Butkus-

Maybe you are having a tough time reading.  Open your eyes and it is amazing what you can and will find out.  And that applies to working at Jones as well.

Butkus=Vega

Vega=Idiot.

The assertion was that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I don’t see that referenced in any of the links. Perhaps someone could paste the specific evidence with the link.

I don't know if he faces or faced criminal charges - but having been hit w/ the $3 million fine and forced to resign isn't anything to brag about. 

Oh, how I remember Doug on the ol' webcast telling us to just sell our clients a good growth and income fund and they'll thank you later.

[quote=Butkus]The assertion was that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I don't see that referenced in any of the links. Perhaps someone could paste the specific evidence with the link.[/quote]

Doug Hill wasn't actually charged with a crime, so that makes it ok.

Bill Clinton didn't actually have intercourse with Monica Lewinsky, either......

Doug made a deal with the US Prosecutor!

Criminals or those faced with criminal proceedures are the only people that make deals with US Prosecutors!

Doug made a deal with the US Prosecutor therefor Doug is a criminal!

End of Story!  Adios Doug

I was addressing the claim made by Lance Legstrong:

"Rather than face a multi-count CRIMINAL indictment Doug et all coughed up a $75 million SETTLEMENT (aka not a fine) and Doug agreed to step down as MR. BIG.   Lieing to the SEC is what Martha went down to the Federal Pen for!"  

What is your point butkus? Is it  to say that Hill and Co are not criminals because they settled rather than argue their case in court?  You are on thin ice here pal. 

As for clients not rejecting funds that have revenue sharing agreements with your firm,  of course they have not rejected them.  You guys have yet to come clean on how those agreements truly hamper your ability to provide objective advice.(How many non-preferreds you recommended lately?)

Hill was censured by the regulators.  Your firm was fined for its practices and forced to reform.  Quit parsing words to trying to lessen the negative implications of the FINE (albeit you call it a settlement payment) and forsed resignation of 3'mil.

Quit your coy attempts at appearing ignorant to the real situation at your firm. It is transparent as hell.

Dead on Exdrone - it's like Butkus is feeling that since it's not a criminal case it's ok.  Tammy and Jim Bakker never properly disclosed to all their clients that there money was being used for personal profit and enjoyment either. 

Spin it however you wish, as far as I see jones certainly didn't make sense of investing when it came to the benefits of using the prefered funds!

[quote=Lance Legstrong]

Doug made a deal with the US Prosecutor!

Criminals or those faced with criminal proceedures are the only people that make deals with US Prosecutors!

Doug made a deal with the US Prosecutor therefor Doug is a criminal!

End of Story!  Adios Doug

"Adios Doug!" sounds like a great topic for a new thread on this forum.  Who wants to start "turning the worm?"

I ate the worm once late one night.  I had a nasty hangover the next day…

[quote=joedabrkr]I ate the worm once late one night.  I had a nasty hangover the next day.......[/quote]

But at least you don't have worms now 

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=joedabrkr]I ate the worm once late one night.  I had a nasty hangover the next day.......[/quote]

But at least you don't have worms now 

[/quote]

True.  My dog had worms last summer.  What a pain in the arse!

3’mil stepped on his worm…bet that hurt.

Lance Legstrong claimed that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I asked for evidence for his claim. I did not write or imply anything else. He did not provide the evidence.

My original point is that the difference between pre-settlement and post-settlement is the verbal disclosure, not the practice of revenue sharing, with the one short-term difference where trips were awarded on the partial basis of revenue sharing (pulled back earlier by EJ). I'm also claiming that clients have not yet rejected for me a preferred fund because of the verbal disclosure of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing continues as it has before, allowed by the SEC, with additional disclosure. And by the way, I believe Soothsayer was incorrect when he wrote that revenue sharing from preferred mutual funds does not count in P/L for bonus purposes. It continues as before.

There are also many claims made here of General Partner "greed". I would be interested in specific explanation, support or evidence of this. It is good to remember that the GP's have refused the opportunity to take the firm public, when to do so would have resulted in great personal benefit. 

[quote=Butkus]

There are also many claims made here of General Partner "greed". I would be interested in specific explanation, support or evidence of this. It is good to remember that the GP's have refused the opportunity to take the firm public, when to do so would have resulted in great personal benefit. 

[/quote]

Do you really think your money market yield is lower than most other firms because it is safer?  Let me clue you in......the gp's skim millions every year from that money market yield that you dont see a penny of.

Your bonus system....Do you really think that opening multiple offices around yours really  helps your business? The goal is to keep IR production where you do not receive the maximum benefit from the bonus system.  The profitability of the firm is not helped by opening unprofitable offices, but the GP's continue to get paid big bucks even when the firm is in a low bonus bracket.......they have you paying for the growth.

Preferred funds...NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CLIENTS!  In the best interest of GP's who want to leverage vendor relationships by funneling money to select vendors and maximize KICKBACKS.

There is more but yes GP's are greedy.  Except when it comes to dispensing kool-aid.  They are quite liberal with that.

Like Napoleon Dynamite said.......... "Idiots!"

[quote=Butkus]

Lance Legstrong claimed that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I asked for evidence for his claim. I did not write or imply anything else. He did not provide the evidence.

My original point is that the difference between pre-settlement and post-settlement is the verbal disclosure, not the practice of revenue sharing, with the one short-term difference where trips were awarded on the partial basis of revenue sharing (pulled back earlier by EJ). I'm also claiming that clients have not yet rejected for me a preferred fund because of the verbal disclosure of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing continues as it has before, allowed by the SEC, with additional disclosure. And by the way, I believe Soothsayer was incorrect when he wrote that revenue sharing from preferred mutual funds does not count in P/L for bonus purposes. It continues as before.

There are also many claims made here of General Partner "greed". I would be interested in specific explanation, support or evidence of this. It is good to remember that the GP's have refused the opportunity to take the firm public, when to do so would have resulted in great personal benefit. 

[/quote]

Revenue sharing on a per fund, per family basis used to be included on each broker's and each branch's P&L.  Under the new formula, it is not even a consideration.  Only total assets or a "Branch Holdings Credit" is now a line item on the P&L.  That, my friend, is an absolute freakin' fact.  If you can't read a 12 item P&L statement, and you're in the financial advice business, then you not so smart.  You can call me what you want.  But "wrong" ain't one of them on this matter.

Soothsayer, I’m not calling you anything, I’m suggesting I believe you are incorrect on this point. I spoke with Branch Accounting regarding it.

[quote=Butkus]

Lance Legstrong claimed that Doug Hill faced criminal charges, and I asked for evidence for his claim. I did not write or imply anything else. He did not provide the evidence.

My original point is that the difference between pre-settlement and post-settlement is the verbal disclosure, not the practice of revenue sharing, with the one short-term difference where trips were awarded on the partial basis of revenue sharing (pulled back earlier by EJ). I'm also claiming that clients have not yet rejected for me a preferred fund because of the verbal disclosure of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing continues as it has before, allowed by the SEC, with additional disclosure. And by the way, I believe Soothsayer was incorrect when he wrote that revenue sharing from preferred mutual funds does not count in P/L for bonus purposes. It continues as before.

There are also many claims made here of General Partner "greed". I would be interested in specific explanation, support or evidence of this. It is good to remember that the GP's have refused the opportunity to take the firm public, when to do so would have resulted in great personal benefit. 

[/quote]

Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.

So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

[quote=joedabrkr

Taking the firm public would have subjected the GP's activities to the light of day, and forced them to comply with various ethical requirements such as those under Sarbanes-Oxley.

So....do you really think it would have been a great personl benefit to them when they could remain private and keep bending the IR's over year after year?

[/quote]

Butkus,

If Jones went public, wouldn't the GP's get better tax treatment for the dividend they would receive over the partnership earnings they get now? They have huge incentives to keep the firm private, the kind alluded to by joe above.  Unless of course you believe that out of their kindness and generosity, they like paying taxes too.