Edward Jones/MFS

107 replies [Last post]
Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

So i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven't studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I've never seen that at ANY other fund company.

hotair1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-12

Ronnie Dobbs wrote:So i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven't studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I've never seen that at ANY other fund company.
 
retard

ABOM's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-01

wow i hope thats not the case since they invented the mutual fund!!If they have a negative lifetime return on the fund that started in the 20's that would suck!!

3rdyrp2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

This table was based off of fund family rankings from a year ago, but MFS was the 4th ranked fund family over the trailing 5 years.  I doubt 2009 hindered their rankings, and I doubt that their bond funds are the sole purpose that MFS as a whole is ranked 4th:
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/BA-Waddell_020209.pdf
 
Over the past decade they are #5:
 
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/BA-FrnkTmpltn_020209.pdf
 

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

It's a damn question hotair. I'm reading it right off the packet. Grow up already. I was just curious if anyone else noticed it. And yes ABOM I know that they invented the mutual fund, thats why I was a little shocked. Almost everyone is at a negative return. STOCK funds though....Their bond funds did quite well.

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

Oh 3rd - I know they are ranked high on the list, thats my question. Why ranked so high, if the packet I received showed nothing but negative returns?

3rdyrp2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

Did it have specific funds, or a plethora?  I'm surprised that such bad info came in a packet that MFS themselves gave you.

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

It has specific funds. I'll have to take a look at it again tomorrow at my office. I just looked at their website and it's not showing the funds the same way on the booklet I was sent. I was pretty shocked at those numbers. Like I said though, their bond funds did fantastic.

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

Actually if you click this site and look at "Stock Funds" on the lifetime it's pretty similar to what I saw at the office. Mostly negative returns on the lifetime. Kinda disappointing.

https://www.mfs.com/wps/FileServerServlet?servletCommand=serveUnprotectedFileAsset&fileAssetPath=/files/documents/products/performance/perf_mfd.pdf

9 out of 15 negative. I mean seriously?

3rdyrp2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

5 years annualized - From Google Finance:
 
MFS Growth - MFEGX - 5.04%
MFS Utilities - MMUFX - 10.94%
MFS Research - MFRFX - 3.12%
MFS Value - MEIAX - 3.07%
MFS Core Equity - MRGAX - 2.47%
MFS Core Growth - MFCAX - 1.89%
MFS Sector Rotational - SRFAX - 0.08% (Weak)
MFS Mid Cap Value - MVCAX - 1.02%
MFS Massachussetts Investors Trust - MITTX - 3.78%
MFS Mid Cap Growth - OTCAX - -3.13%
 
This is based off of current day's numbers.  I wonder if the research you got was based off of end of Q3 from 2009 which would make it look a little worse than numbers based off of end of Q4.

3rdyrp2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

Ronnie Dobbs wrote:Actually if you click this site and look at "Stock Funds" on the lifetime it's pretty similar to what I saw at the office. Mostly negative returns on the lifetime. Kinda disappointing. https://www.mfs.com/wps/FileServerServlet?servletCommand=serveUnprotectedFileAsset&fileAssetPath=/files/documents/products/performance/perf_mfd.pdf 9 out of 15 negative. I mean seriously?
 
Ahhhh...that chart is giving all 10 year numbers, unless the fund was incepted in like 2002 or 2005, in which case they can only give lifetime numbers.

3rdyrp2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

Nonetheless...their bond funds are the bomb.  We've been throwing heavily into the Municipal Income and Emerging Markets Debt.

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

Thats what I said before. It looks like their bond funds have done quite well. I haven't studied their funds until now, that was the purpose of this thread. To ask ya'lls opinion. However, the stats I see on the Stock side.....Blow more than "hotair"

Mr.Blonde's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-06

Ronnie Dobbs wrote:So i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven't studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I've never seen that at ANY other fund company.

They must pay good revenue sharing

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

Ronnie Dobbs wrote:So i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven't studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I've never seen that at ANY other fund company.I call b.s.   You know everything.  Plus, it figures you'd make this post all about yourself!  Seriously, just kidding.    It was kinda funny though, right?

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

iceco1d wrote:
Ronnie Dobbs wrote:So i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven't studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I've never seen that at ANY other fund company.I call b.s.   You know everything.  Plus, it figures you'd make this post all about yourself!  Seriously, just kidding.    It was kinda funny though, right?

Dude...Come on! I've been trying to participate in good convo here. I don't know anything about MFS, that's why I was asking. You have to admit though....Those stock numbers look like sh*t.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

It was just a joke man.  

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

iceco1d wrote: It was just a joke man.  

I know, but i'm just sayin lol. I can't even be serious anymore without SOMEONE being a d***. But i seriously know your joking...

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

Ronnie Dobbs wrote:So i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven't studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I've never seen that at ANY other fund company.
 
Wind, I have never seen the info you are referring to, so not sure the time period, but if I look at their current numbers through 12/31, every single 5-year number is positive (of the 25 or so funds on the Jones focus list).  The info you have is probably through like Q1 2009 or something.
 
I don't use them much at all, but their fixed income, their two Total Return funds (Global and domestic), and their allocation funds are actually VERY good.  Actually, the funds mentioend above mostly have positive THREE year numbers also.

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

B24 wrote:Ronnie Dobbs wrote:So i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven't studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I've never seen that at ANY other fund company.
 
Wind, I have never seen the info you are referring to, so not sure the time period, but if I look at their current numbers through 12/31, every single 5-year number is positive (of the 25 or so funds on the Jones focus list).  The info you have is probably through like Q1 2009 or something.
 
I don't use them much at all, but their fixed income, their two Total Return funds (Global and domestic), and their allocation funds are actually VERY good.  Actually, the funds mentioend above mostly have positive THREE year numbers also.
 
B24 - The numbers above are what I saw at my office, after checking the book that came. The numbers are through Dec 31st 09. The 3 year looks worse. 15 of 15 are negative. Terrible. I was impressed with their bond funds though.

Ron 14's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-10

Ronnie Dobbs wrote:So i get this packet today about MFS funds. I haven't studied them very much so i know not alot about them. I saw that they are now a new preferred product partner, but when I started studying their funds I noticed that everyone of their stock funds are at a negative return for the lifetime and most a negative at 5 year. Whats the deal with that? I've never seen that at ANY other fund company.
 
 what a moron! and yeah bond funds over the last 3 years look impressive when compared to equity funds AT ANY FUND COMPANY.

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

The 10yr/life stat is kind of confusing.  What it means is that if the fund has at least a 10 year track record, they're showing you the 10 year number.  If it doesn't, they're giving you the lifetime of the fund.  So, any fund with a track record over 5 years is going to have a number show up in that 10yr/life column. 

 
For instance, MITTX has been around since 1924 and has a lifetime return of about 8.8%, but it's 10 yr number is -.37%. 
 
I don't use MFS, unless it shows up in Advisory, but from what I've read so far they're a decent/good fund company. 

BigCheese's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

Does that mean they paid to play on your platform? Is that still the process, after the due diligence committee blesses them?
 
 

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

BigCheese wrote:Does that mean they paid to play on your platform? Is that still the process, after the due diligence committee blesses them?
 
 
 
Yes, that's right.  I think it's the same process LPL and most other firms use for "pay to play".  Although I think our vetting process is more thorough, which is why we don't have nearly as many kickback agreements as LPL.

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
 
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.

3rdyrp2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

Ronnie Dobbs wrote:Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
 
Thanks, Spiff???  I already answered that question!
 
3rdyrp2 wrote:Ronnie Dobbs wrote:Actually if you click this site and look at "Stock Funds" on the lifetime it's pretty similar to what I saw at the office. Mostly negative returns on the lifetime. Kinda disappointing. https://www.mfs.com/wps/FileServerServlet?servletCommand=serveUnprotectedFileAsset&fileAssetPath=/files/documents/products/performance/perf_mfd.pdf 9 out of 15 negative. I mean seriously?
 
Ahhhh...that chart is giving all 10 year numbers, unless the fund was incepted in like 2002 or 2005, in which case they can only give lifetime numbers.

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

Sorry 3rd. I thought I thanked you earlier. I was just being a gentlemen by saying thank you. Sorry Spiff, guess I have to take my thank you back...or you can mail it to 3rd.

Ron 14's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-10

Ronnie Dobbs wrote:Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
 
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.
 
They fired me because I couldn't read mutual fund sales material. You are next dumbsh*t!

LockEDJ's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-06

OK ... first off, I'll say this: according to Barron's, MFS consistently did better than any other MF over the last 1,5,10. So however Ronnie's looking at the data, it must be getting skewed insofar as I'll trust the mag to level-set everything.
Second, from a "what have you done for me lately" perspective, I've done passably well with MFS. It's not like I have tons of money with them, but I'm happy.
 
And of course ... wtf are talking about past performance, anyways? As per the first point, the conversation I want to have with my clients is all about the consistency of effort, the capacity to have a repeatable process. Look at Morgan Stanley: 36th, 35th,46th. Vanguard, 15,8,7. AF, 4,10,12. Putnam, 46, 53,57. Schwab, 33,29,29. Tells me what I need to know about the underlying management ... that costs are absolutely bullsh!t.
 
Those are the messages I take to the client.
 

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

Ron 14 wrote:Ronnie Dobbs wrote:Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
 
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.
 
They fired me because I couldn't read mutual fund sales material. You are next dumbsh*t!
 
Muh huh.....I spose thats true! I better watch out. Funny thing though, even though they are going to fire me, I keep jumping segments and they keep giving me div trips!.....WEIRD!

Mr.Blonde's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-06

Ronnie Dobbs wrote:Ron 14 wrote:Ronnie Dobbs wrote:Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
 
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.
 
They fired me because I couldn't read mutual fund sales material. You are next dumbsh*t!
 
Muh huh.....I spose thats true! I better watch out. Funny thing though, even though they are going to fire me, I keep jumping segments and they keep giving me div trips!.....WEIRD!
 
Ah, yes..the Wind we all know

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

Question is how do you talk in the first person without using the pronouns me and I? 

3rdyrp2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Question is how do you talk in the first person without using the pronouns me and I? 
 

In 6 sentences below, you used "I" or "me" twice.  In 3 sentences, Wind used "I" or "me" 4 times.  You as well as 99% of us are able to use those words in a more reasonable ratio.  I think thats where all of it comes from.
 
Spaceman Spiff wrote:The 10yr/life stat is kind of confusing.  What it means is that if the fund has at least a 10 year track record, they're showing you the 10 year number.  If it doesn't, they're giving you the lifetime of the fund.  So, any fund with a track record over 5 years is going to have a number show up in that 10yr/life column. 

 
For instance, MITTX has been around since 1924 and has a lifetime return of about 8.8%, but it's 10 yr number is -.37%. 
 
I don't use MFS, unless it shows up in Advisory, but from what I've read so far they're a decent/good fund company. 
 

LockEDJ's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-06

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Question is how do you talk in the first person without using the pronouns me and I? 
Don't you really think the point here, is that in general Ronnie can't get through a thread without thumping his chest about productivity?
 
That does get to be a little tiring, but to his defense it's always pointed at people attacking him.   I've said it before, good for him ... let's move on.

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

3rdyrp2 wrote:Spaceman Spiff wrote:Question is how do you talk in the first person without using the pronouns me and I? 
 

In 6 sentences below, you used "I" or "me" twice.  In 3 sentences, Wind used "I" or "me" 4 times.  You as well as 99% of us are able to use those words in a more reasonable ratio.  I think thats where all of it comes from.
 
Spaceman Spiff wrote:The 10yr/life stat is kind of confusing.  What it means is that if the fund has at least a 10 year track record, they're showing you the 10 year number.  If it doesn't, they're giving you the lifetime of the fund.  So, any fund with a track record over 5 years is going to have a number show up in that 10yr/life column. 

 
For instance, MITTX has been around since 1924 and has a lifetime return of about 8.8%, but it's 10 yr number is -.37%. 
 
I don't use MFS, unless it shows up in Advisory, but from what I've read so far they're a decent/good fund company. 
 
 
I agree.  If it were me, I'd be talking in third person all the time so that nobody would pick on me.  I can be rather incsecure when I feel like I'm being abused.  If instead I chose to talk about myself as if someone else were talking about me, perhaps I wouldn't have to say I or me as often as I do.  But that's just me.

hotair1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-12

Ron 14 wrote:Ronnie Dobbs wrote:Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
 
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.
 
They fired me because I couldn't read mutual fund sales material. You are next dumbsh*t!
 
This is the same idiot that could not read an insurance hypo.  What a tool.  He'll have complaint on him before 2 long.

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

Mr.Blonde wrote:Ronnie Dobbs wrote:Ron 14 wrote:Ronnie Dobbs wrote:Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
 
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.
 
They fired me because I couldn't read mutual fund sales material. You are next dumbsh*t!
 
Muh huh.....I spose thats true! I better watch out. Funny thing though, even though they are going to fire me, I keep jumping segments and they keep giving me div trips!.....WEIRD!
 
Ah, yes..the Wind we all know
 
Or you could totally ignore (like you are) the fact that i'm giving an obvious stab at the fact Ron's being a d***.

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

hotair1 wrote:Ron 14 wrote:Ronnie Dobbs wrote:Thanks for actually answering the question and clarifying that Spiff. Even if that is only the 10 year numbers, it still looks pretty terrible.
 
Ron - What Segment did you make it to before you got fired from Jones? Stop hatin.
 
They fired me because I couldn't read mutual fund sales material. You are next dumbsh*t!
 
This is the same idiot that could not read an insurance hypo.  What a tool.  He'll have complaint on him before 2 long.
 
Cause clients LOVE giving complaints out to people who do whats right for them. Makes total sense.

BigCheese's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

Conversation with new prospect...
Yes Mr or Ms Prospect everyone takes kick backs. It's the only way to play. So what.
 
Spiff-
When I compete against your company I win because I enlighten them how we are SO different. Not one prospect is told about these relationships until I bring it up and ask them to repsond to that statement above. Nor are they told about trading costs. It's one of the hidden secrets in our industry...disclose on documents no one reads and its acceptable in the industry.
I have said all along...get rid of these dirty secrets and we'll cleanup our industry. LPL does not give me one dime from the relationships, in fact, they reduce my ticket charges that I pay.

mnymker's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-04-24

Ronnie the reason you have not heard much about MFS is because they are not talked about in the break room of the Lazyboy store or the Saturn dealership you have been fired from before you start annoying stay at home moms while knocking on doors for EJ.

3rdyrp2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

Oh man, buckle up.  Its gonna be a bumpy ride!
 
*Grabbing the popcorn*

Ronnie Dobbs's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-23

mnymker wrote:
Ronnie the reason you have not heard much about MFS is because they are not talked about in the break room of the Lazyboy store or the Saturn dealership you have been fired from before you start annoying stay at home moms while knocking on doors for EJ.
 
I don't door knock, fool.

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

BigCheese wrote:
Conversation with new prospect...
Yes Mr or Ms Prospect everyone takes kick backs. It's the only way to play. So what.
 
Spiff-
When I compete against your company I win because I enlighten them how we are SO different. Not one prospect is told about these relationships until I bring it up and ask them to repsond to that statement above. Nor are they told about trading costs. It's one of the hidden secrets in our industry...disclose on documents no one reads and its acceptable in the industry.
I have said all along...get rid of these dirty secrets and we'll cleanup our industry. LPL does not give me one dime from the relationships, in fact, they reduce my ticket charges that I pay.
 
If I had the time this morning I'd take the bait and start this debate.  Again.  However, I don't.  So I'll leave it with - what's your point? 
 
Where exactly did I bring up revenue sharing anyway? 
 
 

BigCheese's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

You don't have to and I don't believe you referenced it all. There isn't a debate to be had Spiff. Your company and mine are dirty but they play by the rules. I am making the case for total transparency. A concept that appears to be foreign in our industry.
 
When I bring up the differences and how I can play another way, I win. Tell me you bring up all aspects of costs when it comes to funds. Do you actually highlight the fine print. I never did. It's time we as a collective group stand up and say enough of this, I know they'll figure out a way to get the money some other way, but can't we say no more.
 
It's similar to the outrageous bonuses paid in our industry. It's as if 2008-2009 didn't occur.The mindset of everyone getting "theirs" in the face of an individual investor who can't come to grips with their reality (and saw their accounts drop by half or more). Banning backdoor arrangements would at least give us an opportunity to gain some trust back.
 
The only way I know was to walk away and take control back from the B/D's. That's when I won. And so did the clients.

SometimesNowhere's picture
Joined: 2008-12-22

Yes, yes, we all know...Wind is gay, Ron hands out suckers at a bank, and Spiff defends Wind even though he comes across as a pompous @$$ constantly.
 
As for the topic, MFS has some decent funds both on the equity and fixed income side. I am not sure where you are seeing their numbers, but I am sure they are not out of line with other similar funds.
 
So far as profit sharing, I for one am just happy there is a new wholesaler to pay for all my awesome, super-productive regional meetings. I sort of feel bad that the Oppenheimer guy always has to pick up the tab for the breakfast buffet at the Scranton Holiday Inn.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

SometimesNowhere wrote:
Yes, yes, we all know...Wind is gay, Ron hands out suckers at a bank, and Spiff defends Wind even though he comes across as a pompous @$$ constantly.
 
As for the topic, MFS has some decent funds both on the equity and fixed income side. I am not sure where you are seeing their numbers, but I am sure they are not out of line with other similar funds.
 
So far as profit sharing, I for one am just happy there is a new wholesaler to pay for all my awesome, super-productive regional meetings. I sort of feel bad that the Oppenheimer guy always has to pick up the tab for the breakfast buffet at the Scranton Holiday Inn.
 
Damn........that about sums it up

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

BigCheese wrote:You don't have to and I don't believe you referenced it all. There isn't a debate to be had Spiff. Your company and mine are dirty but they play by the rules. I am making the case for total transparency. A concept that appears to be foreign in our industry.
 
When I bring up the differences and how I can play another way, I win. Tell me you bring up all aspects of costs when it comes to funds. Do you actually highlight the fine print. I never did. It's time we as a collective group stand up and say enough of this, I know they'll figure out a way to get the money some other way, but can't we say no more.
 
It's similar to the outrageous bonuses paid in our industry. It's as if 2008-2009 didn't occur.The mindset of everyone getting "theirs" in the face of an individual investor who can't come to grips with their reality (and saw their accounts drop by half or more). Banning backdoor arrangements would at least give us an opportunity to gain some trust back.
 
The only way I know was to walk away and take control back from the B/D's. That's when I won. And so did the clients.
 
I don't disagree with you on the revenue sharing thing.  I'm looking forward to the day when I don't have to point out that page in the new account packet. 
 
Without getting into the futility of discussing trading costs within mutual funds, what is it that you're offering your clients that are free from those chains?  Stocks?  ETFs?  UITs?
 
So did you go to the RIA model or did you just jump to LPL? 

noggin's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

Edward Jones advisors were able to start selling MFS products off of the preferred list as of Monday. The firm’s other preferred mutual fund providers include American Funds, Franklin Templeton Investments, Goldman Sachs Funds, Hartford Mutual Funds, Lord Abbett Funds, OppenheimerFunds and Van Kampen Investments.Getting onto the platform is a multi-year process, but once on, preferred firms typically see a surge of flows from Edward Jones’s network of independent advisors, says Cerulli analyst Scott Smith. In part, that is because of the nature of Edward Jones branches, which typically consist of an advisor and  an assistant. “Stand-alone advisors are more likely to rely on the due diligence of their providers,” Smith says. “I think the Edward Jones advisors may be more apt to look to their home office for guidance.”    
 
Good news Spiff, you went independent and never had to leave your firm....                                     

Ron 14's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-10

What glorious 3 or 5 Pack of funds is MFS flooding Jones advisors with ? What magnificant performers should FA's put investors in "after the performance", like Van Kampen's All Weather and Franklin's Founding Funds and American's Income Foundation ?

noggin's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

It's a five pack!!!! Surprise!

Ron 14's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-10

Can we purchase puts on that 5 pack ?!!!

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×