Jones increasing ACAT/termination fee to $95
85 RepliesJump to last post
I saw a monthly statement today and see they are going to make it even tougher to move on 9/15/09 (I think). So much for the old days of low/no ACAT out fees. If you’re going Indy Labor Day weekend, this is something to consider…it might be worth going a week or two earlier…or it will just give you a way to motivate your clients to move quicker.
Yep, you’re correct. I find it a bit strange that at a time when we are bringing in 8 accounts for every 1 we transfer out (stat from a Seg 5 friend of mine) it becomes necessary to raise those fees. Weddle says that it is because we provide such personal service to our clients and because there are so many steps and people involved in closing those accounts and preparing the tax records at the end of the year that it is a great value for our clients to be charged close to what is the industry average. I find that statement to be a bit, um, shady. I don’t often say something like that about Jones.
I agree with Bachmann...if a client doesn't want to work with us it should cost them nothing to leave.Actually, I saw a market study of fees, and I think they feel they can just stay in the same range as everyone else. But, strategically, I guess it's a good move for them to help prevent FA's that leave from moving accounts. Although it sucks if you are moving, it makes good strategic sense. The only people you impact are FA's and clients that are choosing to LEAVE. And no, I am not harboring resentment against anyone leaving Jones, I am just saying from a strategic perspective, it's not a bad move.
[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
I agree with Bachmann...if a client doesn't want to work with us it should cost them nothing to leave. [/quote] Yes, you definitely lose a little something when you reverse yourself against this idea....it has a sense of honor to it whereas "everyone else does it" kinda sucks (every firm uses that line, not just Jones).[quote=Spaceman Spiff] Yep, you’re correct. I find it a bit strange that at a time when we are bringing in 8 accounts for every 1 we transfer out (stat from a Seg 5 friend of mine) it becomes necessary to raise those fees. Weddle says that it is because we provide such personal service to our clients and because there are so many steps and people involved in closing those accounts and preparing the tax records at the end of the year that it is a great value for our clients to be charged close to what is the industry average. I find that statement to be a bit, um, shady. I don’t often say something like that about Jones.
I agree with Bachmann…if a client doesn’t want to work with us it should cost them nothing to leave. [/quote]
8 accounts for every 1 transferring out? I think I would be a little suspicious too. It would not be necessary. I guess I can call some more Jones prospects that are on the fence. Nothing like creating a sense of urgency.
I remember when I was told at EDJ, that the $40 IRA fee was what we paid to the IRS and we were just passing it on to the client.
Jim Weddle’s getting sort of used to soft-peddling lies lately, isn’t he? Goes right back to the whole “we’re not part of the Protocol because we’re protecting clients privacy”.
Yeah, I don’t agree with the whole Protocol thing. We should be part of it. Period. Protecting client’s privacy is a silly excuse. I would be OK with “Why should we make it easier for FA’s to take clients from our firm?” At least it would be honest.
However, I am OK with Weddle back-peddling on Bachman's ideas. Bachman was a great leader for many years, and really spurred the growth at this firm. But many of his notions were very old-school, and Weddle has done (IMHO) and exceptional job at getting us out from under that. I am not going to argue whether all of his decisions are good or bad, I jsut have to give him some credit for bucking the trend on so many issues at Jones. We finally seem to be catching up to the rest of the industry with technology, products, etc. We're still not quite there, but we are close (although from what I am told by a few Merrill transfers, our tech platform is now better than what they had at Merrill just a few years ago - I have no idea whether that is true or not).BigCheese has taken over for footsoldier.
Jones is the greatest firm in the world. Just ask Weddle. 95 isn’t the end of the world. Just competitive.
And the service you provide your clients pay for in higher fees. Just more crap that your firm shoves down your throat. Spiff…looks to me like you are starting to scratch your head.
[quote=B24] Yeah, I don’t agree with the whole Protocol thing. We should be part of it. Period. Protecting client’s privacy is a silly excuse. I would be OK with “Why should we make it easier for FA’s to take clients from our firm?” At least it would be honest.
[/quote]
Should be part of it. Period.?? or you would be okay with "why should we make it easier for…"
Were you for the war before you voted against it? Period?
Off topic on this point, but from EDJ standpoint, with the disparity between brokers coming and going from/to protocol firms, no way should we sign up.
We say we didn’t sign up because of client privacy. Those that signed up say its for the clients benefit. Both are bologna in my opinion.
I have heard that some FA’s left Jones and transfered most of the account but left a minimum ($5) to keep the account from closing. This would leave the next FA in that office having the closing charge applied to their P&L.
I think with the incredible level of service this firm provides, we could easily charge a $1500 IRA fee and still win every award known to man.
You non-Jonesies have no friggin' clue just how awesome we are. No. Friggin'. Clue.[quote=B24] Yeah, I don’t agree with the whole Protocol thing. We should be part of it. Period. Protecting client’s privacy is a silly excuse. I would be OK with “Why should we make it easier for FA’s to take clients from our firm?” At least it would be honest.
However, I am OK with Weddle back-peddling on Bachman’s ideas. Bachman was a great leader for many years, and really spurred the growth at this firm. But many of his notions were very old-school, and Weddle has done (IMHO) and exceptional job at getting us out from under that. I am not going to argue whether all of his decisions are good or bad, I jsut have to give him some credit for bucking the trend on so many issues at Jones. We finally seem to be catching up to the rest of the industry with technology, products, etc. We’re still not quite there, but we are close (although from what I am told by a few Merrill transfers, our tech platform is now better than what they had at Merrill just a few years ago - I have no idea whether that is true or not).[/quote]
You know, I’ve looked around at what others have … and we do have better technology than most. Well integrated, simple to use. Our intranet search engine sucks, and the green screens commands are archaic but nothing’s perfect. I’m imagining that our new bond platform’s gonna be suh-weeet. I’m inspired in general to work for Jim Weddle. He’s a great leader.
I don’t know what went on under Bachman - all I’ve ever known is Jim Weddle in this business. I give credit where credit is due. But I don’t think you can be honest part of the time, just like you can’t buy and hold only when it feels good.
[quote=Incredible Hulk]
We say we didn’t sign up because of client privacy. Those that signed up say its for the clients benefit. Both are bologna in my opinion.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but this is absolute horsesh*t and you should read what chief counsel wrote in his argument. I did. Stop pushing crap on people.
Locked-
Are you Spiff in drag? Jones may have good technology now...imagine being down for as much as a week because the satellite was lost and had to be re-pointed across the country. Jones management didn't care if the office was a top producer or a new new out of the gate, they all had to be re-pointed. That was then, so now you have decent integration and soon you will be like the rest of us with a new bond inventory tool. Can't wait...[quote=Spaceman Spiff]Yep, you’re correct. I find it a bit strange that at a time when we are bringing in 8 accounts for every 1 we transfer out (stat from a Seg 5 friend of mine) it becomes necessary to raise those fees. Weddle says that it is because we provide such personal service to our clients and because there are so many steps and people involved in closing those accounts and preparing the tax records at the end of the year that it is a great value for our clients to be charged close to what is the industry average. I find that statement to be a bit, um, shady. I don’t often say something like that about Jones.
I agree with Bachmann...if a client doesn't want to work with us it should cost them nothing to leave. [/quote] I completely agree. Especially if the reason a client is leaving a firm, happens to be that their FA isn't helping them in anyway. I was actually looking at the transfer fee page on Joneslink today and noticed the note that it will be going up. Funny thing is, I transferred in 4 accounts for a guy today from Robert Baird and after the FA demolished their account, they charged him $175 per account to transfer it to me. Tell me thats not a load.[quote=BigCheese] Locked-
Are you Spiff in drag?
Jones may have good technology now…imagine being down for as much as a week because the satellite was lost and had to be re-pointed across the country. Jones management didn’t care if the office was a top producer or a new new out of the gate, they all had to be re-pointed.
That was then, so now you have decent integration and soon you will be like the rest of us with a new bond inventory tool. Can’t wait…[/quote]
… well, I do like the way rouge can make A shares seem the cheapest way to go on a $15,000 buy.