Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
This is a report of how employees of national firms (such as Edward Jones) like their employer, not how customers like their advisors.
One cannot read the actual study (this is how companies like JD Powers make their money), but one can still go to the actual press release. That provides more (and often clearer) information than one gets elsewhere (rewrites of the PR).
The survey has been going on for many years (at least since 2008) - the rewrite said just the past two years. It is true that the survey was restructured in 2014, but it appears that the same 1,000 point scale was preserved. (I can't find any description of the scale, e.g. whether it is linear, or like M* ratings distributed unevenly.)
It seems that what the restructuring amounted to was using the same seven factors (e.g. compensation, operational support, etc.) in surveying all advisors post 2013, as opposed to using different factors for employee advisors (9 factors) and for independent advisors (8 factors). The older surveys also ordered the weighting of the factors differently depending upon whether the advisor was an employee or independent.
Not that I think any of this matters, but if one's going to read the results, one might has well have an idea of what they're talking about.
Comments
One cannot read the actual study (this is how companies like JD Powers make their money), but one can still go to the actual press release. That provides more (and often clearer) information than one gets elsewhere (rewrites of the PR).
The survey has been going on for many years (at least since 2008) - the rewrite said just the past two years. It is true that the survey was restructured in 2014, but it appears that the same 1,000 point scale was preserved. (I can't find any description of the scale, e.g. whether it is linear, or like M* ratings distributed unevenly.)
Here's the 2015 release, 2014 release, and 2013 release.
It seems that what the restructuring amounted to was using the same seven factors (e.g. compensation, operational support, etc.) in surveying all advisors post 2013, as opposed to using different factors for employee advisors (9 factors) and for independent advisors (8 factors). The older surveys also ordered the weighting of the factors differently depending upon whether the advisor was an employee or independent.
Not that I think any of this matters, but if one's going to read the results, one might has well have an idea of what they're talking about.