Jones To Decrease Payout to Financial Advisors
131 RepliesJump to last post
One correction, five states will have different plans because of state laws, California being one of them. So maybe spike is partially correct.
Dang. I was hoping to recruit from the Jones camp. Dang the bad luck. Oh well, back to normal.
Just talked to an IR who said a grid is coming. Elimination of the 1% national advertising also, and the broadcasts today are telling them to go a website to see how they will be affected.
He's in CA and expects some changes according to the memo he read. Sounds reasonable that the line of employee/independent rep are becoming more clear for Jones. You can't have it both ways, so those that say nothings happening or only good news should be careful. It sounds more ominous.California, north and south dakota, montana, and new hampshire will be different. No grid for me.
No real significant changes. No grid for most advisors. Same payout. No more 1% National Advertising expense. No more local phone bill cost. JOnes will pay for basic office supplies if purchased through Corporate Express. Advisor now pays 100% of postage (other than statements, trade confirms, etc., which are 100% firm paid). Biggest change really is the bonus structure. St. Louis will no longer allocate overhead to P&L, so the bonus threshold goes up. Net effect is that higher producers will get larger bonuses (marginally larger), and FA’s that have a higher bonus in relationship to their gross will see their bonus go down slightly (because the St. Louis allocation used to be a function of your total gross). Net effect here; about 80% of advisors will see no material change to compensation. 10% will see more, 10% will see less. However, it could have a larger impact if you happen to be an office that does a larger proportion of mailings (i.e. seminar mailings to thousands every year), as the postage subsidy has gone away for marketing efforts. Slightly negative impact to Jones’ bottom line.
All-in-all, it's mostly a non-event for me. Not sure exactly how the grid thing effects those 5 states. They increased their expense reimbursements, so I imagine it is largely cost neutral for them.Spiked- I for one want to thank you for the fact that you got nothing right. Some of us who are at Jones like to get a truthful perspective from outside Jones. Can you at least provide that? Come clean and at least say you goofed…
Just to hear the other side if that’s possible.
Any FA's from the 5 states affected care to comment. It seems that the only commentary so far are from FA's who aren't affected YET. Slippery slopes start with minute changes. One thing I learned from my 10 years at Jones, was whatever they said, by and large, was tweaked to their benefit ALWAYS. I say let the dust settle and let's make a friendly wager Mr. Noggs and Spiff et al, that it ain't over by any stretch, and if management is posturing that only 10% are affected, the proof will be in the attrition numbers down the road. Just for the record...I am not buying Spikes argument that the firm is spiraling. When you have interchangeable parts it doesn't matter who is sitting behind the desk. They may not be growing in numbers as fast as they want, but clearly the GP's are making dough, so the big green machine moves on. But change seems to be in the wind because the A share model has flaws.[quote=footsoldier]J
Slippery slopes start with minute changes.........They may not be growing in numbers as fast as they want, but clearly the GP's are making dough, so the big green machine moves on. But change seems to be in the wind because the A share model has flaws.[/quote]
You know how to boil a frog, right?
[quote=Broker24]No real significant changes. No grid for most advisors. Same payout. No more 1% National Advertising expense. No more local phone bill cost. JOnes will pay for basic office supplies if purchased through Corporate Express. Advisor now pays 100% of postage (other than statements, trade confirms, etc., which are 100% firm paid). Biggest change really is the bonus structure. St. Louis will no longer allocate overhead to P&L, so the bonus threshold goes up. Net effect is that higher producers will get larger bonuses (marginally larger), and FA’s that have a higher bonus in relationship to their gross will see their bonus go down slightly (because the St. Louis allocation used to be a function of your total gross). Net effect here; about 80% of advisors will see no material change to compensation. 10% will see more, 10% will see less. However, it could have a larger impact if you happen to be an office that does a larger proportion of mailings (i.e. seminar mailings to thousands every year), as the postage subsidy has gone away for marketing efforts. Slightly negative impact to Jones’ bottom line.
All-in-all, it's mostly a non-event for me. Not sure exactly how the grid thing effects those 5 states. They increased their expense reimbursements, so I imagine it is largely cost neutral for them.[/quote] If they are eliminating Overhead Allocation on the P&L are they going to continue to credit for assets and retirement fees, etc.? If so, I assume they adjusted the bonus bracket to a higher number to compensate? Are bonuses essentially going to be based on lgain now? If this is the case, this is a huge step in the right direction. That Overhead Allocation was the biggest BS charge and created disparity from one branch to another, and was something I campaigned to have eliminated a long time ago. Looks like they listened after I left. Frankly I can't imagine them going to a full-out grid like a SB and hitting so many lower producers when they are pushing for growth like they are.Mr. Spiff and Noggin,
I do believe I was correct. Jones did reduce the payout. I just didn't know the whole story and therefore I was trying to ellicit a response from the insiders on this forum. EVERYONE that I have read is leaving out a big part of the new compensation plan. The eradication of the BUSINESS EXPENSE PLAN is a huge loss to a w-2 employee. My last year at Jones I was putting $56,000 into the BEP and therefore I was not subject to AMT where the business expenses phase out. This one benefit will cost you w-2 employees a lot more than the Jones execs are leading on. I am so glad they got rid of that 1% advertising expense. That was so unfair.[quote=spikedkoolaid]Mr. Spiff and Noggin,
I do believe I was correct. Jones did reduce the payout. I just didn't know the whole story and therefore I was trying to ellicit a response from the insiders on this forum. EVERYONE that I have read is leaving out a big part of the new compensation plan. The eradication of the BUSINESS EXPENSE PLAN is a huge loss to a w-2 employee. My last year at Jones I was putting $56,000 into the BEP and therefore I was not subject to AMT where the business expenses phase out. This one benefit will cost you w-2 employees a lot more than the Jones execs are leading on. I am so glad they got rid of that 1% advertising expense. That was so unfair. [/quote] They didn't eliminate the BEP. At all. In fact, there are some items that they have ADDED to the plan. They eliminated it for those 5 states, but that's because Jones is now required to reimburse all those expenses (thus no need for a BEP). Not sure where you got your info.I think Spiked speaks as someone from one of the five affected states and I have a hard time believing that Jones will reimburse ALL amounts that were previously in the BEP, particularly in the case of someone like Spiked who was maxing it out to the tune of $56K/year. My guess is that more likely, expenses will be reimbursed within prearranged spending limits…probably less than $56K/year.
Then again, that's just a guess. Anyone from one of the five states have any number limitations for reimbursed business expenses going forward?Think about it Spiff. You are an employee and they were making you (and me for many years) pay for brand advertising. What about mistakes? Who should pay those? When I was with Jones, I remember a conversation with a GP who commented either the rep or the client pays. Jones would be kind enough to spread the cost over several months (earning interest I might add).
BTW. At SSB they have changed their policy recently and the firm pays for mistakes. What say you Mr. Spiff...This is all great reading , but what about the toilet paper. Is Weddle going to pay for toilet paper in Spiffy’s office?
Then I quit. I must go through at least two rolls of TP a month, and at $0.56 a roll, that adds up.No TP from the GP’s
Nah, I'm next to a Subway. I just go use their bathroom. Saves me on water and on TP.
foot - I've always agreed with you on the brand advertising cost. I'm glad it's going away. As far as errors, how much money do you think the average FA spends on errors annually? It can't be that much. Too many incorrect trades would either A) throw up a red flag to the HO and get that FA in hot water or B) really piss me off enough to make sure the trades I place are good. If it truly is a mistake on my part, I'd expect to pay it myself. If Jones screws something up, then I would expect them to pay for it. What's the problem with that scenario?