Who’s No. 1? That’s the question Investment Executive has been struggling with for the past few weeks as we researched this year’s Brokerage Report Card.

By the numbers alone, the winner would be, for the third consecutive year, Edward Jones . But in the course of talking to brokers at the Mississauga, Ont.-based company, we began to wonder whether they were biased in their answers to our questions. That caused us to take an unusual step to preserve the integrity of our annual survey: we made some adjustments to the Edward Jones ratings.

It seems our survey asks for numbers – such as the number of assets under management – that Edward Jones brokers are not allowed to reveal. Several of them turned to head office for guidance and that started an exchange of memos, which some Edward Jones advisors took to mean that they should either decline the survey or give their firm 9s and 10s.

“We got a memo telling us you guys would be calling,” says a Toronto-area Edward Jones broker. “Part and parcel of the Jones philosophy [is] everything is done for you; this is your marketing, this is your advertising script, even on to who to call today, who to call next month.”

“Of course the firm would like us to give good marks,” says another Toronto broker. “Whether we will or not is another matter!”

Edward Jones gave us a copy of the memos, which confirm, as Gary Reamey, principal of Canadian operations, told us, that the documents were not meant to influence the brokers’ eventual responses to our confidential telephone survey. Instructions were sent out for the benefit of brokers who had contacted head office asking how to respond to certain IE questions. “We get calls all the time, asking … ‘Am I supposed to do this? How should I respond?’ ” he says.

Communications rep Mary Beth Heying adds that the memos were not meant to induce brokers to offer overly positive responses to the survey. “There is nothing in the letters, the press release or the instructions that could, in any way, be construed to impact how our IRs might respond to your survey,” she said in a call from St. Louis.

That became our quandary: how many Edward Jones brokers thought the memos told them to give the firm higher scores and how many responded accordingly?

We don’t doubt that many brokers really do love Edward Jones, as they’ve told us before. But we found a disproportionate number of high marks. The responses from Edward Jones brokers were notably more uniform than those at other firms. Measured by standard deviation, Edward Jones’s answers were about 20% more uniform than the next closest firm, Canaccord Capital Corp. Their answers were also about 30% more uniform than the average rating.

Compared with Canaccord, Edward Jones received a far higher percentage of nines and 10s in each category – apart from manager, payout, freedom and ability to move your book. The manager question doesn’t apply to Edward Jones’ one-person office structure, its basic payout is lower than most others. Most brokers are relatively new to the business, so moving isn’t yet an issue. And freedom certainly appears to be at a premium. So, while it doesn’t surprise that the firm lagged in these categories, there were a lot of very high scores in every other category.

To weed out responses that could skew the results rather than reflect an honest appraisal of the firm’s performance, we examined all 40 Edward Jones surveys and dropped the questionable respondents from overall calculation. It is important to note that Edward Jones still did outstandingly well, coming a strong second.

Investment Executive has never claimed our Report Card is infallible, but we do believe it reflects what brokers think and feel about their firms. We want it to do that faithfully. As always, we are grateful to the brokers who took the time to answer our researchers’ questions thoughtfully. We take heart in those that don’t blindly toe the corporate line, for they are the future of this business.