Jones Solo Model

or Register to post new content in the forum



  • 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.
Oct 24, 2008 10:44 am

Does anyone have any insight on the REAL reason that Jones does not allow teams?  My guess is that it is just too difficult for them to organize from a cultural perspective.  We have issues right now between the "have's" (Goodknights, Existing Offices, etc.) and the "have not's" (new/new's) that we need to address.  This is generally the case at all firms (joining an existing team/inheriting book versus starting solo froms cratch).  But it seems to me that Jones could work out a lot of these issues on a case-by-case basis.  Why can't they accept the team model?  Do they feel it will jeopardize their ability to retain people? (i.e. "teams" packing up and leaving en masse).

I am just curious if we ever see this happening at Jones (allowing teams).  Long-term, it's the one major problem I will have with Jones (Advisory solved the other).   And please, let's try to stay on topic.  I don't feel like a food fight right now.
Oct 24, 2008 11:53 am

Some how the GP’s would not benefit fromit.

Oct 24, 2008 12:04 pm

I realize this. Every company makes business decisions on behalf of the owners. That’s why their in business. As a stockholder of public companies, when a comapny makes a decision NOT in the best interest of me, an OWNER, I am angry. Jones owners (GP’s) should be making decisions in their best interest. Those decisions are not always mutually exclusive of what is in the best interest of FA’s and clients, since happy clients and advisors will eventually translate into profits. But obviously, that’s not always the case in any business.

Oct 24, 2008 12:13 pm

i am going to guess it is a supervision issue. Jones gets a pass not having an onsite OSJ with single person offices but if they try to go the team route they would need an OSJ that isnt in STL and in closer proximity.

Oct 24, 2008 1:54 pm

I’ve also wondered this, B24. It would be great to be able to walk down the hall and vent to another teammate or two, bounce ideas off of them, etc.

  There are certainly pros to autonomy, but the isolationism in times like these gets rough.   Some days, I just have to leave the office and catch my breath. (And then I usually don't want to come back.)
Oct 24, 2008 3:50 pm

Personally, I don’t think “venting and bouncing ideas off them” would be a persuasive enough argument.  There are thousands if solo indies that don’t even have assistants out there. 

  I am thinking about real value-added reasons why Jones would want to do it.  Setting aside cost-savings, it seems that done the right way, you could do a few things: 1. Improve client retention through better service models 2. Improve client retention when a departing FA leaves a team (good for firm, but not departing FA).  This is THE primary reason why most wirehouses went to this model.  Clients become stickier to the team than the individual. 3. FA's would push each other more.  Fewer occurences of FA's "plateauing" in segment 3 at 100K net. 4. Goodnight teams would make more sense.  There is less risk in bringing on a GK newbie that will work with the team and "ease" into client service while learning the ropes.  The vets could push them more in the right directions.   But I don't ever have the feeling that I want to leave and not come back.  I love this business and am here to stay.  I've had it much worse in other careers, so this is sort of a cakewalk.   I think the OSJ issue may be very real.  I guess otherwise we just become like a wirehouse branch office without a branch manager.  I don't think FINRA would like that so much.
Oct 24, 2008 5:00 pm

Has Jones lowered production numbers for their FA’s?

Oct 24, 2008 6:06 pm

Pretty sure the minimums have gone up. I think they want veterans at least at 18k rolling and not just 15k.
Also get the impression from W.  that he wants to push the career Seg. 3 brokers to produce more. Once in a while you’ll read in the suggestion box how Seg 3 or even Seg 4 brokers are grumbling about payout or something and W. tells them the answer is to get to Seg. 5.

Two to four-man offices makes sense, imo. I bet they’ll consider it.

Oct 24, 2008 8:17 pm

You are both correct. The minimum standard is 18K gross, which seems more than fair for a BD. If yuo are doing less than that after 5 years, you aren’t even trying. I see too many people get into this business, and after a few years, they think they are just entitled to a job, entitled to an office and a desk without real production numbers. Jones isn’t asking for 7-figure productions, they’re just asking you to not stop trying (which many do). I don’t think 220K is too much to ask. There were actually people that complained about this change. Give me a freaking break. I would be very disappointed if I am not doing that pace by the end of my 3rd year.