Thread regarding Edward Jones layoffs

@gp I would not bet on the new variable rate shares paying out more than the 7.5% guaranteed payment. At this point, I don't believe this firm would do anything that would benefit employees.

I don't work at Jones anymore, but I would probably take the money needed to buy into the partnership and invest it elsewhere.

@km be a contrarian. Whatever Penelope pushes do the opposite

Everyone should keep your A shares. That will foil PP plans! The introduction of Profit interest holders will dilute most of the profits for the B shares. I read the 23rd amendment and it made me sick!

@ky Thanks for the context! Anxiously awaiting refreshed FAQs on this subject. You have to feel for retirees who have grown used to the returns of what are now A shares—I guess they will convert to B shares as quickly as they can.

@ek I'm not saying you're wrong, but I plugged the most recently SEC filed 23rd agreement into ChatGPT and had it compare it to the previous SEC filing for the 22nd agreement (both publicly available documents, by the way), and it agreed with the OP - it's different post recapitalization - Class A shares only get the 7.5%. I know ChatGPT is not always accurate in its analysis, but either way, this will be a good clarifying question to ask dear ELT.

@a2 Penny kinda 'shaded' the vote thing during the meeting. It's not 50% of the GPs required for a major move, it's 50% of the GP CAPITAL!! Since the capital is fairly concentrated, selling, going public or any other move would not be that great a leap.

@gp Im about to have been here 8 years and I also never got offered LP. No one Ive asked seems to know why.

Never been offered LP likely to my short tenure. Was looking forward to guarantee and now wondering if new LP is worth it for a newbie.

@ek That was my interpretation as well, that Class A get paid first. They are “marketing” it that Class B have the potential of higher returns. I had asked my Financial Advisor for his opinion IF we didn’t work at EJ. If I had $X and had a guaranteed 7.5% return but was offered an investment with “potential” of 10% return, what choice should I go with. I heard crickets.
Also, like you mentioned, if you take out a loan to make this investment, how will you pay it back if you don’t earn a return? The way LP conveniently works now is the loan is paid off by your profits right around the same time as the next offering. If there is no guaranteed return, then what?

@ah I read sections 8.1 and 8.2 and interpreted that as Class A partners still sharing in net income (or net loss). It reads like Class A partners get paid first. I won’t argue that the allocations may be different in the future—very well may be.

I have no doubt the firm will set aside a generous sum to make Class B partners happy to buy into an entirely variable return for the first few years—but what happens when the market drops (or our profit tanks) for those taking a loan to fund their investment? It will be ugly.

All of this is about reducing the amount of A shares so we can be sold or merge. Not about giving associates a bigger share of ownership—that is laughable.

@ah Yes, the allocations change when you compare it to prior LP documents. Summary:

After the Recapitalization Date (post-Jan 1, 2027), the agreement introduces the Post-Recapitalization Aggregate Variable Return.

Class A LPs are explicitly excluded from this pool.

Section 6.2(b) (Allocation of Post-Recapitalization Aggregate Variable Return) states that only Class B Limited Partners share in the variable return.

Class A LPs do not participate in any additional distributions tied to firm growth beyond the guaranteed 7.5%.

@a3 you need to read it again. Allocations are completely different.

@aa most of your everyday HQ associates make nothing compared to the FAs, bud. I've bailed so many branch teams out of hot water, fixing their mistakes and cleaning up their messes it's insane, all while making peanuts. Branch teams would be lost without your everyday HQ associate. Those GPs, though? Yeah, no. They're the ones robbing us all blind.

@aa To be fair, branches would be lost in the woods without serivce and operations holding your hand every time a new system glitch shows up or regulations change. At the branch, the BOAs are always there doing the grunt work while the FA plays golf or goes to lunch trying to wine and dine clients he/she got from the previous FA who actually door knocked to get them. I think we can all agree the GPs at home office are looting the most $ and provide zero productivity in return Cascade 1 did not "cut the fat" either. It simply got rid of the GPs who were not yes men and were part of the old guard. Now it rule by comformance VS performance at H.O.

@a5 always has been. Financial advisors and team generate revenue. The HO and the back office fin$ the way to live off of this riches.

@a2 you didn’t think that they would really tell you the truth. Transparency is a joke here. My leaders claim to be transparent yet constantly try to scheme their way.

Are we becoming a pyramid scheme? Lol

@OP I didn’t read it that way . . . I read the filing after the announcement and it seemed like you got the guaranteed plus variable for A, and only variable for B—but I could be mistaken.

Be sure to read section 4.2.B while you’re out there perusing. Doesn’t exactly give that GP vote very much authority and most definitely allows for an MP to decide along with ELT to sell with no vote at all.

I don’t recall that being the message that was delivered with the news of that new vote.