GOP does not want financial advisers to have to act in their clients' best interests

[dank69]

Don't worry though, Obama has your back.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-rejects-u-retirement-rule-obama-ready-veto-213900279--sector.html

Don't forget to remind everyone that Dems are the ones in the pockets of the financial industry on your way out the door.

 

[Genx87]

Have a link to the actual legislation?

 

[zinfamous]

Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, said blocking the rule would help "smaller savers."

"I have sincere concerns about what this could mean for the ability of investment advisers to provide quality financial advice, but also for the ability of consumers to seek affordable retirement options," he said.

lol. what a fucking shill. This is exactly what "smaller savers" need to reduce the chances of non-fiduciary FA's scamming them out of 30%+ of their retirement savings.

 

[dank69]

Have a link to the actual legislation?

No, sorry. Just a link to this liberal lame-stream media puff piece.

 

[Genx87]

No, sorry. Just a link to this liberal lame-stream media puff piece.

It would be nice to see what was actually in the legislation. Your piece leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Sonikku]

This is America. You can see what's in the legislation after they pass it.

 

[soundforbjt]

It would be nice to see what was actually in the legislation. Your piece leaves a lot to be desired.

Maybe this will help.

https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsconflictsofinterest.html

 

[dullard]

Have a link to the actual legislation?

Legislation changes so much as it is being voted on, but I think this is the latest link:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/33/text?resultIndex=1

That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the definition of the term “fiduciary” and the conflict of interest rule with respect to retirement investment advice (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 20946 (April 8, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

Relevant rule that would have no force or effect: http://webapps.dol.gov/FederalRegister/PdfDisplay.aspx?DocId=28806

 

[Bowfinger]

I believe the legislation merely repeals a new DOL policy that took effect in April. Here are the details of these new regulations: DOL link

Here are two articles that discuss the new rules and the issues around them: Wall Street Dodged a Bullet ... and The 'fiduciary rule' is a great victory for retirement savers. As the first link notes, there was a lot of fear, and a lot of fear mongering, in the financial industry about how these proposed rules might be implemented. Among the concerns was that brokers and agents who currently sell all sorts of retirement-related products would no longer be able to sell those products without additional training and licensing. It sounds like the DOL settled on more extensive disclosure requirements instead (but I not an expert on this at all).

 

[dullard]

It sounds like the DOL settled on more extensive disclosure requirements instead (but I not an expert on this at all).

That is how the news that I heard summarized it. Your financial advisor can still steer you to investments that line his pocketbook instead of yours, but now he needs to disclose the fact that he isn't thinking of your best interest.

 

[tweaker2]

We need more deregulation damn it. All of this bullshit about protecting the consumer against predatory scammers hiding behind a facade of self-regulation is bad for business. /s

 

[Brainonska511]

http://thehill.com/regulation/282743-obama-vetoes-gop-attempt-to-rollback-financial-adviser-rule

Obama vetoed the Republicans attempt to rollback the fiduciary duty rule set by the DOL on retirement accounts.

 

[Subyman]

Haha Goldman's dark pool fills with the tears of the millionaires scorned by Obama.

 

[fskimospy]

Remember though, both parties are the same and in the pocket of Wall Street.

 

[Sonikku]

This is why I'd support guys like Bernie. Not so much the things he would accomplish which is nothing, but more for the madness coming from congress he would deflect. Can you just imagine if Romney had been president when this went down?

 

[Jhhnn]

It's just Repubs pandering to their base in the financial sector, the true Bush constituency. They all seek to maximize the benefits of asymmetrical information, something the Labor dept ruling tends to inhibit.

Vote Trump if you want to see the bill become law next go round.

 

[Knowing]

Odd how much the financial sector paid for Hillary speeches. Also curious is the revolving door in the Obama admin between the banks (Goldman) and our brave, competent, and effective financial regulators.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Brainonska511]

Odd how much the financial sector paid for Hillary speeches. Also curious is the revolving door in the Obama admin between the banks (Goldman) and our brave, competent, and effective financial regulators.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Is the so called revolving door that surprising? Industry wants to hire people in the know and government wants to hire people who know about what they are going to be in charge of. Sometimes, the people overlap. It's not inherently corruption.

 

[Jhhnn]

Odd how much the financial sector paid for Hillary speeches. Also curious is the revolving door in the Obama admin between the banks (Goldman) and our brave, competent, and effective financial regulators.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

It's more odd that off topic innuendo carries greater weight than actual deeds.

Who demands greater fiduciary duty from industry professionals & who seeks to relieve them of it?

 

[buckshot24]

Love the inaccurate thread title.

 

[Knowing]

Is the so called revolving door that surprising? Industry wants to hire people in the know and government wants to hire people who know about what they are going to be in charge of. Sometimes, the people overlap. It's not inherently corruption.

Not inherently, no. It is though, and people have to be particularly affected not to see it.

It's more odd that off topic innuendo carries greater weight than actual deeds.

Who demands greater fiduciary duty from industry professionals & who seeks to relieve them of it?

It isn't innuendo. Banks paid. The revolving door exists. These are indisputable facts. You aren't going to convince me that both parties aren't wholly owned subsidiaries of the financial sector. You could try to explain to me why you think it isn't so while the ".1%" and the banks are doing so well while wages for the little people haven't budged.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Jhhnn]

Love the inaccurate thread title.

Would you prefer "GOP tries to relieve financial advisors of fiduciary duty to their clients"?

How about "Wall hating Kenyan usurper delivers crushing blow to the financial industry"?

I'm guessing you'd find the second more accurate.

 

[fskimospy]

Not inherently, no. It is though, and people have to be particularly affected not to see it.

It isn't innuendo. Banks paid. The revolving door exists. These are indisputable facts. You aren't going to convince me that both parties aren't wholly owned subsidiaries of the financial sector. You could try to explain to me why you think it isn't so while the ".1%" and the banks are doing so well while wages for the little people haven't budged.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

So if banks perform well it is inherently due to them owning political parties? That's what you must mean, else your request makes no sense.

Even taking that at silly face value there was a recent thread where someone tracked bank stock performance in recent years. It had gone up at approximately the same rate as the S&P. Assuming those numbers are accurate, how do you explain their poor performance? I mean you would think they would be able to do better than the average company if they controlled the federal government, no?

 

[Knowing]

So if banks perform well it is inherently due to them owning political parties? That's what you must mean, else your request makes no sense.

Even taking that at silly face value there was a recent thread where someone tracked bank stock performance in recent years. It had gone up at approximately the same rate as the S&P. Assuming those numbers are accurate, how do you explain their poor performance? I mean you would think they would be able to do better than the average company if they controlled the federal government, no?

Is that what I said? I don't think it is. You seem to have this problem a lot.

Jamie Dimon bought 500,000 shares (~$26.6 million) one month before the bank bought back $1.9 billion with of shares. He effectively called the bottom of the February correction. Well played Mr. Dimon, let's just ignore that you're the CEO.

Deutsche Bank admitted to rigging basically everything.

HSBC was running drug money.

It feels really strange to have to explain all of this when too big to jail has been the policy for years. Google it, bruv.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[fskimospy]

Is that what I said? I don't think it is. You seem to have this problem a lot.

Jamie Dimon bought 500,000 shares (~$26.6 million) one month before the bank bought back $1.9 billion with of shares. He effectively called the bottom of the February correction. Well played Mr. Dimon, let's just ignore that you're the CEO.

Deutsche Bank admitted to rigging basically everything.

HSBC was running drug money.

It feels really strange to have to explain all of this when too big to jail has been the policy for years. Google it, bruv.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

You said the banks were doing 'so well'. By what empirical metric are you determining this? Share price? What? Be as specific as you can.