Edward Jones Partnership Question

51 replies [Last post]
gkr37501's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04

I am a new to Edward Jones and I keep hearing about the partnership and GP opportunity, but cannot seem to get a straight answer. Can anyone fill me in on how this works?
- How do you become a LP?
- How about a GP?
- Do you have to buy partnership? How much does it cost to buy in for LP / GP?
- Is it determined by tenure?
- What kind of payout does a LP or GP get per year?
- How does it grow and can you buy as much as you want?
- Does my GP make a ton of money off of the GP?

EdJehovah's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-01

LP - Suck off three or four GP's.
GP - Suck off six to eight GP's.
Buy - Oh yes, you pay, and pay, and pay.
Determined- Oh yes, some get sucked and some get fu**ed!
Payout - Depends on how much multi-Mil Hill and his pimp Jim Piddle leave for the rest.
Grow - They give you what they want you to have.
Ton - He makes a ton off of YOU.
 
Eddie Jones is a work from home scam.  Believe me, if you work there for one year, you will know more people who used to work for Jones than actually still work there.   All they do is get you in there to get your family and friends, and help build a national database that is probably used by Homeland Security.  Keep coming to this site, and you will see the light.
 
My damn feet hurt,
ED

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

It's been awhile, Ed.  Good to have you back.

The Bee's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-17

EdJahovah is right but he left out some additional details.  It also helps if you believe everything you are told at meetings.  The last thing you want to do is ask questions.  In our region it also helps if you play a lot of golf and smoke cigars. 

UNDERMINDED's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

I still don't get the work from home scam stuff.  I've been at jones a long time, and haven't worked from home since studying for the 7.  I know most people start in they're homes but if your worth a shit, you'll be out of there inside 6 months.  Just a thought
 
-Underminded

henryhill's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-08-23

Some real answers,
 
(1)  To become an LP, you have to be with the firm at least 2 years in the home office.  In the field, there is a minimum level of profitability.  The amount of profitability is determined at the announcement of the offering.
 
(2)  As an FA, you need to be a regional leader.  To be a FA invited into the home office, a very successful broker.
 
(3)  Yes you have to pay.  In the field you must put down at least 25% and then you can borrow the rest.  EDJ helps se that up.  My partnership has always paid for the loans.  In the home office and for BOA's, they have to put down at least 20%.
 
(4)  The historical payout for LP is around 20%, probably 45? for GP
 
(5)  You can buy as much as they offer, not a dollar more.  You can take less, few do.
 
(6)  Do the GP's get rich?  Jim Weddle has a Ferrari collection.  Draw your own conclusion.

jkl1v1n6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-06

henryhill wrote:Some real answers,
 
(1)  To become an LP, you have to be with the firm at least 2 years in the home office.  In the field, there is a minimum level of profitability.  The amount of profitability is determined at the announcement of the offering.
 
(2)  As an FA, you need to be a regional leader.  To be a FA invited into the home office, a very successful broker.
 
(3)  Yes you have to pay.  In the field you must put down at least 25% and then you can borrow the rest.  EDJ helps se that up.  My partnership has always paid for the loans.  In the home office and for BOA's, they have to put down at least 20%.
 
(4)  The historical payout for LP is around 20%, probably 45? for GP
 
(5)  You can buy as much as they offer, not a dollar more.  You can take less, few do.
 
(6)  Do the GP's get rich?  Jim Weddle has a Ferrari collection.  Draw your own conclusion.
 
What the fuh..........?  A collection!  Most people would be happy with just one, I'd be happy just to be able to drive one once.

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

UNDERMINDED wrote:I still don't get the work from home scam stuff.  I've been at jones a long time, and haven't worked from home since studying for the 7.  I know most people start in they're homes but if your worth a shit, you'll be out of there inside 6 months.  Just a thought
 
-Underminded
 
Agreed.  This is the most over-sensationalized aspect of working at Jones (that and "doorknocking").  What most people don't realize is that after your first year or two, almost nobody doorknocks, and after your first year, virtually everyone that "made it" is in an office.

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

jkl1v1n6 wrote:henryhill wrote:Some real answers,
 
(1)  To become an LP, you have to be with the firm at least 2 years in the home office.  In the field, there is a minimum level of profitability.  The amount of profitability is determined at the announcement of the offering.
 
(2)  As an FA, you need to be a regional leader.  To be a FA invited into the home office, a very successful broker.
 
(3)  Yes you have to pay.  In the field you must put down at least 25% and then you can borrow the rest.  EDJ helps se that up.  My partnership has always paid for the loans.  In the home office and for BOA's, they have to put down at least 20%.
 
(4)  The historical payout for LP is around 20%, probably 45? for GP
 
(5)  You can buy as much as they offer, not a dollar more.  You can take less, few do.
 
(6)  Do the GP's get rich?  Jim Weddle has a Ferrari collection.  Draw your own conclusion.
 
What the fuh..........?  A collection!  Most people would be happy with just one, I'd be happy just to be able to drive one once.
 
If you bought stock in one company every year for 25 years, and the returns basically ranged from (LP) about 15% to (GP) 65% every year, you can do the math.  I don't fault anyone that buys into a partnership and gets rich doing it.  His salary is what, $250K? 

buyandhold's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-09-23

-- LP returns are 15 percent? GP returns are 45 pct?!
Gee, if there's one thing this last year has taught me is to distrust eye-popping returns. This just seems ..... strange to put it charitably. Half the firm is unprofitable and the GPs return is 45 pct?!?! Are we paying this out of 'growth.'
---Something else that is suspicious is million dollar producers getting GPs and going to the home office. They wouldn't go if they weren't pulling down the same dollar figures and they're doing ..... what. FA training. That's a 500k a year job?
 
 
 

Squash1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-19

Some GPs are the ultimate kool aid drinkers or simply don't want to run a practice anymore...
 
Some of the time it is BS though.. Some GPs were really successful for a long time, others got hot for 3-5 years and got invited in(can't imagine how there clients feel, probably B shares)... and then there is Weddle, he was in the field for I think 3 years max, then he came to the home office....
 
Rumor has it that if you are a GP, you automatically get $1million in GP. So that is why they leave, I think their base at Home Office is between 75-125K, then the GP proceeds tack on a crap load... Some of the biggest LP and GP holdings belong to lifetime IT guys...

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

Keep in mind, many of the GP's (Weddle included) came to the home office back when there were like 500 brokers in the firm.  They needed people.  It was a different time back then.
 
Some of the newer GP's just got tired of being advisors and dealing with the hampster wheel.  You have to consider that many of them had 1,000-1,500 accounts, and may have been old-school "brokers".  Got tired of making 300 calls a month.  Everyone has their own reason for doing it. 
 
Here's the other thing, and this is purely financial:
When an FA retires at Jones, wirehouse, whatever, they get to sunset their book to a newer FA, so they get some ncie income for a few years of doing very little work.
 
When a GP retires, all that GP share is converted into subordinate LP shares, and you can keep it for life.  So that $1mm in GP that turns into LP all of a sudden becomes a $200K income stream for life, and can be sold back to the partnership anytime.  And it's more like 400-600K while you aer working and it's GP.

Squash1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-19

Doug Hill, has a pretty sweet house in St. Louis... and all these big guys have houses in Lake Ozark, MO...
 
 

Squash1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-19

It's almost like the Mob, for those high enough up, the rest are just the lackeys...

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

The difference is that Jones has years of returns reported and the numbers to back them up.  Bernie didn't. 
Most FAs who leave the field to got to HQ take a pretty sizable pay cut to do so. 
 
If you want to be a GP at Jones you really have three avenues to get there.  One, is through HQ.  You can stay at Jones in the HQ, work your butt off (or kiss enough of the right ones) for 10+ years and maybe be one of the lucky few who get a GP offering. 
 
Second is to be an expert in your field, say HR, and have Jones bring  you over into a leadership position.  We have experts like that come to us all the time.  Kind of pisses me off when I see it.  Nothing like catching the brass ring when you're not on the merry-go-round. 
 
Third is to get there from the field.  You have two shots at it from the field.  First, you can get to be the RL.  Only RLs can become GPs and stay in the field.  GP usually follows the RL position within about 3-4 years.  Since there is only one RL per region, those choices are limited and those guys usually don't want to give up their GP or their RL position. 
 
Second, if you're a top producer, but not the RL and doesn't look like you're ever going to get the RL position, you can go to the home office.  You'll end up running some department somewhere, going to a bunch of meetings, and trying to make your mark on the Jones world.  You'll go from making $500K+ in your office to a guaranteed salary of about $125K, plus whatever the GP makes for you.  If you were a GP last year, your pay got cut in half.  But there will be some years where you make a lot more than you deserve.  The trade off is that your life is no longer your own.  Jones may tap  you on the shoulder and say they need a GP to run the mutual fund processing area in Tempe.  So, you uproot your family and move to Tempe.  They may later say they need someone like you in Toronto.  Again, a family move.  Or you could be very fortunate and get to spend the rest of your working life in STL. 
 
Weddle has happened to hit a couple of these paths.  He was a good producer in the field, came to the home office, worked his tail off (or politicked it off), and was handed the MP role.  He's probably one of the lowest paid CEO types in the biz.  I promise you when the Obama administration gets around to capping CEO salaries, he won't have to worry about Weddle all that much. 

Squash1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-19

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2006/08/28/story1.html

Explains the last offering in 2006 or so...
 
Weddle's salary maybe $250K, but he is taking home at least 5-7 million...

Squash1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-19

Wonder if Roger Riney still has his shares..?

Squash1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-19

Sorry... I looked into all this when I suppose to be studying for my series 7 when i was with them..
 

8. Edward Jones' distributed 11% to 12% of its net income, which includes net revenue sharing, to its limited partners and 10% to 12% of its net income to its subordinated limited partners each year and the residual is distributed to the general partners. Thus, the majority of any revenue sharing received by Edward Jones, after operating expenses, was distributed to the firm's general partners, some of whom make decisions regarding which mutual fund families become "Preferred Families" and others of whom are Edward Jones IRs who recommend the Preferred Families to their customers. During 2003 alone, the revenue sharing received by Edward Jones was equivalent to 33% of the net income of Edward Jones' parent holding company, Jones Financial.

buyandhold's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-09-23

Squash1 wrote:http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2006/08/28/story1.html

Explains the last offering in 2006 or so...
 
Weddle's salary maybe $250K, but he is taking home at least 5-7 million...Probably taxed as dividend income, too. Although he did write that he took a 50 percent pay cut last year.

jkl1v1n6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-06

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
The difference is that Jones has years of returns reported and the numbers to back them up.  Bernie didn't. 
Most FAs who leave the field to got to HQ take a pretty sizable pay cut to do so. 
 
If you want to be a GP at Jones you really have three avenues to get there.  One, is through HQ.  You can stay at Jones in the HQ, work your butt off (or kiss enough of the right ones) for 10+ years and maybe be one of the lucky few who get a GP offering. 
 
Second is to be an expert in your field, say HR, and have Jones bring  you over into a leadership position.  We have experts like that come to us all the time.  Kind of pisses me off when I see it.  Nothing like catching the brass ring when you're not on the merry-go-round. 
 
Third is to get there from the field.  You have two shots at it from the field.  First, you can get to be the RL.  Only RLs can become GPs and stay in the field.  GP usually follows the RL position within about 3-4 years.  Since there is only one RL per region, those choices are limited and those guys usually don't want to give up their GP or their RL position. 
 
Second, if you're a top producer, but not the RL and doesn't look like you're ever going to get the RL position, you can go to the home office.  You'll end up running some department somewhere, going to a bunch of meetings, and trying to make your mark on the Jones world.  You'll go from making $500K+ in your office to a guaranteed salary of about $125K, plus whatever the GP makes for you.  If you were a GP last year, your pay got cut in half.  But there will be some years where you make a lot more than you deserve.  The trade off is that your life is no longer your own.  Jones may tap  you on the shoulder and say they need a GP to run the mutual fund processing area in Tempe.  So, you uproot your family and move to Tempe.  They may later say they need someone like you in Toronto.  Again, a family move.  Or you could be very fortunate and get to spend the rest of your working life in STL. 
 
Weddle has happened to hit a couple of these paths.  He was a good producer in the field, came to the home office, worked his tail off (or politicked it off), and was handed the MP role.  He's probably one of the lowest paid CEO types in the biz.  I promise you when the Obama administration gets around to capping CEO salaries, he won't have to worry about Weddle all that much. 
 
Jeesh, Now I feel sorry for those poor saps that choose to give up their freedom and go to St. Louis and be a GP.  Making so much less money and answering to the man. 

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

If you have LP at Jones, and you leave to go to LPL, can you keep the LP?  Is there a clause that forces them to buy it back at a certain rate? 
How about if you leave to work in a different field?  Can you keep it then? 

ytrewq's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-02

ice,
1:  Cannot keep it.
2:  Bought back at face value.
3:  Can keep (If I remember correctly) if you meet retirement (years of service + age) requirements and completely unrelated field.
 

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

buyandhold wrote: Squash1 wrote:http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2006/08/28/story1.html

Explains the last offering in 2006 or so...
 
Weddle's salary maybe $250K, but he is taking home at least 5-7 million...Probably taxed as dividend income, too. Although he did write that he took a 50 percent pay cut last year.
 
My LP is taxed differently than dividends, if I remember correctly.  I would assume his is the same.  It's not fully ordinary income, but it's close.  I actually don't have enough of it to really impact my tax statement, so I don't pay that much attention.  I just sign where the guy who does my taxes says to.
 
$5-7MM still puts him on the low end of the pay scale for execs. 

UNDERMINDED's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

ice,
you can keep it if you leave the field or retire and
 
age+yrs of service=75
 
which means if your 55 and you've been hear 20 yrs your good, as long as you stay away from the industry.

jkl1v1n6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-06

Spaceman Spiff wrote:buyandhold wrote: Squash1 wrote:http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2006/08/28/story1.html

Explains the last offering in 2006 or so...
 
Weddle's salary maybe $250K, but he is taking home at least 5-7 million...Probably taxed as dividend income, too. Although he did write that he took a 50 percent pay cut last year.
 
My LP is taxed differently than dividends, if I remember correctly.  I would assume his is the same.  It's not fully ordinary income, but it's close.  I actually don't have enough of it to really impact my tax statement, so I don't pay that much attention.  I just sign where the guy who does my taxes says to.
 
$5-7MM still puts him on the low end of the pay scale for execs. 
 
How does one get by with only 5-7mm? 
 
"Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the third annual increase in real median household income." August 2008
 
Maybe it's the fact that they're ALL overpaid and the fact that we've come to accept it.  I just don't feel sorry for one of the lowest paid execs. 

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

I never said I felt sorry for him.  But complaining about how much money Jim Weddle makes on his GP is really pointless. 
 
I agree with you that these CEOs running companies out there are out of control.  I'm not a big proponent of capping salaries cause I'd hate to have it done to me, but when you're laying people off and your CEO is making $20 million a year, there's a problem. 

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

It's strange that we are debating the income of a successful private partnership owner, who BOUGHT all of his general partnership shares, in a PRIVATELY held business, who's firm did NOT collapse like the rest of the industry, and makes far LESS than most of the execs in the industry.  It's a $4B company that has never earned less than a 21% return on capital in the past 10 years, and that has over $1B in capital currently.  Why are we discussing Weddle's return on capital? 

buyandhold's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-09-23

Very few people are worth $5 to 7 million in pure economic impact -- maybe somebody who comes up with a new medicine or labor-saving device or fuel-efficent car.  Maybe the CEO of a startup that hits it big. But definitely not a CEO babysitting an established company. And most definitely not anybody in the financial services industry right now. You could put Spiff or B24 in charge of Edward Jones tomorrow, pay him 250k, and get the same results going forward as we're getting now. Probably better -- a CEO getting paid 250k would be on the same wavelength as his customers and his employees and therefore service them more effectively. CEOs get paid what they do because we have the mistaken notion that their skills are rare and that they have the power to move these huge behomoth companies.

Squash1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-19

I agree with B&H(though I don't agree with the philosophy of his name).. Though i think there are some exceptions to the rule..Jamie Dimon, and what he has done with Bank One, to JP Morgan Chase... James Skinner, a company going through two ceos with health problems, then having to deal with that stupid documentary and still come out unscathed...I think Lee Scott at Walmart, took that company to a whole new level.... and if movie stars can get $20million a picture(some of those movies suck, and I should have gotten paid to watch them) then let the free market decided who gets paid what...
 
I don't have a problem with Weddle's pay... I was just pointing out the GP payouts(wish I was one, but didn't have to work for the company)

buyandhold's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-09-23

He's getting paid $5-7 million because of the previous efforts of people who built this firm and because he took over at the height of the greatest bull run in history. Right place, right time.... We'll see if he can earn that money this year, when growth and return on capital will be much smaller.

SometimesNowhere's picture
Joined: 2008-12-22

Squash1 wrote:I agree with B&H(though I don't agree with the philosophy of his name).. Though i think there are some exceptions to the rule..Jamie Dimon, and what he has done with Bank One, to JP Morgan Chase... James Skinner, a company going through two ceos with health problems, then having to deal with that stupid documentary and still come out unscathed...I think Lee Scott at Walmart, took that company to a whole new level.... and if movie stars can get $20million a picture(some of those movies suck, and I should have gotten paid to watch them) then let the free market decided who gets paid what...
 
I don't have a problem with Weddle's pay... I was just pointing out the GP payouts(wish I was one, but didn't have to work for the company)
 
I've often had a similar thought about CEO's (especially after reading Andrew Lahde's letter to his investors here). I am certain that there is a significant amount of savvy that is required to run a company, but it doesn't take a one-in-a-million person. In my previous professional life I worked for some publicly traded companies where some CEO would make mind blowingly dumb decisions that certainly any monkey could make. I can't imagine many people who are compensated in the tens of millions, especially when their company is failing, being worth what they're paid. After all, if we drove our client's portfolio to zero, we would certainly be fired. I respect Weddle, if for no other reason, that he has the courage to stick to the vision, no matter how critical other people in the industry are.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

I find it entertaining that a group of FAs are mulling around whether another profession DESERVES the pay it gets. 
 
Lets face it...none of us have Ivy League degrees.  None of us own any intellectual property to speak of.  None of us came up with a great invention that changed the industry, or the world.
 
Seriously, we live by the motto "Work like few others will for 5 years, and then live like few others can for the rest of your life."
 
I'm not there yet, but how many people in our industry make over a quarter million a year and work 25 hours a week? 
 
I know, I know, "Ice if you don't think you are worth what you charge, then you are a failure, STFU!"  Give me a break guys.  Nobody on this Earth deserves $300K, $400K, $500+ a year to work 25 hours a week...I don't give a shit how many people told you to "Go to hell" on the phone for the first 5 years, or how many doors you knocked on. 
 
Quit bitching. 

Fud Box's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-08

Squash1 wrote:It's almost like the Mob, for those high enough up, the rest are just the lackeys...

And this is different from almost any other big company how????
 
C'mon, if the top guy(s) at ANY company weren't grossly overpaid in relation to everyone else, John Thain couldn't have renovated his office, Wagoner's GM wouldn't be on the brink of a BK, etc. etc. etc.
 
It's just the way of the world....the top 5% make 90% of all the income. It's called capitalism for a reason....they capitalized.
 
Hell, even for all of you Indy guys. What does the top 5% of independent RR's make? Probably somewhere between grossly overpaid and a ridiculous amount. But there's a 95% chance they're making more than you...and probably A LOT more...5X, 10X or more than you. And they have their "lackeys" too....assistants, junior brokers, etc. etc. etc.
 
Underneath the soles of every super successful person are the remains of all the "lackeys" that got the shaft along the way.
 
The ones that complain about the income level of a GP, CEO, or other head honcho position are complacent and content in their mediocrity. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be bitching about others' success and fortunes, but doing what was necessary to amass their own.
 
Either that or they're a closet Communist/Obama-lover! I mean, seriously, CAPS ON INCOME FOR TOP EXECS!!!! Sounds wonderful, Comrade!!!
 

UNDERMINDED's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

Someone clarify for me.
Am I right in thinking this income cap is only for companies that took gov't assistance? ie bailout?
 
If this is a broad income capping for all execs, in all industries, or even just the financial industry, regardless if they need gov't help or not I'm moving to Australia!
 
-Underminded
 
"I just want the whole world standing"

jkl1v1n6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-06

You guys have missed the meaning of my original post.  I'm not bitching that they get paid what they do. My initial reading of Spiff's post to me personally, was that he was trying to say how little the managin partner at Ed Jones made in comparison to other execs.  My reply to that and to all the other execs is that I WILL NOT FEEL SORRY FOR THEM for making obscene amounts of money no matter where they fall in line with their peers.   
 
Sunny and 65 here, taking the afternoon off.

Fud Box's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-08

buyandhold wrote:
Very few people are worth $5 to 7 million in pure economic impact -- maybe somebody who comes up with a new medicine or labor-saving device or fuel-efficent car.  Maybe the CEO of a startup that hits it big. But definitely not a CEO babysitting an established company. And most definitely not anybody in the financial services industry right now. You could put Spiff or B24 in charge of Edward Jones tomorrow, pay him 250k, and get the same results going forward as we're getting now. Probably better -- a CEO getting paid 250k would be on the same wavelength as his customers and his employees and therefore service them more effectively. CEOs get paid what they do because we have the mistaken notion that their skills are rare and that they have the power to move these huge behomoth companies.

Gotta disagree with you there. Secondary CEO skills (i.e. education, business insight, etc.) are not necessarily rare, but the ability to act on vision and provide actual leadership is relatively rare. Kennedy had it, Reagan had it, even Hitler. CEO's have got to have at least some of it, where most people don't. Is it worth millions and millions of dollars every year...it is if the company is willing to pay it. Asking somebody to take on the responsibilities of a CEO or similar ranking executive for 250K a year is preposterous. Would you do it? Would you want to be responsible for a multi billion dollar business, countless thousands of lives of employees, the myriad legal ramifications that arise, the constant scrutiny of shareholders/partners, for the same kind of money you could make as a dentist or a restauranteur or hundreds of other less stressful occupations. Do you honestly think that the head guy of a company worth upwards of $4B (that's 4,000 million just in case you can't picture it) and get's paid $5M isn't worth 1/10 of one percent (.00125) of the company that he's running and is part owner, that his economic impact on the 30-something THOUSAND lives (2 x the population of my town) of the employees, the MILLIONS of clients, and the $500 BILLION in assets, is less than 5-7 million bucks....the price of a house in the nicest part of town.
 
As far as Spiff or B24 goes....could they run the company...who knows. But if they COULD and were INCLINED to do so, I'm sure they'd both be running SOME COMPANY vs. working for a company. This means, obviously, they either can't (which means they aren't worth $250K), or they don't want to (which means $250K isn't worth it to them).
 
And don't pretend to think that any of us are stupid enough to believe that ONE person can move a huge "bohemoth" company. No more so than the captain can run an entire cruise ship by himself. It's the effective leadership and management of the team that makes a bohemoth move.

buyandhold's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-09-23

Gotta disagree with you there. Secondary CEO skills (i.e. education, business insight, etc.) are not necessarily rare, but the ability to act on vision and provide actual leadership is relatively rare. Kennedy had it, Reagan had it, even Hitler. CEO's have got to have at least some of it, where most people don't. Is it worth millions and millions of dollars every year...it is if the company is willing to pay it. Asking somebody to take on the responsibilities of a CEO or similar ranking executive for 250K a year is preposterous. Would you do it? Would you want to be responsible for a multi billion dollar business, countless thousands of lives of employees, the myriad legal ramifications that arise, the constant scrutiny of shareholders/partners, for the same kind of money you could make as a dentist or a restauranteur or hundreds of other less stressful occupations. Do you honestly think that the head guy of a company worth upwards of $4B (that's 4,000 million just in case you can't picture it) and get's paid $5M isn't worth 1/10 of one percent (.00125) of the company that he's running and is part owner, that his economic impact on the 30-something THOUSAND lives (2 x the population of my town) of the employees, the MILLIONS of clients, and the $500 BILLION in assets, is less than 5-7 million bucks....the price of a house in the nicest part of town.
 
As far as Spiff or B24 goes....could they run the company...who knows. But if they COULD and were INCLINED to do so, I'm sure they'd both be running SOME COMPANY vs. working for a company. This means, obviously, they either can't (which means they aren't worth $250K), or they don't want to (which means $250K isn't worth it to them).
 
And don't pretend to think that any of us are stupid enough to believe that ONE person can move a huge "bohemoth" company. No more so than the captain can run an entire cruise ship by himself. It's the effective leadership and management of the team that makes a bohemoth move.
 
First of all, Hitler was the worst 'CEO' in the history of the world! You take control of the dominant power in Europe and reduce it to ruins, well, that's pretty much an abject failure.
 
$5 to 7 million to be a CEO is not the historical norm. The CEOs at Coke or GE 20 years ago were not making this kind of money. Just a quick google search shows that CEO pay has risen 9 or 10 percent a year over the past 20 years. The CEO at Edward Jones is making far, far more than the man who built the company. Heck, Ted Jones is dead but is probably still the most influential person here. I imagine it's the same at many companies.
If you limited CEO pay to 500k, none of them would quit. CEOs are in it for the status and the power. Take away the big dollars and they'd find some new way to measure themselves against each other. Or maybe you'd come up with a system of corporate governance based more on consensus and teamwork and less on hiring some czar with an inflated reputation.
Mayors and governors and various public servants have a far greater impact on economic life than CEOs and none of them make millions in salary.
 
 
 
 
 
 

now_indy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-28

Great post Fud.

Fud Box's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-08

buyandhold wrote:

 
First of all, Hitler was the worst 'CEO' in the history of the world! You take control of the dominant power in Europe and reduce it to ruins, well, that's pretty much an abject failure.
 
$5 to 7 million to be a CEO is not the historical norm. The CEOs at Coke or GE 20 years ago were not making this kind of money. Just a quick google search shows that CEO pay has risen 9 or 10 percent a year over the past 20 years. The CEO at Edward Jones is making far, far more than the man who built the company. Heck, Ted Jones is dead but is probably still the most influential person here. I imagine it's the same at many companies.
If you limited CEO pay to 500k, none of them would quit. CEOs are in it for the status and the power. Take away the big dollars and they'd find some new way to measure themselves against each other. Or maybe you'd come up with a system of corporate governance based more on consensus and teamwork and less on hiring some czar with an inflated reputation.
Mayors and governors and various public servants have a far greater impact on economic life than CEOs and none of them make millions in salary.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CEO's 20 years ago made less than they do today? Really? No kidding?!? Ted Jones made less than Jim Weddle? You do realize Ted Jones died about 20 years ago, right? Oh, and 9 or 10% per year is just a little better than inflation! Not even as good as the S&P500. Some CEO's would work for $500K, sure. Some wouldn't. A lot of CEO's are in it for power and influence...those are probably the same guys who think money = power.
 
Corporate governance based on consensus and teamwork. It's very utopian. Look, it sounds great, but just like Communism...it don't work!!! The buck always gets passed, and the higher it goes the more the guy gets paid. Karl Marx believed in a world where everyone worked for the common good, no one needed or aspired to be ultra wealthy, the middle class reigned, and there wasn't a divide between the have's and the have not's. On paper it looks good, but in reality, capitalism works. Communism doesn't. Didn't work in USSR, not working in Nam, not working in Cuba, not working in Korea. China's doing OK, but they decided to go capitalist!
 
And as far as politicians go....can you honestly say you think they have more impact on the economy than businessmen??? You think your mayor has a bigger impact on the local economy than, say, the local CEO that just laid off 25,000 people?

Squash1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-19

Let me state the obvious: I am not for communism...
 
The original idea behind communism, was that it would form after the fall of capitalism.. The countries that currently operate under forms of communism did not come about because capitalism failed, they skipped steps...
 
Sadly if this "hiccup" were to cause complete and utter failure and destroy capitalism, then communism would rise in its place because all the money would be gone..Theoretically...

buyandhold's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-09-23

 
 
 
CEO's 20 years ago made less than they do today? Really? No kidding?!? Ted Jones made less than Jim Weddle? You do realize Ted Jones died about 20 years ago, right? Oh, and 9 or 10% per year is just a little better than inflation! Not even as good as the S&P500. Some CEO's would work for $500K, sure. Some wouldn't. A lot of CEO's are in it for power and influence...those are probably the same guys who think money = power.
 
Corporate governance based on consensus and teamwork. It's very utopian. Look, it sounds great, but just like Communism...it don't work!!! The buck always gets passed, and the higher it goes the more the guy gets paid. Karl Marx believed in a world where everyone worked for the common good, no one needed or aspired to be ultra wealthy, the middle class reigned, and there wasn't a divide between the have's and the have not's. On paper it looks good, but in reality, capitalism works. Communism doesn't. Didn't work in USSR, not working in Nam, not working in Cuba, not working in Korea. China's doing OK, but they decided to go capitalist!
 
And as far as politicians go....can you honestly say you think they have more impact on the economy than businessmen??? You think your mayor has a bigger impact on the local economy than, say, the local CEO that just laid off 25,000 people?
 
Inflation is NOT anywhere close 9 or 10 pct.
CEO pay has grown much faster than regular wages, without any economic benefit that I can see. Economic growth is slower. Stock performance is slower. Why should your typical CEO be paid more, again, in relative terms.
CEO pay is just another bubble in an age of bubbles. It too shall pop. It doesn't make economic sense.
Just for the record, I'm not a communist! It's a fun red herring, though.
As for the utopian notion of teamwork -- well, you can scoff, but that's how great companies have always been built, not because some Jack Welch clone parachuted in.
Fun topic.
 

Fud Box's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-08

Squash1 wrote:Let me state the obvious: I am not for communism...
 
The original idea behind communism, was that it would form after the fall of capitalism.. The countries that currently operate under forms of communism did not come about because capitalism failed, they skipped steps...
 
Sadly if this "hiccup" were to cause complete and utter failure and destroy capitalism, then communism would rise in its place because all the money would be gone..Theoretically...
Money is just the construct that society uses to represent wealth and the ability to obtain wealth. Money is not the wealth itself. That's why there are so many different currencies, each with their own ability to acquire wealth. If and when our currency loses it's ability to acquire goods and services, the forces of supply and demand will counteract the opposing force of "super inflation". It's kind of like what's going on now.  CPI is down substantially. People's ability to buy has decreased to the point where prices will decrease to balance it out. Either that or we'll get these "capital injections" to the point that the dollar will be worth about as much as the Korean won. But the citizens of Korea are still able to buy stuff. They just use more units of wealth because the units are smaller. Wealth is still there.
 
Take land for example. An acre is an acre. But what if the definition of acre changed so that now an acre was about the length of your arm squared.  Now that same plot of land is several acres, but it's still the same amount of land. Such it is with wealth and money. Wealth remains...money is subject to the whims of man.
 
That being said...capitalism can't fail. It ebbs and flows, but it can't break down. There will always be demand, and there will always be someone willing to supply. Capitalism is at the core of human evolution...all the way back to the days of barter. Communism, on the other hand, is a human invention....a relatively recent one too.  It, therefore, is fallible.

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

I'm not going to get into this dogfight,  but what I will say, is that I much prefer working for a company (and Jones is far from the only company like this) where the senior leadership's income all depends on the ongoing health and prosperity of the company.  And this does not include the CEO's that work essentially for stock options and running the stock price up for 18 months to receive a $100mm windfall or golden parachute. 
Private partnerships such as Jones tend to have a more "infinite" time frame for success.  They want to build a company that will be profitable consistently and indefinitely.  Personally, I wish more companies were privately held by management.  The LLP concept is nice in that there is no real incentive to drive up short-term profits outrageously, since there is no "stock price" to sell out at.  Earning huge partnership profits for one or two years, by making short-term decisions, does nothing for the long-term income potential of its owners.

Fud Box's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-08

I agree with you wholeheartedly. My only point was that the leaders of any organization, whether it be a partnership or a corporation, should be paid what they're worth. Government declarations of capping the pay of company heads is, IMO, simply unconstitutional and borderline Communist. That doesn't mean I think these douchebags that ruined their companies deserve to be paid as much as they do....clearly not. They suck at their jobs! They should be investigated for any wrong doing (and driving up stock prices to capitalize on stock options should be considered fraud), and they should simply be fired and brought up on charges (if necessary). I think that corporate heads and other high line business figures should be held accountable for their scruples because they DO have an economic impact beyond their immediate reach. It is also for this reason that I feel that large company heads shouldn't be capped in pay. Besides, like I mentioned earlier, it's up to the hiring company how much they're willing to pay.  Lately, they've just been way too generous with poor quality personnel, who have made poor decicions, and created poorly run companies. Now they're all getting bailed out.

Fud Box's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-08

EdJehovah wrote:
 
Eddie Jones is a work from home scam. 

There sure are a ton of offices for this "work from home scam". With such a filthy, juvenile attitude, I wonder what bone you have to pick with Jones. They do you wrong or something? Can't seem to let it go? Mommy not hug  you enough?
 
And I'd like to point out you used the term "suck" in a very profane manner three separate times. It's making everybody wonder what goes on in that strange head of yours.
 
Seriously....grow up A$$HOLE

theironhorse's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-03

I don't have a problem with CEO salaries per se.  I have a problem with shitty CEO's being paid millions of dollars to essentially fail.  I don't think for a second any market force is driving CEO pay.  Who decides CEO pay?  (Don't think for a second the owners, ie shareholders, get a say in this decision)  What criteria is used to pick a CEO?
 
A successful company, making money for it's shareholders, paying a CEO $5 million is fine with me.  What I don't get is the notion that a horrible, shitty CEO is entitled to a certain exhorbitant amount of pay simply because he is a CEO. 

Fud Box's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-08

theironhorse wrote:I don't have a problem with CEO salaries per se.  I have a problem with shitty CEO's being paid millions of dollars to essentially fail.  I don't think for a second any market force is driving CEO pay.  Who decides CEO pay?  (Don't think for a second the owners, ie shareholders, get a say in this decision)  What criteria is used to pick a CEO?
 
A successful company, making money for it's shareholders, paying a CEO $5 million is fine with me.  What I don't get is the notion that a horrible, shitty CEO is entitled to a certain exhorbitant amount of pay simply because he is a CEO. 
Compensation for heads of large companies, whether it's a CEO or a Managing Partner, is generally determined by committee. This committee obviously has to determine what the person is worth, financially, to the company. Although I can't say with any confidence, I'm sure the whole process is very highly negotiated. In the end, a sale is made. Bob agrees to do x for y millions of dollars... At the same token, Acme Financial agrees to pay Bob y millions of dollars to do x. It's a mutual agreement, and therefore it falls under the realm of supply and demand. If Bob was a dime a dozen...he wouldn't have been able to command y millions of dollars...who knows...maybe Bob wanted more. In any case, if the Acme Financial shareholder or Board of Directors or Senior Partners or whatever decide that Bob sucks...they should fire him.  Unfortunately, because of all of the internal politics involved, Bob was able to get away with a lot more than he probably should have. Now Acme is about to be run into the ground and begging for TARP money.

ytrewq's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-02

Here we go again.......
 
Anyone can run a multimillion dollar company?  We must all be smarter than every other CEO and the companies have just not found us yet.  Wonder why they don't check this forum?  Here we are.
 
Weddle just walked into an "existing office" and cruised what others built?  Really?  Our last MP created a mess with Revenue Sharing, etc.
 
Weddle was one of the few (if not only) that kept us from .....
The ARS garbage can.
Did not chase the huge returns in leverage.
Did not trade our capital.
Did not need TARP.
Did not get our name in the press...wait we were in Fortune.
 
He deserves a raise.
 
I do not wish ill on any company or its employees.  They have families.
 
Retard after retard predicts our iminent demise while others all around us fail.  Bet that pisses off you haters.
 
PS.  If you beleive in Capitalism, compensation is determined by the market.  Ultimately workers will get paid based on what they produce.  Anything else is inflation.
 

theironhorse's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-03

Fud-my post was more rhetorical.  I know how they SAY pay is determined.  But end of the day it is a "you scratch my back I'll scratch your back" bunch of inbreds, with nobody held accountable for skyrocketing pay for all, including the most incompetent.My thought is that Bob IS a dime a dozen.  He just happens to break through to the "inner circle" and thus reaps the rewards.  I have no doubt there are some very skilled people running some of the largest global companies, but I think we all know some very successful people who simply have little to no true skills when you dig deeper.  I personally think most CEO's are comparable to your average everyday professional athlete, competent maybe,  alot better than Joe 6 pack,  but there are very few Tiger Woods, Michael Jordans, etc.

theironhorse's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-03

And none of my comments are directed at Weddle at all.  People who left Jones dislike him mainly because their culture tries to connect with the average man in small town America, and to a certain degree hide the excesses he has attained.  I have no problem with his pay, he runs a profitable organization.

ytrewq's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-02

theironhorse wrote:Fud-my post was more rhetorical.  I know how they SAY pay is determined.  But end of the day it is a "you scratch my back I'll scratch your back" bunch of inbreds, with nobody held accountable for skyrocketing pay for all, including the most incompetent.My thought is that Bob IS a dime a dozen.  He just happens to break through to the "inner circle" and thus reaps the rewards.  I have no doubt there are some very skilled people running some of the largest global companies, but I think we all know some very successful people who simply have little to no true skills when you dig deeper.  I personally think most CEO's are comparable to your average everyday professional athlete, competent maybe,  alot better than Joe 6 pack,  but there are very few Tiger Woods, Michael Jordans, etc.
 
........coming from someone who posts on the internet like your "average everyday professional" athlete.  I bet people take you serious....Not.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×