Squash1:

[quote=SometimesNowhere]PIMCO has A-shares.

  Yeah but they don't share revenue... at Jones you have to do both..[/quote]   Right, and they don't quite have the sexy 5.75% rip on the front end...

On a side note, looking at “On Wall Street” payout grid comparison, they list wires, regionals, and then in a separate box EDJ… Some guy is probably like “WTF do we call them”…

  On a side note, they know there niche and are exteremely profitable..kind of like walmart, but without the power.

LuvIndy:

Here come the Jones people comparing it to being Indy, when Indy reps aren’t surveyed in this report.

Please take note of the thread address .. "What's up at Firms?".   So I'd say in response ... here come the Indy's sticking their noses where it doesn't belong. Nine plus ratings across the board, when the rest are getting 7s? Conclusively, we like our place more than wires like theirs.   Props to Edward Jones for smoking the other wirehouses.

fritz:

  Once again, as always, and forever ... EDJ#1

[quote=B24]Take it with a grain of salt and consider who they survey.  They survey registered readers.  Do you think every RL in the country has a Registered Rep subscription (shake your head YESSSSSS)?

If you look at the article, it tells the number of surveys completed.  These are approximations, but..... Edward Jones 385 MSSB 120 Merrill 100 UBS 67 Wachovia 193   Now, there are something like 65,000 reps among these 5 firms, and they surveyed a total of like 875 (is 1.4% a proxy for the entire population?).   I am guessing that the real top producers (other than at Jones) could care less about the survey, and don't bother responding.  I am guessing that most of the satisfied reps don't bother responding.  More than likely, it's the disgruntled employees (again, other than at Jones) that are responding at most of these other firms.  So it's not that the results are inaccurate per se, they are just skewed in a very biased way. I still believe that there is a higher % at Jones that are happy compared with some of the other firms right now, but if you actually surveyed EVERY FA, the results would be MUCH closer than this.[/quote]

You really need to take a course in statistics...

The number of surveys you approximate disproves your point.
1.4% is statistically significant.
Jones is probably most reliable data since every office is the same and no manager.

What probably does skew these numbers is that Jones reps probably care about them more than the rest. Jones reps (Kool-Aide drinkers) are probably more likely to give all 10's just to keep Jones at the "Top".

A 9.5 for strategic focus does not make sense for Jones. They are on a hiring binge that is costing current reps alot of money. How can anyone agree with this? Building slowly through quality is good for Reps. Building quickly is good for the GPs. This one deserves a 4.0

 

Still@jones:

You really need to take a course in statistics…

The number of surveys you approximate disproves your point.
1.4% is statistically significant.
Jones is probably most reliable data since every office is the same and no manager.

What probably does skew these numbers is that Jones reps probably care about them more than the rest. Jones reps (Kool-Aide drinkers) are probably more likely to give all 10’s just to keep Jones at the “Top”.

A 9.5 for strategic focus does not make sense for Jones. They are on a hiring binge that is costing current reps alot of money. How can anyone agree with this? Building slowly through quality is good for Reps. Building quickly is good for the GPs. This one deserves a 4.0

 

  Says a failure...

noggin:

It’s not the pressure not to sell non preferred funds. It’s the fact that they aren’t covered, the fact that the wholesalers can’t call on you out of the blue. How will you learn about them?? From your American Funds wholesaler?

While I believe the bolded statement to be true during your tenure at EDJ, it hasn't been the case since the rev sharing debacle. I get called on/emailed by a dozen or more non-preferred fund families.

Hiring binge? Once again, you prove you deserved to be let go by Jones. In addition to not selling, you weren't even listening to what was going on.

Jones, among all the major wirehouses, has been the most consistent in hiring FAs - regardless of the economic climate.

Still@jones:

1.4% is statistically significant. 

    I had an Empirical Political Analysis prof from Cameroon that had a great saying:   "You don't have to eat the entire elephant to know the meat is tough."   This concept applies well to statistics.

This report card continues to reflect the obvious. Jones brokers are generally more passionate than other firms in responding to this survey because they genuinely feel their firm is superior to the wires.

  And that Spiffy probably has responded to the survey...at least once.

LockEDJ:

[quote=LuvIndy]Here come the Jones people comparing it to being Indy, when Indy reps aren’t surveyed in this report.

Please take note of the thread address … “What’s up at Firms?”.



So I’d say in response … here come the Indy’s sticking their noses where it doesn’t belong. Nine plus ratings across the board, when the rest are getting 7s? Conclusively, we like our place more than wires like theirs.



Props to Edward Jones for smoking the other wirehouses. [/quote]



Are you trying to say that Indy’s don’t have firms? Or that because our firms are smaller we don’t matter?



Personally, I think that Jones reps are happier by and large. The ones that aren’t leave. They have no promissory note they have to pay if they leave.



If a wirehouse rep is unhappy, they may (or may not) have something to pay back. But they can “stick it to the man” by complaining on the report card. Makes perfect sense.



Also, many wirehouse reps may be afraid to leave the firm because they don’t feel like they could succeed without all of the support they get.



Regardless, the survey is probably fairly accurate. Although I will say that if you are building a study, that their methodology is flawed. There are a lot of threats to validity that are not eliminated. So the survey is far from scientific.

[quote=Moraen] [quote=LockEDJ] [quote=LuvIndy]Here come the Jones people comparing it to being Indy, when Indy reps aren’t surveyed in this report. [/quote]

Please take note of the thread address .. "What's up at Firms?".[/quote]

Are you trying to say that Indy's don't have firms? Or that because our firms are smaller we don't matter?
.[/quote]   Nope. However, one might think the survey suggests that; insofar as they weren't included.   I'm only pointing out that this thread exists within the What's Up at Firms location, as opposed, say, to the RIA/Independent area. And hence, this thread itself began in the right area.  

SometimesNowhere:

PIMCO has A-shares.

  I know that.  That was my point...why DON'T they follow someone like PIMCO?

I would be guessing...

PIMCO won't participate with Jones through the back door.

B24:

[quote=SometimesNowhere]PIMCO has A-shares.

  I know that.  That was my point...why DON'T they follow someone like PIMCO?[/quote]   I think we were making the same point, then. There is no legitimate reason to not follow PIMCO. The only one I can see is that they don't "profit share", which, if true, is bulls#it.   Maybe I am too jaded for my young career, but it seems that there are sometimes things that have no decent, logical, client-centered explanation.

[quote=Still@jones] [quote=B24]Take it with a grain of salt and consider who they survey.  They survey registered readers.  Do you think every RL in the country has a Registered Rep subscription (shake your head YESSSSSS)?

If you look at the article, it tells the number of surveys completed.  These are approximations, but..... Edward Jones 385 MSSB 120 Merrill 100 UBS 67 Wachovia 193   Now, there are something like 65,000 reps among these 5 firms, and they surveyed a total of like 875 (is 1.4% a proxy for the entire population?).   I am guessing that the real top producers (other than at Jones) could care less about the survey, and don't bother responding.  I am guessing that most of the satisfied reps don't bother responding.  More than likely, it's the disgruntled employees (again, other than at Jones) that are responding at most of these other firms.  So it's not that the results are inaccurate per se, they are just skewed in a very biased way. I still believe that there is a higher % at Jones that are happy compared with some of the other firms right now, but if you actually surveyed EVERY FA, the results would be MUCH closer than this.[/quote]

You really need to take a course in statistics...

The number of surveys you approximate disproves your point.
1.4% is statistically significant.
Jones is probably most reliable data since every office is the same and no manager.

What probably does skew these numbers is that Jones reps probably care about them more than the rest. Jones reps (Kool-Aide drinkers) are probably more likely to give all 10's just to keep Jones at the "Top".

A 9.5 for strategic focus does not make sense for Jones. They are on a hiring binge that is costing current reps alot of money. How can anyone agree with this? Building slowly through quality is good for Reps. Building quickly is good for the GPs. This one deserves a 4.0
[/quote]   You obviously didn't read my post thoroughly.  Yes, 1.4% is statistically relevant when done randomly.  However, as I pointed out, I do not believe the numbers are random.  I believe there is some definite biases in the results.  They are not intentional, but are there regardless.  I truly believe that all of the EDJ RL's know that surveys only go to registered readers.  Therefore, all RL's are probably registered.  RL's will naturally give glowing reviews, as it is in their best interest.  In addition, most newbies are too stupid to know about Reg Rep yet, so have not signed up.  So there is a natural biased towards veterans.  Again, EDJ veterans are generally happier, since most that are unhappy leave (and they all have LP, so again, have an interest in the survey coming out well).  It's called survivor biased. On the wirehouse side, most experienced vets don't give a flying fukc about doing some stupid survey, as they have no vested interest in the results.  The firm is either good or bad for them and their clients or not.  They don't care about what a few hundred other advisors think.  As a result, the only ones that respond to the survey are the ones that hate the firm and want to see them go up in flames.   So I have to ask you again, are the 1.4% in THIS survey a proxy for the entire population?

Squash1:

That is the exact reason… Calamos wanted to become a preferred fund and were told $5-10MM investment upfront… Who do you think pays for the the trips(diversification, to and from St louis, tempe)?

  The only thing I will say in defense of Jones on this and the PIMCO question is that they try to stay away from fund families with too many "ecclectic" offerings.  PIMCO has too many funds that don't fit neatly into Jones' model or are too aggressive in nature for them (long/short funds, absolute return strategies, derivative-enhanced equity funds, etc.).    I don't know Calamos very well, other than one or two funds.  Do they have a broad enough offering of decent funds?

B-

  I don't think any firm needs a defense. They should just tell you all the truth. It's a pay to play environment everywhere, and one of the worst offenders is Jones. Does the firm still say that the client comes first?If that were true, wouldn't Bill Gross be a bond manager that they must include?   Question: Does your advisory solutions program require revenue sharing agreements to participate? I would hope not...   BTW, LPL isn't much better, except we don't participate in any revenue sharing at our level. My firm is driven by revenue any way they can get it...