Revenue Sharing Review at EJ

53 replies [Last post]
Butkus's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-10

Forgive me for re-introducing this topic again, but I am not yet clear on it from the anti-Jones people here.
It is my understanding the revenue sharing issue dealt primarily with a failure to verbally disclose that revenue sharing was taking place for the 7 preferred fund families, even though the practice was disclosed in the prospectus. The change now is that the revenue sharing is also disclosed verbally.
I also understand that EJ at one time included revenue sharing as part of the criteria for awarding diversification trips, but pulled this back on their own before the investigation began.
Is this understanding correct? And is EJ's past revenue sharing practices substantially different from the other firms?
I should add that I am proud to work at Jones and have yet to have a client reject a preferred fund because of my verbal disclosure of revenue sharing.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

You work there and don't understand the system?!!!  Drink up...

Butkus's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-10

No, I don't understand why so much is made of it here.

csmelnix's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-01

butkus, my thoughts on it are much more than that.  Most selling agreements don't involve additional fee to play deals beyond basic rev. sharing that already exists in traditional pricing.  Where jones took it farther is they got $$$$ on top of that w/o it being disclosed to clients and unargueably causing its sales force to steer clients to those funds.  In terms of the trips - they may have pulled them back as you state but what if the suit never came to light?  Would jones have changed it still?  Also, jones IRs receive bonuses based on p/l of their office.  One of the easiest ways to makes this happen is to do business w/ the preferreds.  Do you disclose this to your clients?  Is this disclosed in the prospectus?
Beyond that, all the kool-aid drinkers on this post get on and spout how Jones is the only firm out there looking after the client; I believe this if the client in that sentence was the GPs.

Soothsayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-24

P/L credits are no longer tied to the preferred fund families.  Has not been for almost a year.  There is now a line item on the P/L called "asset holding credit" which takes all assets into account (stocks, bonds, all mutual funds, UITs, money market funds, etc.) when calculating indvididual branch profit.  I am not pining for Jones, but I think it is important that we have the facts straight on this forum.

Lance Legstrong's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-01-12

Again, you EJ geeks  don't get it.    Doug Hill and the other GPs LIED on their Wells Submission to the SEC.  When the SEC realized that EDJ/Hill knowingly submitted inaccurate statements (aka lied)to  the SEC referred to the US Attorney office in Eastern Missouri. (aka THE PROSECUTOR)   Rather than face a multi-count CRIMINAL indictment Doug et all coughed up a $75 million SETTLEMENT (aka not a fine) and Doug agreed to step down as MR. BIG.   Lieing to the SEC is what Martha went down to the Federal Pen for!   
What do you guys feel about your bosses lyin' to the Feds
As always
Lance
 
 

csmelnix's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-01

Thx soothsayer - I appreciate the info and setting me straight.

csmelnix's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-01

Any idea though on how they weigh all of the assets?  That is, do some products get more weighting toward p/l v others?
 
Again, thx.

CIBforeveryone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-07-12

Only based on total aum in the branch, it has nothing to do with what the assets are.

Butkus's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-10

So where is the problem here?
Lance, you might substantiate the fraud charge, as Martha Stewart went to jail but Doug Hill is not.

Lance Legstrong's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-01-12

Martha was a idiot and rather than admitting she lied to the SEC and settle with them she chose to fight it in Federal Court -she lost!

Most of the Jones boys on this post still think that Jones paid a $75 million FINE to the SEC for revenue sharing practices. WRONG!

EDJ entered into a deferred settlement with the US Attorney (aka The Prosecutor) for the Eastern District of MO. Part of that settlment was a $75 million payment. The last time I looked the US Attorney Office was a part of the Department of Justice not the SEC!

Ya see fellas it is illegal to knowingly submit inaccurate (lie)information on an SEC Wells Submission. When that happens the nice people from the SEC refer the matter to the DOJ for prosecution! Doug and the big boys decided to lie about the revenue sharing stuff. They were facing Federal Indictment abd Doug would have been arrested on a series of criminal charges....why else would they have shelled out $75 million to THE PROSECUTOR?   

Read my post "I do not hate Edward Jones" it has the time line for you.... or just call the US Attorney office in St. Louis they will provide you with copy of the settlement agreement.

Butkus's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-10

A link supporting your claim would be nice.

Lance Legstrong's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-01-12

ButtHead

Just go to my " I do not hate Jones thread" somebody posted the
official press release from the US PROSECUTOR about the settlement

My claim doesn't need any support...just call US Attorney office at
314-539-7719 and they will fax you a copy of the December 2004
Settlement.

Note: this is NOT the SEC this is Federal Prosecutors.  Prosecutors enter into settlements with criminals

All I am telling is the truth, its the Geeps and Creeps at HQ who making claims.

Have A Wonderful Night ... ButtHead

Love and Kisses

Lance

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

THIS IS GREAT................
California Dreaming.................

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Butkus wrote:No, I don't understand why so much is made of it here.
It's pretty simple, really. The firm that's spent so much time telling its sales force, the public and the competition what they "did it right" and "looked out for the client", was, in fact, rewarding their reps more to sell a select group of mutual funds.
They were sending people on trips (call them whatever you like, it's Amway meets Wall Street to have trip contests, and "sales contests" is exactly what they look like to customers) based in part on their sales in select funds, again, based on the firm and rep being paid more to tell these funds over others. The concentration of the firm's sales within the select families was massive. All while not telling the client of the conflict on interest, all while claiming the did a better job of protecting the client.
The SEC was disturbed enough by this is issue a massive fine and personally fine the senior officer of the firm. This wasn't your usual slap on the wrist.

exdrone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-07-01

Butkus wrote:A link supporting your claim would be nice.
Have you read it?  Care to respond?
I can't wait to hear the new spin.

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

Butkus wrote:
So where is the problem here?
Lance, you might substantiate the fraud charge, as Martha Stewart went to jail but Doug Hill is not.

Butkus
That's because Doug "3 Mil" Hill was allowed to pay a fine of 3 million Dollars and resign from Edward Jones as Managing General partner, or GO TO JAIL...  Your comparison is not even close.
I can post the articles for you, they have been listed on here many, many times, even though you don't read the WSJ it has been documented many times, it is a FACT................
You've been drinking way too much KOOL AID
Arrogance is no excuse for knowledge.....

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

Butkus
Here it is:   Thanks to csmelnix........

csmelnixGroupieJoined: June 01 2005Posts: 68

Posted: Dec. 10 2005 at 12:11pm | IP Logged

It's all about what's best for the client!
Edward Jones Mutual Fund Scandal OverviewFrom the mid 1990s until the present, Edward Jones has had selling agreements with upwards of 240 different mutual fund families. Seven (7) of those mutual fund families became known as Edward Jones’s “Preferred Families” of funds. The Preferred Families included American Funds, Federated Investors, Goldman Sachs Funds, Hartford, Lord Abbett, Putnam Funds and Van Kampen Investments.
The mutual funds in the Preferred Families paid extra incentives to Edward Jones in return for Edward Jones soliciting/recommending its clients to purchase these funds. The SEC determined that the incentives were worth tens of millions of dollars each year to Edward Jones, on top of the commissions and other fees Edward Jones received for selling Preferred Families funds. The incentives proved to be powerful motivators, as more than 95% of all Edward Jones mutual fund sales were made in these 7 Preferred Families.
However, this incentive program was not adequately disclosed to the clients of Edward Jones. This left clients of Edward Jones unaware that Edward Jones had a strong motivation to recommend the purchase of the Preferred Families to the exclusion of the other fund families they could recommend, regardless of the client’s best interests.

Federal and State Regulators Take ActionIn December 2004, Edward Jones settled the charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC, press release, Order Instituting Proceedings) and, the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD, press release, Letter of Acceptance Waiver and Consent), which are the governing bodies of the securities industry, as well as charges brought by the New York Stock Exchange. The charges involved Edward Jones’s failure to disclose to investors the extra incentives it received for recommending certain mutual funds. To settle the charges, Edward Jones paid a total of $75 million dollars.

On the date that this settlement was released, the California Attorney General (press release, Complaint) filed an additional suit against Edward Jones. The California Attorney General stated that he did not believe that the $75 million settlement was sufficient. The California Attorney General also stated that Edward Jones could have accepted up to $300 million in improper payments.
Edward Jones has also entered into a settlement with the securities regulators in its home state of Missouri. In the settlement Edward Jones stipulated and agreed to findings that it failed to adequately disclose the revenue sharing arrangements to Missouri residents and agreed to pay fines totaling $1.5 million. (press release)

What You Can Do
If you have lost money while invested with Edward Jones, please contact us today. We can determine whether Edward Jones violated your rights.
We help people who have suffered losses as the result of investment fraud such as this and will work on your behalf to recover losses that you have sustained.

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

Butkus
New Revenue sharing at Edward Jones:
GP to new IR "Bend over" it's time you learn about Revenue Sharing........you get the SHAFT, GP'S get the GOLD.................OH, YEA...............
Isn't that easy..................

Butkus's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-10

I didn't see anything here suggesting Doug Hill faced criminal charges.  

The Truth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

Butkus-
Maybe you are having a tough time reading.  Open your eyes and it is amazing what you can and will find out.  And that applies to working at Jones as well.

exdrone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-07-01

Butkus=Vega
Vega=Idiot.

Butkus's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-10

The assertion was that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I don't see that referenced in any of the links. Perhaps someone could paste the specific evidence with the link.

csmelnix's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-01

I don't know if he faces or faced criminal charges - but having been hit w/ the $3 million fine and forced to resign isn't anything to brag about. 
Oh, how I remember Doug on the ol' webcast telling us to just sell our clients a good growth and income fund and they'll thank you later.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Butkus wrote:The assertion was that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I don't see that referenced in any of the links. Perhaps someone could paste the specific evidence with the link.
Doug Hill wasn't actually charged with a crime, so that makes it ok.
Bill Clinton didn't actually have intercourse with Monica Lewinsky, either......

Lance Legstrong's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-01-12

Doug made a deal with the US Prosecutor!
Criminals or those faced with criminal proceedures are the only people that make deals with US Prosecutors!
Doug made a deal with the US Prosecutor therefor Doug is a criminal!
End of Story!  Adios Doug
 

Butkus's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-10

I was addressing the claim made by Lance Legstrong:
"Rather than face a multi-count CRIMINAL indictment Doug et all coughed up a $75 million SETTLEMENT (aka not a fine) and Doug agreed to step down as MR. BIG.   Lieing to the SEC is what Martha went down to the Federal Pen for!"  

exdrone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-07-01

What is your point butkus? Is it  to say that Hill and Co are not criminals because they settled rather than argue their case in court?  You are on thin ice here pal. 
As for clients not rejecting funds that have revenue sharing agreements with your firm,  of course they have not rejected them.  You guys have yet to come clean on how those agreements truly hamper your ability to provide objective advice.(How many non-preferreds you recommended lately?)
Hill was censured by the regulators.  Your firm was fined for its practices and forced to reform.  Quit parsing words to trying to lessen the negative implications of the FINE (albeit you call it a settlement payment) and forsed resignation of 3'mil.
Quit your coy attempts at appearing ignorant to the real situation at your firm. It is transparent as hell.

csmelnix's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-01

Dead on Exdrone - it's like Butkus is feeling that since it's not a criminal case it's ok.  Tammy and Jim Bakker never properly disclosed to all their clients that there money was being used for personal profit and enjoyment either. 
Spin it however you wish, as far as I see jones certainly didn't make sense of investing when it came to the benefits of using the prefered funds!

Soothsayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-24

Lance Legstrong wrote:
Doug made a deal with the US Prosecutor!
Criminals or those faced with criminal proceedures are the only people that make deals with US Prosecutors!
Doug made a deal with the US Prosecutor therefor Doug is a criminal!
End of Story!  Adios Doug
"Adios Doug!" sounds like a great topic for a new thread on this forum.  Who wants to start "turning the worm?"
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

I ate the worm once late one night.  I had a nasty hangover the next day.......

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

joedabrkr wrote:I ate the worm once late one night.  I had a nasty hangover the next day.......
But at least you don't have worms now 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

mikebutler222 wrote:
joedabrkr wrote:I ate the worm once late one night.  I had a nasty hangover the next day.......
But at least you don't have worms now 

True.  My dog had worms last summer.  What a pain in the arse!

exdrone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-07-01

3'mil stepped on his worm...bet that hurt.

Butkus's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-10

Lance Legstrong claimed that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I asked for evidence for his claim. I did not write or imply anything else. He did not provide the evidence.
My original point is that the difference between pre-settlement and post-settlement is the verbal disclosure, not the practice of revenue sharing, with the one short-term difference where trips were awarded on the partial basis of revenue sharing (pulled back earlier by EJ). I'm also claiming that clients have not yet rejected for me a preferred fund because of the verbal disclosure of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing continues as it has before, allowed by the SEC, with additional disclosure. And by the way, I believe Soothsayer was incorrect when he wrote that revenue sharing from preferred mutual funds does not count in P/L for bonus purposes. It continues as before.
There are also many claims made here of General Partner "greed". I would be interested in specific explanation, support or evidence of this. It is good to remember that the GP's have refused the opportunity to take the firm public, when to do so would have resulted in great personal benefit. 
 

exdrone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-07-01

Butkus wrote:
There are also many claims made here of General Partner "greed". I would be interested in specific explanation, support or evidence of this. It is good to remember that the GP's have refused the opportunity to take the firm public, when to do so would have resulted in great personal benefit. 
 

Do you really think your money market yield is lower than most other firms because it is safer?  Let me clue you in......the gp's skim millions every year from that money market yield that you dont see a penny of.
Your bonus system....Do you really think that opening multiple offices around yours really  helps your business? The goal is to keep IR production where you do not receive the maximum benefit from the bonus system.  The profitability of the firm is not helped by opening unprofitable offices, but the GP's continue to get paid big bucks even when the firm is in a low bonus bracket.......they have you paying for the growth.
Preferred funds...NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CLIENTS!  In the best interest of GP's who want to leverage vendor relationships by funneling money to select vendors and maximize KICKBACKS.
There is more but yes GP's are greedy.  Except when it comes to dispensing kool-aid.  They are quite liberal with that.
Like Napoleon Dynamite said.......... "Idiots!"

Soothsayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-24

Butkus wrote:
Lance Legstrong claimed that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I asked for evidence for his claim. I did not write or imply anything else. He did not provide the evidence.
My original point is that the difference between pre-settlement and post-settlement is the verbal disclosure, not the practice of revenue sharing, with the one short-term difference where trips were awarded on the partial basis of revenue sharing (pulled back earlier by EJ). I'm also claiming that clients have not yet rejected for me a preferred fund because of the verbal disclosure of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing continues as it has before, allowed by the SEC, with additional disclosure. And by the way, I believe Soothsayer was incorrect when he wrote that revenue sharing from preferred mutual funds does not count in P/L for bonus purposes. It continues as before.
There are also many claims made here of General Partner "greed". I would be interested in specific explanation, support or evidence of this. It is good to remember that the GP's have refused the opportunity to take the firm public, when to do so would have resulted in great personal benefit. 
 

Revenue sharing on a per fund, per family basis used to be included on each broker's and each branch's P&L.  Under the new formula, it is not even a consideration.  Only total assets or a "Branch Holdings Credit" is now a line item on the P&L.  That, my friend, is an absolute freakin' fact.  If you can't read a 12 item P&L statement, and you're in the financial advice business, then you not so smart.  You can call me what you want.  But "wrong" ain't one of them on this matter.

Butkus's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-10

Soothsayer, I'm not calling you anything, I'm suggesting I believe you are incorrect on this point. I spoke with Branch Accounting regarding it.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Butkus wrote:
Lance Legstrong claimed that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I asked for evidence for his claim. I did not write or imply anything else. He did not provide the evidence.
My original point is that the difference between pre-settlement and post-settlement is the verbal disclosure, not the practice of revenue sharing, with the one short-term difference where trips were awarded on the partial basis of revenue sharing (pulled back earlier by EJ). I'm also claiming that clients have not yet rejected for me a preferred fund because of the verbal disclosure of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing continues as it has before, allowed by the SEC, with additional disclosure. And by the way, I believe Soothsayer was incorrect when he wrote that revenue sharing from preferred mutual funds does not count in P/L for bonus purposes. It continues as before.
There are also many claims made here of General Partner "greed". I would be interested in specific explanation, support or evidence of this. It is good to remember that the GP's have refused the opportunity to take the firm public, when to do so would have resulted in great personal benefit
 

Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.
So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

exdrone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-07-01

[quote=joedabrkr
Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.
So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

Butkus,
If Jones went public, wouldn't the GP's get better tax treatment for the dividend they would receive over the partnership earnings they get now? They have huge incentives to keep the firm private, the kind alluded to by joe above.  Unless of course you believe that out of their kindness and generosity, they like paying taxes too.

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

exdrone wrote:[quote=joedabrkr
Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.
So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

Butkus,
If Jones went public, wouldn't the GP's get better tax treatment for the dividend they would receive over the partnership earnings they get now? They have huge incentives to keep the firm private, the kind alluded to by joe above.  Unless of course you believe that out of their kindness and generosity, they like paying taxes too.

Well said, the fact is they do not want everything in the light of Day.
Just to clear-up some facts on Doug "3 Mil" Hill The State Attorney General of Missouri was the one preparing to file the charges against Doug "3 Mil" Hill for FRAUD, but since he agreed to pay the FINE to the SEC, the state agreed to drop the charges as long as he resigned and personally paid the Fine.  This appeared in the WSJ as well as all the major newspapers in Mo..........go check it out online, anyone that wants to find it can........it is a FACT and TRUE.......... 
And by the way, BFD & Butkus, if your Firm Edward Jones is so honest and provides it's employees with the total TRUTH, ask your legal department for a copy?  They do have it, but will they share it with you? 
Just keep drinking Kool Aid and follow the Firm Montra, We are not crooks, we did nothing wrong!  Gee, didn't Richard Nixon say that just before resigning too, just like Doug "3 Mil" Hill......
Bill Clinton lied under oath, so anything goes and can be justified...even cover-ups at Edward Jones......It's a problem not just at Edward Jones, it's a national problem, no one is accountable for what they do...........there is something very wrong with this 

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

HAPPY NEW YEAR...........

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

exdrone wrote:[quote=joedabrkr
Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.
So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

Butkus,
If Jones went public, wouldn't the GP's get better tax treatment for the dividend they would receive over the partnership earnings they get now? They have huge incentives to keep the firm private, the kind alluded to by joe above.  Unless of course you believe that out of their kindness and generosity, they like paying taxes too.

I agree, and MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

exdrone wrote:[quote=joedabrkr
Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.
So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

Butkus,
If Jones went public, wouldn't the GP's get better tax treatment for the dividend they would receive over the partnership earnings they get now? They have huge incentives to keep the firm private, the kind alluded to by joe above.  Unless of course you believe that out of their kindness and generosity, they like paying taxes too.

I agre with that..............
MERRY CHRISTMAS
&
HAPPY NEW YEAR

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

The amazing thing is many Firms are downsizing and they are aware of the fact there are just too many Advisor's out there. They are all drinking the same Kool Aid, Weddle is just a clone of Doug "3 Mil" Hill although he does have a lot more class thats for sure.  
However, Jones keep stating they want market share, 25,000 IR's, what they really want is a Jones Office every 2 miles, young hard working door knocking IR's doing about 200 to 300K Gross commissions, causing no problems, drinking the Kool Aid sounding the company montra........................... 
They really don't care if an IR leaves, they will just send in several newbie Ir's to keep the scraps and start over..........only with two offices instead of one..........it's called multiplication the Jones way
When was the last time Jones went after an experienced IR that leaves..........they don't and can't afford too...........they only go after the training expenses in the first 3 years......so if you have over 3 years and can produce over 250K you need to think about leaving...........sooner than later....... 
MERRY CHRISTMAS
&
 HAPPY NEW YEAR

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

Player wrote:exdrone wrote:[quote=joedabrkr
Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.
So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

Butkus,
If Jones went public, wouldn't the GP's get better tax treatment for the dividend they would receive over the partnership earnings they get now? They have huge incentives to keep the firm private, the kind alluded to by joe above.  Unless of course you believe that out of their kindness and generosity, they like paying taxes too.

I agre with that..............
MERRY CHRISTMAS
&
HAPPY NEW YEAR

Hopefully the new Year will be good for us all...........

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

babbling looneySenior MemberJoined: Dec. 02 2004Location: United StatesPosts: 383

Posted: Dec. 23 2005 at 3:59pm | IP Logged

Well, because I'm bored and am offically on vacation today I ran a morningstar report of the American Funds that BPD proposed as a diversfied portfolio, using 10K invested into each fund.
12.9% is concentrated in the top 25 stocks
Microsoft, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac are all in 4 of the funds.  Growth fund, Cap inc bldr, Cap world growth, American Mutual
The rest of the top 25 are all in three funds  generally Growth fund, Cap inc blr and Cap G&I or American fund.
Appoximate allocations  Cash 10.4% -Us Stocks 41.2 - Non US Stocks 24.7% - Bonds 22%     My program only allows me to create Morningstar hypos on an existing account.  I'm too cheap to pay for the full Morningstar Advisor platform   so I used an account that also had minimal (less than $100) stock position and a very small Franklin Natural Resources fund, which has a 33.28 % ytd total return.    There may be some skewing because of this but not much since the existing account is so small
3 year Alpha 5.15  Beta .65
Standard deviation is 6.94 compared to the benchmark (S&P) at 10.01    Sharpe Ratio 1.68 compared to 1.01
pre tax return   3 mo 1.84  1 yr 10.20  3 yr 14.14   5 yr 7.97   10 yr 10.92
Benchmark       3 mo 2.87  1 yr 8.44  3 yr 12.09  5 yr .64  10 yr 9.28
Not too bad. Most clients wouldn't kick you in the shins if this was their portfolio.  One point I may make is that I AM able to run a Morningstar hypo at all.... something I couldn't do at Jones.  Plus I can print it out in a full color format, place it into a folder with other information and analysis of their stock holdings using S&P reports and Morningstar with my recommendations in writing.  The clients are impressed __________________
Merry Christmas
 
&
 
 Happy New Year

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

babbling looneySenior MemberJoined: Dec. 02 2004Location: United StatesPosts: 383

Posted: Dec. 23 2005 at 3:59pm | IP Logged

Well, because I'm bored and am offically on vacation today I ran a morningstar report of the American Funds that BPD proposed as a diversfied portfolio, using 10K invested into each fund.
12.9% is concentrated in the top 25 stocks
Microsoft, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac are all in 4 of the funds.  Growth fund, Cap inc bldr, Cap world growth, American Mutual
The rest of the top 25 are all in three funds  generally Growth fund, Cap inc blr and Cap G&I or American fund.
Appoximate allocations  Cash 10.4% -Us Stocks 41.2 - Non US Stocks 24.7% - Bonds 22%     My program only allows me to create Morningstar hypos on an existing account.  I'm too cheap to pay for the full Morningstar Advisor platform   so I used an account that also had minimal (less than $100) stock position and a very small Franklin Natural Resources fund, which has a 33.28 % ytd total return.    There may be some skewing because of this but not much since the existing account is so small
3 year Alpha 5.15  Beta .65
Standard deviation is 6.94 compared to the benchmark (S&P) at 10.01    Sharpe Ratio 1.68 compared to 1.01
pre tax return   3 mo 1.84  1 yr 10.20  3 yr 14.14   5 yr 7.97   10 yr 10.92
Benchmark       3 mo 2.87  1 yr 8.44  3 yr 12.09  5 yr .64  10 yr 9.28
Not too bad. Most clients wouldn't kick you in the shins if this was their portfolio.  One point I may make is that I AM able to run a Morningstar hypo at all.... something I couldn't do at Jones.  Plus I can print it out in a full color format, place it into a folder with other information and analysis of their stock holdings using S&P reports and Morningstar with my recommendations in writing.  The clients are impressed __________________Looks real GOOD.......................Merry Christmas

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

Player...you been in the egg nog again?!!!
Merry Christmas!!! (my preferred version...sorry if I offend anyone!)

Player's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-08

HAPPY NEW YEAR..........

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×