Doug Hill should call Phil Purcell to try to join his firm in Chicago.  This way, they can have the most futile and worthless leadership ever.

[quote=munytalks]

Max-

It is obvious you do not have an argument anymore. You did not answer the question, you are merely trying to deflect away from the point and further, do what all Jonesers do when they realize they are wrong, try to insinuate another person is less intelligent than yourself.

Glad you also liked the Arthur Anderson fact. Since you find it humorous, you must not have been around when it occurred. It is fact.

When asked, in a SUGGBOX wire to Bachmann, why EDJ would keep AA during such negative publicity about them, Bachmann replied that EDJ had a long standing relationship with them and would not abandon them during this time. You can look this up in the Records Department, but I doubt you will.

And you would have had to be on Leadership Team to be aware of when AA requested a termination of their agreement with Jones-and how this should be explained back out to the troops. Obviously, you weren't on Leadership Teams either.

Now, either get back on the phone or pack your bags- isn't this pretty close to Holy Week time when you all gather together to reassure yourselves that you are doing what is right? And get the update on Growth Numbers. Don't forget to pack your green name badge, you KNOW how they hate it when they can't identify you right away.

[/quote]

My only point in the discussion is that revenue sharing is not 50% of income it is 5% of revenue.  So I'm really not sure how that doesnt answer your question, I have tried to make this point in many different ways and I am out of ideas to try and explain myself. ( See my direcTV example).  My only other point is that there is no such thing as pure profit in business.  Zacko believes if the revenue is not directly generated by an activity then its pure profit, so be it. 

I found your AA post funny because you made it seem like one of the largest accounting firms in the US had only two clients EDJ and Enron.  Yes, I know you didnt come out and say that but thats the way it read and I thought that was funny.

Every other point you've made about EDJ is really just so much noise at this point.  We can keep going back and forth on this but it really turns into a big circle.  Much like going to a Democrats meeting to argue in favor of W Bush, noones ever going to be persuaded.

Cheers.

Just to clarify something...I've never insinuated that the brokers make anything off of Revenue sharing...I don't have a clue whether they do or not.  I'm just saying that the owners (in this case partners...both limited and Managing) get about 5% of their income from the revenues off of revenue sharing if 5% of revenues comes from revenue sharing. 

You could probably say that all of the money they make off of selling insurance is 'pure profit' and equal to a gazillion percent of income just as easily...it doesn't make logical sense....Revenue is revenue is revenue in the accounting world. 

Max-

On the point of not being able to agree- we can Agree!

So CHEERS back at you. Get yourself a drink on me at the Open Bar. And, drive carefully to Regional.

Max-

I'll spend my net revenue. You spend your gross before expenses. And you claim to be a financial advisor.

My grandfather once told me It is not what you make its what you keep. 

[quote=footsoldier]

Max-

I'll spend my net revenue. You spend your gross before expenses. And you claim to be a financial advisor.

My grandfather once told me It is not what you make its what you keep. 

[/quote]

Yea, I'm done with this.  My only point is to disagree with the statement that if revenue sharing goes away EDJ will lose 50% of their net income.  

Good Luck

Max,

It is good to see that you can at least use the right adjective to describe Jones' revenue from kickbacks.  You are right, it is "their" revenue.  How much of that "gross" (as you call it) revenue ends up in "your" net.

Max-

Call Guest1. He is a GP. You need someone to agree with you.

[quote=footsoldier]

Max-

Call Guest1. He is a GP. You need someone to agree with you.

[/quote]

No, I really don't need someone to agree with me.

Good Luck

Max-

When you are at the regionals and they ask you to write a note to your spouse about how they have made a difference to you, and then they intend to read it in the spouse's meeting, remember back to our discussion about Gross and NET. The agenda is set, and the firm is intent on using your spouse to further their cause.

You will spending your NET(out of your pocket) time looking for that one good idea to implement when you get back with other peers while the rest of us are producing GROSS which will NET us far more than the touchy feely crap that is being promoted by management. But you will feel good about your company until you learn to read between the lines.

Gross is NEVER as important as NET. Whether it is your revenues or the GP's!!!

foot, 

Sorry to disappoint you but unlike many of the people on this forum, ex-jones or jones, I am a cynic and I dont believe anyone is looking out for me or has my interest in mind.  When push comes to shove everyone is out for themselves.  EDJ is a big business and acts like any other big business.  Sorry you fell for it.  Lucky for me my wife is a lot like me.  So the only touchy feely we care about is with each other.   

Thank you and goodnight.  

[quote=Maxstud]foot, 

Sorry to disappoint you but unlike many of the people on this forum, ex-jones or jones, I am a cynic and I dont believe anyone is looking out for me or has my interest in mind.  When push comes to shove everyone is out for themselves.  EDJ is a big business and acts like any other big business.  Sorry you fell for it.  Lucky for me my wife is a lot like me.  So the only touchy feely we care about is with each other.   

Thank you and goodnight.  
[/quote]

I couldn't have said it better myself...

[quote=munytalks]

Max-

On the point of not being able to agree- we can Agree!

So CHEERS back at you. Get yourself a drink on me at the Open Bar. And, drive carefully to Regional.

[quote=Devoted SA]

[quote=Incredible Hulk]If the EDJ GPs are only concerned about lining their pockets as you say, then we will have wrap accounts very shortly. If/When we do have wrap accounts, you will tell us that it is only for them to make more money, while you tell us now that wrap accounts are good for the clients. I look forward to the day when this is the topic of debate…[/quote]

Mr. Hulk (the real one) I think the more interesting topic of debate would be why Jones changed it’s position on WRAP accounts. Another Jones IR posted that he thought Weddle would bring about WRAP accounts soon, and that there were rumblings about the possibility. What do you think about that?

The Real IH-

Are you conceding that the transition to wrap fees is in the wind due to regulatory changes looming or are you suggesting the firm just needs to be current with what clients want.

Another way to ask the question,

Are the GP's worried that their annuity stream may go away? The double speak is getting interesting. Weddle says in his latest broadcast , " Don't hold your breath for us to adopt fees." Is that code for ready or not here it comes? Anyone else sensing a change?

Listening to a GP is like listening to my wife. It's not what she said, it is what she meant. 25 years of marriage teaches you a few things.

footsoldier,

Listening to a GP is like listening to my wife. It's not what she said, it is what she meant. 25 years of marriage teaches you a few things.

and I bet you are still learning.

Sorry to bring back old news but I thought this was worth sharing. According to Weddle in his weekly q & a,

57% of revenues are from fees including revenue sharing. He also was quick to mention that revenue sharing is not critical to the firm and not to ask about revenue sharings importance to the firm.

And the doublespeak continues. Let me understand correctly. Firm fee revenue accounts for more than half of total revenue. And revenue sharing is the major component of firm revenue.  Therefore no one should even consider the worst case scenario and its impact on the firm. This firm is so wrapped in fund relationships, that it could never compromise its integrity and do what's right for the client. The stench is never ending.

Another perspective.

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/stevebraun/112047/

Since compliance doesn't like the grocery store analogy, maybe they will appreciate the soccer analogy. The caption is priceless.

"Take Bribes but Be Fair, Soccer Refs Told"

[quote=footsoldier]

Sorry to bring back old news but I thought this was worth sharing. According to Weddle in his weekly q & a,

57% of revenues are from fees including revenue sharing. He also was quick to mention that revenue sharing is not critical to the firm and not to ask about revenue sharings importance to the firm.

[/quote]

So said the addict with a needle in his arm..."I'm not addicted, I can quit any time."  Rev sharing is GP heroin.  They're so hooked, they cant see straight.

[quote=footsoldier]

Sorry to bring back old news but I thought this was worth sharing. According to Weddle in his weekly q & a,

57% of revenues are from fees including revenue sharing. He also was quick to mention that revenue sharing is not critical to the firm and not to ask about revenue sharings importance to the firm.

And the doublespeak continues. Let me understand correctly. Firm fee revenue accounts for more than half of total revenue. And revenue sharing is the major component of firm revenue. Therefore no one should even consider the worst case scenario and its impact on the firm. This firm is so wrapped in fund relationships, that it could never compromise its integrity and do what’s right for the client. The stench is never ending.