RJ bans double long/short etf's
30 RepliesJump to last post
He has a show on TV. Period. I wouldn’t trust Dr. Phil with my kid’s psychosis and I wouldn’t trust my parent’s money with Cramer.
If he's so good he needs to go back to running money full time.[quote=CDO Squared] [quote=Sam Houston] [quote=CDO Squared]those Triples are like a futures contract[/quote]
Not even close.[/quote]
3% dow move give u 9% move (200 point dow move)
how much does 1 s and p contract move in 200 pt dow day?
% wise ($500 a point)
im too dumb to do math
your right not a real commod.
but pretty high powered for freakin listed stock.
futures are Heroin. these little bad boys a line of coke?[/quote] Who hired someone with this level of language skills to run other people's money?
[quote=Indyone]
My consternation is more towards RJ's heavy-handed control from the top. This sounds like RJ's variable annuity policy, .[/quote] What's the objectional VA policy?I’m at an Indy firm that uses RJ to clear on our retail accounts, and this has prompted another move of our advisors to switch to the Ameritrade platforms. RJ won’t even let brokers buy these ETF’s in our own accounts.
I love these levered ETF’s as a hedging tool, and to write covered calls against them. The premiums are unbelievable, even in the near month. And to issue a blanket statement that no broker can use no levered ETF in no accounts–even his own–is something you would expect from a wire. Maybe when a few hundred million dollars moves off their platform, they’ll reconsider. But probably not.
Our firm also clears through Raymond James. You can make points to both sides. Leveraged ETFs might be good for a short term trade, but their long term value is open for debate. For a quick example, go to yahoo.com/ finance. Type in DIG and get a quote, then click on basic charts and type in DUG for comparison. You will see two mirror opposite ETFs that should perform the inverse of each other; yet the performance is negative on both. When there is volatility, the tracking on these things is sometimes horrendous. It is just a matter of time before some lawyer comes out with a commercial, “Did you buy leveraged ETF’s? You may be entitled to compensation.” Raymond James probably decided the elephant in the living room had to go.
[quote=Conrad Dobler][quote=Indyone]
My consternation is more towards RJ's heavy-handed control from the top. This sounds like RJ's variable annuity policy, .[/quote] What's the objectional VA policy?[/quote] Back some time ago...maybe 2 years(?), RJ made a unilateral decision to cut comp on variable annuities, which effectively eliminated the L-share from their platform. They claimed it was in the best interest of the customer, but it smells like a desire to widen the spread between what the firm gets and what it passes on to the rep (aka, the haircut...which in this case, looks like a crew cut). From what I understand, VA firms had to make a RayJay-specific product, which brings up a second question as to whether these dogs could be transferred out to other B/Ds.[quote=Indyone][quote=Conrad Dobler][quote=Indyone]
My consternation is more towards RJ's heavy-handed control from the top. This sounds like RJ's variable annuity policy, .[/quote] What's the objectional VA policy?[/quote] Back some time ago...maybe 2 years(?), RJ made a unilateral decision to cut comp on variable annuities, which effectively eliminated the L-share from their platform. They claimed it was in the best interest of the customer, but it smells like a desire to widen the spread between what the firm gets and what it passes on to the rep (aka, the haircut...which in this case, looks like a crew cut). From what I understand, VA firms had to make a RayJay-specific product, which brings up a second question as to whether these dogs could be transferred out to other B/Ds.[/quote] I believe the annuity changeover started almost 3 years ago now. In defense of RJ, when making the annuity companies create RJ specific products, they had them lower the M&E to match the lowered compensation requirements. Therefore the client was seeing a cost reduction to match the advisor's comp reduction, and I haven't heard anything to indicate RJ is scraping off the top. Coming from Jones, the idea of company specific products made me cringe, but it was being done at a legitimate cost savings to the client. I believe they were generally fairly liberal on their structure (i.e. some C share annuities paying 1.25% trail), and I learned recently Met Life's RJ specific product has an L share structure available, so I sense the tide may be reversing already within the existing framework. Additionally, all of my Jones annuities (A shares included) moved to RJ without issue. The RJ specific ones are going to be the same. Every damn annuity contract is different anymore anyway, so pricing and product name is just another thing to keep track of.Anyone that’s read the fund info knows they are only act like they’re engineered to for a single day, not long.
Also in defense of my B/D RJ
http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090315/REG/303159974 RJ is not the only B/D to remove certain products from it's plateform in the environment we have been operating in the past year. The article states that LPL & Commonwealth have removed certain annuities from their plateform. I have tons of respect for LPL & Commonwealth they are right up there with RJ, but they are also removing certain investment choices from their shelves. While we as indy's would ultimately like to make the final decision as to what is or is not appropriate to sell these uncertain times have made all of our B/D's re evaluate their risk exposure. This removal of risky providers is likely to continue if the market decides to retreat again.I understand your point, and agree that B/Ds have a right to remove products that they deem unsuitable, although I quibble with removing products that are suitable in some instances. In reading through the double and triple inverse ETFs, I'm doggoned glad I never recommended any. At the same time, if some advisors can effectively use such products to hedge exposure, I hate to see their right to do so taken away just because they may not be right for my clients.
Likewise, I have no problem with my B/D removing an unstable carrier from my platform. My beef going back to the original example, is a B/D jacking with my compensation. That's one of the big reasons I originally went independent, and if LPL started that crap, it would be like stepping back in time. I am glad to hear that RayJay may be loosening up a bit on that policy, as I thought it was stupid the day they rolled it out.