B-

  Spiff responded prior to me hitting the return key looking for more of his input.  Great minds...   the silent "territory" thing   B-   You reference of the silent territory...Now you are getting personal without knowing it. My former RL had a bug up his butt about an area that I wanted to prospect. He fought me until I realized what I fool I was even engaging with him about so I went around him and got the location approved. Ultimately I realized that I didn't want to bring EDJ to the area because I knew I wanted to go back to being indy.       I was always under the impression there were no territories. What did you mean?

Yeah, I hear you. I'm not saying it can't or doesn't work. I'm saying Jones would have to change its entire model to make it work correctly. The doorknocking thing, the "local guy" thing, the one-man office, the silent "territory" thing, all of it. I think they believe that one of their only competitive edges in the middle-market space is their office structure. In a rather commoditized industry, they are simply trying to utilize what little differentiating factor they have. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I think if we went down the other path, we are all of a sudden like every other brokerage firm (in the eyes of the public).[/quote]

I don't think the one man brokerage office really differntiates us in
the eye of the public. I believe we could merge offices, which in
turn would greatly cut costs and invest the savings in other things
such as growth and technology, and we would be a leaner more efficient
organization.

One of the challenges I always felt when I was with Jones, was the partnerships offered to non-producers. It didn't seem or feel right at the time. While I am willing to acknowledge that without back office support a firm can't grow, I really never reconciled why  the producers were comp'd the same. I am sure Spiff can shed some light as to whether or not he has found out if the rumors are true about the change in compensation.

Maybe now the firm is doing its best to differentiate the producers from the paper pushers.

I really hope this revelation about the home office folks at EDJ is just a way to bait me into a heated discussion about LP and the HQ associates and not what you . 

  Well, it worked.  I'm tempted to use a phrase that I used previously to describe what I think about you.  However, I won't.  I'll just think it and not type it.    As a former paper pusher non producing employee of EDJ, I take offense to your opinion that my contribution to the firm while you were producing was any less important than yours.  Are you so thick headed that you simply don't understand that the HQ associates aren't simply there for growth, but to actually run the business of the firm.  Every trade that is placed, every document that goes out, every form you fill out, every i that is dotted and every t that is crossed is done so because a non producer gave you the ability to do so.  We are useless without them.  Whether at EDJ or ML or LPL.  EVERY company has to have back office support in order to survive.  They are the ones who allow you to be the big producer that you are.  How pompous and self-absorbed do you have to be to not understand that?    Why should home office employees LP be set up any different than an FAs?  FAs get more of it than home office folks do, so why should the payout be different?  Are you so blind to the way that EDJ works that you don't realize that?  Or are you just so adamant that everything they do is so wrong that you just refuse to see it?    The reason you couldn't ever reconcile it was that you never appreciated it.  My guess is you were one of those FAs who would have used the phrase "I pay your salary" when talking with an HQ support person.    I used to love to get guys like you on the phone.  Your file would quickly go from the top of my stack to the bottom.  And you'd suddenly need a couple of new signatures or documents before I could finish.  Something difficult that you couldn't just fax over.  Even the high and mighty can be slowed down by the lowly non producer. 

Wowwwwww there Silver!  Spiff, don't get your panties all in a wad.  I can see his point, but let's look at this a different way.  But to see what I'm saying, Foot, you need to think about Jones as the partnership, not as some big giant corporation.

Let's say you own your own firm (you DO!  GOOD!).  Let's say you decide to hire, I don't know, a CPA, or a lawyer, or (if you grow enough) a non-producing CEO to manage the growth and operations, and a VP of Marketing.  OK.  You hire them, and all of a sudden, you're growing like CRAZY.  You double your assets and production within 2-3 years.  You do this because you no longer have to worry AT ALL about marketing, finance, operations, compliance, etc.  This team you built is indispensable.  Now they come to you one day and say "we want in."  What do you say?  Maybe you say "go take a hike, I can hire 100 of you guys tomorrow."  Or maybe you say "you're right", and you give them a little slice of the pie.

OK, it's not exactly apples-to-apples, I know that.  But conceptually, we're talking about the same thing, but on a much grander scale.  Personally, I don't know what the criteria is for LP or GP in STL (and the satellite offices).  I hope there are some hurdles in place.  But I do know (Spiff, please correct me if this is wrong) that most LP's in a home office would probably take "partnership" more seriously than just getting a paycheck and an occassional "ataboy".  So I don't think LP for support staff is wrong as a blanket statement, but I think there needs to be definite hurdles in place to make it an "achievement".

Spiffster-

  You think I am a moron or an idiot again...I am shocked.   Why should home office employees LP be set up any different than an FAs?    According to 1 out of 10K, a GP said a change is imminent. Now if it is true do you think home office employees are going to be paid the same as the producing FA who isn't receiving a bonus (I am assuming your bonus is so small if any that it doesn't matter yet)?. In my feeble mind, I am thinking you should be referring to your wonderful management in those glowing terms...idiot...moron. Because my fine friend (I am thinking you are shooting the messenger) the GP's are trying to protect themselves first and then the people that create those huge payouts when times are good...the 500K producer and above.   Somewhere way down the list is home office employees. And of course that comes after growth.   I am sorry if I struck a nerve, and I hope they keep good soldiers like you from looking at alternatives, and don't affect your financial situation too much. If it were me, I would expect the worst and be pleasantly suprised if the supposed changes aren't quite as bad. I.e., maybe the changes will only affect new partners.   Every trade that is placed, every document that goes out, every form you fill out, every i that is dotted and every t that is crossed is done so because a non producer gave you the ability to do so.   If there are no orders...there is no paper to be pushed (fixed). Funny thing at LPL we are responsible for our paperwork...getting it right. We do get notices if we missed something, but it's still up to us to fix.

Spiff-

  One last point. I always appreciated help from home office whether it was from Jones or LPL. The difference is now its totally up to me to get it right and when we don't I pay for it with delays. I am not immune to mistakes or further requirements, and I now have for the very first time excellent competent staff to fix the problems.   Maybe I should bonus my staff. Oh yeah it's my wife...The moron/idiot within me would say she is overpaid!

But we’re not discussing now, in your current situation.  When you went to LPL you chose to take on more responsibility.  You chose to do all those things that I have a back office to help me with.  For your extra responsibility you are compensated.  My reaction was to your comment about not understanding why home office LPs are compensated the same way FA LPs are and, as I took it, a somewhat negative attitude towards the HQ associates. 

  Now if it is true do you think home office employees are going to be paid the same as the producing FA who isn't receiving a bonus (I am assuming your bonus is so small if any that it doesn't matter yet)?.   You don't get it do you?  You know who else isn't getting a bonus?  Those home office employees.  And for them LP is very meaningful.  They don't get to go on trips or go to regional meetings or have vendors take them out to lunch or any of the other perks of our job.  They don't have the ability to just work a little harder and give themselves a raise.  And few of the average home office employees make as much as your run of the mill Seg 3 FA.  So, in times like this when salaries are frozen, bonuses non existent, and many areas working short staffed due to a slowdown in hiring, you think it's OK to compensate the home office employee less than the $500K producer?  Seriously?  Even when things get back to normal you think there is some justification for segregating the associates in regards to LP?  I think it's a mistake to change it, especially if it means that home office associates aren't going to earn as much on their LP.        IF Jones makes a change to the LP/GP payout structure I would certainly hope that they've thought through all of the variables involved.  I can't imagine being Weddle sitting in front of a group of folks in STL trying to justify why he's taking more money out of their pockets.  I just can't see any situation where he could sell that to them and have them walk away with a good feeling.    In my feeble mind, I am thinking you should be referring to your wonderful management in those glowing terms...idiot...moron.   If Jones makes a change to the LP that negatively impacts the average home office LP, I will certainly be using those same terms for them.  Until then, I'll keep them exclusively for you.  Don't you feel special now?       

If Jones makes a change to the LP that negatively impacts the average home office LP, I will certainly be using those same terms for them.  Until then, I’ll keep them exclusively for you.  Don’t you feel special now? 

  Spiffy- Aren't we getting a bit bitter now...it's just a forum for discussion. Like B said maybe you might want to take a ZANAX calm down, no need to get your panties in a wad. I never said that the Parternship is changing. I only commented on the rationale behind it.   Do you really think the GP's care about the home office staff?   You don't get it do you?  You know who else isn't getting a bonus?  Those home office employees.   Spiff...here comes the business owner in me vs the employee mentality. I will couch this by saying I don't intend to upset you further. This is just my opinion...The home office employees should be thankful that they have a job with good benefits paid by the profit makers. I wouldn't expect the employees to receive bonuses especially in these challenging times. And if I were a GP who was used to making double the income that I was getting, I wouldn 't expect the staff to expect it either.   I will admit that I do agree with you Spiff, that Weddle will have an uphill battle to calm the nerves of LP's if they change the program. Time will tell. Does my post show balance or am I denegrating Jones further in your "special" eyes? I understand how difficult it is for you to continue to defend the firm. Incidentally, have you been able to confirm or deny the changes that 1 in 10K has mentioned with any GP?

So, in times like this when salaries are frozen, bonuses non existent, and many areas working short staffed due to a slowdown in hiring, you think it’s OK to compensate the home office employee less than the $500K producer?  Seriously?  Even when things get back to normal you think there is some justification for segregating the associates in regards to LP?  I think it’s a mistake to change it, especially if it means that home office associates aren’t going to earn as much on their LP.     

  Spiff- It really doesn't matter what I think, apparently this change is being directed by the GP's. But since you ask...I would bet the farm that the GP's don't share the same concern for home office employees and are worried about making their country club dues payments. They are used to making big bucks and if they are bleeding in the UK, Canada and new offices something has to give. Usually its the employees that take the brunt, and I can understand why you are so adamant that this is sending the wrong message to the people who are underpaid and over-worked.   Ted probably would disagree... GP's of his era are long gone or a faint voice of reason.  

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

  As a former paper pusher non producing employee of EDJ, I take offense to your opinion that my contribution to the firm while you were producing was any less important than yours.  [/quote]

Your contribution as a non-producer was less important.  Without the FA you had no job.  Without you, the FA would just have to work harder or hire someone and not give them an equity stake in the company.   Back office lives for one reason, to serve the producer.

[quote=voltmoie] [quote=Spaceman Spiff]

  As a former paper pusher non producing employee of EDJ, I take offense to your opinion that my contribution to the firm while you were producing was any less important than yours.  [/quote]

Your contribution as a non-producer was less important.  Without the FA you had no job.  Without you, the FA would just have to work harder or hire someone and not give them an equity stake in the company.   Back office lives for one reason, to serve the producer.
[/quote]   And without the non-producers the FA can't do his job.  Not at Jones.  Not even at LPL.  Some non producer somewhere has to create everything that we use to do what we do.  So, the next time you log onto your computer, just think about the non-producers who aren't getting a bonus that make that thing run for you.  The next time you place a trade for a bond or a stock, think about the non-producer who gave you the ability to do it.  The next time you look at the door to your office, the chair you sit in, the pictures on the wall, the carpet on the floor, even the desk you have those client meeting over, think about the non-producers who put those things there or arranged for them to be there so that you wouldn't have to and so that you can do your job more effectively.  Heck, without a non-producer, you'd have never been hired at Jones.  Someone had to put your information into a computer so that EDJ (more specifically a recruiter (non-produer)) knew you wanted a job.        The word you should have used is support, not serve.  Serve would give someone the impression that you believe you are somehow superior to those non-producers.  Support means we have a symbiotic relationship and we work in PARTNERSHIP for the betterment of the firm as a whole.      I can see that you and foot are cut from the same cloth.     

[quote=Spaceman Spiff][quote=voltmoie] [quote=Spaceman Spiff]

  As a former paper pusher non producing employee of EDJ, I take offense to your opinion that my contribution to the firm while you were producing was any less important than yours.  [/quote]

Your contribution as a non-producer was less important.  Without the FA you had no job.  Without you, the FA would just have to work harder or hire someone and not give them an equity stake in the company.   Back office lives for one reason, to serve the producer.
[/quote]   And without the non-producers the FA can't do his job.  Not at Jones.  Not even at LPL.  Some non producer somewhere has to create everything that we use to do what we do.  So, the next time you log onto your computer, just think about the non-producers who aren't getting a bonus that make that thing run for you.  The next time you place a trade for a bond or a stock, think about the non-producer who gave you the ability to do it.  The next time you look at the door to your office, the chair you sit in, the pictures on the wall, the carpet on the floor, even the desk you have those client meeting over, think about the non-producers who put those things there or arranged for them to be there so that you wouldn't have to and so that you can do your job more effectively.  Heck, without a non-producer, you'd have never been hired at Jones.  Someone had to put your information into a computer so that EDJ (more specifically a recruiter (non-produer)) knew you wanted a job.        The word you should have used is support, not serve.  Serve would give someone the impression that you believe you are somehow superior to those non-producers.  Support means we have a symbiotic relationship and we work in PARTNERSHIP for the betterment of the firm as a whole.      I can see that you and foot are cut from the same cloth.     [/quote] Classic chicken vs the egg conversation. The non producer would never have been hired without the revenue being paid from the producers revenue. The producer could never have made the sale without the support from the non producer. Which is more important?

[quote=Spaceman Spiff] [quote=voltmoie] [quote=Spaceman Spiff]

As a former paper pusher non producing employee of EDJ, I take offense to your opinion that my contribution to the firm while you were producing was any less important than yours. [/quote]Your contribution as a non-producer was less important. Without the FA you had no job. Without you, the FA would just have to work harder or hire someone and not give them an equity stake in the company. Back office lives for one reason, to serve the producer. [/quote]



And without the non-producers the FA can’t do his job. Not at Jones. Not even at LPL. Some non producer somewhere has to create everything that we use to do what we do. So, the next time you log onto your computer, just think about the non-producers who aren’t getting a bonus that make that thing run for you. The next time you place a trade for a bond or a stock, think about the non-producer who gave you the ability to do it. The next time you look at the door to your office, the chair you sit in, the pictures on the wall, the carpet on the floor, even the desk you have those client meeting over, think about the non-producers who put those things there or arranged for them to be there so that you wouldn’t have to and so that you can do your job more effectively. Heck, without a non-producer, you’d have never been hired at Jones. Someone had to put your information into a computer so that EDJ (more specifically a recruiter (non-produer)) knew you wanted a job.      



The word you should have used is support, not serve. Serve would give someone the impression that you believe you are somehow superior to those non-producers. Support means we have a symbiotic relationship and we work in PARTNERSHIP for the betterment of the firm as a whole.



I can see that you and foot are cut from the same cloth.



[/quote]



Couple of points.



When I left Jones, I did EVERYTHING myself. RIA’s don’t have the luxury of any sort of back office support. Custodians make a small attempt, but really, it’s all on you.



My current support staff has freed me to do all kinds of other things (like post here). And they deserve recognition and compensation.



That said, a producer can continue to produce without support staff up to a CERTAIN POINT. Support staff cannot.



My support staff is great. But, I took the chance. I took the risk. They get paid based on how much they work. While they may contribute (maybe even more than me), they did not assume the risk. Classic, risk v. reward scenario.



Spiff, I have no doubt that you made a contribution and that the contribution is worthy of firm ownership. From my perspective, your time in the home office was less risky than someone in the field. You got a salary. Maybe a bonus. A guy in the field takes on a lot of risk (notwithstanding the fact that Jones pays for your office and assistant and a number of things while you start up - you pay for that in your net). You can do your job, but if you are not producing enough to put food on the table, then something has to give. Ever had a bad month and all of the sudden you needed new tires, a radiator and brake flush as well as your kid’s private school tuition, and a chargeback(true story, month 13)? If that happens as a home office salaried employee. You simply charge it, and budget to payoff the credit card. Much harder on variable income.



I don’t feel that support staff are servants, but they expenses. When I was in security, we constantly had to justify our reason for being there. And so, we pulled a lot of “value added” scenarios to show that we were worth $14 million a year.   I’m sure you could do the same thing at home office support.



Wow. Didn’t mean to write that much.

Bottom line, support staff in any business should be entitled to as much ownership stake as the owners see fit.  Owners don't cut in staff out of the goodness of their hearts.  They do it to get buy-in and increase retention.  If the owners don't want to do it (offer ownership), they must live with the potential consequences (employee morale, turnover, disinterest, etc.).  It just depends how valuable the staff is to the owner.  IMHO, Jones believes that the culture they foster at the home office (partially leveraged through LP participation) has a positive enough impact on the firm, that they continue to offer it.  Think of it this way...with all of Jones quirks, what would FA retention be if we had a really sh!tty back office?  I mean, I have nothing to compare to (except other industries), but I am very pleased overall with the support I get.   Just a different perspective.