Edward Jones History
96 RepliesJump to last post
A quirk is a funny little amusing habit. Not being able to supply cost basis goes a little beyond quirkiness. I wish you well…
Reality is a copout for those who can’t face drugs…
or admissions that their company acts in a quirky matter...I made up my mind a long time ago I was never going to get involved in this forum because I find it is only used to bash Edward Jones and other companies and I happen to believe most companies in this industry are good.
I decided to register today and will only respond to this whole thing about E.J. and cost basis. As a person that took over a competetive office I know all there is about providing cost basis info to former clients. The information that is being shared here is NOT true. The home office has a department that does nothing but research cost basis for ex-clients. I know this for a fact because we have used it when my boa could not find the information needed. This department can't even be used for present clients so I think we do a great job of helping former clients. The ironic thing is that the only time we can't find the information needed it is because the account was transferred in from another firm and no information was provided. We have never had a situation where the cost basis wasn't provided for a past client and we have had several come back because of our helpful attitude. I will go back into hiding again now and leave the forum to you people that have more time than me to worry about what some other company is doing.O.T.U. -
Why don't you let everyone know the number they can call for former clients. I assume it's an external number, not an internal # number??We've been told by Jones that once the account has been gone for over 12 or 18 months, their job is done, no cost basis for you. Here's my question. Why does jones supposedly employ a "department" to research cost basis when they could transfer the cost basis with the leaving account? If they had transferred over cost basis during the ACAT, THEY WOULD NOT NEED AN ENTIRE DEPARTMENT TO RESEARCH COST BASIS FOR PAST CLIENTS!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, that's a touchy subject with me. I know that Jones likes to homegrow it's technology, but I think it could figure out how to transfer cost basis (like almost all other decent firms) fairly easily.… The home office has a department that does nothing but research cost basis for ex-clients. I know this for a fact because we have used it when my boa could not find the information needed. This department can’t even be used for present clients so I think we do a great job of helping former clients. …
The only time finding a cost basis becomes an issue is when the “other decent firms” did not send the information when an account from transferred into Jones. If we made the original sale we can find the cost basis in a matter of seconds.
I don't think that you're grasping the issue. Let's use an example: A client is with Smith Barney in 1995 and buys American Funds, in 1999 he transfers his mutual funds to Edward Jones. In 2004 he transfers his American Funds to LPL (Jones does NOT forward costs basis data with the ACAT). He then needs to buy a house and sells all of his American Funds in 2008. In this example, I would not expect Jones to give me the cost basis of the funds when they were held at Smith Barney. But, it would be nice to get cost basis for when they were at Jones. However, Jones will simply throw up their hands because it has been over 2 years (or 18 months, or whatever) since the account left Jones. VERY frustrating. It would have been even nicer if the cost basis had simply come over with the funds at time of ACAT.The only time finding a cost basis becomes an issue is when the “other decent firms” did not send the information when an account from transferred into Jones. If we made the original sale we can find the cost basis in a matter of seconds.
BZZZZZZZZ, wrong answer!!! It just doesn't happen that way...... All of the cost basis that I submitted to the home office contained purchases only made at Jones and the only cost basis provided is for the bond holdings.The only time finding a cost basis becomes an issue is when the “other decent firms” did not send the information when an account from transferred into Jones. If we made the original sale we can find the cost basis in a matter of seconds.
Again, does anyone know a phone number or contact to get that basis if accounts are within the 18 month window? OTU says there is such a “department”. If so, give them up. Plenty of us have some work that we would like them to do is this relatively sluggish economy.
I don't think that you're grasping the issue. Let's use an example: A client is with Smith Barney in 1995 and buys American Funds, in 1999 he transfers his mutual funds to Edward Jones. In 2004 he transfers his American Funds to LPL (Jones does NOT forward costs basis data with the ACAT). He then needs to buy a house and sells all of his American Funds in 2008. In this example, I would not expect Jones to give me the cost basis of the funds when they were held at Smith Barney. But, it would be nice to get cost basis for when they were at Jones. However, Jones will simply throw up their hands because it has been over 2 years (or 18 months, or whatever) since the account left Jones. VERY frustrating. It would have been even nicer if the cost basis had simply come over with the funds at time of ACAT.[/quote] If SB didn't send that info to Jones in 1999, then how is Jones supposed to send it to LPL in 2004? Are you sure you're not confusing amount invested with cost basis? In your example, Jones would be able to tell you about dividends and cap gains that had been reinvested, but not the cost basis of funds purchased at SB. At some point we have to put the client's responsibilty to keep track of their own financial affairs in question. The fact that brokerage firms keep track of cost basis is a convenience for clients, but according to the IRS, not a requirement.[quote=onetimeuser]The only time finding a cost basis becomes an issue is when the “other decent firms” did not send the information when an account from transferred into Jones. If we made the original sale we can find the cost basis in a matter of seconds.
Spiffy, come on. I don’t expect Jones to send me the cost basis from SB if they don’t have it. However, if the client transfers over 1000 shares, and 100 are from dividend/cap gains reinvestments WHILE at Jones, I would like to know the cost basis of THOSE shares. That is cost basis.
I do find it funny that you think I may be confused about cost basis vs. amount invested. When I was at Jones, THAT'S when I was confused. When I got to LPL, that's when I realized that Jones does not put cost basis on their "standard" statements, they only put "amount invested". That's helpful, but a little misleading. LPL statements show true cost basis, which is WAY more helpful to clients. Basically, Jones could be nice and participate in industry wide cost basis sharing , but for some unknown reason, they have decided not to. Maybe it's because they can't actually talk to other firms, or attend functions with non-Jones people there. Oh wait, that's just the IRs![quote=Spaceman Spiff]First, let me say thank you foot for giving me something to do today rather than make calls.
According to Jonesnet, CIP is a business development company that was formed in the 1990's. The majority of the investments the partnerships made were in the medical field. All of the CIP dollars are currently invested, so no additional investments are being made. I have no idea how they affect or if they detract from the Jones Financial Companies bottom line. I found a document that listed CIP along with some other STL based companies as a Venture Capitalist organization. The gist was, STL companies, ie AGE or Stifel or Enterprise Leasing, investing in STL startup medical companies. There is a guy at HQ that Jonesnet says you can call if you have questions about CIP.[/quote]
Be sure to give him your branch id number when you call.
[quote=Spaceman Spiff]Yes, I was at the home office then, but had zero contact with the bond desk.
That's a sad attempt at a conspiracy theory. A good one would be that John Bachman is a member of Skull and Bones. PS - to my knowledge, there was no directed trading desk.[/quote]
Bachman can not be in Skull and Bones. He didn't go to Yale. Remember he went to that Wabash College that we always had to hear about.
Skull and Bones is East Coast old money intelligentsia. Jones is Mid-West red neck anti-New York.
Need a different metaphor.
What I think is funny is that Ted (or was it Ed sr.?) left the firm he was with to start Jones because he didn't feel he was being compensated properly for his work.
That piece of Jones history is forgotten when someone leaves Jones because they don't feel they're being compensated properly for his/her work...
[quote=CIBforeveryone]
What I think is funny is that Ted (or was it Ed sr.?) left the firm he was with to start Jones because he didn't feel he was being compensated properly for his work.
That piece of Jones history is forgotten when someone leaves Jones because they don't feel they're being compensated properly for his/her work...[/quote]
While you are technically correct, you're missing the moral of the story. Ed Jones, Sr. didn't get any kudos or finders fee for getting a large bond underwriting for his company. He did sell some of the bonds. He did get paid for that part of the work.
So, today, if you are the FA instrumental in finding a getting a bond issue to go through our underwriting, Jones pays you a finders fee of 75bps per $1000. At 100% payout. Plus you are going to be able to sell the bonds as you normally would. And I think you get some special award at Summer Regionals. Not sure on that one.
Nice try, though.
[quote=American Flag]
[
Bachman can not be in Skull and Bones. He didn't go to Yale. Remember he went to that Wabash College that we always had to hear about.
Skull and Bones is East Coast old money intelligentsia. Jones is Mid-West red neck anti-New York.
Need a different metaphor. How about Scientology?
[/quote]
Wow, your brilliance is overwhelming.
[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
[quote=CIBforeveryone]
What I think is funny is that Ted (or was it Ed sr.?) left the firm he was with to start Jones because he didn't feel he was being compensated properly for his work.
That piece of Jones history is forgotten when someone leaves Jones because they don't feel they're being compensated properly for his/her work...[/quote]
While you are technically correct, you're missing the moral of the story. Ed Jones, Sr. didn't get any kudos or finders fee for getting a large bond underwriting for his company. He did sell some of the bonds. He did get paid for that part of the work.
So, today, if you are the FA instrumental in finding a getting a bond issue to go through our underwriting, Jones pays you a finders fee of 75bps per $1000. At 100% payout. Plus you are going to be able to sell the bonds as you normally would. And I think you get some special award at Summer Regionals. Not sure on that one.
Nice try, though.
[/quote] So CIB's opinion of undercompensation must be the exact same method as Fred Sr's? Otherwise it is just a nice try?