B24, I've got a friend in the Jones system that is more than 5 years out and by his own admission, will struggle with that minimum.  I'm curious if you know what the consequences of not hitting the new minimum is.  I have no doubt that Jones would rather he go away...he's a nice guy, but just isn't much of an advisor.  What do you think will happen to him under this new minimum if he has problems maintaining it?

A new standard for the people out 4.5 years.  I can hear the regional leaders now, "We have an open office in...(fill in the blank)"  Just because Weddle sets a new standard doesn't mean that they are going to fire someone for it.  I think it will be one of those things that there will be a handful of IR's in the Red and then they will spin their wheels trying to help that person get out of the red.  Meanwhile, the Veteran IR that is exceeding expectations is walking out the backdoor.  The attrition at Jones for Seg 3,4,5 is astronomical and don't let anyone of the GP's sell you any differently on this one. 

If you do question them, ask them why is it that the goal has been 25,000 IR's for 8 years and they haven't been able to get past 9200-10000.  One reason, there is too much focus on the RED IR and not enough focus on the Green IR ready to jump the mothership!

Incidentally, today he announced the new required minimum standard for IR's is 18K gross per month (IR's out 4.5 years or more).

I like being able to tell my prospects from Jones about the quota system and compare it to being an independant.   They get the picture immediately. 

Quota = forced sales to meet quota = churning

That's sorta funny, especially given the supposed coming fee-based options at EJ....while 18k/mo is not great shakes for a long time broker, it would seem unlikely that many new people will get there in 4.5 years with ANY semblance of fee-based stuff--especially since they are measured on a month-to-month basis in the 54 months before they hit the 18k target.  What's the point of offering fee-based options if no one can use them and survive?

You hit it on the head Cowboy. The average Jones broker is doing less than

$300K per year and they want to grow this force? And doing so by offering

fee based platforms in a company that only makes money due to high

commissions on products, switching, revenue sharing, etc. I am calling BS

here.

 Here are some cold facts...

1) If you are not in this business to keep moving and growing for sure go independent because there they dont care about your gross yet!

2) If you are going to stay at a firm..though be it Jones Merrill ..whereever ..let's get it straight .. THEY ALL HAVE production minimums.. problem is that if you are a newbie getting in there and trying to get on your feet it is a tough road..but you can do it just be innnovative ..

3) If you are in this only to make $50k a year then go indie or get a different job ..because you have to work way to hard and too much for just that much money...

And no I don't work for a wire nor am I an Indie.. but I did work for Jones at one point... and I know they have some powerful koolaid..and for that I commend those that are passionate about their employers..  But as with everything there are strengths and weakness's in the organization..just be aware that no matter where you go ... they ALL have their problems..

Good Luck..

ww-Did that have a point?  I mean one that is NOT obvious to anyone that's ever taken the 7.

My point above was that if you want to encourage fee-based business as an option, you have to stop measuring people on a month to month basis early on--and EJ isn't the only firm with this challenge.  But some other firms have recognized you can't have max revenue now AND lots of fee-based biz from your new people.  Heck, even established people tend to take a hit in their production when they are converting their business to more fee-based stuff.

Cowboy, Babs, etc...

I agree with your general points, but as WW pointed out, all wirehouses have requirements as well.  This is not something unique to Jones. 

In my previous post, the point I was making was that Jim Weddle, and the firm, are making progress. I didn't say that we are holier than thou, or the best firm out there, or that we have the best platform.  I was communicating some of the positive change in the firm, facts which most former IR's are likely not privy to.

Yes, I would agree, in certain regions attrition is probably higher among the upper level producers.  In my region it is not.  I cannot speak for other regions, so I am only basing it on what I hear from others in this forum (even though most of those talking about the high attrition rates are not even current employees).  But again, my point was that it appears that Weddle is addressing this issue.  But you can only take one step at a time.  Try to reflect on what has happened to some of the wirehouses that have made wholesale changes overnight to compensation, recruiting, platforms, etc.  It can be devestating.

As far as the comment about Jones only making money on high commissions, switching, revenue sharing, etc....keep in mind that the prospectuses you live by are the same as mine (commissions), I am not sure where you get this "switching" concept - I am not sure how many brokers are doing this (and I am sure it isn't just a "Jones" thing), and most other major firms participate in revenue sharing.  So, please, lets just focus on the issues unique to Jones, not ones that transcend the entire industry.

Indy, you asked what the repercussions are for not hitting the minimums.  Honestly, I don't know.  I think there is more beneath the surface of this than simply changing the minimum standard.  It will probably depend HOW FAR below you are, what your office needs to be profitable, etc.  I can speculate, but that would just be...well....speculation.  One thing I think they are trying to do is weed out the "Cruisers" - people just satisfied with real low production levels (or that are really bad).  It's a business.  I know, I know, if we were indy we could happily get by on 100K gross per year or whatever we please.  But again, it's a business.  No different than any other wire or regional.

b24-

Good luck to you in your career at EDJ. Please don't make the assumption that because some of us went indy we are on autopilot. Quite the contrary,at least in my case and several friends I know who left EDJ with more than seven years at Jones. They are all exceeding their best years at Jones.

Spiked hit the nail on the head, many vets have and are leaving. Otherwise the growth numbers would be where they want. So while I do think Weddle is a better fit than Doug Hill, I have to question whether or not Jones will ever truly embrace fee based biz. They will offer it at some point, keep the offerings and the net below the market, and retain as much as they can.

B24....the cold reality is they don't care whether you stay or go. You are only a razor blade away (your name scratched from the front door) from being replaced by a newbie who will believe for the next 4-5 years. And so on and so on.

I spent 10 years with this firm exceeding or meeting expectations and was always wondering when I would see financial nirvana. Jones management loves mediocrity, they just raised the bar a little bit. Their biggest concern ought to be how do they retain the profit makers of the firm. If the new fee platform isn't competitive (and Jones never usually is out of the gate) the stagnant growth will continue. There is life after Jones. A good life I might add.

And Babs comments should not go unnoticed. What does a quota do to a reps pysche and to the clients. The perception is the transaction model pits the broker against the client. You will be amazed at the percentage of your clients who will prefer that you sit on the same side of the desk as them and guide them without any agenda other than growing their assets.

If you are like most brokers at Jones you will be adamant as I was that I never put a client into an investment that wasn't suitable. And that's true to a point. I certainly made investment decisions first with the clients interest at heart, but the next thought was the commission I earned as result. Now that I am moving the practice to fees I understand the distinction and the conflict.

You will too in time.

Footsoldier when did you go? Thought you were riding it out at Jones. Glad to see another soldier move to freedom!

[quote=footsoldier]

I certainly made investment decisions first with the clients interest at heart, but the next thought was the commission I earned as result. Now that I am moving the practice to fees I understand the distinction and the conflict.

You will too in time.

Foot,

I hear you.  And I may have mis-spoken when I made the comment about autopilot or whatever.  I did not mean to suggest that indy's don't work hard, or don't make money.  I actually meant that at Jones, and many under a commission model must continually crank out new business due to the nature of the compensation model.  This is as opposed to a fee based model wehere you can focus on a select group of clients and get paid for it.

As far as your other comments, you may or may not be correct.  For my sake, and that of other Jones brokers, I hope there are additional positive changes in the model.  Otherwise, well, I don't want to be opening new accounts 10 years from now just to put food on the table.  I am well aware of the environment here, and what it will take to make it long term and succeed.  And I also know that more changes are needed for someone like myself to stay long-term.  I am actually glad that there is turnover in the ranks - it keeps the Jeeps honest.  If nobody left, there would be no incentive to make changes. 

Broker 24, the main difference I see in my business model from Jones to indy is the lack of arbitrary monthly hurdles to meet.  This isn't to say that I don't strive to make money every day and I don't have goals to meet.  After all I do need to pay the bills and eat

At Jones it didn't matter if you had a 6 month streak of "exceeding expectations" or if you were well ahead of the game.  Each month was a new from scratch event and you had better produce or be under the thumb of everyone from the regional leader on down.  After a winning streak if an IR is in the tank for whatever reason they are all over you like stink on 'you know what'.

As an indy I can bank the good months and if there is a lean one because I got sick, market news is bad, I just plain decided to take a vacation or for whatever reason, there is no one that I have to answer to. 

If it is a slow month I don't have to look at my book and think......
"Hmmm..... I need to generate 3k more in gross commissions to meet my quota......aha...... I'll just call all my BAC stock holders and have them sell, take profits or cut their losses and put them into something else like an American Funds Capital Income Builder, so I can make my goal."   This is a tactic that the guy who was mentoring me  (now there is a real joke) suggested in exactly those words.    Because I don't have a monkey from St Louis on my back, I am not as likely to base my recommendations on product solely on the commissions that I would need to make a goal. 

Again, this isn't to say that commissions don't matter to me. After all I am in business to make money. 

[quote=babbling looney]

At Jones it didn't matter if you had a 6 month streak of "exceeding expectations" or if you were well ahead of the game.  Each month was a new from scratch event and you had better produce or be under the thumb of everyone from the regional leader on down.  After a winning streak if an IR is in the tank for whatever reason they are all over you like stink on 'you know what'.

[quote=Maxstud]

[quote=babbling looney]

At Jones it didn’t matter if you had a 6 month streak of “exceeding

expectations” or if you were well ahead of the game. Each month was a new

from scratch event and you had better produce or be under the thumb of

everyone from the regional leader on down. After a winning streak if an IR is

in the tank for whatever reason they are all over you like stink on ‘you know

what’.

[quote=Maxstud] [quote=babbling looney]

At Jones it didn't matter if you had a 6 month streak of "exceeding expectations" or if you were well ahead of the game.  Each month was a new from scratch event and you had better produce or be under the thumb of everyone from the regional leader on down.  After a winning streak if an IR is in the tank for whatever reason they are all over you like stink on 'you know what'.

[/quote]

I have never experienced being "under the thumb" at Jones.  In fact I very rarely hear from anyone unless I make the call first.
[/quote]

Also, there have been MANY converstions behind the scenes between your RL and the "in crowd" about you. Good or bad. If you are producing and not volunteering "we need to get him involved." If you are not producing "we need to kick him in the a--. He's in his own world."

All of this is the intangible reason I am so glad to be gone. The money is good, but the freedom is even better. No performance charts for everyone to gawk at!

Babs,

I agree with you on that.  Sometimes I get concerned about the whole rolling 4 month deal.  I would prefer an annualized look.  But I don't really hear of many people being under the "thumb", as most in my region are within the first 7 years, and generally producing pretty well (15-30K/mo.+).  I imagine that the few that are doing really poorly are being pressed hard though.  But, as with any other firm, they need to be pushed up or out.  It's not really unique to this firm.  I am sure all the major wires and regionals have their own form of "up or out" tactics.  My goal is that as long as I am producing what I need to make a good living (which is well above the "standards"), I don't really care what anyone at Jones says to me. I don't care if I have a 'zero' month as long as my tax return at the end of the year shows what I want it to.  I worked in very senior management positions for F500 companies before this, and am very well versed in how to play the politics in any firm.  I am a big boy and don't really care about that stuff, so for the most part I just ignore the things I don't like.

Hopefully, I will never fall into that commission trap you talked about.  I am fortunate in that I have substantial savings, and can weather lower income for many years if necessary.  As a result, I am being particular about how I build my book in the early years.  I think what I am doing will pay off in the out years, even if it means giving up a few bucks early on (and those "coveted" plaques!).  Ironically, I have started faster than most in the region, even though I don't open as many accounts as some.

I'm in my second year at Jones, and I must say that I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to make a 30-year career out of this gig. 

Like Broker24, I don't want to be hustling to open new accounts in 20 years to put food on the table. This is my first "commission-based" job, and I have to admit that thinking about what the future holds is very unsettling.

Also, I have a real problem with recruiting being a category in our diversification trip contest. I now believe that I was persuaded to apply with Jones primarily so an acquaintance of mine could meet their goal in that category and get a little closer to going on a trip.

I know a lot of IRs who are recruiting people to Jones just for the purpose of winning a trip, and that is very disturbing. 

I don't care if I have a 'zero' month as long as my tax return at the end of the year shows what I want it to.

You may not care, but Jones will be really excited if you have a zero month.  I didn't need to do the churning or other "tricks" to get the numbers because I brought a book with me when I moved to Jones.   I took it with me again when I moved to indy. 100% of my older clients came with me, and 60% of new clients I cultivated while at Jones. 

I was appalled at the advice they were giving the newbies on how to make the numbers.  Just like the one I gave above on churning a position in your entire book, there were other not so ethical suggestions like choosing the Federated B shares only because they paid higher than the other funds, call your bond holders and have them sell existing bonds to buy a "much better" new issue bond, and so on. Granted it was some time ago, so I hope that things are not quite that sleezy now.

I don't mean to be too negative for you new guys.  At some point, your book will reach critical  mass and you will be able to "meet expectaions" without churning (much) or having to open just any account from a client who can "fog a mirror".  You will get repeat business from happly clients and lots of referrals.  Your name will be known in the community and you will be the first person that they think of when they need investment advice.

The issue is that in the meantime the pressure to do what is NOT in the best interests of the client is strong when you are under a quota gun.

I agree with Broker24 that it would be much better to be measured on your annual production.  The problem with that is some people really only work well under the gun and will slack off, hence the quota and monitoring system. 

[quote=Starka] [quote=Maxstud]

[quote=babbling looney]

At Jones it didn’t matter if you had a 6 month streak of “exceeding

expectations” or if you were well ahead of the game.  Each month was a new

from scratch event and you had better produce or be under the thumb of

everyone from the regional leader on down.  After a winning streak if an IR is

in the tank for whatever reason they are all over you like stink on ‘you know

what’.