once late one night.  I had a nasty hangover the next day.......[/quote]

But at least you don't have worms now 

[/quote]

True.  My dog had worms last summer.  What a pain in the arse!

Dec 20, 2005 11:32 pm

3’mil stepped on his worm…bet that hurt.

Dec 23, 2005 1:41 am

Lance Legstrong claimed that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I asked for evidence for his claim. I did not write or imply anything else. He did not provide the evidence.

My original point is that the difference between pre-settlement and post-settlement is the verbal disclosure, not the practice of revenue sharing, with the one short-term difference where trips were awarded on the partial basis of revenue sharing (pulled back earlier by EJ). I'm also claiming that clients have not yet rejected for me a preferred fund because of the verbal disclosure of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing continues as it has before, allowed by the SEC, with additional disclosure. And by the way, I believe Soothsayer was incorrect when he wrote that revenue sharing from preferred mutual funds does not count in P/L for bonus purposes. It continues as before.

There are also many claims made here of General Partner "greed". I would be interested in specific explanation, support or evidence of this. It is good to remember that the GP's have refused the opportunity to take the firm public, when to do so would have resulted in great personal benefit. 

Dec 23, 2005 3:33 am

[quote=Butkus]

There are also many claims made here of General Partner "greed". I would be interested in specific explanation, support or evidence of this. It is good to remember that the GP's have refused the opportunity to take the firm public, when to do so would have resulted in great personal benefit. 

[/quote]

Do you really think your money market yield is lower than most other firms because it is safer?  Let me clue you in......the gp's skim millions every year from that money market yield that you dont see a penny of.

Your bonus system....Do you really think that opening multiple offices around yours really  helps your business? The goal is to keep IR production where you do not receive the maximum benefit from the bonus system.  The profitability of the firm is not helped by opening unprofitable offices, but the GP's continue to get paid big bucks even when the firm is in a low bonus bracket.......they have you paying for the growth.

Preferred funds...NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CLIENTS!  In the best interest of GP's who want to leverage vendor relationships by funneling money to select vendors and maximize KICKBACKS.

There is more but yes GP's are greedy.  Except when it comes to dispensing kool-aid.  They are quite liberal with that.

Like Napoleon Dynamite said.......... "Idiots!"

Dec 23, 2005 5:33 am

[quote=Butkus]

Lance Legstrong claimed that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I asked for evidence for his claim. I did not write or imply anything else. He did not provide the evidence.

My original point is that the difference between pre-settlement and post-settlement is the verbal disclosure, not the practice of revenue sharing, with the one short-term difference where trips were awarded on the partial basis of revenue sharing (pulled back earlier by EJ). I'm also claiming that clients have not yet rejected for me a preferred fund because of the verbal disclosure of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing continues as it has before, allowed by the SEC, with additional disclosure. And by the way, I believe Soothsayer was incorrect when he wrote that revenue sharing from preferred mutual funds does not count in P/L for bonus purposes. It continues as before.

There are also many claims made here of General Partner "greed". I would be interested in specific explanation, support or evidence of this. It is good to remember that the GP's have refused the opportunity to take the firm public, when to do so would have resulted in great personal benefit. 

[/quote]

Revenue sharing on a per fund, per family basis used to be included on each broker's and each branch's P&L.  Under the new formula, it is not even a consideration.  Only total assets or a "Branch Holdings Credit" is now a line item on the P&L.  That, my friend, is an absolute freakin' fact.  If you can't read a 12 item P&L statement, and you're in the financial advice business, then you not so smart.  You can call me what you want.  But "wrong" ain't one of them on this matter.

Dec 23, 2005 1:38 pm

Soothsayer, I’m not calling you anything, I’m suggesting I believe you are incorrect on this point. I spoke with Branch Accounting regarding it.

Dec 23, 2005 2:56 pm

[quote=Butkus]

Lance Legstrong claimed that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I asked for evidence for his claim. I did not write or imply anything else. He did not provide the evidence.

My original point is that the difference between pre-settlement and post-settlement is the verbal disclosure, not the practice of revenue sharing, with the one short-term difference where trips were awarded on the partial basis of revenue sharing (pulled back earlier by EJ). I'm also claiming that clients have not yet rejected for me a preferred fund because of the verbal disclosure of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing continues as it has before, allowed by the SEC, with additional disclosure. And by the way, I believe Soothsayer was incorrect when he wrote that revenue sharing from preferred mutual funds does not count in P/L for bonus purposes. It continues as before.

There are also many claims made here of General Partner "greed". I would be interested in specific explanation, support or evidence of this. It is good to remember that the GP's have refused the opportunity to take the firm public, when to do so would have resulted in great personal benefit

[/quote]

Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.

So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

Dec 23, 2005 8:06 pm

[quote=joedabrkr

Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.

So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

[/quote]

Butkus,

If Jones went public, wouldn't the GP's get better tax treatment for the dividend they would receive over the partnership earnings they get now? They have huge incentives to keep the firm private, the kind alluded to by joe above.  Unless of course you believe that out of their kindness and generosity, they like paying taxes too.

Dec 23, 2005 9:44 pm

[quote=exdrone][quote=joedabrkr

Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.

So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

[/quote]

Butkus,

If Jones went public, wouldn't the GP's get better tax treatment for the dividend they would receive over the partnership earnings they get now? They have huge incentives to keep the firm private, the kind alluded to by joe above.  Unless of course you believe that out of their kindness and generosity, they like paying taxes too.

[/quote]

Well said, the fact is they do not want everything in the light of Day.

Just to clear-up some facts on Doug "3 Mil" Hill The State Attorney General of Missouri was the one preparing to file the charges against Doug "3 Mil" Hill for FRAUD, but since he agreed to pay the FINE to the SEC, the state agreed to drop the charges as long as he resigned and personally paid the Fine.  This appeared in the WSJ as well as all the major newspapers in Mo..........go check it out online, anyone that wants to find it can........it is a FACT and TRUE.......... 

And by the way, BFD & Butkus, if your Firm Edward Jones is so honest and provides it's employees with the total TRUTH, ask your legal department for a copy?  They do have it, but will they share it with you? 

Just keep drinking Kool Aid and follow the Firm Montra, We are not crooks, we did nothing wrong!  Gee, didn't Richard Nixon say that just before resigning too, just like Doug "3 Mil" Hill......

Bill Clinton lied under oath, so anything goes and can be justified...even cover-ups at Edward Jones......It's a problem not just at Edward Jones, it's a national problem, no one is accountable for what they do...........there is something very wrong with this 

Dec 23, 2005 10:22 pm

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Dec 23, 2005 10:24 pm

HAPPY NEW YEAR…

Dec 23, 2005 10:28 pm

[quote=exdrone][quote=joedabrkr

Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.

So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

[/quote]

Butkus,

If Jones went public, wouldn't the GP's get better tax treatment for the dividend they would receive over the partnership earnings they get now? They have huge incentives to keep the firm private, the kind alluded to by joe above.  Unless of course you believe that out of their kindness and generosity, they like paying taxes too.

[/quote]

I agree, and MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR

Dec 23, 2005 10:30 pm

[quote=exdrone][quote=joedabrkr

Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.

So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

[/quote]

Butkus,

If Jones went public, wouldn't the GP's get better tax treatment for the dividend they would receive over the partnership earnings they get now? They have huge incentives to keep the firm private, the kind alluded to by joe above.  Unless of course you believe that out of their kindness and generosity, they like paying taxes too.

[/quote]

I agre with that..............

MERRY CHRISTMAS

&

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Dec 23, 2005 10:33 pm

The amazing thing is many Firms are downsizing and they are aware of the fact there are just too many Advisor's out there. They are all drinking the same Kool Aid, Weddle is just a clone of Doug "3 Mil" Hill although he does have a lot more class thats for sure.  

However, Jones keep stating they want market share, 25,000 IR's, what they really want is a Jones Office every 2 miles, young hard working door knocking IR's doing about 200 to 300K Gross commissions, causing no problems, drinking the Kool Aid sounding the company montra........................... 

They really don't care if an IR leaves, they will just send in several newbie Ir's to keep the scraps and start over..........only with two offices instead of one..........it's called multiplication the Jones way

When was the last time Jones went after an experienced IR that leaves..........they don't and can't afford too...........they only go after the training expenses in the first 3 years......so if you have over 3 years and can produce over 250K you need to think about leaving...........sooner than later....... 


MERRY CHRISTMAS

&

 HAPPY NEW YEAR

Dec 23, 2005 10:35 pm

[quote=Player][quote=exdrone][quote=joedabrkr

Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.

So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

[/quote]

Butkus,

If Jones went public, wouldn't the GP's get better tax treatment for the dividend they would receive over the partnership earnings they get now? They have huge incentives to keep the firm private, the kind alluded to by joe above.  Unless of course you believe that out of their kindness and generosity, they like paying taxes too.

[/quote]

I agre with that..............

MERRY CHRISTMAS

&

HAPPY NEW YEAR

[/quote]

Hopefully the new Year will be good for us all...........

Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
babbling looney
Senior Member



Joined: Dec. 02 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 383 Posted: Dec. 23 2005 at 3:59pm | IP Logged

Well, because I'm bored and am offically on vacation today I ran a morningstar report of the American Funds that BPD proposed as a diversfied portfolio, using 10K invested into each fund.

12.9% is concentrated in the top 25 stocks

Microsoft, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac are all in 4 of the funds.  Growth fund, Cap inc bldr, Cap world growth, American Mutual

The rest of the top 25 are all in three funds  generally Growth fund, Cap inc blr and Cap G&I or American fund.

Appoximate allocations  Cash 10.4% -Us Stocks 41.2 - Non US Stocks 24.7% - Bonds 22%     My program only allows me to create Morningstar hypos on an existing account.  I'm too cheap to pay for the full Morningstar Advisor platform   so I used an account that also had minimal (less than $100) stock position and a very small Franklin Natural Resources fund, which has a 33.28 % ytd total return.    There may be some skewing because of this but not much since the existing account is so small

3 year Alpha 5.15  Beta .65

Standard deviation is 6.94 compared to the benchmark (S&P) at 10.01    Sharpe Ratio 1.68 compared to 1.01

pre tax return   3 mo 1.84  1 yr 10.20  3 yr 14.14   5 yr 7.97   10 yr 10.92

Benchmark       3 mo 2.87  1 yr 8.44  3 yr 12.09  5 yr .64  10 yr 9.28

Not too bad. Most clients wouldn't kick you in the shins if this was their portfolio.  One point I may make is that I AM able to run a Morningstar hypo at all.... something I couldn't do at Jones.  Plus I can print it out in a full color format, place it into a folder with other information and analysis of their stock holdings using S&P reports and Morningstar with my recommendations in writing.  The clients are impressed



__________________

Merry Christmas

 

&

 

 Happy New Year

Dec 23, 2005 10:42 pm
babbling looney
Senior Member



Joined: Dec. 02 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 383 Posted: Dec. 23 2005 at 3:59pm | IP Logged

Well, because I'm bored and am offically on vacation today I ran a morningstar report of the American Funds that BPD proposed as a diversfied portfolio, using 10K invested into each fund.

12.9% is concentrated in the top 25 stocks

Microsoft, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac are all in 4 of the funds.  Growth fund, Cap inc bldr, Cap world growth, American Mutual

The rest of the top 25 are all in three funds  generally Growth fund, Cap inc blr and Cap G&I or American fund.

Appoximate allocations  Cash 10.4% -Us Stocks 41.2 - Non US Stocks 24.7% - Bonds 22%     My program only allows me to create Morningstar hypos on an existing account.  I'm too cheap to pay for the full Morningstar Advisor platform   so I used an account that also had minimal (less than $100) stock position and a very small Franklin Natural Resources fund, which has a 33.28 % ytd total return.    There may be some skewing because of this but not much since the existing account is so small

3 year Alpha 5.15  Beta .65

Standard deviation is 6.94 compared to the benchmark (S&P) at 10.01    Sharpe Ratio 1.68 compared to 1.01

pre tax return   3 mo 1.84  1 yr 10.20  3 yr 14.14   5 yr 7.97   10 yr 10.92

Benchmark       3 mo 2.87  1 yr 8.44  3 yr 12.09  5 yr .64  10 yr 9.28

Not too bad. Most clients wouldn't kick you in the shins if this was their portfolio.  One point I may make is that I AM able to run a Morningstar hypo at all.... something I couldn't do at Jones.  Plus I can print it out in a full color format, place it into a folder with other information and analysis of their stock holdings using S&P reports and Morningstar with my recommendations in writing.  The clients are impressed



__________________
Looks real GOOD.......................Merry Christmas
Dec 23, 2005 10:46 pm

Player...you been in the egg nog again?!!!

Merry Christmas!!! (my preferred version...sorry if I offend anyone!)

Dec 29, 2005 2:49 pm

HAPPY NEW YEAR…

Jan 22, 2006 9:32 pm

[quote=Soothsayer][quote=Butkus]

Lance Legstrong claimed that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I asked for evidence for his claim. I did not write or imply anything else. He did not provide the evidence.

My original point is that the difference between pre-settlement and post-settlement is the verbal disclosure, not the practice of revenue sharing, with the one short-term difference where trips were awarded on the partial basis of revenue sharing (pulled back earlier by EJ). I'm also claiming that clients have not yet rejected for me a preferred fund because of the verbal disclosure of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing continues as it has before, allowed by the SEC, with additional disclosure. And by the way, I believe Soothsayer was incorrect when he wrote that revenue sharing from preferred mutual funds does not count in P/L for bonus purposes. It continues as before.

There are also many claims made here of General Partner "greed". I would be interested in specific explanation, support or evidence of this. It is good to remember that the GP's have refused the opportunity to take the firm public, when to do so would have resulted in great personal benefit. 

[/quote]

Revenue sharing on a per fund, per family basis used to be included on each broker's and each branch's P&L.  Under the new formula, it is not even a consideration.  Only total assets or a "Branch Holdings Credit" is now a line item on the P&L.  That, my friend, is an absolute freakin' fact.  If you can't read a 12 item P&L statement, and you're in the financial advice business, then you not so smart.  You can call me what you want.  But "wrong" ain't one of them on this matter.

[/quote]

Actually, Soothsayer is correct after all on this, revenue sharing from the preferred funds do not contribute more to bonuses based on P/L than non-preferred funds.

Jan 23, 2006 6:22 am

Yea… EDJ reps… keep drinking the kool-aid, keep the blinders on and keep making the GP’s a lot of bank… after all the #1 client at EDJ is the serious long term GP.  They really do not care about the IR unless you’re below expectations… then they call you to find out why you are not selling more.       Figure it out!!