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. --Smashville^talk 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:

• 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.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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 Nouill 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. DocWatson42, Tribe of Tiger, Steve03Mills, Darrylhopkins, Ponydepression, WikiEditCrunch, Doprendek, UnitedStatesian, Jakebed, ClassicOnAStick) 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)

@Doprendek: 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 AllegedlyHuman 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.

References

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 [1] and then tagged the article as being slanted toward negative content [2]. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi AllegedlyHuman. 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)

 Done 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?