Ej money losing international operations
131 RepliesJump to last post
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family. [/quote] Case in point... Let's say you have a client and they want to invest in Vanguard, Dodge and Cox and T Rowe Price. Can you do that? They are 3 of the largest and most widely regarded mutual fund families out there.....[quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
I bought some John Hanc*** funds for a client a while back and got a call from their sales desk. They said they'd love to send us some info and get their local rep into my office. I didn't need it at the time, but I'm considering using their Lifestyle funds for some of my client and would love to have lunch with their rep to tell me more about them. As far as I know, that's not illegal at EDJ. I can't imagine the number of phone calls that I'd get if Jones just opened the doors up wide and didn't put any limits on who can and can't call unsolicited on us. As it is I've got about 25 vendors who want a piece of my time. I don't see them all, but they still call and tie up my BOA for a while. So, what you see as a limitation, I see as a benefit. I've never had one fund family shoved down my throat. Sure, we hear from the preferred funds at regional meetings, but nobody from Jones tells me that I have to use them or questions me when I don't. foot - I agree that the Hartford thing should have been handled differently. I have a problem, like B24 outlined, with proprietary funds, like Riversource, and that came too close for comfort. Even Jones said they liquidated their interest there because of the conflict of interest. [/quote] The issue is access...always will be. I handle the mutual fund relationships for our team. There is very little benefit in my mind to having less choice as you do. If we are not convinced to do business with a mutual fund company we politely tell them , don't call us we will call you. I never have a problem with one that I have told that to, repeatedly calling afterwards, it just doesn't happen. When you have to initiate the research yourself on which mutual funds to use outside the preferred group you are being limited whether you admit it or not. How do you find out about XYZ? How much time do you have ? I used Franklin Templeton for a couple of years when I was at Jones before they were preferred. How did I come up with the idea, you may ask. I looked at the revenue sharing agreements on Mutual Funds with LPL, there were over 65 companies listed, Jones has 7 in their preferred. All of the ones that are preferred with Jones are on LPL's list with the addition of 58 more...... Which will give you more choice and possibly better results for your clients? Is 10 times more choice better? It certainly can't hurt.......[quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family. [/quote] Case in point... Let's say you have a client and they want to invest in Vanguard, Dodge and Cox and T Rowe Price. Can you do that? They are 3 of the largest and most widely regarded mutual fund families out there..... [/quote] Yes Noggin, I can...all three are available within Advisory Solutions and I can create a custom portfolio and use all of them. Now, before you jump down my throat...I understand I don't have every fund in their families available to me, but I do have quite a few. There is no argument that Indy Reps have a larger pool of funds/etfs to choose from, but that doesn't mean that a perfectly appropriate, quality portfolio can't be constructed with the myriad (sp) of investments that we have available at EDJ.[quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
perfectly appropriate, ]
Not to nitpick, but appropriate does not achieve the fiduciary standard, correct? I also think that if you are using AS, you are acting as an IAR, which means you are held to the fiduciary standard.
In all seriousness, I may be wrong and talking out of my ass. But I think that's right.
And you spelled "myriad" correctly.
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family. [/quote] Case in point... Let's say you have a client and they want to invest in Vanguard, Dodge and Cox and T Rowe Price. Can you do that? They are 3 of the largest and most widely regarded mutual fund families out there..... [/quote] Yes Noggin, I can...all three are available within Advisory Solutions and I can create a custom portfolio and use all of them. Now, before you jump down my throat...I understand I don't have every fund in their families available to me, but I do have quite a few. There is no argument that Indy Reps have a larger pool of funds/etfs to choose from, but that doesn't mean that a perfectly appropriate, quality portfolio can't be constructed with the myriad (sp) of investments that we have available at EDJ. [/quote] Can you pick which funds?[quote=noggin][quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
Thank you ...I wasn't sure and didn't take the time to look it up...so (sp) just gives me belt & suspenders ....particularly with the spelling police on this site! BTW...you are nitpicking but that's cool. I am didn't mean to use "appropriate" as a technical term, I always strive to do what's best for the client, even when not in a fiduciary capacity.[quote=Hey Kool-Aid] perfectly appropriate, ][/quote]
Not to nitpick, but appropriate does not achieve the fiduciary standard, correct? I also think that if you are using AS, you are acting as an IAR, which means you are held to the fiduciary standard.
In all seriousness, I may be wrong and talking out of my ass. But I think that’s right.
And you spelled “myriad” correctly.
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family. [/quote] Case in point... Let's say you have a client and they want to invest in Vanguard, Dodge and Cox and T Rowe Price. Can you do that? They are 3 of the largest and most widely regarded mutual fund families out there..... [/quote] Yes Noggin, I can...all three are available within Advisory Solutions and I can create a custom portfolio and use all of them. Now, before you jump down my throat...I understand I don't have every fund in their families available to me, but I do have quite a few. There is no argument that Indy Reps have a larger pool of funds/etfs to choose from, but that doesn't mean that a perfectly appropriate, quality portfolio can't be constructed with the myriad (sp) of investments that we have available at EDJ. [/quote] Can you pick which funds?[/quote] Yes...but as I said, while we have lots of them available, we do not have all of the Vanguard, Dodge & Cox and TRoweprice to choose from.[quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=noggin][quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family. [/quote] Case in point... Let's say you have a client and they want to invest in Vanguard, Dodge and Cox and T Rowe Price. Can you do that? They are 3 of the largest and most widely regarded mutual fund families out there..... [/quote] Yes Noggin, I can...all three are available within Advisory Solutions and I can create a custom portfolio and use all of them. Now, before you jump down my throat...I understand I don't have every fund in their families available to me, but I do have quite a few. There is no argument that Indy Reps have a larger pool of funds/etfs to choose from, but that doesn't mean that a perfectly appropriate, quality portfolio can't be constructed with the myriad (sp) of investments that we have available at EDJ. [/quote] Can you pick which funds?[/quote] Yes...but as I said, while we have lots of them available, we do not have all of the Vanguard, Dodge & Cox and TRoweprice to choose from. [/quote] Thanks for the information, my intent is not to bust your chops.[quote=noggin][quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=noggin][quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
Funny, I was at a Jones meeting this year and had a Columbia Funds Rep Presenting...NOT A PREFERRED FUND FAMILY, so the "only from that list" comment is just a lie! I am permitted to use most any family I see fit for my clients. I have never felt "pressured" to use a preferred family. [/quote] Case in point... Let's say you have a client and they want to invest in Vanguard, Dodge and Cox and T Rowe Price. Can you do that? They are 3 of the largest and most widely regarded mutual fund families out there..... [/quote] Yes Noggin, I can...all three are available within Advisory Solutions and I can create a custom portfolio and use all of them. Now, before you jump down my throat...I understand I don't have every fund in their families available to me, but I do have quite a few. There is no argument that Indy Reps have a larger pool of funds/etfs to choose from, but that doesn't mean that a perfectly appropriate, quality portfolio can't be constructed with the myriad (sp) of investments that we have available at EDJ. [/quote] Can you pick which funds?[/quote] Yes...but as I said, while we have lots of them available, we do not have all of the Vanguard, Dodge & Cox and TRoweprice to choose from. [/quote] Thanks for the information, my intent is not to bust your chops. [/quote] I understand...it was a fair question, you left before Advisory Solutions rolled out if i'm not mistaken. It's a pretty cool product, although, someday when and if they add equities, it will be much better![quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=noggin][quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=noggin][quote=Hey Kool-Aid][quote=bspears]LPL can have as many Revenue sharing agreements they want. I could care less. They don’t shove them down my throat. I can have any rep in my office…which I believe you can’t. The relationship I have with LPL is TOTALLY different than being a captive employee. I don’t go to regional meetings where the speaker is from the preferred list and only frm that list. I believe the conflict of interest is really over the top with Jones.
It’s GAC time, Jonesers!
Jones has an agenda. Ultimately, why does EJ Really need to get so Huge? To Sell, Go Public or Merge! There is some plan down the road to benefit the general partnership. To say the firm could not compete as a smaller company is poppyc***. As my kids would say: "DUH!" Oh, and GAC stands for Get A Clue.[quote=Effay]It’s GAC time, Jonesers!
Jones has an agenda. Ultimately, why does EJ Really need to get so Huge? To Sell, Go Public or Merge! There is some plan down the road to benefit the general partnership. To say the firm could not compete as a smaller company is poppyc***. As my kids would say: "DUH!" Oh, and GAC stands for Get A Clue.[/quote] To make more money. Duh. There are so many benefits to being larger as a brokerage firm. Larger capital base, larger inventory, better access to products/vendors, the ability to be more selective with recruiting in the future, to be able to focus more on per-FA production versus recruiting newbies, fixed-expense coverage, the list goes on..... I don't think the partners have any interest in going public or being bought. Most of them are making money hand over fist, and are already super-wealthy, and they also realize that trying to sell the company would be an almost impossible task (you would likely lose 1/2 the advisors in the company). The very structure of our company and the offices prepares FA's to go independant very easily, and most that I talk to agree that if Jones were to sell out, their first call would be to the LPL recruiter (or whoever). Our entire foundation is built on our capital structure, so I very highly doubt that a sale is even remotely possible in the next 10 years.If Jones went public I would take a very serious look at going indy.
Effay - that conversation is not a new one. Nobody needs to get a clue, except for you. I have this cool plaque on my wall with a pic of Ted Jones and a horse. Can't really tell them apart. Maybe I need glasses. The quote on it is Ted telling someone why he won't take the firm public. Basically he says it's not about the money. B24 is right. If I'm a GP, why would I want to risk the money I've put up, my very good income stream, and my position to make money? For the zero's? Did you see what happened to the AGE guys? Didn't Ben Edwards lose a bunch of money when AG got bought out? Being a Jones GP, and an LP on a different scale, is like owning a money printing press. Unless the company folds you sit back, collect the monthly checks, and wait for the bigger ones a few times a year. I'm not going to say Jones will never go public, but I think I'd be safe in saying that Jones won't ever be bought out. I can't see us going public in the near future either. But never is a long time.IMHO, it will either take a fundamental change in attitude among the upper-GP’s (which is doubtful during the current regime), or a fundamental change in the industry that makes either our model or our target marketfinancially unappealing for us to remain independant. But that would necessitate a situation where it would be appealing for another firm to acquire us.
On a separate note, my belief is that there is some sort of "pact" among GP's not to take the company public (or sell out). Yes, that screams of "cult", but I think there is a sense of stewardship at the firm, and I believe the existing GP's that worked under Ted Jones will not have any part of changing the culture of the firm - they owe that to him for basically "giving" the company away to the employees. HOWEVER, there is nothing saying that over time, as the GP's move further and further from the Ted Jones legacy, that beliefs don't change.All of the pictures that I either received or paid for were re-used (the mats and frames) when I left Jones. Might have been the best investment they ever made in me....
Spiff-
Please try and separate your feelings from reality. Every person, every company has a price. Jone's GP's love the gravy train...but if they can make the same or more and give up the BS why wouldn't they sell out.
At least at LPL we KNOW they intend to sell. You just have to sit back and send forum messages because that decision is WAY ABOVE YOUR PAY GRID. Welcome to no mans land...isn't great not to be in control of your own destiny??
Jones has no reason to go public. Everybody has their price, but more than likely the price is so high no one will be willing to pay.
Personally, I don’t think anybody really give two sh!ts about Ted Jones anymore in GP land. Great man, with a good heart. It’s not the same firm though.
Ted who?
Sooner or later if the GP's continue to only make their salaries, they will start to think about their exit strategy.
And then Spiff will be looking at his options.Bachmann said years ago that Jones would sell to the right bidder with the right amount of money. He said that he didn’t believe there would be anyone with A) enough money or B) a good enough plan to retain the existing salesforce to make a deal work. But, everything can be bought.
foot - you don't really believe that EDJ's are that short sighted do you? They recognize, just like most FAs who aren't getting a bonus right now, that times like these are temporary and relatively short in comparison to the good times. You are correct that if all they were making was their $125K-$150K salary for a long enough period of time, they'd be looking for other opportunities. However, they're not. And they're not. You should also try to separate your opinons/feelings from reality. Seems to me that you and I are just sitting on different sides of the same see saw.[quote=Moraen]Jones has no reason to go public. Everybody has their price, but more than likely the price is so high no one will be willing to pay.
Personally, I don’t think anybody really give two sh!ts about Ted Jones anymore in GP land. Great man, with a good heart. It’s not the same firm though.[/quote]
I didn’t know you could take a ponzi scheme public.
Oh wait, Enron was public.
looking forward to EDJ on the NYSE!
Again, I wish someone could explain to me, in simple terms, how it is a Ponzi scheme? How is Jones ANY different from any other company? The want to grow their business to benefit the pockets of the owners? Why does Apple want to grow their business? Why does Bank of America need Merrill Lynch? Why would and RIA want to bring on more advisors under them? It’s ALWAYS about the owners pockets. No matter how you cut it, it’s always the case. You can criticize Jones’ strategy to get there all you want, I don’t care. I don’t always agree with how they do business either. But if you call Jones’ business model a Ponzi scheme, then every for-profit business is a Ponzi scheme. I think some people are confused by the meaning of “Ponzi” scheme. For the record, a Ponzi scheme has nothing to do with owners making money on the backs of their employees. To compare what Enron was doing to Jones is just idiotic. Enron was basically hiding liabilities in offshore LLC’s, and siphoning money from the firm. Explain to me exactly how Jones is doing anything remotely close to that?
Drinking 4 cups of coffee and eating yellowjackets from the corner gas station is no way to start your day B24....Again, I wish someone could explain to me, in simple terms, how it is a Ponzi scheme? How is Jones ANY different from any other company? The want to grow their business to benefit the pockets of the owners? Why does Apple want to grow their business? Why does Bank of America need Merrill Lynch? Why would and RIA want to bring on more advisors under them? It’s ALWAYS about the owners pockets. No matter how you cut it, it’s always the case. You can criticize Jones’ strategy to get there all you want, I don’t care. I don’t always agree with how they do business either. But if you call Jones’ business model a Ponzi scheme, then every for-profit business is a Ponzi scheme. I think some people are confused by the meaning of “Ponzi” scheme. For the record, a Ponzi scheme has nothing to do with owners making money on the backs of their employees. To compare what Enron was doing to Jones is just idiotic. Enron was basically hiding liabilities in offshore LLC’s, and siphoning money from the firm. Explain to me exactly how Jones is doing anything remotely close to that?