patrick.net

Banks will have to be banks again, let the investors that are pros at making deciscions on investing risk their own money.
If there are other interest baring saving options for most Working Americans they aren't going to give a crap who's pinching your risky investment you made while fully informed of the risk and understood the banks pay structure to their Representatives.

We need to get back to Value economics. Economics are all one way give it to bank institutions then pay a shit load of taxes and service fees when you need it. That's bullshit. People would be better off with a day trader account, if they believe in the market that much. Otherwise 80% of the idiots pissing their money into 401K does so because the Bloomberg, and Money writers tipped them off to what every body else is doing. Of course everybody is getting into a stock because Money, Forbes and Bloomberg conjured up the good news based on bogus reports. Earning reports are updated constantly anyone that takes earning reports as a real indicator is an idiot. There may as well not even be SEC.

I'm interested in seeing what he does next. This is a non starter, just like the CFPB didn't actually lower interest for struggling consumers. That Fiduciary rule didn't protect the 401K investor it did stop the investor from pushing risky stocks. But that's just part of a diverse portfolio, if they are selling everyone the same stocks because it's safe and wont cause them any flack from the regs. Then when that one single Investment strategy fails for one it fails for all. Everyone is in the same thing.

There is no EO, it's just an opinion, I believe.

But Trump would not be for bringing back Glass-Steagall.

Ironman says

Wasn't it done to keep people who have small amounts in 401Ks from being hammered by fees that people who have large amounts in their 401ks don't pay?

NOPE!!!

http://www.investopedia.com/updates/dol-fiduciary-rule/

It was created so that Warren Buffets gets the 401K dollars before a risk with greater returns and better growth potential.
Obama's administrations picked winners and losers everywhere they could find them. They left no stone unturned.

Tenpoundbass says

It was created so that Warren Buffets gets the 401K dollars before a risk with greater returns and better growth potential.

As usual you know less than nothing. It was created to keep brokers from churning investments for extra commissions or pushing high commission investments. It requires all fees and commissions to be disclosed. What a terrible idea, telling people what they are being charged.

You are always squawking about doctors need to post their fees just like the fiduciary rule requires brokers to do. Are you familiar with the word hypocrite? Obviously not.

Plundering daft suckers is as American as apple pie.

Why do they hate ingenuity?

bob2356 says

It was created to keep brokers from churning investments for extra commissions or pushing high commission investments.

Isn't that what the riskiest stocks do? If "Pushing" otherwise "High Pressure Sales" should be illegal then it should be illegal in any business.
People are greedy and are risky. A fool and his money will soon part ways. Always!

We need growth in this country and we aren't got get it giving the same 5 billionaires that own everything even more money to hoard.
Cant create new Billionaires if the current ones have political armies to make sure you don't.

Do Car salesmen have to show you what they are making on a Car?
Any Car salesman that shows you his invoice is full of crap and has an Excel template to whip one up for any car.

It makes less opportunities available because investors or IP Owners aren't willing to divulge trade secrets to put together an investment opportunity.
Period!

Nothing the government has done for the last 20 Years has been for nobody but the Billionaire Club. While they led the Idiot Choir bitching about the 1% talk about the fucking Irony.

My understanding is that this rule is scoped only to retirement investments, and that a broker or money manager can legally be held accountable if they don't act in the best interest of the account holder. How is repealing that a good thing? I know money managers hate it, but fuck 'em. If it gets repealed, that's a major strike against Trump.

Is this the "incidental advice" given by stockbrokers? Or does this apply to Financial Advisors?

It's truly shocking that a cabinet of Goldman Sachs would want to repeal rules that regulate Wall St.

Who could have ever seen this coming???

joeyjojojunior says

It's truly shocking that a cabinet of Goldman Sachs would want to repeal rules that regulate Wall St.

Just as shocking that major Bailout beneficiary Citigroup only allowed Token Extra Paperwork "Reform" of Wall Street when they ran Obama's Cabinet.

Or that very few individuals went to prison in the Greatest Financial Crisis since the 1930s, despite widespread fraud like Robosigning, where ex-Walmart Cashiers with no Legal or Real Estate Training signed somebody else's name, including people who long since did not work for the firm they were employed at, to affirm they reviewed and the documents in compliance and complete.

T L Lipsovich says

joeyjojojunior says

It's truly shocking that a cabinet of Goldman Sachs would want to repeal rules that regulate Wall St.

Just as shocking that major Bailout beneficiary Citigroup only allowed Token Extra Paperwork "Reform" of Wall Street when they ran Obama's Cabinet.

So that means you deplore this just as much, right? Right? Then grow a pair and say it? Nah, just put your head in Trumps ass where it belongs:

Oy vey

T L Lipsovich says

Just as shocking that major Bailout beneficiary Citigroup only allowed Token Extra Paperwork "Reform" of Wall Street when they ran Obama's Cabinet.

Aren't you glad you voted for the guy that is even WORSE on Wall St. than Obama was? That's what you wanted, right?

joeyjojojunior says

Aren't you glad you voted for the guy that is even WORSE on Wall St. than Obama was? That's what you wanted, right?

Nope, he's only been President for about two weeks. Too early to tell. We'd need to have another 2008 Financial Crisis and for Trump to send almost nobody to prison while bailing them out and helping them negotiate settlements on Fines for peanuts. Obama had 8 years to run down the clock on the statute of limitations and settle cases for a fraction of the damages.

Fuck, he didn't even make them drop their bonuses for a bailout, just delayed them! Lick that asshole, Obama!

Tenpoundbass says

bob2356 says

It was created to keep brokers from churning investments for extra commissions or pushing high commission investments.

Isn't that what the riskiest stocks do? If "Pushing" otherwise "High Pressure Sales" should be illegal then it should be illegal in any business.

People are greedy and are risky. A fool and his money will soon part ways. Always!

You're almost a stupid as Piggy, almost. Remember when you said Wall St. has to be destroyed to make America great again? After Trump did this big bank stocks leapt higher. This is good for elites, you fool. And no, "risky stocks" don't churn, brokers do. As is typical of unthinking Trumpkins, he does shit that's good for people you hate and you support it.

The fiduciary rule really only requires disclosure, they can still rip off their clients just the same.

So many Trump ball-lickers are such incredibly ignorant people.

If anyone wants to know why this was done, simple research the technical definition of "fiduciary."

This was done by scumbag Trump, with a cabinet full of Goldman scumbags, so brokers and investment "advisers" can't be sued for not looking out for the best interests of their clients.

In other words, no fiduciary means brokers and advisers who LITERALLY screw their customers over and act with reckless disregard for their economic interests (usually to make more $$$) don't have to worry about being sued for breach of fiduciary duty.

Trump is already sticking it up the ass of the 'common person' he promised to represent, 16 days into his slimy presidency.

"Nope, he's only been President for about two weeks. Too early to tell."

Only if you have your head in the sand.

"We'd need to have another 2008 Financial Crisis"

Well, Trump is on his way to removing all the safeguards put in place after 2008 to prevent recurrences so you very well might get your wish.

joeyjojojunior says

"Much has been discussed about the Labor Department's recently finalized fiduciary rule, which will hold all financial advisors who provide retirement investment advice to a "fiduciary standard" – or in other words, require them to put their client's best interests above all else."

Better information on the rule:
http://www.investopedia.com/updates/dol-fiduciary-rule/

I never said that the rule isn't without some merits, I actually like the idea of disclosures. I'm just saying as a practical matter, that I expect that disclosures to mostly be ignored. Interesting how nobody is disputing that part. Yes, I actually know a couple of people who use investment advisors, and yes IMO, they were ripped off my them. They are still being ripped off, but if questioned, they stated that they can't possibly be due to the rule! I question if any of you actually know anyone who uses an investment advosir and has looked at their documents, like I have.

"I never said that the rule isn't without some merits, I actually like the idea of disclosures. I'm just saying as a practical matter, that I expect that disclosures to mostly be ignored. Interesting how nobody is disputing that part. Yes, I actually know a couple of people who use investment advisors, and yes IMO, they were ripped off my them. They are still being ripped off, but if questioned, they stated that they can't possibly be due to the rule!"

It's not just disclosures. It requires advisors to act in their client's best interest.

Ironman says

Yep, just like all your fucking WRONG election predictions.

AllTruth says

So many Trump ball-lickers are such incredibly ignorant people.

If anyone wants to know why this was done, simple research the technical definition of "fiduciary."

This was done by scumbag Trump, with a cabinet full of Goldman scumbags, so brokers and investment "advisers" can't be sued for not looking out for the best interests of their clients.

In other words, no fiduciary means brokers and advisers who LITERALLY screw their customers over and act with reckless disregard for their economic interests (usually to make more $$$) don't have to worry about being sued for breach of fiduciary duty.

Trump is already sticking it up the ass of the 'common person' he promised to represent, 16 days into his slimy presidency.

joeyjojojunior says

It's not just disclosures. It requires advisors to act in their client's best interest.

And while I do agree with that as well, I don't know that it takes over 1000 pages of legislation to do that, and I have no idea what else is in the order. That, and I fully expect investment advisors to bilk their clients just the same. They will find a way executive order or not. It's what they do.

The new DOL rules are expected to increase compliance costs, especially in the broker-dealer world. Fee-only advisors and Registered Investment Advisors (RIA) are expected to see increases in their compliance costs as well.
Which will be passed along to their consumers.

If you read the linked article you will see what happened when this law was enacted in the UK and look at the unintended consequences, some of which I like, and some of which I don't like.

zzyzzx says

people who use investment advisors are probably pretty stupid to begin with,

THIS. Unless you have millions, you don't need one. What people need is a good accountant.

They're usually a shit ton more knowledgeable because they talk to and see the finances of 100s of people every year, and love the subject.

T L Lipsovich says

THIS. Unless you have millions, you don't need one. What people need is a good accountant.

Any moron can buy a no load mutual fund or ETF. You don't need no stinkin' advisor that's just going to sell you high commission mutual funds and annuities that you can't get out of any time soon.

"And while I do agree with that as well, I don't know that it takes over 1000 pages of legislation to do that, and I have no idea what else is in the order. That, and I fully expect investment advisors to bilk their clients just the same. They will find a way executive order or not. It's what they do."

"THIS. Unless you have millions, you don't need one. What people need is a good accountant. They're usually a shit ton more knowledgeable because they talk to and see the finances of 100s of people every year, and love the subject."

Wow--rationalize much?? And again with the bad logic. Basically you're saying that since some people break rules, we should therefore eliminate all rules. In that case, scrap all immigration restrictions and walls. Some people are going to get in anyway, after all...

joeyjojojunior says

Basically you're saying that since some people break rules, we should therefore eliminate all rules. Some people are going to get in anyway, after all...

I'm saying that reviewing any existing legislation is worthwhile, especially anything from Obama. That's all that's being done here anyway.

I'm also still wondering if anyone else here has any personal experience with investment advisors. Nobody else seems to have any stories.

I already stated that I know at least 2 people who used them (one of them still does) and I can say that they are mostly self-serving liars.

Quite frankly. I think something more like verified online reviews of investment advisors might do more for people looking to find one than anything else.

"I'm saying that reviewing any existing legislation is worthwhile, especially anything from Obama. That's all that's being done here anyway."

You mean that's what you're saying now? Because that's clearly not what you said above.

Regardless, I think everyone knows that this executive order is basically the precursor to removing the rule. Is there anyone who thinks it's remotely possible that after the "review" they'll find the rule is good and should be kept?

"Hey Tatty, you looking to be wrong AGAIN with your predictions? You track record really sucks lately."

How so?

joeyjojojunior says

I think everyone knows that this executive order is basically the precursor to removing the rule.

Or removing the rule and having congress vote on it, instead of having something issued by the Department of Labor.