Jones To Decrease Payout to Financial Advisors
131 RepliesJump to last post
It’s covered if ordered through Corp. Express. Well, reimbursed and that is fine by me.
I LOVE JONES!!!![quote=Indyone]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?[/quote] They are paying for "ordinary and neccesary expenses" (i.e. office supplies, postage, phone, etc.). I assume the $56K Spiked spent was largely due to marketing efforts (seminars, mailings, etc.). Keep in mind, those 5 states now have a grid, but they also added an additional bonus program for them, so fairly revenue/cost neutral. I think everyone has to accept that the whole plan was virtually neutral for most people. I know it was great fodder for all of you Jones bashers, but I would be the first to raise @#$% if they cut my compensation. After reviewing the thing in detail, it just doesn't affect me very much. I do a fair amount of mailings, so the postage thing was a bummer, but it will cost me less than $1,000 extra this year, which is more than offset by them paying for local phone and taking away the national ad expense. I might actually benefit a little bit.Yea- I just asked my BOA to order 6 rolls of postage so we can stock up half off…
Miss JSpiff-
Do you know many business models that hold employees personally accountable for errors? I don't. Ask yourself is SSB has changed their policy in CA (and probably the other 5 states) because of the employee/independent rules, how long before Jones has to. It shouldn't matter how many mistakes are made. There are very few reps at Jones who haven't paid for something along the way.I'm not sure why this is a big deal to you. Because SSB changed their policy doesn't mean that Jones is going to follow suit. Maybe they will have to in order to stay compliant with state laws. I don't know. Not my job.
How much did your errors cost you this year? I've had to pay $422 in errors. I can't even tell you when they were or what they were for. It was so insignificant to my cash flow that it doesn't matter. I think it's a legit charge to my paycheck. If I screw something up I believe I should have to pay for it. But, maybe you have a different idea of right and wrong than I do. BTW, when SSB was gracious enough to start picking up the tab for errors and some other things, they also cut payout on the first $5000 gross to 20% for anyone under $125K gross for the year. I didn't hear a single word about that on this board. Why is it such a big deal that Jones isn't picking up that tab? If you're the new guy at $100K gross which do you think you would prefer, the extra gross or your company to pay for the few errors you make?[quote=Philo Kvetch]Who gets the money when an error results in a profit?[/quote]
The orphans at Boys Town, Father Mahoney does wonderful work.
[quote=Philo Kvetch]Who gets the money when an error results in a profit?[/quote]
THE GREEDY BASTARD GPS GET THE MONEY, ALL THE MONEY BAA HAA HAA HA!!!
[quote=Philo Kvetch]Who gets the money when an error results in a profit?[/quote]
I believe the money goes to the “Elect Ron Paul” committee.
[quote=Philo Kvetch]Who gets the money when an error results in a profit?[/quote]
Its used to pay off JD Powers for favorable surveys.
Absent the sophomoric nonsense, wouldn’t it make sense for firms to use the funds to offset the losses?
Spiff-
Why is it you have such a hard time understanding the issue? Its not about you dude, its the premise that any employee could have their pay dinged because of an error no matter who is responsible and no matter how much it cost. When I was with Jones I had two unfortunate errors one specifically that I recall cost me almost $1000. My position was that the Jones system caused it and management agreed, but still I paid because in their eyes I should have know about the glich. As I recall it had to do with an order being canceled because assets were in type 2 and I placed the order in type 1 and I wasn't notified of the cancellation (it was a fund liquidation , had it been a stock I would have been notified) . And I had no one who supposedly was my manager overseeing it, so I paid to make the client whole. Spiff, tell me of a company, any company, that could get away with deducting business losses on their employees paychecks. Now if I were an owner, this argument would be moot. And if it was a small issue don't you think the firm would just absorb it. It just hasn't happened to you YET.I think SSB’s new payout structure eliminated the haircut on the first 5k with payout around 42%, they just increased these about 3 weeks ago. Not sure when it kicks in. And all big firms pick up or share in errors.
The class action suits established that the firms CANNOT charge FA's for errors. Any firm that does is taking their chances.
SB eliminated the haircut on the first $5000 effective Jan 1, 2008. Payouts for the better producers went up, payouts went down for those doing less than $300k. SB pays all errors, registration fees, Fedex, etc, etc.[quote=Philo Kvetch]Who gets the money when an error results in a profit?[/quote]
It is standard practice on Wall Street that the house gets the profits on errors. You pretty much have to do it that way because otherwise you create an incentive for an FA to carry an error hoping for it to trade up to a profit. That almost never happens, and creates the potential for all kinds of problems.
[quote=Philo Kvetch]Absent the sophomoric nonsense, wouldn’t it make sense for firms to use the funds to offset the losses?[/quote]
Absent you lack of intelligence, see joes answer.
[quote=footsoldier]Spiff-
Why is it you have such a hard time understanding the issue? Its not about you dude, its the premise that any employee could have their pay dinged because of an error no matter who is responsible and no matter how much it cost. When I was with Jones I had two unfortunate errors one specifically that I recall cost me almost $1000. My position was that the Jones system caused it and management agreed, but still I paid because in their eyes I should have know about the glich. As I recall it had to do with an order being canceled because assets were in type 2 and I placed the order in type 1 and I wasn't notified of the cancellation (it was a fund liquidation , had it been a stock I would have been notified) . And I had no one who supposedly was my manager overseeing it, so I paid to make the client whole. Spiff, tell me of a company, any company, that could get away with deducting business losses on their employees paychecks. Now if I were an owner, this argument would be moot. And if it was a small issue don't you think the firm would just absorb it. It just hasn't happened to you YET. [/quote]Any company that has sales people with the authority to directly lose money for the company. Seriously foot did you just fall off the turnip truck? Your naivety is laughable. You and CIB should get together and try to figure out real life.
[quote=Maxstud]
[quote=Philo Kvetch]Absent the sophomoric nonsense, wouldn’t it make sense for firms to use the funds to offset the losses?[/quote]Absent you lack of intelligence, see joes answer. [/quote]
Absent your lack of understanding of how your own firm does things, Jones claims that they donate the monies to local St Louis charities.
[quote=joedabrkr]
[quote=Philo Kvetch]Who gets the money when an error results in a profit?[/quote]It is standard practice on Wall Street that the house gets the profits on errors. You pretty much have to do it that way because otherwise you create an incentive for an FA to carry an error hoping for it to trade up to a profit. That almost never happens, and creates the potential for all kinds of problems.[/quote]
Joe, your reasoning is flawed here.
If I had said, “Why not let the broker keep the money if an error leads to a profit?”, you would have been correct. What I had asked though, is why not let the profits under these circumstances go towards offsetting the losses? This does not incent the broker to do anything either way.
It happens more frequently than you might imagine, Joe.