EJ GPs made HOW much

or Register to post new content in the forum

41 RepliesJump to last post



  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Mar 31, 2006 9:09 pm

Just filed today in time for tomorrow ..... April Fool's Day   

http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/secdoc.xhtml?ID=40868&ipa ge=4065465&doc=1&num=59

10-K filed on 03/31/2006

Printer Friendly Format
Outline << Previous Page | View Header | Entire Filing | Next Page >>


The following table identifies the compensation of the firm’s Managing
Partner and the five highest compensated individuals of the Partnership
during the three most recent years (including respective shares of profit

(1) (2) (3)(4) Net Income Deferred Allocated Compen- to General Total Year Salaries sation Partners (1)(2)(3)(4) ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Douglas E. Hill (4) 2005 $225,000 $9,954 $7,590,456 $7,825,410 2004 225,000 8,508 1,576,498 1,810,006 2003 200,000 7,160 4,287,876 4,495,036

Richie L. Malone 2005 175,000 9,954 7,084,425 7,269,379
2004 175,000 8,508 4,365,620 4,549,128
2003 175,000 7,160 4,192,168 4,374,328

Gary D. Reamey 2005 150,000 9,954 7,084,426 7,244,380
2004 150,000 8,508 4,365,621 4,524,129
2003 150,000 7,160 4,054,043 4,211,203

James D. Weddle 2005 175,000 9,954 6,578,395 6,763,349
2004 175,000 8,508 4,053,790 4,237,298
2003 175,000 7,160 3,897,020 4,079,180

Steven Novik 2005 175,000 9,954 6,072,365 6,257,319
2004 175,000 8,508 3,741,961 3,925,469
2003 175,000 7,160 3,601,872 3,784,032

Norman Eaker 2005 175,000 9,954 6,072,365 6,257,319
2004 175,000 8,508 3,741,961 3,925,469
2003 175,000 7,160 3,607,446 3,789,606

(1) Each non-selling general partner receives a salary generally ranging from $115,000 - $250,000 annually. Selling general partners do not receive a specified salary, rather, they receive the net sales commissions earned by them (none of the six individuals listed above earned any such PART III

Item 11. Executive Compensation, continued

commissions). Additionally, general partners who are principally engaged in sales are entitled to office bonuses based on the profitability of their respective branch office, on the same basis as the office bonus program established for all investment representative employees.

(2) Each general partner is a participant in the Partnership’s profit
sharing plan which covers all eligible employees. Contributions to
the plan, which are within the discretion of the Partnership, are
made annually and have historically been determined based on
approximately twenty-four percent of the Partnership’s net income.
Allocation of the Partnership’s contribution among participants is
determined by each participant’s relative level of eligible earnings,
including in the case of general partners, their net income

(3) Each general partner is entitled to participate in the annual net
income of the Partnership based upon the respective percentage
interest in the Partnership of each partner. Interests in the
Partnership held by each general partner ranged from .03% to 3.1% in
2005 and 0.03% to 3.0% in 2004 and 2003. At the discretion of the
Managing Partner, the partnership agreement provides that, generally,
the first eight percent of net income allocable to general partners
be distributed on the basis of individual merit or otherwise as
determined by the Managing Partner. Thereafter, the remaining net
income allocable to general partners is distributed based upon each
individual’s percentage interest in the Partnership. Net income
allocated to general partners excludes income required to be
reinvested under the Partnership Agreement.

Net income allocable to general partners is the amount remaining after payment of interest and earnings on capital invested to limited partners and subordinated limited partners.

(4) Under a 2004 settlement agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for
the Eastern District of Missouri resolving threatened enforcement
action in connection with the Partnership’s disclosure practices
regarding the receipt of revenue sharing from preferred mutual funds,
Mr. Hill absorbed a disproportionate allocation of the settlement
agreement’s cost of approximately $3.1 million reducing Mr. Hill’s
2004 net income allocated to general partners and his total
remuneration presented in the foregoing table. In the absence of the
settlement agreement, Mr. Hill’s 2004 net income allocated to general
partners and the total presented in the above table would have been
$4,677,451 and $4,910,959, respectively.

Mar 31, 2006 9:22 pm

Yeah, I thought the same thing. This is in the same year that I was told directly by the powers that be that "there is a fixed amount of cost" that needs to be allocated to the field. We were all having flat revenue years while GP income was nearly doubling!

How about sharing some of that 3 million each with the general population and letting them share in that bigger pie Ted talked about?


Mar 31, 2006 9:25 pm

Flat revenue years? What have you been doing the last 12 months? I agree they are making too much but if you were flat last year, that is your fault! It was a great year for many if not most for their own business.

Apr 3, 2006 6:52 pm

Who’s business Guest?

Apr 4, 2006 7:11 pm

but remember, they only keep 1/3rd of that.

Apr 4, 2006 11:19 pm

How much do O’Neal and Gorman make? $20 Million? (not sure on that) And they have no personal liability for the actions of the firm a la 3 Mil Hill.

Apr 5, 2006 8:01 am

[quote=Incredible Hulk]How much do O'Neal and Gorman make? $20 Million? (not sure on that) And they have no personal liability for the actions of the firm a la 3 Mil Hill.[/quote]

And that is why jimbo is the new managing partner and O'Neal and Gorman are still top o' the food chain.

Apr 10, 2006 5:38 pm

No liability?  How about the liability of keeping shareholders happy or meeting the street's expectations.  How about meeting the Board's requirements or seeing your ass to the street.  That you can even attempt to put Gorman in the same shoes as Hill is a joke not to mention the defense of the 81% pay raise they gave themselves while your firm's net revenue was up only 11%.  What pay raise did they give you?

Apr 10, 2006 6:18 pm

When you manage and are responsible for two of the three largest investment firms in the US, you are accountable daily to shareholders.  I agree that Purcell’s golden parachute was ridiculous, but come on - these guys have everyone so far up their @$$ when things aren’t as positive as they could or should be it’s not even funny.  At Jones, you only have those in the fold that are calling for someone’s head.  No shareholders, no board, very little media. 

Apr 10, 2006 6:20 pm

But I’m just chasing ambulances, right Hulk?

Apr 10, 2006 6:47 pm
Incredible Hulk:

How much do O’Neal and Gorman make? $20 Million? (not sure on that) And they have no personal liability for the actions of the firm a la 3 Mil Hill.

If those types of CEOs have no liability, then why have Kenny, Jeffy, the Rigas', et al... been on trial?

Even today -
Why do CEOs/CFOs certify their SOX requirements?
Why do CEOs/CCOs certify compliance requirements?

That's right, because they all have LIABILITY.

NO NON GPs will see that kind of compensation increase - no, not even LPs.

Apr 10, 2006 10:57 pm

[quote=BrokerRecruit]But I’m just chasing ambulances, right Hulk?[/quote]

I heard that the GP’s have forecasted that they will make Eleventy Kabillion Dollars by 2010!

Apr 11, 2006 9:17 am

They have.  They will be getting a mega kickback from American Funds which is forecasted to take over the number one preferred fund spot at Jones and will bring the firm a net increase in revenue of infinity.

And Stan O'Neal made $35.2M last year.  Salary of $700k, $14.1M bonus and $20.2 in restricted stock.

Gorman received stock options of $29M on top of salary to cover comp he would lose at ML.  Mack will receive around $27M this year.

However, look at these numbers - MS net income was $26.8 B (13% increase, ML $26 B (18% increase) and EDJ was $3.2 B (not sure of performance to 2004).  Look at the numbers comaratively:

Hill's comp = .225% of company revenue
O'Neal = .135%
Gorman = .108%

Based on your arguments, O'Neal and Gorman are grossly underpaid.  Let's give 'em a rasie!

Apr 11, 2006 9:33 am

81% should be in line!

Apr 11, 2006 10:10 am

Hill’s comp. 22.5 bps. Am. Funds 12b-1 fees 25 bps. Coincidence? (Before you jones defenders start on a rant…this is a joke. Get it?)

Apr 11, 2006 10:38 am
Senior Member

Joined: Feb. 13 2005
Posts: 145 Posted: April 11 2006 at 9:10am | IP Logged Hill's comp. 22.5 bps. Am. Funds 12b-1 fees 25 bps. Coincidence? (Before you jones defenders start on a rant....this is a joke. Get it?)

"Make sure it passes the Mom test"

Hill's comp. 22.5 bps.  Am. Funds 12b-1 fees 25 bps.  Doug Hill stepping down as EDJ GP...priceless.

Apr 11, 2006 1:31 pm

BR and Revealer,

You have killed this thread because all the clones are thoroughly confused now.  They still think Jones is either the biggest because they have the most offices, or the third biggest because of the number of reps.  All this talk about company revenue makes no sense.  If you cold come up with a good farm analogy you might get somewhere.

Apr 11, 2006 2:05 pm

Farmer A has 1000 acres and 50 head of cattle to manage and therefore gets paid X.

Farmer Jones has 100 acres and 10 cattle and gets paid for cattle dues.

Apr 11, 2006 2:12 pm

I am a Midwesterner, so I have certainly seen my fair share of farms.  Don’t live on one, but see herds of cattle and corn all the time when I commute from my town to the big city!  Yee-haw!!!

Apr 11, 2006 3:07 pm

Farmer rep has 1,000 acres of land, but no equipment to work the land.  Farmer Jones, the local equipment dealer trades the use of a lawn tractor, a two-row planter, and an occasional glass of John-Deere-green Kool-Aid in exchange for 62% of the crops harvested.  If you do a really good job, you get a hat from Farmer Jones implement store.

Sounds fair to me...