[quote=uwec86]

107,

And I got the ball rollin!!!!!

This is the best Christmas ever!!!

Yes, UWEC86 did indeed get the "ball rollin" on the WSJ article last year.

I have never seen the guy so happy as on that day. 

"For example, we'll sell $25 billion in mutual funds this year. But we have no house brands even though we could make a certain amount of money by having the Edward Jones brand of mutual funds. But from our standpoint, there are reasons why we want our representatives to be able to pick and choose any fund that they believe is the right fund for their customer. There would be a certain amount of unspoken pressure if we put the Jones name on a brand. We would rather focus all our attention on adding offices, not becoming a manufacturer. We have no over-rides. No branch manager gets an over-ride at Jones. So if there were another company that had house brands and branch managers who get a share of the profit of that office, to emulate us just screws up the way they do business.

Porter also says there's more than one right way. So I want to make clear to everyone, when I say this is how we do it, it doesn't mean we're exerting a higher moral authority. This is what works for us. We simply are content to be there. The most important thing we did was to figure out who is our customer.As part of that, we have gone through Drucker's three questions which every organization -- not just business -- but every organization has got to be able to answer to be effective.

1. What is my business? What am I here for?
2. Who is my customer?
3. What is value to my customer?

And we went through that. We believe that value was peace of mind. Value to our customer was knowing that their investments were put in the most prudent places that we knew of."

Just a little vintage John Bachman ladies and gentlemen... read the complete transcript at... http://www.webster.edu/depts/business/akande/speeches/johnba chmanspeech.html
memories....

[quote=northstar][quote=uwec86]

107,

And I got the ball rollin!!!!!

This is the best Christmas ever!!!

Looks like Beejeebers is having trouble with the computer.

Very nice Jonestown.  Vintage homespun half-truths from the master.

Naw no trouble, I just think it’s funny when some dumbass is to lazy to
post anything so he just quotes someone else.  Kinda like the
dumbassess who put their name in their signature, when it’s ALWAYS
directly to the left of the post…

"Naw(,) no trouble(.),(sic) I just think it's funny when some dumbass is to(o) lazy to post anything(,) so he just quotes someone else.  Kinda(sic) like the dumbassess who put their name(s) in their signature(which of course IS the definition of a signature), when it's ALWAYS directly to the left of the post...

:P (childish archaic emoticon) "

***********************

There.  Now I've edited also.

Beejeebers-What does uwec86, wrote"107, and I got the ball rollin," mean?.

illuminati

That's hysterical..  

He looked at the map, picked the middle of the country and earned a B.S. in zoology, with a minor in business, at Kansas State University. He had planned to work in hospital administration and felt compelled to study a science.

“I’ve never had a job,” he quips. “I always worked for Edward Jones.”(Besides never having a job, Hill also serves on the boards of Webster University, Central Institute for the Deaf, the Saint Louis Zoo.

A must read for any aspiring GP......this story will captivate and inspire you to be the next....ZOOKEEPER.....BY Bantom books.....

http://www.stlcommercemagazine.com/archives/may2003/profile. html

Now, under the Justice Department sanctions, those two factors will be erased. Edward Jones must make its brokers available to representatives of about 240 mutual fund companies.

In addition, the firm no longer can tie bonuses to revenue sharing. Instead, bonuses must be based on all investments sold by a broker.

The revenue sharing incentives won't disappear entirely. Thousands of Edward Jones brokers participate in profit sharing. And revenue sharing is highly profitable.

But Martin, the U.S. attorney, said the sanctions his office imposed will benefit customers.

"We think opening up their brokers to nonpreferred fund vendors and eliminating a specific financial incentive to sell one fund over another creates a much, much safer environment, with much less potential conflict of interest," Martin said.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/moneym arkets/story/9C8F4446A91C861486256F91002543A4?OpenDocument&a mp;Headline=After+sanctions,+it's+no+longer+business+as+usua l+at+Edward+

[quote=illuminati]

There.  Now I’ve edited also.

[/quote]



Thanks professor, but “there” cannot be a sentence genius.  Also it should read “Now (comma) I’ve edited also”.



If you’re going to correct someone, you should at least be correct
yourself.  Although this is just a forum where I’m sure people
type quickly and don’t bother re-reading what they typed before hitting
"post reply".  Thanks for the help though.

A dose of higher education, that's what they need...

Hayes back on board of Edward Jones Advisory Group
By Herald staff/ The Corporate Shuffle
Sunday, January 23, 2005

Harvard professor emeritus Samuel L. Hayes III rejoined the Edward Jones Advisory Group to serve on the company's investment policy advisory committee. Hayes, who served on the committee for seven years, has taught at Columbia University and has co-written or edited numerous books on investing.

[quote=illuminati]

"Naw(,) no trouble(.),(sic) I just think it's funny when some dumbass is to(o) lazy to post anything(,) so he just quotes someone else.  Kinda(sic) like the dumbassess who put their name(s) in their signature(which of course IS the definition of a signature), when it's ALWAYS directly to the left of the post...

:P (childish archaic emoticon) "

***********************

There.  Now I've edited also.

[/quote]

I really enjoyed that...Thank You!

Beejeebers,

You're just a pu$$y!  Try sticking to a debate on the issues...if you can comprehend them.  You gave me a hard time for attacking my old firm and wasting my time in that effort, you seem to have twice as many posts as I do...with a great deal less intellect.  Go back to your STL cube, loser!

GOOD LORD.

That speaks Volumes.......

That last entry related to the "ZOOKEEPER" post.

Gee Beejeebers!  If you don't work for Jones and you never worked for Jones and you don't have a dog in this fight and you don't care, why do you post in this section?

'Preferred' Funds Get More Money

By KATHY CHU
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
January 25, 2005; Page C19

A mutual fund that is part of a brokerage firm's "preferred" group of investments can receive as much as 10 times the amount of money as another fund not on the list, according to new research.

This finding, from Cerulli Associates, a Boston research and consulting firm, comes as regulators scrutinize a common but contentious industry practice under which mutual-fund firms pay brokerage houses to promote their funds. The payments, known as revenue sharing, are a key factor in determining which funds get on the preferred list.

Cerulli's research, covering 45 small and large brokerage houses and mutual-fund firms, shows that competition for a spot on preferred lists -- the majority of which could include fewer than 30 funds -- is intense, since these favored funds can receive, on average, three-times greater inflows than those not in this group. More than half of advisers place at least 11% of their assets with their firm's preferred partners, "raising concerns about a pay-to-play environment," according to Cerulli.

At some firms, the contrast may be even starker. For instance, regulators say that at Edward D. Jones & Co., the brokerage house that agreed to pay $75 million to settle regulatory charges that it failed to adequately disclose the payments, 95% to 98% of mutual-fund sales historically involved seven preferred fund families. Regulators also have settled charges against Morgan Stanley, as well as mutual-fund firm Massachusetts Financial Services Co., related to disclosure of mutual-fund sales incentives.

But these settlements are unlikely to be the last word on the matter. The Securities and Exchange Commission continues to look into whether revenue-sharing arrangements hurt investors. Separately, the Department of Labor is reviewing the disclosure of this practice, and how it affects fees in company-sponsored retirement plans. A DOL advisory council late last year recommended new rules that would, among other things, help plan sponsors "obtain full and complete information concerning all revenue-sharing arrangements for each individual investment option."

Revenue sharing is legal, but has raised concerns because of its opacity.

One issue that regulators are looking at is whether revenue sharing raises fees for investors, who could be offered higher-priced funds that pay more revenue sharing instead of lower-priced options. The Labor Department, when it looked at retirement-plan fees in a 1998 report, noted that "observers have suggested that some plans absorb as much as 100 basis points in higher fees and expenses presumably due to ignorance about the extent of fees being charged."

However, concern about higher expense ratios may be overblown, according to Cerulli's research. For smaller firms, it could cost them less to sell funds through distributors and pay revenue-sharing fees than to build out their own sales force to offer the funds. Also, revenue sharing doesn't automatically lead to higher expense ratios because this practice is inherent in less-expensive institutional mutual-fund shares as well as in retail funds, said Benjamin Poor, a senior analyst at Cerulli.

Facing regulatory scrutiny, financial firms are increasingly disclosing this practice in securities filings. Some, such as UBS AG and Citigroup Inc.'s Smith Barney unit, even have details of revenue-sharing agreements on their Web sites. Edward Jones and Morgan Stanley have also posted this information online after settling with regulators.

Resistance to full disclosure, though, remains strong. Nearly half of the advisers polled by Cerulli said that they would be reluctant to sell preferred funds if they had to disclose this information.

Cerulli's research shows that the majority of asset managers, including mutual-fund firms, have recently agreed to increase the payments made to brokerage houses to get funds in the lineup. Also, companies haven't shied away from introducing new share classes, such as those in retirement plans, often to allow greater revenue sharing.