Reply With Quote
Never get a personal trainer, a real estate broker or car salesman. Those incentives will get you.
Some of you folks act like you're still inside the ing womb.
So you own your own business? If you work for a corporation, some billionaire is likely why you have a job. You should hope your 401K gets taken. Wealthy people are evil.lol i love how you chumps always find some way to spin it...
"mexico is paying for the wall!" ...."ok well i guess we are but i dont mind since illegals cost us money anyway!"
"trump's gonna help the working class guy!" ..."i dont mind that he appointed nothing but billionaires to fix the system that made them billionaires, he's gonna do right by me!"
"at least he's not meddling in international affairs!" ..."good job stepping in and butting into international affairs!"
"trump is gonna fix the econmy!" ..."i dont mind paying extra for imported goods not like i needed that money anyway!"
lol claiming climate change is made up by china. lol "alternative facts." lol getting asshurt and tweeting incessantly about "fake news" lol getting his pushed in by the courts, lol claiming NYT is losing subscribers but he's only giving them more. lolmuh crowd size
you'll turn on him eventually.
Never get a personal trainer, a real estate broker or car salesman. Those incentives will get you.
Some of you folks act like you're still inside the ing womb.
I recognize there were abuses but the draconian overreaction basically put everyone in index funds.
More bad analogies. You're making a career out of ty logic.
Ensuring financial advisors act in their client's best interest and avoid conflicts of interest is draconian? And suggesting index funds would be financial advisors only option is ridiculous.
Did Dodd Frank require them to do that?
The fake news will never end as long as the lib s are butt-hurt.
That will be at least 8 years!
The more they create fake news, the more they harm the liberal causes.
Bye-bye liberal rule for some time!
There's no fake news in this thread, only bull and lies from you rightwingnut mother ers.
Trump's EO also takes a swipe at the fiduciary rule.
Not stipulated, not subscribed to.
What's the problem with the rule requiring financial advisors to put their clients before themselves?
mayo? I learned about that cultural angle in the movie "Undercover Bruvva". U/B eating mayo on white bread? hilarious.
I did not know that.
I agree with the idea of the fiduciary rule but there certainly will be problems with it. Like the ACA we have to pass it to find out what the problems are. Some think it will cost investors more as advisors move to fee based service instead of commissions. I don't know if that's true but I think it will always be true that financial advisors will always need to make money and uneducated investors will always have their asses handed to them.
I never waste my money on accounts that I'll never see unless I live to a decrepit and miserable old age. That's horse manure.
you are very wise.
It's like people HATE when the Government rolls back ANYTHING that makes citizens responsible for their own choices, and moreover in recent times, ANYTHING
[QUOTE=Chucho;8895882]It's like people HATE when the Government rolls back ANYTHING that makes citizens responsible for their own choices, and moreover in recent times, ANYTHING that requires citizen's to make a choice beyond ignorant partisanship.
If your retirement vehicle is continuously shaky and you have not much power to change that stability in a Group 401k, you're an idiot. Blind confidence in the market is Fool's Gold.
I expect advisors to do that. There is compe ition among advisors just like any other business. The question is how do you legislate that? What if a advisor offers me a high fee investment with the potential for a high return that I buy but it doesn't work out? Is it his responsibility that I lost money?
No. You can put you money in any vehicle you want. This regulation required financial advisors a fiduciary responsibility to their clients, to be transparent with their fee structures and avoid conflicts of interest where possible.
An unbearable restriction of business. The business plan apparently requires a free hand to screw the customer.
Tell me Trumpistas, how does rescinding the fiduciary rule help forgotten Americans trying to save for retirement?
over the last twelve years, private equity managers on average failed to outperform an S&P tracker fund:
https://www.ft.com/content/02669416-...7-fb1e803ee64e (paywall)US private equity managers have extracted $400bn in fees and expenses from investors since 2006 but on average they failed to beat the returns from an S&P 500 tracker fund, according to a new analysis.
Study suggests the Obama fiduciary rule was working well until Trump rescinded it for his Wall St. buddies.
Profits before people.
https://sirota.substack.com/p/obamas...le-was-workingThe new study by Harvard and New York University researchers examined sales of variable annuities, which regulators have said are among the investments that receive the most consumer complaints. The researchers looked at whether the market for those products changed after the rule began moving forward and the industry began taking steps to deal with it.
Here are the three key finding from the report, which was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research:
1. Wall Street conflicts of interest are real: “While investor incentives matter, broker incentives play a more important role in determining sales. Moreover, brokers’ incentives conflict with their clients’: Brokers earn higher commissions for selling inferior annuities that have higher expenses, as well as fewer and worse-performing investment options... brokerage firms that sell higher-expense products have higher rates of customer complaints and regulatory offenses.
2. Conflicts of interest steer customers into sketchier investments: “Variable annuities have been criticized for having high expenses and are the commonly cited financial product in brokerage customer complaints... A one standard deviation increase in brokerage commissions is associated with a 17 percent increase in variable annuities.”
2. The fiduciary rule was actually working to stop this: “Survey evidence indicates that brokers and insurers started complying with the fiduciary rule during this proposal and implementation period...The rule helped reduce conflicts of interest. In response to the rule, annuity sales flows became twice as sensitive to expenses and the sale of high-expense annuities fell by 52 percent. Moreover, the relative availability of high-expense products declined following the rule... the proposed rule change increased the risk-adjusted returns of investors by up to 86 basis points (bps) per annum.”
So, to reiterate: Wall Street is plagued by hidden conflicts of interest that end up misleading customers into investments that are good for Wall Street but bad for the customers -- and a new rule actually began to fix the problem.
Will the Dems restore the rule?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions