Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 An op-ed about irresponsible fiduciaries demonstrates that requiring everyone be a fiduciary is necessary reform? This is why you and your ilk are mocked. Because of massive and embarrassing failures in basic logic. Not surprised at all you missed the point, but carry on...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Not surprised at all you missed the point, but carry on... There was no point. You're just spewing random nonsense. Again.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Not surprised at all you missed the point, but carry on... No, no... Explain to me how something completely irrelevant to the new rule, and which will not be impacted by the new rule, justifies the rule.
Nanker Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Because it's "fair." You know, like Dodd Frank was fair. It will have no unintended consequences either. Just like the ACA. Government knows best. On another note, I see that MetLife was able to shirk the absurd SIFI designation. Now others are weighing doing that too.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 No, no... Explain to me how something completely irrelevant to the new rule, and which will not be impacted by the new rule, justifies the rule. Corrupt and misleading investments for clients has no point? LOL, you are shot
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Corrupt and misleading investments for clients has no point? LOL, you are shot We're not talking about investments, we're talking about fiduciary responsibility, you !@#$ing dumbass.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Corrupt and misleading investments for clients has no point? LOL, you are shot Again, explain to me how something completely irrelevant to the new rule, and which will not be impacted by the new rule, justifies the rule.
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Again, explain to me how something completely irrelevant to the new rule, and which will not be impacted by the new rule, justifies the rule. Because "corrupt and misleading investments." It's the rhetorical equivalent of "but think of the children," "Republicans want to kill grandma," "racist," etc. Can't be argued with, for being devoid of any actual thought.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Again, explain to me how something completely irrelevant to the new rule, and which will not be impacted by the new rule, justifies the rule. If you think this is irrelevant that says more about your ability to draw inferences and logical conclusions than anything. If you think this is completely unrelated you are an idiot
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 If you think this is irrelevant that says more about your ability to draw inferences and logical conclusions than anything. If you think this is completely unrelated you are an idiot Again, explain to me how something completely irrelevant to the new rule, and which will not be impacted by the new rule, justifies the rule
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 If you think this is irrelevant that says more about your ability to draw inferences and logical conclusions than anything. If you think this is completely unrelated you are an idiot So you can't explain it...
Chef Jim Posted April 7, 2016 Author Posted April 7, 2016 An op-ed about irresponsible fiduciaries demonstrates that requiring everyone be a fiduciary is necessary reform? This is why you and your ilk are mocked. Because of massive and embarrassing failures in basic logic. A fiduciary only on retirement accounts.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Because "corrupt and misleading investments." It's the rhetorical equivalent of "but think of the children," "Republicans want to kill grandma," "racist," etc. Can't be argued with, for being devoid of any actual thought. At least "want to kill grandma" is related to Medicare and Social Security arguments, and "think of the children" is related to the Department of Education. This new nugget is completely unrelated to the complaint.
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 A fiduciary only on retirement accounts. Yeah, forgot that part. Goldman Sachs' irresponsible fiduciary activities with respect to hedge fund investors requires everyone that advises on a retirement account be a fiduciary.
Chef Jim Posted April 7, 2016 Author Posted April 7, 2016 If you think this is irrelevant that says more about your ability to draw inferences and logical conclusions than anything. If you think this is completely unrelated you are an idiot Do you think it makes sense to change the way a whole industry gets compensated due to a few bad apples? This rule is going to hurt clients more than advisors in the long run actually. As a fiduciary I charge my clients a lot more in fees over the long run. That's the way they've chosen to compensate me. There are others that would rather pay me a one time fee up front. Sure it's more up front but a lot less over time. I actually have more clients that choose the commission over the fee for that exact reason. Now they will no longer have the choice for their retirement accounts. Yeah, forgot that part. Goldman Sachs' irresponsible fiduciary activities with respect to hedge fund investors requires everyone that advises on a retirement account be a fiduciary. Yup. I manage a $10k IRA I have to do it as a fiduciary. A $5m trust account? No such requirement.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Yup. I manage a $10k IRA I have to do it as a fiduciary. A $5m trust account? No such requirement. I can't think of a single good reason to manage the 10k IRA under those conditions.
Chef Jim Posted April 7, 2016 Author Posted April 7, 2016 I can't think of a single good reason to manage the 10k IRA under those conditions. No kidding. That's why the smaller client will be left out and on their own. Obama wanting to help the small investor is going to backfire. When left to their own devices they will end up in a worse place. It's been shown time and time again. Hell even "smart" investors have bad behaviors. You know I just thought of an horrible outcome of this. You're likely to see a lot more fixed insurance products (fixed annuities) being sold in retirement accounts. I assume this ruling only pertains to securities business.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Do you think it makes sense to change the way a whole industry gets compensated due to a few bad apples? This rule is going to hurt clients more than advisors in the long run actually. As a fiduciary I charge my clients a lot more in fees over the long run. That's the way they've chosen to compensate me. There are others that would rather pay me a one time fee up front. Sure it's more up front but a lot less over time. I actually have more clients that choose the commission over the fee for that exact reason. Now they will no longer have the choice for their retirement accounts. Yup. I manage a $10k IRA I have to do it as a fiduciary. A $5m trust account? No such requirement. I'm not even sure this will help anything. All I know is that the system is ripe for corruption and that op-ed I posted confirmed a lot of what I felt was going on with my 401k plan I use to fund it. The investments were just pie charts with colors and the guy selling me this crap couldn't get into anything at all what was actually in them. The Goldman guy saying they were dumping unprofitable investments on clients was exactly what I expected. And I was pretty shocked that it took this long to finally outlaw the conflict of interest between the investments sold and those selling them. Seriously?
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 I'm not even sure this will help anything. All I know is that the system is ripe for corruption and that op-ed I posted confirmed a lot of what I felt was going on with my 401k plan I use to fund it. The investments were just pie charts with colors and the guy selling me this crap couldn't get into anything at all what was actually in them. The Goldman guy saying they were dumping unprofitable investments on clients was exactly what I expected. And I was pretty shocked that it took this long to finally outlaw the conflict of interest between the investments sold and those selling them. Seriously? There is already an existing law related to pricing and suitability pertaining to keeping costs low for workplace investment plans, and another law requiring firms to shop their workplace plans every two years to make sure that costs remain competitive year over year as well, and not just at the time of purchase. As to "the guy selling you this crap", what was he exactly? The advisor who worked with the 401k your employer provided?
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 At least "want to kill grandma" is related to Medicare and Social Security arguments, and "think of the children" is related to the Department of Education. This new nugget is completely unrelated to the complaint. No, "think of the children" is a catchall. Carbon emissions..."but think of the children!" Logging bans to protect rare snails..."but think of the children!" Gun regulation, airport security, affordable home-ownership, "think of the children!" Fiduciary requirements for managing retirement accounts..."think of the children!" No kidding. That's why the smaller client will be left out and on their own. Obama wanting to help the small investor is going to backfire. When left to their own devices they will end up in a worse place. It's been shown time and time again. Hell even "smart" investors have bad behaviors. You know I just thought of an horrible outcome of this. You're likely to see a lot more fixed insurance products (fixed annuities) being sold in retirement accounts. I assume this ruling only pertains to securities business. No, it's going to accomplish exactly what Obama wants: force people to rely more on the government for retirement. The government is not just the source of all help, it is the ONLY source of help. See our previous "myRA" discussion.
Recommended Posts