foot - are you reading what I’m typing or are you simply arguing in a vain attempt to make yourself look better?  Did you not read the part where I said that I agree that Advisory Solutions was part of the plan to diversify our revenue stream?

  I don't doubt for a second that when Weddle got into the MPs seat that he had a different mindset than our previous MPs on how to mitigate the risks to the firm.  Bachmann didn't like fee based accounts.  They set the bar so high on MAP that it wasn't even on most FA's radar screen.  Weddle was OK with them.  And evidently enough of the GPs and FAs agreed with him that it became a viable idea.  It was a good business move.  One that benefits the clients, the firm, and the FAs all at the same time.     But you make it sound like it was a devious plan hatched in the inner sanctum of the South Campus as a direct, knee jerk response to the lawsuit over revenue sharing.    Did you know that revenue sharing was disclosed in the 10-k as far back as 1998?  My question for you, and the others like you who used revenue sharing as their excuse for going indy, is when did you start to really care about how the firm made money?  Was it when your bonuses started going away in 2001 and 2002?  None of you ever read the 10-k and wondered what that line about revenue sharing was in the Fee Revenue paragraph?  Or did you only feign righteous indignation when your firm became the whipping boy of regulators?  Your dealings suddenly became altruistic with your clients and you had to protect them from the evil monster that you suddenly discovered you were shacking up with.  That's what I find laughable when you get on your high horse and start blabbing about Jones not disclosing this or that to you.  It's not that they didn't disclose it to you, it's that you either didn't care enough to wonder why we had preferred fund families or you were too oblivious to even realize it was happening.    I still find it laughable after all these years that the regulators didn't shut down the revenue sharing agreements altogether industry wide, but instead just said, if you're going to do it you have to disclose it.  Evidently it's not unethical if you tell people you're doing it.       I agree that the Hartford deal was a poorly executed one and it certainly could have been better disclosed.   As to Hartford not having any track record, that's not exactly true.  Jones FAs had been utilizing Hartford money managers for a long time through their VAs. 

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]Noggin - and you would have turned your $100K into $6.7mil at an annualized return of 10.94%.  Not a bad deal for $3500 upfront and .57% along the way.  Did you know that ICA gets a 5 rating from Lipper and a 4 star rating from Morningstar? 

  foot - You took a two sentence statement, short ones at that, as me drinking kool aid?  Seriously?  You actually took the time to search the SEC filings for the Jones Financial Companies 10-K?  That's pretty sad.  Maybe you have it bookmarked.     The 10-k talks about dozens of risks to the firm's business model.  Everything from a material downturn in the financial markets to having to rely on third party vendors for many different things.    I don't expect the GPs to work in a bubble.  I expect them to look for solutions that would benefit the clients, FAs, and the firm.  The 5 year plan that B24 mentioned earlier states that fee based relationships and the planning that goes along with them are one of the core strategies for reaching our 5 year goal.  It also talks about diversifying our revenue mix.  The two do go hand in hand.    But, to say that AS is a knee jerk reaction to 12b-1 fee legislation and revenue sharing disclosure is just shortsighted.    Oh yeah, and you should call it "OUR non-disclosed kickback scheme" because you participated in that scheme while you were here.        [/quote]   My point was that because it is preferred doesn't mean it's the best place for clients. Either one would be a happy camper I would think if they left it alone. Star ratings is not how I determine what I look at. Do you want a 5 star portfolio now or when you retire?

I agree.  I don’t use AIVSX.  I think there are better options for that space. 

  As to whether I want a 5 star portfolio now or when I retire - yes I do. 

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]I agree.  I don’t use AIVSX.  I think there are better options for that space. 

  As to whether I want a 5 star portfolio now or when I retire - yes I do.  [/quote]   Have a good rest of the week. I am leaving the revenue sharing at "the Firm" for other folks.