skrainka probably didn't agree with weddle....so skrainka was let go

north.....

I think you're onto something. Alan's reports were always heavily footnoted with attribution. In typical Jones nature, when someone leaves they have to throw mud on them.

Highly doubt it was a disagreement with Weddle. Skrainka probably just started getting careless.

Well, I would guess he must have to upset somebody because you don't typically fire the head of your reserach!  If they want you out they find something to send you packing.  Jones is going all Advisory so who needs a guy who has been following 50 stocks for 10 years.  It is really hard to makes calls like HD,HOG,GE,MO,T and then buy/hold for 10 years (Oh yeah AIG at $2 bucks was still a buy---Humm good call EDJ).  I think you could get those ideas from CNBC. I met him a couple of times during my years. I think he is a really  nice/ bright guy who never could give "timely" advise because of the jones model. He might be very good at what he does but never has been able to show it.   I told a former Jones guy to get me his resume and I would send it to LPL becuase we are always looking to add talent......(and to stick it too jones!)..  I heard throught the grape vine Kate Warren is taking over---WOW. She missed the huge oil run up a couple of years ago!!!!!!! I would have my concerns about that!! 

Fooled.....

Lots of good points. AIG at $2? How about the good old days with a hold on LU from $80 to $5?

Jones is not better off with Kate in charge.

Didn't he try to quit twice before?

Something is definitely up with this.  Just the fact that Weddle STATED to the firm WHY Skrainka was fired seems odd.  Typically, a firm will send out the standard "left to pursue other opportunities, spend more time with family, etc....".  But the fact that Weddle STATED that he was fired for lack of editorial attribution seems odd.  If it is 100% accurate, the only thing I can think of is that Skrainka did do this, and whoever he failed to atribute to got their panties in a wad, and Weddle's hand was forced for some reason.  Not sure if FINRA or the SEC has jurisdiction over editorial attribution (or only the validity and compliance of the content itself), but I would think this must have been a bigger deal than it seems.  Skrainka is a long-time GP.  I would think if it was minor, he would get a slap on the wrist, and Jones would make it go away.

Strange.  Very Strange.

Alan was a dim light bulb.  The only illumination he provided was off his shiny dome.

If you need any other proof that this firm is changing...........

Just to correct some inaccuracies - Kate Warne is stepping into Alan's spot on an interim basis.  My personal guess is that Scott Thoma, who writes a ton of Alan-ish types of articles and everything for Advisory Solutions, will take his place.  Like I said, that's my personal guess.   

Jones is, at some point in the "near" future, going to offer a UMA fee based account.  Which means that stocks can be utilized inside that platform.  Research keeps it's importance in a situation like that.

I don't think anyone needed any additional proof that the firm is changing.  For the better.  I've personally heard Alan say that he was a fan of Advisory Solutions, so I don't think that it would have been a disagreement with management over the direction of the firm if he believed that's where the firm was heading. 

We'll probably never know the real story behind what Alan did.  It will be interesting to see who takes his place long term.   

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

Just to correct some inaccuracies - Kate Warne is stepping into Alan's spot on an interim basis.  My personal guess is that Scott Thoma, who writes a ton of Alan-ish types of articles and everything for Advisory Solutions, will take his place.  Like I said, that's my personal guess.   

Jones is, at some point in the "near" future, going to offer a UMA fee based account.  Which means that stocks can be utilized inside that platform.  Research keeps it's importance in a situation like that.

I don't think anyone needed any additional proof that the firm is changing.  For the better.  I've personally heard Alan say that he was a fan of Advisory Solutions, so I don't think that it would have been a disagreement with management over the direction of the firm if he believed that's where the firm was heading. 

We'll probably never know the real story behind what Alan did.  It will be interesting to see who takes his place long term.   

[/quote]

We had an interesting little discussion where I said that EDJ wasn't transparent you said they were.....

C'mon Nog.  It isn't appropriate for ANY firm to give explicit details about why someone was fired.  I wouldn't even expect a firm to do that.  That has nothing to do with a "lack of transparency."

Transparency from my firm doesn't need to, and shouldn't, include the reasons people are terminated.  Those are HR issues that are between that employee and the company.   

Actually, I'm shocked that they released anything.  The public nature of his termination gives him grounds for suit.  Having dealt with employment law in a previous career, that matter should have been kept private.  The reputational damage alone for someone with Skrainka's earning potential could result in a nice pay day for him.

My GUESS is that whoever he "borrowed" material from made a big deal about it, and part of the "agreement" was his termination and public acknowledgement that it happened.  Jones is a big firm....they would not make that sort of announcement without some REALLY good reasons.  I am sure Skrainka probably signed off on it in return for....not getting sued, Jones not being dragged through the mud, whatever.

Here is an Investment News article.

Alan tried to quit years ago, but Backman would only dribble out his GP money until the last year. Sounds like a big blowup in the home office.

I don't really think that anyone with Jones believes that he was fired for the stated reasons.  Knowing how the "Jones Machine" works he got the wrong person mad at him and they went "looking".

I think spam is onto something.

They fire Skrainka but Doug Hill gets to hang around? Doesn't make sense. Maybe, just maybe, we are starting to see the wheels beging to come off. First Weddle sells Jones-UK. Then he raises production minimums in a deep recession claiming that 'Ted would have done it sooner'. Then Skrainka gets fired for reasons that have zero ring of truth. All this points to is the vapid leadership at the top of the firm.