What are the current Jones segments?

or Register to post new content in the forum

13 RepliesJump to last post



  • 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.
Jan 18, 2007 5:01 pm

I know it's based on average monthly gross in commissions over a 4 month period. What are the different segment cut offs for segments 1-5?

Also, before joedabroker rips me a new one, I tried to do a search. I didn't find recent information, so hopefully it's okay that I ask a question.

Jan 18, 2007 8:19 pm

You are in segment 1 until you have a rolling gross commission over a 4 mo period of $8K.  Segment 2 is $15K

, segment 3 is $27K, segment 4 I think is around $45K and not sure about segment 5.  One of the IR’s I spoke to is about to hit segment 4 and she has been there almost 5 years. 

What I don't know is what each segment actually means - I don't think you get bonused, I think it's just a way to categorize?

Anyone know?

Jan 18, 2007 10:24 pm

tuck- you’re off 1 notch:

segment 1 by default

segment 2 $8K

segment 3 $15K

segment 4 $27K

segment 5 $40K+

You should really be at segment 4 by about 5-7 years in, or you are doing

something wrong. Segment 5 is obviously a big jump, which some

people will never do (unless they start out young in the biz, or inherit a

huge book). Most people I see do segment 5 after about 10-12 years.

It basically represents steps in the training process. As you move up, you

get additional training, sponsored training for certs (AAMS, CFP, CLU,

etc.) based on what “specialty” you want to pursue (financial planning,

retirement planning, estate planning, equity management, generalist,

etc.). You don’t have to do any of it, but it certainly helps your career

progression and skill set.

Jan 19, 2007 10:49 am

It also typically mean much more success at Jones.  Most of the people you hear complaining about how unfair Jones is never made it past Seg 3.  If you hit seg 4, and can maintain those numbers, you are making good money from commissions, getting profitability bonuses, trips, qualify for LP when it comes around (I know, it’s a bond), etc.  If you can get to Seg 5 your bonuses become huge.  And the LP offerings get much bigger.  At that point you are in line for becoming one of the evil GPs, if you want to.  That’s when they move the money printing press into your office.  Everything Broker24 said is true, but the training is just one piece of the pie.

Jan 19, 2007 12:17 pm

Ok, next question. My understanding is that all IR's apparently are required to have the AAMS desigation before they reach segment 4. Once an IR has reached segment 2, Jones will pay the costs for the IR to take the AAMS. Is this accurate?

What is the Jones policy regarding paying for or reimbursing IR's for other designations (specifically the CMFC) as well as the CFP classes? What segment(s) do you have to be?

Jan 19, 2007 2:37 pm

Almost.  Jones will cover you on the AAMS when you hit Seg 3.  They will cover your CFP, CLU, and ChFC once you hit Seg 4.  Those are done as a part of our Track Training. 

Jan 19, 2007 4:46 pm

Spiff, you aer correct.  I guess I assumed that people understood that increased production to get into the segments meant more income.  But your right, the income is exponentially higher as you move up, since additional income streams kick in.

Jan 19, 2007 4:48 pm

Obviously the turnover rate (those that don’t even make it at all) is pretty high at Jones. Of those that make it, what is the average time that it takes them to reach segment 3? It looks like I have studied for the AAMS basically for nothing. It’s too bad since I know I could pass the exam right now.

Jan 19, 2007 8:16 pm

Spiff- i would disagree that most people complaining never hit seg 3. myself, spiked, babbling looney and others certainly have achieved that status. i actually hit seg 5 before i left. it had just been rolled out. you are generalizing. i am simply not a fan of generalizations on this forum both pro and anti EJ. The “evil Gp’s” obviously is also a generalization. However, if they can keep their sales force just that, a sales force, and minimize the advisory portion of the business believe me that would be their xanadu. That is primarily what everyone who leaves continues to pound on and obviously if everyone keeps saying the same thing their must be some truth to the assertations. Simply put, many not all are doing exactly what the company wants. A shares in preferred funds and long bonds. In most instances their is so much more that can be done but if you have never experienced anything else how could you possibly know that. Jonesers seem to think they have all the tools they need and those who have left are trying to say you dont know what you dont know because you’ve never been exposed to much of it. Not your fault it is by design. i suspect everyone is now going to jump on me and tell me all the sophisticated strategies they use in their office and how knowledgeable their BOA is so bring it. I am just bored with you generaliztions Spiff.

Jan 19, 2007 9:55 pm


You beat me to it.  Spaceman your generalizations are way
off.  I was segment 5 in 4 years starting from scratch
new/new.  I was Segment 5 when there was little or no bonus
bracket (2001-2003).  I basically was providing for all the
mediocre brokers who are still there or have moved on. 

Jan 19, 2007 9:58 pm


I think you are probably right about many Jones people just doing

business the way Jones wants them to. And it IS because they don’t know

better. But, the good thing is, for those of us that DO know what we are

doing, we have a higher degree of latitude than most think. And I think

they are moving very quickly to a more advisory-based model.

I also think that Jones is not being deceptive or controlling. They just

think it is easier to manage so many de-centralized offices by limiting

what they expose their reps to. Keep in mind, that is one of the

limitations of the one-IR office; we are under heavier scrutiny than

standard B/D’s.

Oh, yeah, and we need to make sure we get as much from Revenue

Sharing as possible…(hey, I’m throwing you all a bone!)

Jan 20, 2007 10:44 am

24- Thanks for the response. i used to think they (gp’s) were well intentioned and were trying to keep everyone in the fairway so to speak. Then i started  looking behind the curtain. Deception can be rationalized easily when you feel no one is really being hurt and the “average client” will be “ok” if we stick to these basic investments. If you are intelligent and good at what you do you should be insulted by the way they limit your abilities to serve your client and they continue to profit significantly from said actions. In other words they are making more money by encouraging you to keep it simple stupid. You can still make a great living and mostly serve the needs of a certain clientele. Wal-mart has done ok realizing they are not Macy’s.

Jan 20, 2007 1:04 pm

I hear what you're saying.  My point was that if you do want to get more exotic than American funds and long-bonds, you can do it.  You just have to do the analysis and leg-work yourself.

I may not have access to some things that other firms have, but I use other fund families (non-preferred), closed-ends, reits, non-model portfolio stocks, etc., and am creative with life insurance in estate planning.  I do what I think is necessary for the client, as long as we are able to use the investments at Jones.  I realize there are always going to be alternative investments that I could use other places, but honestly, and I think most have to agree, that "traditional" investments are appropriate for most individuals (I didn't say "preferred funds", I said "traditional investments").

I said this another thread somewhere, but there are about 1,000 ways to skin the cat when it comes to portfolios.  You give a case to 1,000 investment professionals, you'll get 1,000 different answers.  My options may be more limited than other places, but it's not exactly Ameriprise.  We have a pretty large universe of options.

And yes, I realize Revenue Sharing has much to do with it (which you alluded to).  But I don't consider that when I make a portfolio decision.  Otherwise I would be using Hartford, or Van Kampen or whoever pays the most (not even really sure).  I do know that the two fund families I use the most pay the least in revenue sharing (per $1 invested).

I'm not "insulted" by what they do.  They have a model and parameters that I must work within.  That was my choice and I have to work with that unless I choose to leave, which may happen someday.  I hear what everyone says, and I know exactly what goes on in the firm.  I just choose not to let it bother me (yet).  At this point, I have gotten much more out of the firm than they have gotten out of me.  And I know that will change eventually.  I am doing everything I can to build my practice the right way, so that if the time comes, I will be well positioned.  I even stress to my clients that they are not getting Jones, they are getting me.

Who knows, maybe they will start paying for toilet paper...