Towry Law acquires Edward Jones

So that's another £1.5 Billion to 'move' into the DMS then, subject to minimum criteria of course....................

Churn tastic

Anyone got any ideas about the performance of their 5 portfolios as they seem reluctant to release info on them.

Once again the Towry Law machine will aim to switch all the clients money into their own in-house funds and then lose the advisers who will then be expected to leave with no clients.

How this man can sleep at night never ceases to amaze me. To all the Edward Jones advisers, I would strongly suggest you should be very concerned that you might be getting sold down the swanny and left up a creek without the paddle.

If you have got any sense you'll leave now with your clients before the Towry Law machine eats you up and spits you out as it has done to so many in the past.

Presumably, the US business is selling because it wants out, which also presumably means that profits were not what they should be at EJ

It's also been my impression that the fancy offices espoused by Edward Jones has failed to attract very much in the way of good quality clients, especially in veiw of their high commission model. I don't know whether the EJ advisers are being sold down the river, as JB suggests, I suspect they were already up the creek anyway.

As we know, the TL model is no better, and no more transparent in terms of costs, it's just presented under different names.

Truly independent businesses should celebrate. The more these people muck up, and the more expensive they become, the more likely cliemts wil seek out advisers who are able to offer an efficient and personal service.

Edward Jones respects its workforce and obviously feels that this is the right move for the business. If its clients want holistic financial advice delivered by diploma and chartered advisers and their investments managed by a experienced investment team then they have that choice. If not, they will take their business elsewhere. The Towry Law portfolios aren’t supposed to ‘outperform’ their peers; they are risk-controlled portfolios and the charges are transparent. Again, if a client feels that the charges for these services are unsuitable, they will take their business elsewhere. Too many people on this site knock Towry Law, but it is just one offering available for clients. Many fail to realise that Towry Law has many very happy clients.

Fee-only business? So, from now on, there'll be no more initial charges calculated as a percentage of funds being invested (the bigger the sum, the bigger the "fee", even though the amount of work will be no different) and no ongoing charges calculated as a percentage of funds under management? It'll all have to be strictly hourly rates or a flat fee for an agreed programme of work.

Difficult to adapt to at short notice if you've been used to working predominantly on a commission-based model. Never mind, I'm sure Towry Law will help them make the transition with a minimum of difficulty.

50,000 clients / 400 advisers equals 125 clients per adviser. £1.5 Billion/50,000 clients = average client holds £30k. Average adviser has £3.75 Million under managament. Even taking 2% fund based annual feee (I call that a commission, but what the hey, we only take 0.5%), then this is NOT a recurring income model as it would only give £75k towards the ongoing costs of each adviser (nice pluch offices and admin support)

Now I am only a small firm and that does not sound like a very successful model to me.

Any corrections of my figures welcome.

Performance data was released to the FT for the annual Private Client Wealth Management Survey 2009 and Towry Law came 4th and data is available in other sources.

Hargeaves Lansdown's discretionary management service came 30th.

None of the big 4 banks would publish their performance data so suspect their portfolios are in a sorry state like the banking industry...

Just heard that Edward Jones Advisers are being made redundant and they as we speak at the "frog & bucket " drwoning their sorrows.

If it is true that TL shift clients to in house funds ( Brokers funds ?) will the FSA be looking closely at them as they are at BUCKLES and their Snowdonia fund ?

Seems to me that Mr Fisher is going to continue to use the 'Fee only' regime as a smoke screen. Time will show if the clients are prepared to put up with it

Julian, of course your maths is correct. This is why companies like Edward Jones get taken over as clearly their current model is not working.

Having worked for 3 large IFAs all of whom have gone through mergers and acquisitions I am not sure why JB is so anti-TL as their handling of merger and acquistions is same as any other firm and advisers get more support and help at TL than at other places I've experienced.

Edward Jones; staff would be in a far worse position if another company such as loss-making can't-decide-their-proposition Origen or a bank had bought them.

TL still employs a great many advsiers from past acquistions from well over a decade ago and longer so it can;t be that bad.

Just wanted to admit to those calculation now someone has confirmed they are right. Reassures me I am doing well as I am doing significantly better than Mr or Mrs average at Edward Jones! and to Andrew Fisher, sorry I'm not for sale (yet, unless the FSA put me out of business)

This is a very strange purchase considering that the Edward Jones advisers are independent from the main company.

Anyway, let the churning begin!

As a former adviser for Edward Jones now at another national IFA I am deeply concenred for the advisers and clients of Edward Jones

Many clients have portfolios of individual equities that they will no doubt be forced to sell (incurring more brokerage fees!), and the bespoke service they received in the past will become non-existent.

Many EJ advisers built their businesses by going door to door in all weather conditions and becasue of this build strong relationships with their clients as they want to hold on to them.

Clients have been used to bespoke services delivered in a local office with a walk in shop front. I have no doubt that all of these benfits will be gone as all Mr Fisher appears to be interested in is gathering assets under management.

My advice (as someone who knows how ell EJ advisers have been treated in the past) would be to get out before things get too far down the line!

I've become increasingly concerned about the way in which we've been running our UK business over the course of the last 6 months. Today's decision confirms many of my suspicions that our ethos of 'Always do what's right for the client' is in reality a thin veneer.

I am deeply concerned that the business models are not a 'natural fit' and that ultimately the losers from this deal will be our hard won clients. There are many clients who have placed their trust and faith in the model and ethos espoused by Edward jones and their advisers. I suspect that given the significant differences between our business models my clients will not be well served by Towry Law.

I will be seriously considering the best course of action for my myself but far more importantly my clients who have entrusted me with their hard earned money.

Based on the feelings and loyalty to your clients you've expressed I'd happily talk to you as a Directly Authorised Firm and I suspect many other DA firms would. Best of luck and if you're Kent based, call in for a coffee......

"Wont be the same witthout a poor chap in an ill fitting suit who the month before tried to sell me Betterware products, knocked my door one day introduced himself as the "New Local Stockbroker"!

God Edward Jones loved that, a gut from sales and used to knocking doors!

The Industry will be a beter place without them maybe cowboys should remain in the US.

No relation to Phil but I would echo his comments and if you or any of your colleagues are based in Essex , I would also be very pleased to have a chat to see if we can find a home for you and your clients.

The frightening thing as I only have one brother and his name is Nigel!

Not strictly true about AUM, at least 60% of the Jones advisers have only been with the business 2 years or less.

I have been with the company 7 years and look after £20million+.

I don't believe the TL model as it currently stands will suit my clients as they like bespoke portfolios built around their needs not a 'we'll squeeze everyone into one of 5 sizes'.

Good thing is all the clients I have spoken to so far have said they will move with me whatever I decide.

I don't think comments about US cowboys really help anyone especially as the majority of the more tenured Jones brokers could certainly teach the average 'buy whatevers the latest fad' IFAs a thing or two about investing.

Anyway I'm going home now to contemplate my navel....

We have watched with interest the recent events relating to Edward Jones.If you are based in the Chester/Cheshire area and would be interesed in having a chat with a locally based firm of Independent financial advisors please feel free.

" I want to take my harsh comment back"

I was having a dig at Edward Jones business model not the guys who worked for them. I want to make that clear.

The majority were new to the industry and only did what they were told:

" Go out and knock doors make 25 real contacts every day & they would then get an office and an assistant.when they earned enough"

I couldn’t & wouldn’t do that, what I should have said is I didn’t agree with that style of door to door selling investments as fit or proper in the UK & should remain in the US.

Sorry!

Goodness me, what a load of uninformed old style clap-trap from prima donnas who can't see that the landscape is changing. How can you think you are "new model" advisors. Towry Law may speak rather too plainly for many, but at least they are heading in the reight direction.

Does anyone who thinks that charging fees to manage investments is really commission in disguise , also think that stockbrokers who manage portfolios under a discretionary mandate are similarly commission-based?

Move on, boys, or move out.

I think you may have misinterpreted many of us so called "dinosaurs" so hopefully this will clarify the position, at least from my stand point.

Charging fees to manage investments is not necessarily commission. I believe where many of us have an issue with many of the comments which come from Andrew Fisher and the like is this constant pontificating that Towry Law is solely fee based. Now there's a load of clap-trap if ever I heard it from the biggest Prima Donna I know.

If you apply a percentage as a charge, is it a fee or is it commission?

Does it really matter?

If charging a percentage is a fee, then what is Andrew Fisher's point? In the case of Towry Law portfolios I believe the initial percentage charge is levied against the capital invested. Therefore £100,000 invested with a 1% initial charge/fee becomes £99,000.

How does this differ from £100,000 invested with another provider such as Skandia Investment Solutions with a 1% charge which then becomes £99,000.

If the client knows about it and is in agreement, is it fair? I believe so.

I wholeheartedly agree that to apply a 5-7% charge as some advisers and many banks do is in all probability unfair and highly excessive but to try and tar all IFA's as dinosaurs is also a little unfair.

My IFA firm adopted a business model 5 years ago of mainly 1% initial fee (up to 3% where initial investment less than £50K) and 1% per annum for annual reviews and this includes any fund switching costs.

It is fair because the clients agree and know they can move to another firm at any time.

It is also somewhat ironic that others within Towry Law previously worked for a company which was taken over by Towry Law and in their previous life they saw nothing wrong with taking initial commission of £12,000 or more on a single case and then delivering little ongoing service.

The point is that the Towry Law model is not the "b all and end all" and Andrew Fisher should cease his dubious claims that Towry Law is solely fee based. If he wishes to make this claim all Towry Law advisers should invest ALL client money without any initial charge.

Otherwise is just stinks of "Don't do as I do, do as I say". All the claims of holistic financial advice delivered by diploma and chartered advisers and their investments managed by a experienced investment team may be partially true but this does not mean other IFA's are dinosaurs.

I know a lot of advisers with a diploma but they haven't a clue how to deal with a real case so it doesn't go hand in hand that a dimploma or higher actually srves the client any better. It only indicates that someone has take the time to study and pass an exam which is certainly to be commended but please don't try and make a case that this replaces experience. I agree that those who haven't yet reached the required level should not ignore this so i'm not trying to defend anyone in this position either. I believe experience combined with qualifications make a very powerful case but give me experience over qualifications any day.

I believe the advisers at Towry Law are forbidden to recommend a client invests any capital outside of a Towry Law portfolio.

In my book this takes us back to the bad old days of Knight Williams where the advisers were paid more for recommending the in-house broker fund and this is precisley what Towry Law is all about. These are all in house funds/portfolios/whatever you want to call them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..............

I am not knocking it but please don't try to kid anyone on that the advisers at Towry Law don't have a vested interest in investing all client capital in the inhouse funds. Their targets depend upon it.

Towry Law advisers have targets like all other massive organisations. We all want to have as much under advice as possible and to deliver a service which our clients value and appreciate.

To finalise, I'm sure we all remember the claims by the Equitable Life advisers that we don't take commission.

Need I say more.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not saying the advisers at Towy Law are the same as the Equitable Life advisers but I believe most decent IFA's offer a service to their clients and aim to deliver this.

Finally if the Edward Jones advisers want to leave and set up their own firm with their clients, I don't believe Towry Law will be too happy about it. My advice to any adviser in this situation is make your move as soon as possible before you find yourelf boxed in a corner with a contract which you may later regret.

This of course is merely my personal opinion and should not be relied upon.

As the old saying goes, caveat emptor.

There's also another old saying that there's no smoke without fire.

I'm suprised about that. Towry Law is well respected.

I mean no disrespect to Towry Law or it's employees or advisers. Similarly to and advisers or employees at Edward Jones.

I have absolutely no axe to grind here.

I just think it's important that everyone understands that there are always at least two sides to every story. Especially the advisers at Edward Jones who will probably be given the Towry Law "We're the best and everyone else is a bit if a Del Boy" speach.

Towry Law provides a service for which they charge their clients handsomely and this is a percentage initially plus up to 2% per annum ongoing.

It all sounds like an old commission model to me all wrapped up as a charge called a fee but a charge is a charge, whatever you call it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that so long as the client understands what they're paying for and what they can expect for it and this is the same with any other IFA business.

I'm not saying one is better than the other however Andrew Fisher appears to be claiming the Towry Law model is the only one that's right and fair or maybe I have misinterpreted some of his comments.

If so, I sincerely apologise. If not, my position stands.

We all have a business to run and clients to look after without whom we don't have any business at all and therefore no business model to worry about.

It just doesn't help when these so called fee based advisers won't admit that they charge the client in exactly the same way as many other IFA firms do, they just call it another name.

Another difference is that most IFA's have a much wider choice of investments to choose from than the handful of model portfolios available from Towry Law.

Now the Towry Law model is starting to look a bit limited.

Food for thought is all I am saying.

JB,

You clearly have an axe to grind.

However, two points.

A fee is not dependent on selling a prduct since the client pays it. Commission is paid by a provider, so you have to sell something. "The piper (payer) calls the tune".

Unless you know the facts (not the same as a "belief"), best not to slander anyone.

I'm not slanderring anyone and this is most certainly not my intention and I reiterate I have no axe to grind.

I do however have a strong opinion on some of the wording which comes from Mr Fisher and others.

I am presently only offering my opinion for others to consider and even comment on which everyone has the right to do in the democracy we live in.

As correctly stated, commission is only paid by a provider as a direct result of a charge upon a client's investment. This occurs when an investment is made therefore something is sold, whether it is a product or service.

Are you saying this is different at Towry Law?

As we're all being open and honest here, what is the charge to a person who receives a report from Towry Law but decides not to proceed?

Do clients who invest with Towy Law have all their capital invested without an initial charge being applied?

Was my understanding of the charging structure applied to clients investments inaccurate? If so, please feel free to clarify this for everyone's benefit.

I honestly don't think the outcome is so different and this is one of the key areas of TCF as I'm sure you will know.

Furthermore I believe I do know the facts as I have clients who were previous advised by Towry Law and they have provided me with copies of reports and letters regarding the ever increasing fees being levied upon their portfolios.

I therefore firmly believe all my points are valid although I'm sure some people may disagree and they are perfectly entitled to do so.

If anyone else either agrees or disagrees, it's a free world and all opinions are welcome.

I mean no offence to anyone and won't take any offence at constructive comments either.

Thanks for all your comments on Edward Jones Advisers futures, I am one, I was shocked yesterday, went homesaw my kids and took a reality check. Changes were inevitable, we worked hard to build what we have.

Today we pick up the pieces, listen to Andrew Fisher and consider our clients and our families. After that, if we have to adapt, and our clients can embrace the changes with us, we go forward.

The name at the bottom of business cards may change, but looking after our clients need not.

Towry Law will become my new employer, and the vultures who sent four e-mails and made six phone calls to my office to offer a position will need to wait, as I do, to see how things unfold.

I am sorry that Edward Jones had to go back, but we must grasp this opportunity to change and hope that we can all benefit, not the least of which will be our clients who should still have access to Independent advice.

Reality check now, it's Saturday and I need to spend time with my family.

having just had the chance to read the blog I would like to thank Citywire and the blog contributors for all the comments positive and negative, discussion and debate are always good! To any Edward Jones advisers who this weekend must clearly be feeling nervous all I can say is give us a chance at Towry to help you to make an informed decision about our company and what we do, Edward Jones is a great firm with values and a corresponding culture which anyone would be proud of. I believe that we share similar values and a culture which is focussed on doing the right thing for our clients and our employees, with respect to the excellent business that Edward Jones associates have built in the UK this is not the end of the story just the start of a new chapter have a good weekend

Andrew

Thanks for your message Andrew, we will look forward to hearing your proposals and keep an open mind.

That was very nicely said. It's a pity you don't put things as well when dealing with comments about the rest of the FS industry!

An open mind is the best way to be. This gives everyone an opportunity to make an informed choice.

We need to remember that the clients should be the focus of our attentions.

I agree with Phil that Mr Fisher has this morning been somewhat more subdued than usual.

Undoubtedly Andrew will be extracting sections from this blog and pondering how best to deliver a positive speach to calm the concerns and fears of many EJ advisers who will undobtedly be concerned.

I agree that debate is good and all the comments I have read should be considered carefully.

Perhaps if Andrew Fisher assured the EJ advisers that they could leave Towry Law at a future date with their clients without fear of repercussion if things don't work out as planned, this might be a sign of good faith on his part.

I suspect this is unlikely to happen but I think it's a fair question which should be asked by the existing EJ advisers who will have worked hard to build up their client base.

Mmmmmmmm!

To a previous message about TL allowing former EJ advisers to leave at a later date with their clients. Your clients are Edward Jones' clients - you signed a contract and I'm sure TL will soon continue something similar. Edward Jones have not thought about you in making their decision and TL are in this for purely business purposes.

Does anyone know the answer to this:

Some clients invested with Edward Jones because they are stockbrokers. What will they now do with their individual shares and individual corporate bonds? TL are not stockbrokers, if the clients stay will they be required to sell their individual stocks and move into TL funds?

I believe the clients holding direct equites will be actively encouraged to dispose of their share portfolio and the capital allocated to one or more of the TL portfolios.

I would expect the TL adviser to ensure and CGT liability was minimised and perhaps the gradual disposal over several tax years may be encouraged.

Otherwise TL don't make any money unless they charge the client a fee and as the advisers are not stockbrokers I think this unlikely. They might charge the client a fee for a report that recommends the switch a much capital as possible into one or more oof the TL funds. How independent does this sound?

If the clients proceed they will then probably incur stockbroking charges to offload their shares and initial charges referred to as a fee for moving into a TL fund and then annual charges also referred to as a fee for ongoing discretionary fund management.

In addition they clients are also ncouraged to pay an annual fee for their Premier Care Service for ongoing advice and service from their adviser and sometimes an hourly rate fee on top.

A huge amount of fees all start to have a huge impact upon thebottom line for the client. TL manage to avoid incorporating their annual Premier Care Service fees and hourly rate fees into the Reduction in Yield figures so if there are any actuaries in the audience, it would be interesting to see the overall impact of all these fees.

Appreciate your answer. When JS&P took over TL, I remember them instilling a minimum portfolio size of £100k. Those clients of TL that had smaller funds seemed to get ignored. As mentioned earlier, EJ clients hold on average £30k, will this mean a lot of these either won't meet their min portfolio size or simply won't be viable to pay the annual fee?

I obviously cannot provide a definitive answer however as far as I am aware the minimum investment threshold at TL is still £100k.

With annual charges of 2% on the first £100k and 1.5% on the next £150k plus the annual Premier Care fee of around £600 plus vat, it might be a bit hefty even for the above average client who has £60k invested as this amounts to around 3% per annum plus whatever charge is levied when moving into the TL portfolio.

Where a client has £250K plus, it makes it a bit more cost effective at an overall cost of approximately 2% per annum.

This is simply based upon the informaion currently available to me.

If there are any TL advisers or employees who can confirm or refute these figures, please do so. I apologise in advance for any inaccuracies.

If the Edward Jones losses are correct, the business model was clearly not working and so something had to change.

Joining Towry Law provides a fantastic opportunity for all Edward Jones advisers.

The TL model works for both the client and the adviser. It offers high quality independent fee based advice, world class independent discretionary management and efficient administration.

I am a Chartered Financial Planner and I look after 95 clients, whose combined investments managed by us exceed £65m.

Commission makes up zero percent of my revenue so my advice is not distorted by any incentives or enhanced commission terms from insurance companies.

This is a business model that works now and will continue to do so post RDR.

All the talk so far has been about the Financial Advisers.

I would like to know what will happen to their Branch Office Administrators who were responsible for running the offices and were first point of contact for clients...

From

A concerned BOA

I agree that if EJ lost £35million last year somthing isn't working and such a situation like that cannot continue.

Congratulations on your personal achievements and I think it's terrific that it works well for you and your clients who on average hold an investment portfolio of £685k each therefore generating around £8,250 per annum each in fee income (excluding Premier Care fees) if the figures referred to previously are accurate.

A charge is a charge. It represents what something costs. Let's not start this fee is better than commission debate again. They're both a charge/cost which the client pays one way or the other.

Just as long as the client knows about it and understands it along with their options of how to pay this directly either by writing a cheque or by having it deducted from their investments is neither here nore there.

On this basis I'm sure there would be an outcry from Mr Fisher if any IFA was charging anything like £9,000 per annum per client. However if the clients are happy and understand the amount they're paying and what the're getting for it, that's what is most important. This is why the FSA are not going to dictate what adviser firms charge although there is the caveat that it should be reasonable.

The main points made previously were in respect of the average EJ client who can only dream of such wealth.

I'm sure many EJ clients have six figure portfolios and for these the TL model may well be appropriate. But it appears evident from the figures provided by Citywire that the average is around £30k per client.

Meantime, back in the real world...............

Good point about the BOA's. Let's not forget the all important support staff.

I suspect they will gradually be trained in the TL processes and incorporated with the existing adviser.

It would be a good question to ask Mr Fisher but in any takeover/merger there are usually casualties and it is usually the subject of the takeover where these are felt the most.

It will probably depend upon how much spare capacity the local TL office has to take on another administrator or if the existing administrators at TL can handle everything with the changeover without the need to train an administrator from EJ.

I have read many times about the model not working.

Well I must say it would have worked if they weren't so greedy and tried to recoup the training costs that they claimed was £100k + in a very short timeline.

The only way to succeed at Edward Jones in the UK was to get lucky or be given a segement 4/5 office when they left after realising it was a pack of cards in the UK.

The cost of living in the UK is far higher than the US & Canada.

The money thrown away by a scattergun recruitment drive was sickening, expecting advisors to be happy and stick around with 36% of commission earned and then pay PAYE on that.

Hence why the retention rate is the lowest in the industry.

It was a joke to see out of a class of 30 advisors only 3-4 remained after a number of months. These classes running every 2 weeks.

What planet are Edward Jones on, sorry to pigeon hole but if there is a nation that lacks common sense it has be across the pond.

Oh and if they think I fell for the brainwashing meetings, conference calls, motivation poems from general partners.

Think again I dropped the Edward Jones brand from my client contacts 12 months ago and have branded myself with a very healthy pipeline for moving forward.

Thanks EJ for showing me how to build a business in Financial Services.

It's not about the company you work for it's all about the advisor.

I have spoken to all my clients aready and they all have Freedom of Choice to invest with whoever they choose.

On a sad note alot of Edward Jones advisors did fall for the pyramid selling approach and are now in financial difficulty due to the false promises by a number of Edward Jones partners and employees

YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!!

I hope you are proud of yourselves?

The consulation was to hear the desperation in the voices of the general partners recently.

Good Luck TL

That sounds like the old 80's style of building a sales force with all the positive speak, PMA attitude from everyone with a manager badge. I thought those days were over.

I was one of the few who came through from that era and I do believe you need a positive attitude but this must be combined with some common sense and hard work.

It takes years to build up and retain a quality client base and TL are just buying up what they can to hopefully switch all the money over to their in house portfolios to generate more income for TL which is after all a business with shareholders who want a return on their investment and with all those mouths to feed every month with salaries will need a hefty recurring income which it gets from the annul charges on its in house managed portfolios.

If TL advisers are solely fee based, why does their income increase or reduce depending upon the amount of money they have under advice and the amount of new business they bring in?

I'm not criticising this system but it's no different to an IFA firm which receives 0.5% or 1% per annum from their client's investment portfolio and the adviser provides ongoing advice and reviews for this remuneration.

I agree that if there are no ongoing reviews or advice this is unfair and many IFA's are of course guilty of such practices which has contributed to the current screaming from some in the industry that commission is the devil incarnate and less popular than Osama Bin Laden.

The EJ advisers would be well advised to give serious consideration to their future as a matter of urgency as they could find themselves in a different but just as dangerous position if they do not fully understand that there could be a huge price to pay under the TL brand if it doesn't work as they had hoped.

The key question is - Who do these clients actually belong to?

The correct answer is nobody owns any clients as clients will choose who to deal with and why.

The danger is that the huge TL machine and others like it take the view that the clients belong to the company and threaten advisers who leave with Armageddon if they try and take any of the clients with them.

Sound legal advice will probably confirm that an adviser/employee etc would be in breach of contract if they cntacted a client with whom they had dealings with within a certain period of time. This however does not preclude any client from contacting an adviser and for the adviser to agree to continue to deal with the client.

I run my own IFA firm and I have not used such a clause because I believe it to be unfair. All the advisers have their own clients and if they dcide to leave they can take the clients with them. I think that's perfectly fair.

It sounds like the EJ Partners have sold out for a yet undisclosed sum and the partners have got out at a price which they may or may not be happy with but the advisers have been given the impression they have little or no say in the matter.

My advice would be listen to what TL has to say and offer then do your sums and see if it all adds up to something that you're comfortable with.

Also remember that TL has previously stated that any adviser that doesn't reach a certain qualification will not be with them.

How does this fit in with your personal circumstances if you fail to reach their qualification standard?

Not every doctor wants or needs to become a heart surgeon.

Most clients simply require general investment and financial advice and guidance from a competent and fair adviser with the knowledge that their adviser will be able to refer them to a specialist if needed. If you look after your client, they in turn will look after you.

My point is there's a place for everyone.

Good luck to all at EJ & TL.

I know a lot of EJ BOAs have felt at the bottom of the pile for a while now. Jones removed their bonuses a while back and froze their pay. TL is a totally different business model that does not require one administrator per adviser. Also, bear in mind some of the earlier messages - most TL advisers tend to turnover more than the newbies at Jones. This will mean in time a fair number of EJ advisers being removed from TL and an even greater number of BOAs. I hope the BOAs get redundancy as well as sufficient time to find another job.

Rumour has it that they have sold out for 70mill dollar.

I heard from a friend at KPMG that they were valuing the business a week or so ago.

Im not sure how they value it a business like theirs, is it on advisers.. assets under managment or number of clients?

Anyone else know?

It's usually on a multiple of recurring income although other factors will also contribute to the calculation such as goodwill (if there is any) any assets such as properties etc.

Each advisers should have a value but no doubt the owners of EJ expect to disappear into the sunset with their cash and abandon the advisers that they have just sold without a penny going to them.

It's about time the FSA started looking at this issue of advisers being sold like cattle without any compensation.

A quality adviser has a value.

Now that we've all had our say, I have watched with great interest the various comments and noted the silence from the so called fee based advisers when questioned about their remuneration structure.

At no point has anyone criticised their structure with the same condescending tone which they frequently adopt when using the (4 letter word) commission. (Joke)

I think we all agree commission is simply a charge levied upon an investment which the client pays for. If the client knows about it and is happy with this then there is no problem. I just wish some people would get that into their thick skulls.

The bottom line is many of these so called fee based advisers are also wholly or signficantly dependent upon clients doing business with them and if this doesn't happen, they won't get paid their salary for very long.

I for one am sick to death of all these self righteous claims from the so called fee based advisers that use commission offset.

I note that nobody has come back to defend their remuneration structure which is based upon the amount of new capital they bring onboard and the amount of capital they have under advice.

To the TL advisor who claims to look after £65m for 95 clients which is all managed by TL, my question is would all this money be in the TL Portfolio's if the annual charges did not contribute towards your annual target?

If any adviser firm wants to claim they're solely fee based, then charge either by the hour or a flat fee agreed at the outset and leave it at that. If additional work is required then agree that with the client before proceeding.

As soon as you start charging a percentage of money invested into your own company's managed fund and then apply an annual charge of up to 2% there's really no difference between what you're doing and what the next adviser is doing who also applies an initial charge to a client's investment then elects to receive an ongoing payment from the provider to meet the costs of providing ongoing service and advice, no matter how much you play around with words.

It's just that in the case of Towry Law they are both the adviser and the provider therefore it could be argued there is a serious conflict of interest here.

Some people might even argue that a true fee based adviser would not recommend their own investments or investments where they had a significant stake or interest unless under exceptional circumstances and only after this was higlighted and a seperate "Conflict of Interest" agreement signed however it appears to me that TL advisers will ONLY recommend TL funds to clients. I wonder why?

It therefore poses the question of exactly how independent are TL advisers or are they simply "product floggers" tarting it up to look like something it isn't?

Don't get me wrong here. TL provide a service for their many clients for which the clients are charged a sizeable sum in various forms. Many cliets may be blissfully happy with this arrangement but as we all know, there can be a difference between a satisfied client and one which has been treated fairly.

My point is not to criticise the service provided (by TL or any other firm for that matter) but to highlight the lack of differences or strong similarities between their model and that of many other IFA firms.

If all the charges levied by TL amount to say 2.5% per annum on average, how is this so different from a client investing in a fund of funds with say Jupiter, Fidelity, Credit Suisse etc where the AMC is then split between the fund provider and the IFA. TL claim they provide active and discretionary management (for which they charge plenty and this goes towards the advisers annual target ) but so do the fund of funds.

There is also the point about holistic financial planning which many IFA firms provide so thi is hardly unique to TL.

Regarding the subject of Diploma and Chartered qualifications, this point has also been covered by someone although I do concede that an adviser who is more qualified has the right to charge more than someone who is less qualified.

As someone said earlier, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ........so lets stop pretending a duck is a swan.

It's now Sunday morning and I'm off to work on a review for one of my valued clients who appreciate the ongoing service I provide for which they know what they are being charged and are happy with this despite the fact that the charge is deducted from their investment by a provider and then sent to my bank account every quarter.

For the avoidance of doubt, the changes which I am proposing to my client will be done without commission or any other additional remuneration to my firm as we receive an quarterly fee from their investment no matter what decision they make.

I still receive a (4 letter word) commission statement every quarter to confirm the amount paid.

A pound is a pound, no matter what your company calls it. Fee, Commission, Retainer, Charge, Cost, Levy, Credits. Who really cares. It's the same thing so get used to it and focus on the real issues which should be looking after your clients in a compliant manner. It's as simple as that.

I'm glad I've got that off my chest.

Would Mr Fisher please confirm what his intentions are with regards to the BOAs within Edward Jones.

Thank you

fee/commission commission/fee - who cares, i am a jones adviser who takes pride in treating my clients well, i dont churn, i do receive trail and to earn it i speak to my clients and meet with them regularly free of charge (which they feel is worth the annual trail)

the old model didnt work but as much as possible, i want to see how the merge will affect me, my BOA and my clients. what remuneration and what targets will be expected, how does my BOA fit into this and how will i be able to continue to best serve my clients, can they continue to hold their existing portfolios, and, bearing in mind these clients are not experienced investors and i promised i would hold their hand throughout, will i now have to charge them for the privalege?

trying but struggling to keep an open mind and i fear that im just kidding myself and realy know whats best for me, my clients but still fear most for my BOA!

From good authority - purchase sum was nominal amount - suspect in the region of £1. Why else would partners be shouldering a $75m dollar charge against capital.

(Must be the cost of getting out of all those leases.)

Approx 200 advisers are targeted to be kept, expect the more tenured will jump ship with clients requesting to move account soon after. (caveat emptor Mr Fisher! - ever heard the expression pig in a poke?)

BOAs will be kept on as paraplanner type role, only around 40 required.

As far as ongoing working for TL I find it hard to see how the advisers are anything more than sales channels for their portfolios, a long way removed from 'Wealth Manager' imho.

Apology accepted Mondo - by the way I only ever carried out the minimum door knocks necessary to become qualified the 'Jones way'. I always felt it was a bit cheap and out of your control who you did business with - hence the low average assets per client of Jones advisers.

If nothing else the takeover has stirred up some debate, however I am in the camp that can't see an issue with 'commission/fees' as long as the client has had the charges and product fully explained and accepts it what is the difference?

I'd be very surprised if the 'undisclosed sum' was as much as £1.00.

This is a business with 300 offices, each of which managed to lose, on average, £116,000 last year.

It's not worth a carrot, is it?

What Towry Law have acquired is a disparate group of disenfranchised, disillusioned door-knockers, most of whom will be devastated that their Edward Jones dream has not materialised.

The prospects for turning them into a professional, fee based non-salesforce look pretty slim to me, given their training to date.

I think Anon is right - it's all about TL getting the AUM. Most of the EJ advisers will be up the creek, I fear. This is a pity, because many of them have worked so hard to build a business (but for somebody else, sadly).

Every time one of these big-company debacles takes place (EJ, HBos, LTSB, N.Rock, Lehman etc), it always amuses me that my two-man, one adviser business is, pound for pound, far more solvent and profitable than any of them.

There's nothing like truly being the master of your own destiny, is there?

Are you listening, EJ chaps?

To EJ advisors there are some very valid points for you to consider, not least of all being the masters of your own destinies. Should you indeed be swayed by the promise of 'shares' and a great salary etc be mindful of the following:

1. Allegedly, you will sign a 12 month restrictive convenant and lost total access and control over the relationships that you have worked incredibly hard to build.

2. Allegedly, you will be targeted to move all and any client funds into the discretionary models. Sell shares on the spin of it being a good time to rebalance before the market rises, exiting CGT now etc.

3. Allegedly you will be rapidly managed out should you not meet your targets and all that previously glittered turn to shit and you have nothing to go forward with as you will have signed away your clients and ability to determine your own futures.

4. Allegedly, you will be swamped with KPI's, MI information, cumbersome data entry system, demoralised back office and support staff, over zealous HR and spend the vast amount of your time placating clients and filling in boxes.

5. Be under no illusions this is, allegedly, nothing more than TL buying access to potential FUM via their discretionary platform and you guys count for nothing - and scarily neither do your clients.

Consider the wise choice and ignore tempatation, think about your future business and relationships with friends, family, children and clients. Not to mention your sanity. Take your relationships now before its too late and build on them for yourselves.

Allegedly of course.

I would like to associate myself with the observations made by anon. I was happily working for Baker Tilly Financial Services to be told by email that we had been sold to TL.

I am not sure of the exact figures but after 12 months only a very small fraction of the original BTFS work force was still with TL. These were all experienced and well qualified staff who saw through the messianic approach as nothing more than garnering funds under management in advance of flotation of the company. How the FSA could say that the TL approach is independent is beyond me.

To all EJ staff - Do consider very carefully The Gospel According to St Andrew Fisher.

And count your fingures...

Of course the EJ advisors and their staff are in an unenviable positon and I hope they get their futures sorted out satisfactorily and soon.

But as clients of EJ where do we stand now? As has been pointed out many of us are quite unsophisticated investors and have put our trust in an EJ advisor - for better or worse - and from reading some of the posts on this site we should be worried about changes of strategy by TL which will cost us money without fixing something that ain't broke.

Has my wife been right all the time by investing in cash only?

Should I have stayed in property?

At last and EJ client, the most important of all in this fiasco. I suspect this is all TL are after.

Firstly I cannot comment on whether cash, property or any other investment would be appropriate for you however your EJ advisor should be well placed to guide you on this.

Cash is usually fine for short term safety but if you're taking a longer term view you're usually better served with asset backed investments. property can be a difficult asset to encash on occassion so perhaps you should limit your exposure to property.

you should perhaps consider gilt & fixed interest investments or even cautious investment funds. Depending upon how much capital you have, a portfolio of these might be ideal if you're a fairly low risk investor and prepared to consider a 5 year view or longer.

TL will claim they have a portfolio that suits but you need to consider if you're happy with their offering including all of their charges and what you can expect.

I've read with interest the comments on here- I left EJ last year after seriously considering whether the company had a future in the UK- and am very glad I did.

Sadly as an outsider now, I am afraid that whatever the advisers have been led to believe, TL are a business- they are buying your business to make more money, and they don't follow the EJ model of spend spend spend.

So adding to all the other comments made I have to agree the best route for advisers and BOA's who have any doubt about their future- find something else, leave with dignity, and put the sorry experience behind you. Jones have no interest in you now, they have no liability towards you and no conscience about spending hours telling you how awful the industry in the UK is only to have a shotgun wedding with a firm they have happily criticised and verbally attacked for so long- my overriding memory now is the sickly Kirley smile- I knew it wasn't sincere but I never realised to what extent!

Some of us BOA's have been with EJ for many years and some earned the right to have the title 'Senior' BOA. It will be interesting to hear what will happen to us all!

Having seen the posts for some of you 'guys' letting the EJ FA's know who to contact for local employment see below:

To all you IFA's out there let it be known that EJ BOA's have talent and let us see the posts for jobs for us!

BOA's- most large IFA firms these days have administrators with Diploma status, so whilst Edward Jones have told you how valuable you are, unless you are prepared to undertake professional exams the transition into a senior role at TL I would suggest is untenable.

I am an IFA working for a national company- all the administrators are qualified, and our paraplanners are AFPC qualified.

The very obvious and sick issue I have picked up from all these posts and people I know who are EJ advisers, is that EJ staff have been told they are wonderful etc etc and put on pedestals, so a lovely working environment but sorry, the IFA community actually demands alot more these days.

The Seven Deadly Sins, also known as the Capital Vices or Cardinal Sins, is a classification of the most objectionable vices which has been used since early Christian times to educate and instruct followers concerning (immoral) fallen man's tendency to sin. It consists of:

"Lust" (for profits),

"Gluttony" (on the hard earned commissions of the good and the faithful),

"Greed" (Aggressive, attempted, growth in the UK),

"Sloth" (GP's in the ivory tower),

"Wrath" (to anyone not doing as they say),

"Envy" (of their 'SUCCESSFUL' predecessors/GP's) , and

"Pride" (in their archaic methods and unwillingness to adapt to the UK) .

Never met Andrew Fisher and not really bothered whether he is one of the good guys or not. What puzzles me is why TL try to pretend they are acquiring EJ for anything other than profit and why any EJ staff would think otherwise.

EJ head office have obviously sold the UK arm down the river without any consideration for UK employees - that is the American way - just ask Aon/Marsh staff with experience of cost cutting measures.

Neither EJ clients, advisers or BOA's are a priority. This is a free market. Profit rules and money talks. And with a venture capitalist lurking at TL this approach will be magnified.

EJ advisers need to put themselves first otherwise the Andrew Fisher's in this industry will walk over you without any qualms, even on Christams Eve.

For those that make a decision to stay with the new employer expect this to happen again in the next 5 years. How do you explain that to your clients the next time?

Well we just heard today that the FSA has approved the deal and it will be going through this week. No surprizes, it will now be interesting to see if Mr Fisher keeps his word?