THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Okeefenokee]

according to a senior administration official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.

We don't accept unnamed sources. Get with the program. If they won't put their name on it, it goes in the garbage.

[adwinistrator]

See prior commentary about utopia vs rules to make a utpoia.

I understand the argument, but this is only about conflict of interest. Fiduciary = CoI is prohibited (reasonably, all disclosures made). Non-fiduciary = CoI is fine, decisions can be made for reasons besides your best interest.

The idea that there "may be better investments available" is addressed at length as well. What is a better investment? Do you know?

The rules aren't about good or bad picks, it's about the reasons for the decisions your advisor makes, and whether or not there are legally consequences for decisions made for your money, to primarily benefit others.

Being wrong isn't what fiduciary duty is about.

I'll say it again, Freddie and Fannie and their massive MBS portfolio were "reasonable and suitable investments", in fact the safest there were for retirees allegedly, which went to near zero at one point.

Of course, and I'm sure many advisors with a fiduciary duty included them in the portfolios they managed.

If those advisors did so, while working for a company that had an interest in seeing FMae and FMac investments increase, and wanted their advisors to push it, and they also had an entire business selling FMae and FMac backed mortgages...

Well, there would have been nothing wrong with a non-fiduciary advisor steering you into those investments, for the sole reason of their company saying so. An advisor with a fiduciary duty, in the same boat, could not have done so without disclosing all conflicts of interest and reviewing them with you, and then they could have moved forward if you wanted to as well.

And finally, the only person who benefits from this rule, is me.

I agree, if by "this rule", you mean The Department of Labor's Fiduciary Rule.

[adwinistrator]

according to a senior administration official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.

We don't accept unnamed sources. Get with the program. If they won't put their name on it, it goes in the garbage.

The White House Office of the Press Secretary - Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 2/3/2017, #8

The Dodd-Frank Act is a disastrous policy that’s hindering our markets, reducing the availability of credit, and crippling our economy’s ability to grow and create jobs. It imposed hundreds of new regulations on financial institutions while establishing unaccountable and unconstitutional new agency that does not adequately protect consumers. Perhaps worst of all, despite all of its overreaching, Dodd-Frank did not address the causes of the financial crisis, something we all know must be done. It did not solve the "too big to fail," and we must determine conclusively that the failure of a large bank will never again leave taxpayers on the hook.

The presidential memorandum addresses the burdens of government regulations and the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule. The rule is a solution in search of a problem. There are better ways to protect investors, and the Trump administration is taking action to do so. We’re directing the Department of Labor to review this rule. The rule’s intent may be to have provided retirees and others with better financial advice, but in reality, its effect has been to limit the financial services that are available to them.

President Trump does not intend to put unnecessary limits on economic opportunity. The Department of Labor exceeded its authority with this rule, and this is exactly the kind of government regulatory overreach the President was put into office to stop. We desperately need to overhaul how we approach financial regulation. The President is taking action to protect American taxpayers and get people back to work.

[apeman]

Fair enough adwin, I do foolishly focus on "best interests" over conflicts, I was immediately tempted to point out absurdities with the conflicts side, but it doesn't matter. Your point is fair and it stands.

[Okeefenokee]

according to a senior administration official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.

We don't accept unnamed sources. Get with the program. If they won't put their name on it, it goes in the garbage.

The White House Office of the Press Secretary - Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 2/3/2017, #8

The Dodd-Frank Act is a disastrous policy that’s hindering our markets, reducing the availability of credit, and crippling our economy’s ability to grow and create jobs. It imposed hundreds of new regulations on financial institutions while establishing unaccountable and unconstitutional new agency that does not adequately protect consumers. Perhaps worst of all, despite all of its overreaching, Dodd-Frank did not address the causes of the financial crisis, something we all know must be done. It did not solve the "too big to fail," and we must determine conclusively that the failure of a large bank will never again leave taxpayers on the hook.

The presidential memorandum addresses the burdens of government regulations and the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule. The rule is a solution in search of a problem. There are better ways to protect investors, and the Trump administration is taking action to do so. We’re directing the Department of Labor to review this rule. The rule’s intent may be to have provided retirees and others with better financial advice, but in reality, its effect has been to limit the financial services that are available to them.

President Trump does not intend to put unnecessary limits on economic opportunity. The Department of Labor exceeded its authority with this rule, and this is exactly the kind of government regulatory overreach the President was put into office to stop. We desperately need to overhaul how we approach financial regulation. The President is taking action to protect American taxpayers and get people back to work.

That must be the result of making shit up all day and citing anonymous sources. You lose track of where your bullshit ends, and real life begins.

I've read that Mark Twain said honest people don't have to remember anything, but that might have been bullshit.

[adwinistrator]

Fair enough adwin, I do foolishly focus on "best interests" over conflicts, I was immediately tempted to point out absurdities with the conflicts side, but it doesn't matter. Your point is fair and it stands.

I think there are merits on both sides of this issue, but it often turns into both sides arguing against strawmen of their opponents. I don't think it's intended, it's just easy to take any real world example to the extreme.

If anything, there should be a middle ground between fiduciary and FINRA, so that you can have the CoI disclosures well documented, without requiring the time and effort needed to meet the fiduciary threshold.

Another point worth debating is advising on fees vs. commission. Many 401k brokers get kickback commission from the funds they enroll people in, these are the types of things that should be stopped, especially when so many people's 401k broker is assigned to them through their employer...

I've read that Mark Twain said honest people don't have to remember anything, but that might have been bullshit.

This Mark Twain fella sounds like a 4chan troll...

[StCapps]

So what's the deal on this Republicuck judge ruling against the travel ban and turning himself into the John McCain/Lindsey Graham of federal judges? All this amounts to is a delaying tactic right?

[Okeefenokee]

So what's the deal on this Republicuck judge ruling against the travel ban and turning himself into the John McCain/Lindsey Graham of federal judges? All this amounts to is delaying tactic right?

Let him enforce it.

[StCapps]

So what's the deal on this Republicuck judge ruling against the travel ban and turning himself into the John McCain/Lindsey Graham of federal judges? All this amounts to is delaying tactic right?

Let him enforce it.

Figured as much. Trump will just ignore him and if anything comes of it he'll just write a new executive order pretty much exactly like the first one. Why is this judge being such a twat, what's he gain out of this? Seems like he just shot himself in the foot for no reason, am I missing an angle?

[Speaker to Animals]

So what's the deal on this Republicuck judge ruling against the travel ban and turning himself into the John McCain/Lindsey Graham of federal judges? All this amounts to is delaying tactic right?

Let him enforce it.

I see what you did there.