Talk:Edward Jones Investments

Vandalism?
I have no idea how to change the page back to what it was on November 13th, 2007, but the editing on November 16th is just changing words like "profitable" to "unprofitable", "licensed" to "unlicensed", etc. Someone needs to go in and change the article back to it's November 13th, 2007 form.

Balance
When did Wikipedia turn into an internal Edward Jones PR department site? Take off the bad stuff, and fill in with a whitewash of corporate fluff. Nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.175.15 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, advertising puff through and through, needs fixing. What's the best tag to add to flag this? Ian (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A link to http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/index.htm would allow people to see the millions dollars in fines against this company.Weebur (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a spell check?
"Edward Jones financial advisors sell commission-based and fee-based financial products. Offices are usually staffed by two associates: one Financial Advisor (see Financial Adviser, a licensed broker)"

In the same article, and within 2 sentences we have different spellings of "adviser." This should not be that difficult.68.2.35.66 (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Eek. Even the financial adviser article shifts back and forth. --Smashvilletalk 22:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Can someone write down the Edward Jones history in the UK, as I saw some of their offices in the UK but they have now disappeared. 86.174.209.24 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2007 class action settlement
At the Investment Wikiproject, an editor pointed out a class action settlement for allegations of "secret Revenue Sharing payments" posted on the brokerage's website: http://www.edwardjones.com/groups/ejw_content/@ejw/documents/web_content/ejw_900360.pdf

In reply to him/her, I hope my opinions are helpful: --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't post your personal allegation against the brokerage at Wikipedia.
 * I am just an editor like you - I personally don't see any problem adding a mention of the settlement, as long as you (a) put the range allegations in perspective, rather than emphasize fraud and (b) mention that EDJ denies wrongdoing.
 * I agree with you that the article as it is now puts undue weight on awards and trade press rankings. Everyone has rankings and unfortunately this article only lists the good ones.

charities
The few lines on charities have a biased tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.55.232 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Advert
Hello: I see that has recently tagged both the entire article and "Awards and rankings" section as Adverts. I am unclear what is promotional, but I thought we could begin the discussion and find a consensus on what, if anything, needs to be cleaned up to achieve a NPOV. (As this is generally a sleepy article, I'm tagging those how have edited in the last year to get their input., , , , , , , , , ) Dbsseven (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "I am unclear what is promotional" => You're kidding me ? --Nouill (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep it or take it out. I'm indifferent. (Although if in, those bullets have to go.) But if you take it out, I don't think it's worth the time to make some general rule about removing such sections. I personally don't like these kind of sections in general, as they are by their nature hype-ish. But they are also kinda sorta encyclopedia-like--awards are the kind of thing not uncommonly found in print encyclopedias from way back. My big concern in company articles (I do a lot of housekeeping on them) is their thinness. They are important to the world's current ruling structure and need the kind of centrally-located basic info that Wikipedia provides. But they tend to get far less coverage than say that actor who was in two early episodes of Star Trek etc. gets. The important thing IMO--and it does not seem to be a problem in this article--is to put an end to the censoring of criticisms or even outright proven infractions of companies. Doprendek (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the "awards" sub-section on awards could be much more neatly summarized with prose. And I agree that business articles in general could use much more detail, should never be censored to exclude facts critical of the company. In dealing with this issue, I am unclear what about the whole article Nouill beileves is promotional, and how the awards sub-section is itself promotional if the awards are relevant and noteworthy. Hence the discussion here. Dbsseven (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dbsseven's [next to] last sentence, though I did just change a "Cite news" reference to a more appropriate "Cite press release". —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Parent company
Question: Should a separate Wikipedia article be made for the Jones Financial Companies (which is the parent co of Edward Jones)? Stephenbharrison (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit requests to remove undue tag
Hello, I am disclosed editor, Julia, working for Edward Jones Investments. I am calling on directly so that together we can work to remove the "undue weight" tag that he applied to the page in January 2021. I have carefully looked over the page, and believe I have identified several places where the removal of unnecessary details, as well as the addition of updated information, will bring better balance to the page. I hope you agree that the following edit requests will restore the necessary balance allowing the "undue tag" to be removed.
 * In the third paragraph of the History section which begins "On December 22, 2004," please change "As part of the settlement," until "from these product partners" to the following: "The company paid a $75 million fine and disclosed the revenue sharing payments on its website."
 * In the next (fourth) paragraph, please change: "because, according to the SEC: 'Edward Jones undermined the integrity of the bond underwriting process by overcharging retail customers by at least $4.6 million" to "for overcharging retail customers".
 * The following (fifth) paragraph describes trivial donations that do not add anything to the understanding of the history of the company, so it should be taken out.
 * Please add the following paragraph and source to the end of the History section: "At the end of the first quarter of 2021 the company had 18,967 advisors, a decrease of a bit less than 1% since the same time in 2020 when there were 19,027 advisors. The average growth from year to year is about 6%. The decrease was mainly a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic which reduced hiring.
 * In the Awards and rankings section add the following to the end of the first paragraph: J.D. Power's 2021 US Full-Service Investor Satisfaction Study ranked Edward Jones highest in investor satisfaction.
 * Add the following to the end of the second paragraph: In 2021 the company was named "one of the 100 Best Companies to Work for" in 2021, for the 22nd time, ranking number 20.

Thank you AllegedlyHuman for helping to improve the article. Julia.edwardjones (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Julia, thanks for the tag. I have a couple concerns. First, I think being a part of the List of companies that halted U.S. political contributions in January 2021 is more significant than you're giving it credit for. Secondly, I don't think the sources you provided at the end – mostly hyper-local newspapers – represent significant coverage, and I highly suspect at least some of them are press releases or other non-independent media. "Everything they do is driven by the mission to build a better world by helping every organization become a great place to work For All"? I'm tagging this as an edit request so hopefully more people will look at it and potentially weigh in, but I'm letting you know, most edit requests are for open-and-shut things, and usually done about one sentence at a time. Also, I'll tell you that the only reason I added that tag to the article was that there was previously a section labeled "criticism and controversy." Wikipedia discourages that, so I removed it and then tagged the article as being slanted toward negative content . AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks for having this discussion with me. I apologize for not getting the formatting of my edit request correct the first few times, and I thank you for overlooking that and addressing my request anyway. I also apologize for the length of the request, and hope you can overlook that as well. First, I accept your opinion that the political donations are not trivial, and therefore do belong in the article. Second, I can address your concern that some of the sources are hyper-local. The Murray Ledger, can be replaced with a more widely-read source, https://fortune.com/company/jones-financial/best-companies/ and the Door County Pulse and the Gazette Virginian can both be replaced with https://www.barrons.com/articles/edward-jones-tops-j-d-powers-ranking-amid-shifting-client-preferences-51618489455. Third, my other edit requests focus on eliminating the "slant towards negative content" that you pointed out and which is the reason for the tag. I am hoping, as I stated above, that we can work together to bring better balance to the article, and if you can try and address the problem of the negative imbalance, I would really appreciate it. Thanks again. Julia.edwardjones (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for being responsive. I've implemented the request, and I've taken the liberty of removing the tag as well. Cheers. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarity?
Links a WSJ article that she is the first woman to lead a US brokerage firm.

But Abigail Johnson has been CEO of Fidelity Investments since 2014

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-11-17/fidelity-s-abby-johnson-opens-up-about-crypto-and-index-funds

I get that it links a WSJ article, but the WSJ article is wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.241.26 (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request
NOTE: I’m proposing the following edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Edward Jones Investments. I’m a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. Please let me know of any questions as you review. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Infobox
 * Please update the following sections to reflect the most recent figures/years available:
 * Revenue: $12.3 billion (2022)
 * Net income: $1.404 billion (2022)
 * AUM: $1.8 trillion (Q2 2023)
 * Number of Employees (2022): 52,000

Lead The company currently has relationships with more than 8 million clients and $1.8 trillion in assets under management worldwide.
 * Third sentence: Please update to read (changes in bold):
 * Fourth sentence: Please remove the word “small” from “small business owners” as the company does not solely specialize in servicing small businesses.

History
 * Third sentence: Please update to read as follows to account for the fact that the company also operates in metros throughout US and Canada (proposed new copy in bold):

Edward Jones’ son Edward D. “Ted” Jones was responsible for the creation of the individual branch network, which has spread across rural communities, suburbs and metro cities throughout the US and Canada.


 * Final paragraph: To bring current and move away from 2020 and 2021 figures, please update this paragraph to read as follows. (Conversely, adding this sentence to the end of the existing paragraph may also be an option, if preferred):

The company had 18,796 advisors on staff at the end of 2022.

Business Model
 * Please add the following sentence after the current fourth sentence:

In 2022, the company launched a teaming program that allowed multiple branches to service clients, a pivot away from the company’s long-standing model of directing clients to a single branch office.
 * Final sentence: Please revise the final sentence in this section to the following sentence to bring the figures current and remove “as of 2017”:

Edward Jones has the largest number of brokers, with 18,892, and branch offices, with more than 15,000, among brokerage firms in the United States.

Awards and rankings The company was ranked 35th and 62nd in 2022 and 2023, respectively.
 * Please add the following sentence to the end of this section to provide more up to date information on the company’s inclusion in Fortune’s list of Top 100 Companies to Work For:

Jon Gray (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Reply 25-OCT-2023
Kindly submit a new edit request below this reply post which more closely aligns with these recommendations at your earliest convenience. Regards, Spintendo  03:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are several instances in the request where two references are placed at the end of a sentence, bundled together. These should be handled in one of three ways:
 * 1) If the two references both equally verify the information in the passage, then only one should be used.
 * 2) If these references were meant to verify different aspects of the same sentence or perhaps successive sentences, then they should be placed according to WP:INTEGRITY.
 * 3) In circumstances where this may have been one primary source being supplied along with a secondary source confirming the exact same claim, then the primary source may be deleted — only the secondary source need remain.
 * A Wikilink for the accolade "Fortune’s list of Top 100 Companies to Work For" was not included with the proposed text. Please provide this link.


 * @Spintendo Noted - will do and thanks. Jon Gray (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

UPDATED Edit Request
NOTE: I’m proposing the following edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Edward Jones Investments. I’m a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. This updated edit request seeks to address the sourcing and Wikilink issues called out by @Spintendo in the previous version. Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Infobox


 * Please update the following sections to reflect the most recent figures/years available:


 * Revenue: $12.3 billion (2022)
 * Net income: $1.404 billion (2022)
 * AUM: $1.8 trillion (Q2 2023)
 * Number of Employees (2022): 52,000

Lead


 * Third sentence: Please update to read (changes in bold):

The company currently has relationships with more than 8 million clients and $1.8 trillion in assets under management worldwide.


 * Fourth sentence: Please remove the word “small” from “small business owners” as the company does not solely specialize in servicing small businesses.

History


 * Third sentence: Please update to read as follows to account for the fact that the company also operates in metros throughout US and Canada (proposed new copy in bold):

Edward Jones’ son Edward D. “Ted” Jones was responsible for the creation of the individual branch network, which has spread across rural communities, suburbs and metro cities throughout the US and Canada.


 * Final paragraph: To bring current and move away from 2020 and 2021 figures, please update this paragraph to read as follows. (Conversely, adding this sentence to the end of the existing paragraph may also be an option, if preferred):

The company had 18,796 advisors on staff at the end of 2022.

Business Model


 * Please add the following sentence after the current fourth sentence:

In 2022, the company launched a teaming program that allowed multiple branches to service clients, a pivot away from the company’s long-standing model of directing clients to a single branch office.


 * Final sentence: Please revise the final sentence in this section to the following sentence to bring the figures current and remove “as of 2017”:

Edward Jones has the largest number of brokers, with 18,892, and branch offices, with more than 15,000, among brokerage firms in the United States.

Awards and rankings


 * Please add the following sentence to the end of this section to provide more up to date information on the company’s inclusion in Fortune’s list of 100 Best Companies to Work For:

The company was ranked 35th and 62nd in 2022 and 2023, respectively.

Jon Gray (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I was only able to get to part of this for now. I'll try and finish the remainder asap. Regards, Spintendo  03:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Spintendo - just wanted to see if you could please review the balance of our request and implement the changes you find agreeable? Don't mean to bug you, but just thought I'd re-flag this. Thank you! Jon Gray (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Reply 10-DEC-2023
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request.


 * With regards to #2 above, both the old and the new sentences should be provided, like so:

 1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."

2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."

3. Using as the reference:

4. Reason for change being made:
 * "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

Regards, Spintendo  00:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * After clarifying note #2 above, please place the template so that I may update it.
 * With regards to the awards section, this has to do with a problematically-notable award. That award's wikipedia page has very little independent references, and in my opinion, is not-notable. My practice is to not add or update information concerning problematically-notable awards in articles. Thus, the update to that part of the edit request should probably be handled by another neutral editor. Thank you!


 * @Spintendo Thanks, will open another as requested above. I'll also work back in some of the original requests that were neither approved nor declined the first time around. Jon Gray (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Revision of Updated Edit Request
NOTE: I’m proposing the following edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Edward Jones Investments. I’m a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. This revised updated edit request addresses 's ask for changes to request formatting and elevates a couple previously requested edits that were neither approved nor declined during the past two rounds. Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Lead


 * Please change the third sentence in this section from:

“The company currently has relationships with nearly 8 million clients and $1.7 trillion in assets under management worldwide.”

To (areas to change are bolded. Sourcing included for editor reference. Feel free to leave out of edited sentence since this is in the lead.): “The company currently has relationships with more than 8 million clients and $1.8 trillion in assets under management worldwide.”

Rationale for requested changes: Figures that are currently used are outdated, per sourcing provided.

History


 * Please change the final paragraph of this section from:

“At the end of the first quarter of 2021 the company had 18,967 advisors, a decrease of a bit less than 1% since the same time in 2020 when there were 19,027 advisors. The average growth from year to year is about 6%. The decrease was mainly a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic which reduced hiring.”

To: “The company had 18,796 advisors on staff at the end of 2022.”

Rationale for requested changes: To bring current and move away from 2020 and 2021 figures. Conversely, adding the requested sentence to the end of the existing paragraph may also be an option, if preferred instead of replacing.

Business Model


 * Please revise the final sentence in this section from:

“As of 2017, Edward Jones had the largest number of brokers, with 16,095, and, branch offices, with 13,499, among brokerage firms in the United States.”

To: “Edward Jones has the largest number of brokers, with 18,892, and branch offices, with more than 15,000, among brokerage firms in the United States.”

Rationale for requested changes: Aiming to make these figures accurate and remove the outdated “as of” qualifier.

Jon Gray (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Reply 13-DEC-2023
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request.

Regards, Spintendo  04:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

v2 Revision of Updated Edit Request
NOTE: I’m proposing the following edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Edward Jones Investments. I’m a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. This edit request addresses additional feedback from ’s last review and flags a partially completed edit from last time around that I believe was overlooked in error. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Lead


 * In an earlier exchange, an update to Edward Jones’ assets under management (AUM) in the infobox was changed to the correct figure of $1.8 trillion. I’d also ask that this update is made in the third sentence of the Lead section for consistency and accuracy.

From: “The company currently has relationships with nearly 8 million clients and $1.7 trillion in assets under management worldwide.”

To (area to change is bolded. Sourcing included for editor reference. Feel free to leave sourcing out of edited sentence since this is in the lead.): “The company currently has relationships with nearly 8 million clients and $1.8 trillion in assets under management worldwide.”

Rationale for requested changes: AUM figure that is currently used in Lead is outdated and does not align with the correct information in the infobox.
 * ✅. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Business Model


 * Final sentence: In a previous exchange, raised questions about existing language (“among brokerage firms in the U.S., etc.”) To address these questions and to work toward updating outdated figures, I have a proposed change below.

From: “As of 2017, Edward Jones had the largest number of brokers, with 16,095, and, branch offices, with 13,499, among brokerage firms in the United States.”

To: “Edward Jones has 18,892 brokers on staff and more than 15,000 branch offices across the United States.”

Rationale for requested changes: Aiming to make these figures accurate, remove the outdated “as of” qualifier and remove potentially confusing language. In 2022, the company launched a teaming program that allowed multiple branches to service clients. Prior to its introduction, clients were directed to a single branch office.
 * Please add the following sentence as the new final sentence of this section. (This is a revision to a previous request that seeks to address ’s previous comments/questions about the use of “pivot”):

Jon Gray (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Encoded Talk to me! 07:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Encoded Thank you! Jon Gray (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)