I don't know what to make of this. some say it's against the middle class

[tyroneweaver]

Obama vetoes attempt to undo retirement savings rule

 

[midcan5]

Bernie Madoff and every scam artist agrees with you Tyroneweaver.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"In this case, congressional Republicans had sought to use a rarely successful maneuver under the Congressional Review Act to overturn what's known as the fiduciary rule, a Department of Labor regulation prohibiting investment advisers from selling products with higher fees or lower returns just because they yield higher commissions."

 

[william the wie]

The simple rule of thumb on advisers and analysts is that they can be profitably substituted for by software.

Were are some simple rules of thumb:

Stick to a balanced portfolio and add more categories as your portfolio grows.

Use covered options to make sure your portfolio stays balanced.

There are very few techniques that beat random picks and they operate by word of mouth.

Anyone selling you financial products instead of keeping their mouth shut to make the money themselves should be looked at with great suspicion.

 

[HenryBHough]

A liberal Democrat opposes responsibility and you're surprised?

 

[JakeStarkey]

A liberal Democrat opposes responsibility and you're surprised?

A good man prevents the sharks from eating the unwary.

 

[Mac1958]

You'll see many younger advisors leaving the industry, and you'll see consolidation to the big banks and firms because smaller broker dealers can't afford this.

But that's okay, the politicians got to write some more laws 'n stuff.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mac seems to think that investment advisers [should be faciliated in the] selling products with higher fees or lower returns just because they yield higher commissions.

No, Mac, the money is the principal, and fiduciary responsibility is to the client first, always.

Too bad we have vetoes to make the financial hyenas do their duties.

 

[Manonthestreet]

This is like ocare, it does not do what bill name claims but that's all the further libs read.....

 

[Mac1958]

Mac seems to think that investment advisers [should be faciliated in the] selling products with higher fees or lower returns just because they yield higher commissions.

No, Mac, the money is the principal, and fiduciary responsibility is to the client first, always.

Too bad we have vetoes to make the financial hyenas do their duties.

I'm in the business, Jake.

You don't know what you're talking about.

But don't let that stop you.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm in the business, Jake. You don't know what you're talking about. But don't let that stop you..

I do know what I am talking about, so that is why you are whining. You have no legal or moral imperative permit the government to allow you to make higher fees for your convenience at the expense of the investor.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm in the business, Jake. You don't know what you're talking about. But don't let that stop you..

I do know what I am talking about, so that is why you are whining. You have no legal or moral imperative permit the government to allow you to make higher fees for your convenience at the expense of the investor.

Nor am I arguing for that.

But, as a good and obedient partisan, you ignored what I actually said and made it into something different.

You people just constantly lie. It appears to be in your DNA.

This law will actually help those of us who are established, and investors will in many cases end up paying higher net fees. Lower balance investors are going to have a tough time finding competent advisors. Maybe DailyKos didn't cover that part.

What you think you know is nothing more than shallow, left wing talking points. You have no idea what's behind the scenes.

But if you know so much, go ahead and educate me on how the above is wrong. It's in bold for you, so you can't say you didn't see it.

I'll wait here.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mac is picking a silly fight solely because I made look silly several times on the Board.

He describes himself when he accuses me of ". . .you ignored what I actually said and made it into something different."

Yes, he is partially right that the law will help him make fees from unwary investors.

No proof exists for his insistence that the veto that "investors will in many cases end up paying higher net fees" other than he is giving notice that he will make a profit that he wants one way or another from unwary investors.

A positive remedy exists: don't use his services.

Mac is a fraud.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac is picking a silly fight solely because I made look silly several times on the Board.

He describes himself when he accuses me of ". . .you ignored what I actually said and made it into something different."

Yes, he is partially right that the law will help him make fees from unwary investors.

No proof exists for his insistence that the veto that "investors will in many cases end up paying higher net fees" other than he is giving notice that he will make a profit that he wants one way or another from unwary investors.

A positive remedy exists: don't use his services.

Mac is a fraud.

At LEAST have the balls to quote me when you're posting about me, Jake, good gawd.

You don't know what you're talking about. Insults and lies don't cut it.

And you calling someone else a fraud. Love it.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mac is picking a silly fight solely because I made look silly several times on the Board.

He describes himself when he accuses me of ". . .you ignored what I actually said and made it into something different."

Yes, he is partially right that the law will help him make fees from unwary investors.

No proof exists for his insistence that the veto that "investors will in many cases end up paying higher net fees" other than he is giving notice that he will make a profit that he wants one way or another from unwary investors.

A positive remedy exists: don't use his services.

Mac is a fraud.

At LEAST have the balls to quote me when you're posting about me, Jake, good gawd. You don't know what you're talking about. Insults and lies don't cut it. And you calling someone else a fraud. Love it..

You will live by your words, fraud, by every word you write.

You want to earn higher fees while making the unwary investor take the risk.

And if you charge higher fees now to make up what you perceived you were going to make before, your clients will go elsewhere.

Win, win for client and America.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac is picking a silly fight solely because I made look silly several times on the Board.

He describes himself when he accuses me of ". . .you ignored what I actually said and made it into something different."

Yes, he is partially right that the law will help him make fees from unwary investors.

No proof exists for his insistence that the veto that "investors will in many cases end up paying higher net fees" other than he is giving notice that he will make a profit that he wants one way or another from unwary investors.

A positive remedy exists: don't use his services.

Mac is a fraud.

At LEAST have the balls to quote me when you're posting about me, Jake, good gawd. You don't know what you're talking about. Insults and lies don't cut it. And you calling someone else a fraud. Love it..

You will live by your words, fraud, by every word you write.

You want to earn higher fees while making the unwary investor take the risk.

And if you charge higher fees now to make up what you perceived you were going to make before, your clients will go elsewhere.

Win, win for client and America.

We're flat fee only, Jake. Always have been. Sorry.

This doesn't affect me in the slightest, outside of the fact that probably a quarter to a third of my competition is about to be wiped out. Maybe more. Otherwise, no changes.

I'm tempted to challenge you to show me your knowledge on the types of fees that will be affected, the types of financial products that will be affected, what they will be changed to, how they will affect the industry and how they will affect clients, but I've dealt with you before.

You'll just run. Again. WON'T you?

All you do when you pop in with the standard Regressive Left catty/snarky comments is look foolish. And ignorant. And cowardly.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure you are. Your flat fee is based on the amount of the investment.

What you want is the leeway to make larger investments on behalf of your unwary customer to maximize your profit.

Too bad, so sad, real mad for you.

 

[Mac1958]

Sure you are. Your flat fee is based on the amount of the investment.

What you want is the leeway to make larger investments on behalf of your unwary customer to maximize your profit.

Too bad, so sad, real mad for you.

"Too bad, so sad, real mad for you" How old are you, 14? Did a child or grandchild of yours type that?

And why don't you balls to quote me, Jake?

So now you're down to "making larger investments to maximize my profit". Gee whiz. The more they make, the more I make.

Yes, that's how it works, Jake. Clearly you don't even know THAT, yet you think you know the ramifications of the DOL law. Love it.

Great stuff, Jake. Catty comments, lies, insults, straw men, ignorance AND deflection. Yet another Jake Combo Special. Like dealing with a child.
.

 

[william the wie]

Does this law apply to non-exchange investment?

 

[Mac1958]

Does this law apply to non-exchange investment?

It's for qualified funds, so IRAs, 401Ks, etc., so the platform isn't the main issue.

Qualified accounts will have a disclosure that goes over how the advisor is compensated, which will make things more transparent than they are now. That's a good thing, and we've been doing that forever (what's another freakin' form?); on the flip side, it's going to kill off some securities that are cheaper in fees in the long run (such as A-share mutual funds). And the regulations are going to dis-incentivize advisors from working with lower-balance clients. So they'll be on their own. That's a shame, because that's precisely the time they need face-to-face guidance the most.

We'll also see (and it's already happening) a slew of larger firms taking over the smaller broker-dealers, because the smaller guys won't be able to compete. It's also going to flush out a pretty ridiculous percentage of newer advisors who won't be able to afford the ramp-up time. Hey, if that's what D.C. wants, more for me...

HOWEVER, if you're investing on your own, it won't affect you (although I'm sure online brokers will have more documents to file).
.