Edwards Jones is the 7 Eleven of the Securities Industry, Wal*Mart is too upscale to be compared.    Remember 1 Broker 1 Office = 7 Eleven

Multi Broker Office is more like Wal*Mart, or say like ....AMWAY... 

what does AMWAY and Edward Jones have in common?

1) All the money flows to the top.   True Pyramid systems

2) It's like a religion, you have to be a believer in the FIRM.

3) Don't listen to the outside, they are all " LIARS ", or so say the Leaders, who are making ALL OF THE MONEY.

I

From the InvestmentNews.com comes the following article.....   States gain clout to fight financial firms  By David Hoffman September 26, 2005   NEW YORK - A state court ruling last week in California will ease the way for all states to defend their right to bring cases against financial firms, according to legal experts.

The Sept. 20 ruling from Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl J. West also virtually assures that there will be a very public debate over how fund companies divulge payments made to brokers for shelf space.
The ruling affirms the ability of California Attorney General Bill Lockyer to sue American Funds Distributors Inc. of Los Angeles, the distribution arm of Capital Research and Management Co., adviser to American Funds.

His suit alleges that American Funds perpetrated fraud under California law by not disclosing all material information that investors need to make informed decisions.

Specifically, the suit says, American Funds failed to disclose adequately "shelf space" payments the fund company made to brokers who sell its funds. But the case still might be dismissed.

The court ruled only that California's right to bring the case was not "explicitly" pre-empted by a federal act that American Funds believes prevents the state from bringing its case.

The judge has set a hearing for Nov. 9 on another challenge from American Funds that the state's case conflicts with Congress' intention to pass the National Securities Market Improvement Act of 1996. The act pre-empts states from enacting disclosure and other registration requirements for mutual funds and nationally traded securities.
But proving the state's right to bring a fraud case against American Funds is "implicitly" pre-empted by the act will be "a tough row to hoe," said Mark A. Sargent, dean of the Villanova (Pa.) University School of Law and an expert in securities law.

"It's certainly much harder to show implicit pre-emption than explicit pre-emption," he said.

American Funds will have to go into a detailed analysis of Congress' intent to show there is a conflict, and that's no easy task, Mr. Sargent said.

American Funds, however, is not accepting defeat.

The judge in the case "has not made a final ruling and has asked for more information from both sides," said Chuck Freadhoff, a spokesman for American Funds.

California has survived similar challenges - most notably a challenge involving Edward D. Jones & Co. LP of St. Louis, said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for Mr. Lockyer. That case, filed in December 2004, is pending.

"Our view is that it's not going to go away," Mr. Dresslar said.

If he's right, that's bad news for American Funds and the financial services industry.

Challenges made on the basis of judicial pre-emption to prevent states from moving forward with cases involving financial services firms could run into problems.

New York-based money manager J. & W. Seligman & Co. Inc. is suing the New York attorney general in federal court in Manhattan alleging that his investigation into mutual funds' "excessive" advisory fees exceeded his authority.

State Farm Bank of Bloomington, Ill., a subsidiary of State Farm Insurance Cos., filed a suit in federal court in Connecticut challenging the state's ability to require the company's independent insurance agents to register with the state to sell certificates of deposit.

These cases are being heard in states other than California. But the California court's ruling will certainly be referred to by states trying to protect themselves from judicial pre-emption, said Art Wilmarth, a law professor at The George Washington University Law School in Washington.

How much weight other courts will give the decision is debatable.

"I think they pay close attention to what other courts have said when the decision is well reasoned, as this one is," said Rex Staples, general counsel of the North American Securities Administrators Association Inc. in Washington, which represents state and provincial securities regulators.

Mr. Sargent, however, said he expects the California decision to have little impact on other courts facing the issue of pre-emption.

Regardless of the impact, it would be in American Funds' best interests if the California case were to disappear, industry experts said. It draws unwanted attention to the issue of shelf space payments, they said.

Pay to play

Such payments are "critically important to the fund companies because … they represent a pay-to-play scheme," said Eric Jacobson, a senior fund analyst with Morningstar Inc. in Chicago.

"This pay-to-play scheme is really detrimental, because it closes off the market," he said.

The tactic is not illegal as long as it's properly disclosed.

But how many specifics a money manager needs to divulge about shelf space agreements is a question that is currently being debated.

American Funds believes that its disclosure - its prospectuses note that it makes payments to dealers - are proper. But the California attorney general contends that it is too vague.

The money manager is so sure of its position that it filed a suit against the California attorney general in advance of Mr. Lockyer's suit.

That suit, which claims that Mr. Lockyer doesn't have the authority to bring a suit against American Funds alleging that it failed to disclose material information, appears to be on hold.     Has anyone received their LP (a.k.a. "bond in drag") offering promised by EJ in 2003 yet??????

Truth,

Good to see you again.  It's been quite awhile since your last post.  Something about an imaginary conversation between you and a prospect about the Jones' free switch letters.  Only problem, of course, was that you had that conversation two months before the free switch letters actually went out.  Go back to your hole. 

jonesnewbie and noggin,

What no smart remark on my post? 

So has the 2003 "bond in drag" been offered (and how much did you have to finance?)

noggin,

I PMed you my email address.

Jonesnewbie-

Good memory but I stand by the story.  I heard you all are bleeding pretty bad right now.  Come on and jump ship before the next big fine sinks the already sinking ship.

[quote=The Truth]

Jonesnewbie-

Good memory but I stand by the story. 

[/quote]

You stand by the story?  The story was about a conversation you supposedly had with a Jones client regarding the free switch letter.  Only problem was that you had this conversation months before the letter was actually sent out to clients.

What exactly is it that you are standing by - your "creative" imagination or your willingness to lie?

WTF?  Why are you resurecting a thread that is almost a year and half old.  Don't we have enough of this foolishness on the board about EDJ already.

Give it a rest....everybody.

[quote=EJ2001]...  Jones gave me the break of my life, was the break you were needing, too?[/quote]

I earned my "break" but I've always said that EJ is a good place to start...not stay.