THE ERA OF TRUMP

[SuburbanFarmer]

Per capita, means per person... when you only have around 200K people in a country vs several million, yet both produces identically several trillion in income... you do the math.

I did the math, but I am guessing you didn't.

According to your numbers, Brazilian GDP per capital is $16,000,000

Whoops, knew something didn't look right, but I wasn't going to argue a state-run website.

There, we're all on the same page now

We need to invade Brazil.

[adwinistrator]

The Hill - Trump says business friends 'can't get loans' because of Dodd-Frank (02/03/17 11:16 AM EST)

President Trump on Friday said sweeping changes are needed to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law because his friends in business are struggling to get loans from banks.

“We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank because, frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine, who have nice businesses who can’t borrow money. They just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow, because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank,” Trump said at a Friday morning meeting with CEOs from a number of companies.

CEOs attending the meeting included Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and Stephen Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group.

...

“We have a great plan, but I want to have your input on the plan in particular, and to do what we have to do in terms of regulation, we have some of the bankers here. There’s nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie.”

Swamp is drained. Lol

Jaime fucking Dimon...

For everyone who hates scumbag bankers

In the case of the 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss, according to a US Senate report published in March 2013 after 9 months of investigation,[47] Dimon misled investors and regulators in April as losses rose dangerously to $6.2 billion on a “monstrous” derivatives bet made by the so-called "London Whale" Bruno Iksil. According to Carl Levin, Chairman of this panel, JP Morgan had “a trading operation that piled on risk, ignored limits on risk taking, hid losses, dodged oversight and misinformed the public”. Dimon dismissed press accounts of possible losses in Iksil’s book as a “tempest in a teapot” on April 13, 2012 when he knew that Iksil had already lost $1 billion, which led Levin to say “None of those statements made on April 13 to the public, to investors, to analysts were true,” and “The bank also neglected to disclose on that day that the portfolio had massive positions that were hard to exit, that they were violating in massive numbers key risk limits.” [48][49]

Dimon corrected that wrong information a month later, in May 2012, before the true damage was revealed, after US Securities and Exchange financial watchdog started reviewing the losses.

For everyone who hates democrats

Dimon has had close ties to some people in the Obama White House, including former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.[42] Dimon was one of three CEOs—along with Lloyd Blankfein and Vikram Pandit—said by the Associated Press to have had liberal access to former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

[adwinistrator]

Per capita, means per person... when you only have around 200K people in a country vs several million, yet both produces identically several trillion in income... you do the math.

I did the math, but I am guessing you didn't.

According to your numbers, Brazilian GDP per capital is $16,000,000

Whoops, knew something didn't look right, but I wasn't going to argue a state-run website.

There, we're all on the same page now

We need to invade Brazil.

Exactly what I was thinking... Have you seen those beaches.

[Ex-California]

I did the math, but I am guessing you didn't.

According to your numbers, Brazilian GDP per capital is $16,000,000





There, we're all on the same page now

We need to invade Brazil.

Exactly what I was thinking... Have you seen those beaches.

Have you seen the women?

[SuburbanFarmer]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-0 ... ciary-rule

As previewed earlier today, moments ago President Trump signed two executive orders aimed at starting the process of rolling back the regulatory system put in place after the financial crisis

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren - rightfully according to some - lashed out at Trump for rushing to undo the key Wall Street regulations, and issued a statement in which she said "The Wall Street bankers and lobbyists whose greed and recklessness nearly destroyed this country may be toasting each other with champagne, but the American people have not forgotten the 2008 financial crisis."

"Donald Trump talked a big game about Wall Street during his campaign - but as President, we're finding out whose side he's really on. Today, after literally standing alongside big bank and hedge fund CEOs, he announced two new orders - one that will make it easier for investment advisors to cheat you out of your retirement savings, and another that will put two former Goldman Sachs executives in charge of gutting the rules that protect you from financial fraud and another economic meltdown. The Wall Street bankers and lobbyists whose greed and recklessness nearly destroyed this country may be toasting each other with champagne, but the American people have not forgotten the 2008 financial crisis - and they will not forget what happened today."

There it is. Holy shit.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/03/513224023 ... ive-action

President Trump signed two directives on Friday, ordering a review of financial industry regulations known as Dodd-Frank and halting implementation of a rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients, according to a senior administration official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.

He just administered a kilo of coke directly into the country's neck. It's gonna be a wild couple years until we implode.

Also, apparently, our Executive branch is scared to tell us what the fuck he's signing. We are full-on gonzo now... wow.

How bout it, Trumpsters? Still faithful that the swamp water is going away ever? Or ready to burn this bitch to the ground? Nahhhhhh just kiddin'. We know you'll come up with an excuse, or ignore it.

[Speaker to Animals]

The idea that advisors can actually work in your self-interest is fucking laughable. It's hilarious that you guys believe it's even possible.

You and your advisor work towards a mutual benefit. That doesn't mean what would most benefit you personally. If it did, you wouldn't have any advisors.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The idea that advisors can actually work in your self-interest is fucking laughable. It's hilarious that you guys believe it's even possible.

You and your advisor work towards a mutual benefit. That doesn't mean what would most benefit you personally. If it did, you wouldn't have any advisors.

....and if his employer is allowed to give him a financial bonus for directing your cash into junk bonds or mortgage derivatives?

Should work out fine, I'm sure. Those are great investments - the best. Trust me.

[apeman]

The idea that advisors can actually work in your self-interest is fucking laughable. It's hilarious that you guys believe it's even possible.

You and your advisor work towards a mutual benefit. That doesn't mean what would most benefit you personally. If it did, you wouldn't have any advisors.

....and if his employer is allowed to give him a financial bonus for directing your cash into junk bonds or mortgage derivatives?

Should work out fine, I'm sure. Those are great investments - the best. Trust me.

Literally by definition no one knows what the "best" investments are. Is it best to go all-in on central bank levitation, or best to wait it out and hope for a big correction? Is it "best" to buy index funds due to low fees (yet historically high median component values) or best to trust an active manager?

There are no actual answers to these questions, we can't see the future.

Freddie and Fannie believed MBS were among the safest of all investments, and investors believed their was an implied govt connection meaning that F&F had govt protection. So it was widely believed to be safe (S&P rated in "A" in safety) yet it wasn't.

The number of lawsuits that would come from this would be staggering, and would GUARANTEE higher fees from investment professionals (think malpractice and healthcare)/ Like many govt efforts, the rule sounds nice, but in practice it is a disaster.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The idea that advisors can actually work in your self-interest is fucking laughable. It's hilarious that you guys believe it's even possible.

You and your advisor work towards a mutual benefit. That doesn't mean what would most benefit you personally. If it did, you wouldn't have any advisors.

....and if his employer is allowed to give him a financial bonus for directing your cash into junk bonds or mortgage derivatives?

Should work out fine, I'm sure. Those are great investments - the best. Trust me.

Literally by definition no one knows what the "best" investments are. Is it best to go all-in on central bank levitation, or best to wait it out and hope for a big correction? Is it "best" to buy index funds due to low fees (yet historically high median component values) or best to trust an active manager?

There are no actual answers to these questions, we can't see the future.

Freddie and Fannie believed MBS were among the safest of all investments, and investors believed their was an implied govt connection meaning that F&F had govt protection. So it was widely believed to be safe (S&P rated in "A" in safety) yet it wasn't.

The number of lawsuits that would come from this would be staggering, and would GUARANTEE higher fees from investment professionals (think malpractice and healthcare)/ Like many govt efforts, the rule sounds nice, but in practice it is a disaster.

.... and how often do financial officers of corporations get sued for breaching fiduciary duty?

Basically, we've just invalidated the entire concept of an "Investment Advisor". It's now "some dude that will tell you where to put money, based on whatever-the-fuck"

I'm actually not against this, until it reaches the level of "advisors" entrusted with massive pension and benefit funds. But hey, ya gotta roll them dice with Grampa's cash, right? Can't just let it sit there.

[apeman]

Is your post responsive to any of the things that I wrote? I can't even tell if you agree or disagree, just sense an edgy cynicism.

You cannot determine ahead of time which investments are in your client's best interest. My boss told hi adviser he wanted to "get conseravtive" 4-5 months ago, and his adviser put him in bonds. Terrible call.

Did the adviser act in my boss's best interest? I dunno, let's have a 5 year trial, spend 100K on discovery, and have a jury determine it.