Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	NOTE 14 – CONTINGENCIES In the normal course of its business, the Partnership is involved, from time to time, in various legal and regulatory matters, including arbitrations, class actions, other litigation, and examinations, investigations and proceedings by governmental authorities, self-regulatory organizations and other regulators, which may result in losses. These matters include: Wage-and-Hour Class Action. On March 13, 2018, JFC and Edward Jones were named as defendants in a purported collective and class action lawsuit (Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by four former financial advisors. The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the defendants unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from departing financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to financial advisor trainees among other claims. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and liquidated damages. On March 19, 2019, the court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitting the plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2019. On March 30, 2020, the court partially granted the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed seven of the ten causes of action it purported to state. The court's order eliminated from the case any claims that rely upon the firm's contractual right to recoup training costs as well as related claims for declaratory relief. It also dismissed various state law claims. JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations in the remaining counts and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit. Securities Class Action. On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action (Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The lawsuit originally was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants inappropriately transitioned client assets from commission-based accounts to fee-based programs. The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary relief, and compensatory damages. On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice. On July 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which eliminated certain defendants, withdrew the Securities Act claims, added claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment Advisers Act"), and certain additional state law claims, and reasserted the remaining claims with modified allegations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their Investment Advisers Act claims, and on November 12, 2019, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all other claims. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of certain of their state law claims on jurisdictional grounds but did not appeal the dismissal of the remaining claims. On March 4, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of those state law claims. After further appellate proceedings in the Ninth Circuit, defendants filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on January 18, 2022. On February 2, 2022, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' remaining state law claims in the district court. Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the plaintiffs' allegations and intend to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Gender and Race Discrimination Class Action. On March 9, 2022, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a lawsuit (Dixon, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The lawsuit was brought by a current financial advisor as a putative collective action alleging discrimination against women financial advisors under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended by the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206, and by a former financial advisor as a putative class action alleging discrimination against non-white financial advisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. In addition to these matters, the Partnership provides for potential losses that may arise related to other contingencies. The Partnership assesses its liabilities and contingencies utilizing available information. The Partnership accrues for potential losses for those matters where it is probable that the Partnership will incur a potential loss to the extent that the amount of such potential loss can be reasonably estimated, in accordance with FASB ASC No. 450, Contingencies. This liability represents the Partnership’s estimate of the probable loss at December 31, 2021, after considering, among other factors, the progress of each case, the Partnership's experience with other legal and regulatory matters and discussion with legal counsel, and is believed to be sufficient. The aggregate accrued liability is recorded within the accounts payable, accrued expenses and other line of the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition and may be adjusted from time to time to reflect any relevant developments. For such matters where an accrued liability has not been established and the Partnership believes a loss is both reasonably possible and estimable, as well as for matters where an accrued liability has been recorded but for which an exposure to loss in excess of the amount accrued is both reasonably possible and estimable, the current estimated aggregated range of additional possible loss is up to $43 as of December 31, 2021. This range of reasonably possible loss does not necessarily represent the Partnership's maximum loss exposure as the Partnership was not able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for all matters. Further, the matters underlying any disclosed estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly. While the outcome of these matters is inherently uncertain, based on information currently available, the Partnership believes that its established liabilities at December 31, 2021 are adequate and the liabilities arising from such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Partnership. However, based on future developments and the potential unfavorable resolution of these matters, the outcome could be material to the Partnership’s future consolidated operating results for a particular period or periods.

Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 14 – CONTINGENCIES

In the normal course of its business, the Partnership is involved, from time to time, in various legal and regulatory matters, including arbitrations, class actions, other litigation, and examinations, investigations and proceedings by governmental authorities, self-regulatory organizations and other regulators, which may result in losses. These matters include:

Wage-and-Hour Class Action. On March 13, 2018, JFC and Edward Jones were named as defendants in a purported collective and class action lawsuit (Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by four former financial advisors. The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the defendants unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from departing financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to financial advisor trainees among other claims. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and liquidated damages. On March 19, 2019, the court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitting the plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2019. On March 30, 2020, the court partially granted the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed seven of the ten causes of action it purported to state. The court's order eliminated from the case any claims that rely upon the firm's contractual right to recoup training

costs as well as related claims for declaratory relief. It also dismissed various state law claims. JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations in the remaining counts and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit.

Securities Class Action. On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action (Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The lawsuit originally was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants inappropriately transitioned client assets from commission-based accounts to fee-based programs. The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary relief, and compensatory damages. On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice. On July 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which eliminated certain defendants, withdrew the Securities Act claims, added claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment Advisers Act"), and certain additional state law claims, and reasserted the remaining claims with modified allegations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their Investment Advisers Act claims, and on November 12, 2019, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all other claims. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of certain of their state law claims on jurisdictional grounds but did not appeal the dismissal of the remaining claims. On March 4, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of those state law claims. After further appellate proceedings in the Ninth Circuit, defendants filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on January 18, 2022. On February 2, 2022, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' remaining state law claims in the district court. Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the plaintiffs' allegations and intend to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Gender and Race Discrimination Class Action. On March 9, 2022, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a lawsuit (Dixon, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The lawsuit was brought by a current financial advisor as a putative collective action alleging discrimination against women financial advisors under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended by the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206, and by a former financial advisor as a putative class action alleging discrimination against non-white financial advisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

In addition to these matters, the Partnership provides for potential losses that may arise related to other contingencies. The Partnership assesses its liabilities and contingencies utilizing available information. The Partnership accrues for potential losses for those matters where it is probable that the Partnership will incur a potential loss to the extent that the amount of such potential loss can be reasonably estimated, in accordance with FASB ASC No. 450, Contingencies. This liability represents the Partnership’s estimate of the probable loss at December 31, 2021, after considering, among other factors, the progress of each case, the Partnership's experience with other legal and regulatory matters and discussion with legal counsel, and is believed to be sufficient. The aggregate accrued liability is recorded within the accounts payable, accrued expenses and other line of the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition and may be adjusted from time to time to reflect any relevant developments.

For such matters where an accrued liability has not been established and the Partnership believes a loss is both reasonably possible and estimable, as well as for matters where an accrued liability has been recorded but for which an exposure to loss in excess of the amount accrued is both reasonably possible and estimable, the current estimated aggregated range of additional possible loss is up to $43 as of December 31, 2021. This range of reasonably possible loss does not necessarily represent the Partnership's maximum loss exposure as the Partnership was not able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for all matters.

Further, the matters underlying any disclosed estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly. While the outcome of these matters is inherently uncertain, based on information currently available, the Partnership believes that its established liabilities at December 31, 2021 are adequate and the liabilities arising from such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Partnership. However, based on future developments and the potential unfavorable resolution of these matters, the outcome could be material to the Partnership’s future consolidated operating results for a particular period or periods.