Kudos, Footsoldier!

Once your eyes have been opened, nothing will ever look the same again.

The 10K references several companies within Jones Financial Companies, LLP. They also own many insurance agencies (Can you say override?)in different states and in Canada. And yes, they own a firm called Conestoga Securities. All told these companies, LLC's and partnerships generated MORE net revenue to its parent than EDJ Brokerage. And as some of us can figure out, revenue sharing made up the majority (that means more than 50%)of net revenue to its equity partners.

Its all in black and white. Malcolm is right, the model is ingenious. It is nothing new, just the standard wholesale/retail model.  The product happens to be financial services. The profits are made as a RESULT of the Brokerage not because of it.

 Footsoldier- great job!

Don't forget one thing that does make EDJ different from ALL other FIRMS- the fact that they get the Reps to VOLUNTEER their time making the machine go.

(In some Regions- you are VOLUN-TOLD what you will do...)

What is wrong with owning other businesses? 

you mean to tell me raymond james never receives revenue sharing. or kickbacks as you say

Success-

They all do it. But name another b/d that shares any with the troops. Do you have any recollection how many times we have been told there is only one profit center?

I am guessing thousands over my career.

But your argument that others do it makes it ok or standard in the industry crap is full of ethical holes. Remember ethics. You and I will have another mandatory firm element training coming up soon on ethics. As if the last one on financial incentives wasn't enough to make you puke.

[quote=footsoldier]

The 10K references several companies within Jones Financial Companies, LLP. They also own many insurance agencies (Can you say override?)in different states and in Canada. And yes, they own a firm called Conestoga Securities. All told these companies, LLC's and partnerships generated MORE net revenue to its parent than EDJ Brokerage. And as some of us can figure out, revenue sharing made up the majority (that means more than 50%)of net revenue to its equity partners.

Its all in black and white. Malcolm is right, the model is ingenious. It is nothing new, just the standard wholesale/retail model.  The product happens to be financial services. The profits are made as a RESULT of the Brokerage not because of it.

[/quote]

What I'd like to know is...are the #'s on the recruting and menu of services propaganda INCLUDING the revenue from the "other" Jones companies?

(i.e. "Edward Jones has more than x # of offices nationwide, and in Canada and the United Kingdom. Edward Jones serves x # of individual investors nationwide, earning x # of revenue nationwide."  You know the annoying blurb that's required at the end of EVERY advertisment)

At the time, (back when kool-aid used to quench our thirst) it was somewhat a point of pride to tout working for the "largest" brokerage firm serving "individual investors" making the most "revenue" as compared to Merrill, SB, MSDW and others.

i certainly agree that having the revenue sharing flow to the ir’s p&l was a conflict.  The new system works fine (assets)

Success-

Wake up dude and smell the coffee. If you and I aren't putting our clients funds into rev sharing products, they won't have anything to split with anyone. 

Just becuase they calc it based on assets, doesn't mean they are any cleaner. If it is not paid to the firm there is nothing to split. Using assets makes it look like there is less conflict. It just isn't so. Otherwise your trips would be subsidized by unit trusts, research, banking services, etc. More freaking double speak.

You are on the GP track.

footsoldier

so you are in favor of getting rid of revenue sharing across the board?

success-

There was a time many moons ago where the term "conflict" was avoided at all costs. Fiduciary comes to mind.

When talking to a CPA today, I asked the following; 

Mr. Jones, when you refer me to one of your clients would you prefer I remain free of any conflicts. Or would it be alright with you if I just disclose to your client that I have a conflict and let them decide.

In my opinion, if our reputation matters at all we should remain conflict free. Just my two cents. If that means rev sharing goes away, bye-bye. The GP's will figure out how to replace it.

THAT IS GREAT!!!

Revenue sharing will never dissappear at Jones.  It is a serious conflict, but our business is full of conflicts.  Jones has always pretended to be something they are not.  In some ways, this makes them worse than your typical brokerage firm.

At Jones your true rank of importance:

1.  GP

2.  Rookie IR

3.  BOA & STL Associates

4.  IR's 2 years out and less

5.  VET IR

The Jones backers always want to point fingers and say all firms have

revenue sharing. Has anyone taken the time to compare Jones to the rest of

the big firms when it comes to bottom line revenue sharing payments?

Truth-

If it is true that EDJ is the largest seller of non proprietary fund products, then I would guess no one participates to the same level as EDJ.

I certainly could be wrong, my info comes from Jones management. Maybe that is why the SEC came down with such a hefty fine.

One of the half-truths that was going around for a while was when Bachman/Hill article in the WSJ came out calling for MF reform and more disclosure, it pissed of the big wirehouses and they encouraged the regulators to look into EDJ rev sharing practices. Are there any GP's that would care to comment (of course off the record).

Is anyone else bored with this subject?

IH-

Great question I am glad you asked. NO. Why even ask such a STUPID question. If you and no one around you responds to this thread it will slowly go away.

Now go sell some more Goldman funds. Or Van Kampen. Or Hartford and for good measure throw in the Federated funds too. Make sure you hit a breakpoint and give them the damn disclosure.

FS -

When are you planning on leaving EDJ? I’m guessing you fit the “typical” mold that everyone on this site seems to think the Jones broker is. 18 mos selling and struggling with your own inadequacies. So you take it out on your employer to befriend a few cyber nerds who spend every waking minute reading this ridiculous banter. The sooner you give up and join the bank the better.

Hulkster-

I'll leave on my terms when I am ready. The difference between you and me is very simple. I can and do think for myself. If you look at all the facts (read the disclosure and the 10K) you might take a different stance. I am amazed at folks who attack rather than make up their own minds after understanding the facts. Refute anything I have said. I dare you. You can't because you choose not to look inward.

Don't attack the messenger. Look beyond the words for the real truth and decide for yourself. I have and this is not the company that I signed on with. I am not far from my ten year anniversary with this firm. Believe it when I say I have given them long enough. And in their eyes I am successful. In my eyes I have given up way more than I ever received.

Tru dat homey.