[quote=zacko]

When I first read about the inactivity fees...I was very pissed off.  Now, after seeing that out of 865 accounts--I have less than ten that will be subject to the inactivity fee, I'm not too concerned.

I still don't like the fees and the concept behind them...

BTW, RJ will pay 1/2 the fee if the FA decides to pay the fee for the client. 

[/quote]

Exactly.  People are making too big of a deal of this.  There are so many exemptions that I only have 6-8 accounts that this will effect.

As I said on this topic before you can't isolate the culture it reflects. Same old stuff from producers, they measure only from how it effects them alone. "Gee, I'm glad I didn't place that off the recommended list" as it flies to zero! What kind of thinking is that?

Gone is the more relaxed but confident RJ, it's just another wirehouse in "independent" drag. Frankly, it looks like more channel stuffing. They want all the revenues up and all the smaller office culture gone for the deal that is out-there that TJ is denying. Many of the fees as you look at whole direction are designed at account retention while they sell "you own your book". Double talk is an art form here.

A few years ago RJ went level "3" on mutual funds and forced many of the "costs" they are complaining about as an excuse for more fees on themselves. Now thousands of cumulative hours and dollars are wasted going back to level one as just one example of blundering or more honestly cynical management actions. Honestly there are much worse things going on here to be upset about in my mind but it rhymes with the article.