jw - at what point was Jones beaten down to the point of being run out of business?  We had the Revenue Sharing issue a few years ago, but I wouldn’t call that beaten down or even close to being run out of business. 

[quote=spikedkoolaid]I can see it now::::

Now I saw the post saying 90%+ of the funds are ETF’s? 

[quote=doneWjones][quote=spikedkoolaid]I can see it now::::

KoolAid you quoted my comment as bashing?  Wow, asking the Jones folks to explain the philosophical message equates to bashing?  Thankfully a rationale jones person answered my question earlier and thank you for doing so.  Now I saw the post saying 90%+ of the funds are ETF’s?  Talk about a shift in philosophy, is this true?  What kind of ETF’s are they using, are they sticking to cap weighted or are they using the ‘intelligent’ indexes?  And, KoolOff, I double checked and as far as I can tell this is not bashing.  And saying they are fixing things as always to make things better, that sure is nice but fee based accounts, the desire by clients to have them has been around for a very, very long time, almost as far back as when EDJ bought that tiny bond trading house so they could claim ‘founded in 1871’ yes that is a stab.  So, if you are really new and you are getting this, you are probably pretty excited.  But waiting till your firm is strong armed and beaten down to the point of being run out of the business before adapting and changing…?  I hope nothing new comes along for the next 30 years for your sake.  My genuine inquiry above stands, sorry the reply bled into my response to being called a basher.  Now where did I leave that mallet?

Yes, I see, misread the line.  So, what ETF's are they using?  As time goes on there will probably be as many or more ETF's than mutual funds, so I am curious which companies and design styles they are using.

[quote=Broker24][quote=doneWjones][quote=spikedkoolaid]I can see it now::::

[quote=doneWjones][quote=Broker24][quote=doneWjones][quote=spikedkoolaid]I can see it now::::

How do you personally plan on using this new fee based setup?  Existing relationships or only new ones?

i am glad jones is finally coming into the 1980’s. Now to play devils advocate to the jones reps, why use this program as opposed to just using c shares?? I know it goes against everything stl use to preach, so are they burning all the old sales training materials?

I’m not a Jones rep, but a “C” share can only be used if it is going to be cheaper than an “A” share.   An advisory account doesn’t have to be the cheapest.   One is for a sales charge.  The other is a fee for advice.

How does this change your thinking as a newbie in planning your business?

I assume we now make less up front but potentially more long term if we keep the client for years and years.

Any thoughts?

so what is the difference then  between a c share account and an advisory account if you are only using mfs?  In reality nothing except higher charges for the client. Advice is still given to clients in both platforms. As for the A share argument, it is an old and tired jones argument that A shares are always better. 

so what is the difference then  between a c share account and an advisory account if you are only using mfs?   In reality nothing except higher charges for the client. Advice is still given to clients in both platforms. 

I understand the “fiduciary responsibilty” that being called an “advisor” entails. Most investment strategies are considered “long term”. you miss my point. when limiting your  fee based account to mf, you are essentially running a c share business. There is no way to prove that you actively monitored a fee based account no more than you did a c share account. One assumption you are making in the c share structure is that changes are never made. 

There is no way to prove that you actively monitored a fee based account no more than you did a c share account

[quote=jamesbond] I understand the “fiduciary responsibilty” that being called an “advisor” entails. Most investment strategies are considered “long term”. you miss my point. when limiting your fee based account to mf, you are essentially running a c share business. There is no way to prove that you actively monitored a fee based account no more than you did a c share account. One assumption you are making in the c share structure is that changes are never made.

[/quote]



007, I think you missed the whole point of the “advisory” service. It’s not just about a few mutual funds and a wrap fee.

this is ground control to major tom. 

[quote=jamesbond]so what is the difference then  between a c share account and an advisory account if you are only using mfs?  In reality nothing except higher charges for the client. Advice is still given to clients in both platforms. As for the A share argument, it is an old and tired jones argument that A shares are always better. 
[/quote]

You are blending two distinct aspects of this question, which may be adding to your confusion. This sounds like splitting hairs, but those hairs CAN become very significant in highly regulated industries such as ours.  I know this is going to sound like a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo, but if you want to get at the gist of this confusing distinction, a little history is necessary.  If you don’t care about this topic, stop now before you waste your time … otherwise read on!

There is the legal aspect, and the practical aspect from the viewpoint of the “typical” client.  You are really focusing on the practical aspect only when you say that there seems to be little difference between fee based or C share MF portfolios.  If you assume identical costs to the client in both cases, for example, and identical funds used (albeit with different share classes), what’s the difference?

The main difference is a legal one, and is the one that anonymous mentioned earlier.  In the eyes of the regulators and the law, the client in those two examples are NOT receiving the same service and are NOT paying for the same thing, despite what it might seem.

In a C share portfolio, the client pays a sales charge commission for the transaction.  The broker is paid for brokering the transaction in which the client buys (say) MFs that may well have been recommended by the broker.  But despite what many think - and this is key - the broker is not and CAN NOT be paid for rendering “advice” that led to this brokerage transaction. 

In an advisory account, the client is technically paying a fee (never a commission) for and receiving ongoing ADVICE, which may lead to the identical initial recommendations.  Even if the brokerage charges are “wrapped” into the fees, the client is explicitly paying for advice. 

So why all the bother and nuance if from the client’s standpoint the SEEMS to be little difference.  After all, when all is said and done, aren’t the client’s really paying us for our advice?  I mean really?!

Maybe in practice, but not legally.  Critical to this understanding is this different standards between the two of suitablility vs. fiduciary, but more fundamentally it is because the approaches fall under two completely different laws and regulatory bodies.  That’s why the brokerage world deals with FINRA (previously NASD) while the advisory world deals with the SEC (or the state in the case of smaller advisory firms).

While a half century ago this worked fine, when brokerage firms only charged commissions and didn’t talk about plans or advice, but with the demise of the Glass Segal Act (which legally separated investment brokerage firms from banks and insurance companies) and the rise of “financial planning” and RIAs, gradually these distinct lines blurred, as firms tried to offer everything to clients - investments, banking, insurance, advice.

But the regulation and the regulatory bodies charged with enforcing them haven’t really changed in any meaningful way, while the world changed around them.  Which is why today we have such confusion over this advisory question.

The SEC tried to deal with this in 1999 with the so-called broker-dealer exemption rule (or the Merrill Rule as some refer to it) which stated (in an oversimplified way) that brokers could be paid fees instead of (or in lieu of) commissions without being subject to the more onerous legal standards of and direct regulation by the SEC, so long as any advice offered was “purely incidental” to the true service being provided, and paid for - the brokerage transaction. 

This attempt was sort of the SEC’s version of the US Military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, because in reality - and this is where we get back to the practical aspect - most brokers agree, as do their clients, that it is their expertise and advice that clients pay them for.  Many are surprised to learn that it is NOT their advice they are receiving payment for, and in fact that would be strictly prohibited by law unless they put clients into explicit “advisory accounts,” which almost uniformly mean delegating all advice and investment decisions to some in house (or third party) model run by … wait for it … an SEC regulated investment advisory firm (often simply a wholly owned subsidiary of the broker-dealer).

Even that attempt by the SEC didn’t pan out, as that exemption rule was vacated last year, which pretty much threw things back into the regulatory confusion we see today.  What the end game will be is anybody’s guess.

Way too much information for most, I know, but I’ve found that unless you at least open this Pandora’s Box and peek in, you will never really understand why a C share portfolio is NOT the same as a fee based advisory portfolio. 

I’ll close with this: happy Memorial Day everyone, and please remember to observe a moment of silence this afternoon at 3 pm in honor our our fallen heroes who gave their lives in the service of their country.  Regardless of whether you support this war or not, support those who sacrificed so that you had the freedom to do as you wish today.

Freedom isn’t free.

Any ideas on why the 100k minimum?  Too high of fixed cost to justify below that?