Jones Pays
785 RepliesJump to last post
Elliemae,
I seriously doubt that Jones clients want to move to you. Further proof that you didn't actually read the statement is in your previous post. Read the settlement.
[quote=megdawg]Starka, your intellect is overwhelming. [/quote]
To another intellectual, it is.
[quote=megdawg]
Elliemae,
I seriously doubt that Jones clients want to move to you. Further proof that you didn't actually read the statement is in your previous post. Read the settlement.
[/quote]
Please read:
DEFERRED CONSIDERATION AGREEMENT
On December 20, 2004, Edward Jones entered into a Deferred
Consideration Agreement (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 99.4, and
which is incorporated herein by reference) with the United States Attorney's
Office for the Eastern District of Missouri ("Office"). Pursuant to the
Deferred Consideration Agreement Edward Jones has agreed, in addition to the
SEC administrative order, the NASD Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent,
and the NYSE Stipulation of Facts and Consent to Penalty described above
(collectively, the "Order and Agreements"), to offer its customers holding
shares in Preferred Funds (as described in the Deferred Consideration
Agreement) for a period of ninety (90) days, the opportunity to sell such
holdings without the payment of certain fees by selling the customer's
interest in the Preferred Funds, at net asset value, to purchase shares of
mutual funds in another Preferred Fund or any other mutual fund with which
Edward Jones has a selling agreement ("Switch Funds"). For this purpose,
commissions typically paid to Edward Jones and the Switch Funds will be
waived by Edward Jones and the Switch Funds or Edward Jones will pass
through the commissions received by Edward Jones and the Switch Funds back
to the customer. Edward Jones further agreed to allocate responsibility for
the payment of the amount due under the Order and Agreements among the
registrant's partners (except registrant's limited partners), in a manner
satisfactory to the Office, and to reimburse the United States Postal
Service for its investigation costs and expenses in the amount of $200,000
as directed by the Office.
You can find that here:
http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/secdoc.xhtml?ipage=3164579&am p;doc=0&attach=on
Douglas Hill, current Chief Operating Officer for Edward Jones
(Andrea Scott/P-D)
Tucked in the middle of a nine-page agreement between Edward Jones and U.S. Attorney Jim Martin is language that in part helps explain the departure of Douglas Hill as Jones' top executive.
The Des Peres-based brokerage announced Monday that Hill will give up his position as managing partner on Dec. 31 of next year.
The announcement came less than a week after the Securities and Exchange Commission penalized Jones $75 million for failing to disclose to investors that seven mutual fund companies paid to get on its "preferred" list.
The agreement between Edward Jones and Martin, announced Dec. 20, requires the firm to hire an "independent employee" who'll work to keep it out of trouble.
That person will report to a "reconstituted executive committee," according to the agreement.
Hill is one of six people on the firm's executive committee, which helps set Jones's policies.
Martin and Edward Jones sources say the makeup of the committee has yet to be determined, but Martin said members must be free of conflicts. That excludes Hill, who's tied closely to the mutual fund problems.
On Monday, Edward Jones said two other members of the executive committee - the youngest and the oldest members - will leave the firm on Friday. But Jones said both are leaving for reasons unrelated to the mutual fund problems.
Darryl Pope, one of 275 general partners, is 65, the company's mandatory retirement age for partners.
Michael Holmes, 46, who headed the firm's human-resources department, will "pursue his interests in providing consulting services to not-for-profit institutions," the company said.
Neither man would comment.
The retirements of Holmes and Pope were announced internally at least a month ago, said an Edward Jones spokeswoman.
"There was nothing unusual," said Mary Beth Heying of Edward Jones. "We have partners who retire all the time. ... There is no connection to those (mutual fund) events."
Of more urgency to many investors are other components of Edward Jones' agreement with the U.S. attorney. One allows customers to move from one of the seven preferred mutual fund families to any other fund without paying commissions and fees.
Edward Jones will contact customers in writing about the plan, Heying said. Once customers receive the notice, they'll have 90 days to make the switch.
Heying also said that on Jan. 6, Edward Jones will comply with another sanction imposed by the U.S. attorney and the SEC. On that date, the brokerage will fully disclose its mutual fund arrangements on its Web site, including the level of payments received from the seven preferred companies.
The California attorney general, who last week filed suit against Edward Jones over the mutual fund matter, pegged the total payments at $300 million. In a filing with the SEC, the firm said it received $89.9 million in 2003 and $85.9 million in 2002.
Finally, Edward Jones has until March 22 to devise an acceptable plan to distribute the $75 million required by the SEC. According to the SEC settlement, the funds will be paid to Edward Jones investors.
Who made payments
The mutual fund groups that made the payments to Edward D. Jones & Co. that weren't disclosed were:
American Funds
Putnam Funds
Van Kampen Funds
Lord Abbett Funds
Hartford Mutual Funds
Goldman Sachs Funds
Federated Mutual Funds
Reporter Jack Naudi
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 314-340-8223
[quote=xej1984]
Of more urgency to many investors are other components of Edward Jones' agreement with the U.S. attorney. One allows customers to move from one of the seven preferred mutual fund families to any other fund without paying commissions and fees.
Edward Jones will contact customers in writing about the plan, Heying said. Once customers receive the notice, they'll have 90 days to make the switch.
[/quote] xej- I haven't seen anything about when EDJ has to send those letters out. Have you?
xej
Show me what was illegal? Where do you work now? Give me an example of a client that bought American Funds from me in the last 10 years got hurt. Read the article in yesterday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch and broaden your horizons. The article above is old news.
I'd like to get those folks into Am Funds at no cost before I steal their accounts.
[quote=megdawg]
xej
Show me what was illegal? Where do you work now? Give me an example of a client that bought American Funds from me in the last 10 years got hurt. Read the article in yesterday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch and broaden your horizons. The article above is old news.
[/quote]
Failure to disclose is a violation. Or didn't they tell you that?
[quote=Starka]Steal the accounts, Ellie? You're doing the poor bastards a favor.[/quote]
I'd like to get some of those EDJ clients into Am Funds at no cost before I do them a favor and steal their accounts from EDJ.
Elliemae: “Steal” What a revealing word that more than likely describes your business practices. You probably need all the accounts you can get since a good number of your accounts saw you for what you are and went back to Jones.
As a HQ associate with the firm for 10+ years it boils down to this - Edward Jones is run just like all the other big boys. Those that run EJ are in business to make money for themselves plain and simple. How much power and wealth can be accumulated? There’s been scandals through the industry and if your firm has come through clean, it just means you’re next. Did EJ screw-up? You betcha. Does it look bad? Yup.
I ask, rhetorically:
Has your firm ALWAYS disclosed EVERYTHING related to fund revenue sharing? Have you ALWAYS given your clients the appropriate disclosures EVERYTIME (or were you more focused on the sale)? You’re firm NEVER late traded mutual funds? You’d better hope so. (sorry I don’t go into the fine details of the filing, so please don’t direct me to read it - been there, done that). The point is at some point the regulators will find something if they’re looking hard enough.
I do find it interesting that the those on the forum talking about EJ’s ‘untimely’ demise. Honestly, I don’t believe that you know enough of the firm’s finances to make those statements. Jones isn’t going anywhere unless the GPs can make a killing (more than they do today) or Doug’s attorney continues to make statements to the press about this mess. I find the comments about the regulators not liking the EJ single office structure with remote surveillance amusing. The firm did not get busted due to broker misconduct. It was the leadership decision making that got us in hot water.
I don’t post here to defend EJ. However, this long time koolaid drinker is taking a dose of reality peppered with cynisism from now on.
I’ll close with a link to an editoral from Bill McClelland of the Stl Post Distpatch.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/billmcc lellan/story/65F54D3309B05AD786256F790037B628?OpenDocument&H eadline=Edward+Jones+case+shows+right,+wrong+aren’t+black,+w hite
Joedog
[quote=megdawg]Elliemae: "Steal" What a revealing word that more than likely describes your business practices. You probably need all the accounts you can get since a good number of your accounts saw you for what you are and went back to Jones.[/quote]
meg-
You haven't been reading the posts. I just recently went indy. The clients that are moving to me haven't had time to see my dark side I'm in the process of lifting accounts from my old EDJ office, but before I go any farther, I would like to know when those switch letters have to go out. Do you know?
Also, it sounds like the partners are going to be required to foot the bill for the switch. Care to guess what those commissions are going to cost them?
[quote=joedog]
I do find it interesting that the those on the forum talking about EJ's 'untimely' demise. Honestly, I don't believe that you know enough of the firm's finances to make those statements. Jones isn't going anywhere unless the GPs can make a killing (more than they do today) or Doug's attorney continues to make statements to the press about this mess.
[/quote]
Joedog-
Care to guess how much it is going to cost the partners to comply with the order to allow clients to switch funds at no cost?
JOEDOG-
Let me give you some help. Before you comment on anthing that is going on, please go work for another firm and it will help shape any future comments you make. All you are reciting is the company line and you have to realize that your bosses are greedy croooks. Plain and simple. It is obvious you don't know much about this industry when you talk about the "Finances" at Jones. Your company is a small fish in a very large pond and that pond will be shrinking in the near future. Can they survive? Economies of scale indicate they cannot.