[quote=exdrone][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.

[/quote]

Well said, the fact is they do not want everything in the light of Day.

Just to clear-up some facts on Doug "3 Mil" Hill The State Attorney General of Missouri was the one preparing to file the charges against Doug "3 Mil" Hill for FRAUD, but since he agreed to pay the FINE to the SEC, the state agreed to drop the charges as long as he resigned and personally paid the Fine.  This appeared in the WSJ as well as all the major newspapers in Mo..........go check it out online, anyone that wants to find it can........it is a FACT and TRUE.......... 

And by the way, BFD & Butkus, if your Firm Edward Jones is so honest and provides it's employees with the total TRUTH, ask your legal department for a copy?  They do have it, but will they share it with you? 

Just keep drinking Kool Aid and follow the Firm Montra, We are not crooks, we did nothing wrong!  Gee, didn't Richard Nixon say that just before resigning too, just like Doug "3 Mil" Hill......

Bill Clinton lied under oath, so anything goes and can be justified...even cover-ups at Edward Jones......It's a problem not just at Edward Jones, it's a national problem, no one is accountable for what they do...........there is something very wrong with this 

MERRY CHRISTMAS

HAPPY NEW YEAR…

[quote=exdrone][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.

[/quote]

I agree, and MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR

[quote=exdrone][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.

[/quote]

I agre with that..............

MERRY CHRISTMAS

&

HAPPY NEW YEAR

The amazing thing is many Firms are downsizing and they are aware of the fact there are just too many Advisor's out there. They are all drinking the same Kool Aid, Weddle is just a clone of Doug "3 Mil" Hill although he does have a lot more class thats for sure.  

However, Jones keep stating they want market share, 25,000 IR's, what they really want is a Jones Office every 2 miles, young hard working door knocking IR's doing about 200 to 300K Gross commissions, causing no problems, drinking the Kool Aid sounding the company montra........................... 

They really don't care if an IR leaves, they will just send in several newbie Ir's to keep the scraps and start over..........only with two offices instead of one..........it's called multiplication the Jones way

When was the last time Jones went after an experienced IR that leaves..........they don't and can't afford too...........they only go after the training expenses in the first 3 years......so if you have over 3 years and can produce over 250K you need to think about leaving...........sooner than later....... 

MERRY CHRISTMAS

&

 HAPPY NEW YEAR

[quote=Player][quote=exdrone][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.

[/quote]

I agre with that..............

MERRY CHRISTMAS

&

HAPPY NEW YEAR

[/quote]

Hopefully the new Year will be good for us all...........

Well, because I'm bored and am offically on vacation today I ran a morningstar report of the American Funds that BPD proposed as a diversfied portfolio, using 10K invested into each fund.

12.9% is concentrated in the top 25 stocks

Microsoft, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac are all in 4 of the funds.  Growth fund, Cap inc bldr, Cap world growth, American Mutual

The rest of the top 25 are all in three funds  generally Growth fund, Cap inc blr and Cap G&I or American fund.

Appoximate allocations  Cash 10.4% -Us Stocks 41.2 - Non US Stocks 24.7% - Bonds 22%     My program only allows me to create Morningstar hypos on an existing account.  I'm too cheap to pay for the full Morningstar Advisor platform   so I used an account that also had minimal (less than $100) stock position and a very small Franklin Natural Resources fund, which has a 33.28 % ytd total return.    There may be some skewing because of this but not much since the existing account is so small

3 year Alpha 5.15  Beta .65

Standard deviation is 6.94 compared to the benchmark (S&P) at 10.01    Sharpe Ratio 1.68 compared to 1.01

pre tax return   3 mo 1.84  1 yr 10.20  3 yr 14.14   5 yr 7.97   10 yr 10.92

Benchmark       3 mo 2.87  1 yr 8.44  3 yr 12.09  5 yr .64  10 yr 9.28

Not too bad. Most clients wouldn't kick you in the shins if this was their portfolio.  One point I may make is that I AM able to run a Morningstar hypo at all.... something I couldn't do at Jones.  Plus I can print it out in a full color format, place it into a folder with other information and analysis of their stock holdings using S&P reports and Morningstar with my recommendations in writing.  The clients are impressed

Merry Christmas

&

 Happy New Year

Well, because I'm bored and am offically on vacation today I ran a morningstar report of the American Funds that BPD proposed as a diversfied portfolio, using 10K invested into each fund.

12.9% is concentrated in the top 25 stocks

Microsoft, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac are all in 4 of the funds.  Growth fund, Cap inc bldr, Cap world growth, American Mutual

The rest of the top 25 are all in three funds  generally Growth fund, Cap inc blr and Cap G&I or American fund.

Appoximate allocations  Cash 10.4% -Us Stocks 41.2 - Non US Stocks 24.7% - Bonds 22%     My program only allows me to create Morningstar hypos on an existing account.  I'm too cheap to pay for the full Morningstar Advisor platform   so I used an account that also had minimal (less than $100) stock position and a very small Franklin Natural Resources fund, which has a 33.28 % ytd total return.    There may be some skewing because of this but not much since the existing account is so small

3 year Alpha 5.15  Beta .65

Standard deviation is 6.94 compared to the benchmark (S&P) at 10.01    Sharpe Ratio 1.68 compared to 1.01

pre tax return   3 mo 1.84  1 yr 10.20  3 yr 14.14   5 yr 7.97   10 yr 10.92

Benchmark       3 mo 2.87  1 yr 8.44  3 yr 12.09  5 yr .64  10 yr 9.28

Not too bad. Most clients wouldn't kick you in the shins if this was their portfolio.  One point I may make is that I AM able to run a Morningstar hypo at all.... something I couldn't do at Jones.  Plus I can print it out in a full color format, place it into a folder with other information and analysis of their stock holdings using S&P reports and Morningstar with my recommendations in writing.  The clients are impressed

Player...you been in the egg nog again?!!!

Merry Christmas!!! (my preferred version...sorry if I offend anyone!)

HAPPY NEW YEAR…

[quote=Soothsayer][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.

[/quote]

Actually, Soothsayer is correct after all on this, revenue sharing from the preferred funds do not contribute more to bonuses based on P/L than non-preferred funds.

Yea… EDJ reps… keep drinking the kool-aid, keep the blinders on and keep making the GP’s a lot of bank… after all the #1 client at EDJ is the serious long term GP.  They really do not care about the IR unless you’re below expectations… then they call you to find out why you are not selling more.       Figure it out!!