Getting Ready to Sign all the contracts
7 RepliesJump to last post
Soon I will be accepting a position at a major, Swiss-based wirehouse. I've been doing a lot reading on these boards, and realize that I'm going to be signing contracts that may come back to haunt me later if I leave the firm. Specifically, contracts that state the firm owns the clients and I have the permission to service the clients only through the good graces of the firm.
Here's my question. Is it standard practice that I will have the opportunity to list already-existing accounts/clients in my book? (Even though my book is merely a business plan at this point). If so, is it advisable to list every one the accounts on my business plan as already-existing clients? The logic being that this is a paper trail that these are accounts that I brought to the firm before having the benefits of firm branding. If I leave in the future and get hit with a TRO will this serve as a proactive defense? Thanks.
Email [email protected]! Bill will point you in the right direction. Check out his website (rrbdlawyer.com). You can find a lot of great info there.
I don’t know if they’re any good or not, but Edward Jones seems to find a never-ending stream of shills.
Thank you all for the responses. Bill - I've already read all of your links (I don't want to waste anyone's time if the answers are already posted somewhere); thank you for posting them. They are extremely helpful.
Actually, your posts/links (the cool anecdotal format) are what brought-on my question. Your suggestion on the detailed Scheduled is awesome advice.
Starka......Author Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >> exdrone
Joined: July 01 2005
Posts: 18 Posted: Oct. 16 2005 at 1:45am | IP Logged Heres part of a post I found surfing the web. Ex-Jones brokers aren't the only ones who get it. Monday, October 3. 2005 You Don't Want My Business
The company is Edward Jones. Yes, I thought we were done with this shady company after its last major indictment and settlement with various authorities, from the Feds to state and industry regulators. But no. The company can't seem to stop scamming customers.
The list of its settled crimes in the last five years is quite long and includes fraudulently selling certificates of deposit (settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC) to taking demanded kick-backs and financial incentives to push mutual funds. Even though the ink was barely dry on the last series of settlements and arbitration cases are still underway (its customers are trying to get some of their money back), Edward Jones moved on to another fraudulent scam.
The scam involved what’s the bedrock of folks' investment portfolios: bonds, more specifically, tax-free municipal bonds. These are the assets that many of us depend on for income and security, both before and during our retirement.
The scam: Edward Jones wasn't telling folks what the effective interest rate or yield was when they were trading bonds held inside their portfolios through their Edward Jones brokers. And the management--from the top down--admitted that it knew about this, dating back as far back as 1995.
Everyday investors--who weren't as savvy or weren't up to do battle with Edward Jones, their brokers and bond traders--were or have been duped according to the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and the US Municipal Securities Regulation Board (MSRB). The trades involve billions of dollars.
What did Edward Jones get for admitting and settling its crimes? How about a $300,000 fine. That’s chump change for what its bond traders were scamming.
It gets worse. According to filed settlement papers, Edward Jones' settlement won't disclose the facts of the case or provide individuals with restitution or adequate disclosure to empower them to file claims in arbitration procedures.
This is bad. I'm working on something to help those of you who were scammed get your money back. Stay tuned.
At a minimum, this is another wake-up call reminding us to be cautious if and when we’re dealing with Edward Jones.
Here's the link to the whole article.
[quote=Starka]Yeah, I saw it the first half a dozen times it was posted.[/quote]