Questions for EJ guys
265 RepliesJump to last post
noggin “conveniently” discusses the interest on LP but happens to forget the profit distributions yet mentions his own “profits” of 100%. For someone who rails against Jones for what he sees as ethical lapses, he seems to have a few of his own. noggin don’t be a Tim Geithner and lecture us on taxs cheats.
[quote=Spaceman Spiff][quote=noggin] I like the idea that rather than waiting for someone in leadership to smile down on me and invite me to take my money and place it with them and let them return to me interest on my money in a illliquid investment, I can actually enjoy all of the profits that I have earned. [QUOTE]
First, LP is not illiquid. You can sell it back at any time. Second, you are offered LP and then have to accept it. Just like when we call our clients and tell them we have an investment idea for them. They can choose to buy or pass. I find it humorous when people who never had LP talk about how bad an investment LP is. You get to enjoy all of the profits you earn? You have a 100% payout? That's a sweet deal. I thought that you you had to pay LPL or RayJay to be your custodian. Guess I learned something today. [/quote]I would readily admit that I didn't ever have the opportunity to be offered LP. You miss what I was saying so let me try again. I consider an investment illiquid that is not publicly traded in other words that I could not sell and settle within 3 days. With that as a consideration, LP is illiquid.
I said that I could enjoy all of the profits that I have earned not profits on all my revenue. There is a significant difference there. I would rather have a 100% interest in the profits of my enterprise rather than the hope of sharing in profits of an overall enterprise. Let's not even begin to talk about being a W-2 employee at Jones or an actual business owner as I am today. I hope that you stretched before you jumped to all those conclusions, you probable pulled a muscle.....
That Hartford thing, if true, makes me sick to my stomach
Ask Spiff. He was probably at the home office when this came down. We found out because Jones like all firms is required to disclose their back door arrangements. It seemed odd that Hartford paid 70M to the partnership and American was around 10M in revenue sharing. If you read the fine print, Hartford bought out the partnerships interest at a premium. The interesting thing is its is similar to LP in that Jones owned an income interest for all those years. Do you think they got back just their principle as an LP would when cashed out? I am waiting for the spin...[quote=noggin] [quote=Spaceman Spiff][quote=noggin] I like the idea that rather than waiting for someone in leadership to smile down on me and invite me to take my money and place it with them and let them return to me interest on my money in a illliquid investment, I can actually enjoy all of the profits that I have earned. [QUOTE]
First, LP is not illiquid. You can sell it back at any time. Second, you are offered LP and then have to accept it. Just like when we call our clients and tell them we have an investment idea for them. They can choose to buy or pass. I find it humorous when people who never had LP talk about how bad an investment LP is. You get to enjoy all of the profits you earn? You have a 100% payout? That's a sweet deal. I thought that you you had to pay LPL or RayJay to be your custodian. Guess I learned something today. [/quote]I would readily admit that I didn't ever have the opportunity to be offered LP. You miss what I was saying so let me try again. I consider an investment illiquid that is not publicly traded in other words that I could not sell and settle within 3 days. With that as a consideration, LP is illiquid.
I said that I could enjoy all of the profits that I have earned not profits on all my revenue. There is a significant difference there. I would rather have a 100% interest in the profits of my enterprise rather than the hope of sharing in profits of an overall enterprise. Let's not even begin to talk about being a W-2 employee at Jones or an actual business owner as I am today. I hope that you stretched before you jumped to all those conclusions, you probable pulled a muscle.....
[/quote] Strange, but I call things illiquid when you can't sell them quickly. T+3 hasn't ever been the deciding factor in my mind. No big deal, you didn't have any anyway. It's a semantics discussion. Congrats on owning your own business. I hope it works out for you.
[quote=footsoldier]
That Hartford thing, if true, makes me sick to my stomach
Ask Spiff. He was probably at the home office when this came down. We found out because Jones like all firms is required to disclose their back door arrangements. It seemed odd that Hartford paid 70M to the partnership and American was around 10M in revenue sharing. If you read the fine print, Hartford bought out the partnerships interest at a premium. The interesting thing is its is similar to LP in that Jones owned an income interest for all those years. Do you think they got back just their principle as an LP would when cashed out? I am waiting for the spin...[/quote] I was at the home office when this all came out. I don't remember much about the details. I know that Jones had an interest in Hartford that when they sold got $70MM out of the deal that hit the books. That much you've already put out there. I remember Hartford had an NAV transfer program that nobody used all that much. The big talk was about the revenue sharing. I remember it being kind of a sleazy, used car salesman, type of vibe that I was never comfortable with. I know of one person down in Texas, who is no longer with the firm, who tried to make a wholesale change from American to Hartford simply because of the revenue sharing dollars. At his level it would have substantially increased his bonuses. About the time that was getting figured out by some other guys like that one Jones changed the way our P&L gets credited in regards to revenue sharing. From then on, it really didn't matter what company you sold. There was a clear conflict of interest and it got fixed. I hope that Jones made a ton of money on that deal. I hope that Hartford bought out Jones' interest at a premium. If they did it was a good business decision. If they didn't then maybe not so much.In all fairness, it wasn’t just Hartford that had the NAV transfer program. It was every family excluding American. So it wasn’t EDJ pushing the switch to Hartford anymore than it was to LA, VK or any of the others.
This was more than just your run of the mill conflict of interest Mr. Spiff. And it got fixed coincidentally at the time when revenue sharing disclosures were required.
My recollection was that the partnerhip didn't pay for the "income interest" (as you would LP) but it was in consideration of "consultant work". That was doublespeak for access to thousands of FA who relied on Uncle Milty (now retired ) to provide objective due diligence when recommending fund families into the preferred status. Oh the FA you are referring to currently is one of the highest producing brokers in the nation at at another indy house. I recall, again in the field, several conference calls, videos and meetings about the NAV transfer programs and why it made sense to move clients out of non-preferreds to Hartford. The rep you are referring to was actively involved in communicating that message to the troops.Just the fact that they were encouraging transfers from non-preferreds to preferreds at NAV is disturbing. Especially when the non-preferreds were probably better than the crap offered by Putnam, Federated, Hartford etc.
Ron…Ron…Ron…stop it. They never said move all your money from the 3000 other mutual funds to our preferred seven. They just said it was good for the company and good for LP returns and of course GP returns. They would never tell the best sales force in the world to move money directly…but maybe, just maybe…with you know, a wink and a smile. Secret code…
[quote=footsoldier]This was more than just your run of the mill conflict of interest Mr. Spiff. And it got fixed coincidentally at the time when revenue sharing disclosures were required.
My recollection was that the partnerhip didn't pay for the "income interest" (as you would LP) but it was in consideration of "consultant work". That was doublespeak for access to thousands of FA who relied on Uncle Milty (now retired ) to provide objective due diligence when recommending fund families into the preferred status. Oh the FA you are referring to currently is one of the highest producing brokers in the nation at at another indy house. I recall, again in the field, several conference calls, videos and meetings about the NAV transfer programs and why it made sense to move clients out of non-preferreds to Hartford. The rep you are referring to was actively involved in communicating that message to the troops.[/quote] I'm well aware of where that FA now works and the real reason he left Jones. He may be the biggest producer in the country, but he can still act like a slick used car saleman. I wasn't in the field then, so I wasn't a part of those messages you referred to. I would assume that there would have been some discussion about if the non-preferreds that were being transferred were good funds, then don't NAV them, but rather move them in-kind. Of course your memory banks probably didn't store that info. I do recall the NAV transfer programs, but like was mentioned before, I also recall every other preferred fund having the same thing. Just FYI, Hartford has a 529 NAV program right now. So, was it only bad back then, or is it still bad now? The question is, why does that matter now? Today?I would assume that there would have been some discussion about if the non-preferreds that were being transferred were good funds, then don’t NAV them, but rather move them in-kind. Of course your memory banks probably didn’t store that info.
Spiff- Getting a little testy aren't you? My memory isn't clouded...just jaded according to you. I speak the truth from experience, from being there. Clearly your glasses have fogged over. They encouraged us to consider consolidating to preferreds for some very plausible reasons, not the least of which is we got paid better. They never told us about the conflict with Hartford. We only found out years later as I said earlier.OK. Fair enough. There was a conflict of interest there. I thought we cleared that up a few posts back. I also told you I wasn’t in the field at that time, so I don’ t know what was actually said on any conference calls. However, from my experience in the field, there hasn’t ever been something from the home office that has been a blanket statement you should be using product XYZ. There has always been some sort of verbage about if it makes sense for your clients.
So, I think your memory is as good as our clients. You remember what you want to remember or whatever helps you right now. You are only talking about the relationship with Hartford and about the NAV program with them, but completely ignoring the comment from Hulk about their being NAV programs with the other preferred families also. I'm sure Hartford was the recipient of some of those assets, but more than likely back then it would have been Van Kampen or Lord Abbett, not Hartford. It's only been in the last few years that Hartford has really caught any traction. At least that's the way it is in my region. I'm sure mine isn't much different than any other. So, today - 7- 8 years later- why does that matter? Those conflicts have been vetted and done away with. Why do you continually insist on dredging up things that happened many years ago and pretending like they have any relevance at all today?So, today - 7- 8 years later- why does that matter? Those conflicts have been vetted and done away with. Why do you continually insist on dredging up things that happened many years ago and pretending like they have any relevance at all today?
Are you suggesting that the history of your company doesn't matter? Weddle was there during the Bachman, Hill tenure. And so were many others. You can't have your head in the sand forever. And as much as you chide me for bringing up the dark side, you constantly make feeble arguments that deserve our scrutiny. If you were remotely balanced in your messages...I am at the point now I am astonished at the level of your participation on these forums. Your production must have suffered. For a moment imagine a day without posting...This whole thread smells like sour grapes to me. People whose companies went bankrupt or are kept on life support with tens of billions in taxpayer welfare are questioning Jones’ business model and practices? Please.
You guys single handedly destroyed the *global* economy 4 months ago but you're dredging up 8 year old Jones' issues that have been dealt with? Pot. Kettle. Black.[quote=footsoldier]So, today - 7- 8 years later- why does that matter? Those conflicts have been vetted and done away with. Why do you continually insist on dredging up things that happened many years ago and pretending like they have any relevance at all today?
Are you suggesting that the history of your company doesn't matter? Weddle was there during the Bachman, Hill tenure. And so were many others. You can't have your head in the sand forever. And as much as you chide me for bringing up the dark side, you constantly make feeble arguments that deserve our scrutiny. If you were remotely balanced in your messages...I am at the point now I am astonished at the level of your participation on these forums. Your production must have suffered. For a moment imagine a day without posting...[/quote] I love the assumptions about my production based on the frequency of my postings. As if there is any correlation. I'm not suggesting that the history doesn't matter. I'm suggesting that when an issue has been fixed, it is no longer an issue. History is what it is. It is what got us to where we are, but has no bearing on the future. The regulators said we had an issue with revenue sharing. So now we have to disclose it. There was a possible conflict of interest with Hartford, so we liquidated our partnership stake and resolved it. We didn't have a fee based platform (because of the views of Bachmann and Hill), but when Weddle took over we fixed that. We didn't have a good financial planning set of tools, so we got some of those too. I'm sure there are other things you remember from your history with Jones. And I'm sure you'll bring them up again in the future. Or you'll keep bringing these same ones up again and again and again.... But, I would submit to you that for all of the bad things that you believe Jones did, there are a multitude of good things that Jones does. You, however, choose to ignore those. As for being balanced, like the other gentleman said - Pot. Kettle. Black.[quote=Potential]This whole thread smells like sour grapes to me. People whose companies went bankrupt or are kept on life support with tens of billions in taxpayer welfare are questioning Jones’ business model and practices? Please.
You guys single handedly destroyed the *global* economy 4 months ago but you're dredging up 8 year old Jones' issues that have been dealt with? Pot. Kettle. Black.[/quote] What the hell are you talking about ? Why don't you put Unrealized in front of your member name.Ron, yes, it’s a bit harsh. But his point is well put. Jones has done OK thru this mess, yet we continue to be the target of constant criticism. Yes, some of us defend the firm, to an almost feverish level sometimes (cough, cough, spiff). But it’s hard to blame us considering what has gone on, the fact that we have done OK, the fact that we WORK there, and that we LIKE the firm.
However, I would argue that the *advisors* and the *wealth management units* of all these major banks should not be a reflection of what their corporate parents have done. Seriously. I think Merrill, SB, MS, AGE, WACH, etc. all have fine wealth management divisions/firms whatever you want to call them. And I personally know individuals at most of these firms, that do very good work for their clients. Unfortunately, they have been dragged under by the undertow of their parent firms. I see many of them regularly because of our involvement in local organizations. We talk about what's going on, and frankly, I feel terrible for these guys. Most have been in the industry for years (20-30 in many cases), have a loyal clientele, and now are being dragged through the mud due to no fault of their own. But if you think I am going to sit there and bad-mouth their firms and point out the weaknesses in their firms, you're wrong. So I guess that is where I have a problem sometimes with the constant Jones bashing and the 8-year old news. You never hear me say "Jones is the best, and XYZ firm sucks", or whatever.B24 -You are absolutely correct. Many guys at many firms are just plugging away managing their book of business and had absolutely nothing to do with any of this crap. For Potential to label every guy not at Jones as "single handedly destroying the global economy" is not only wrong it is completely stupid. That is a quote he grabbed right from the media because he can't produce an original thought.
We just had a firm-wide promo to “inform” FAs they could move their 529s to John Hanc*** at NAV and receive a 1% upfront pop.
I rest assured every night that it was done purely for the benefit of our clients.