Obama holdovers defy Trump, refuse to stop regulatory assault on financial advisors

[longknife]

And congressional Dimbocraps are doing everything in their power to stop the changes the president wants made.

So what was the Labor response? Last week the holdovers from the Obama Administration announced that “the Department has concluded it would be inappropriate to broadly delay application of the fiduciary definition and Impartial Conduct Standards.”

Translation: We don’t care what an elected President says.

And it won’t get better until Alex Acosta is confirmed as Labor Secretary. Just what Shyster and his fellow Dimbocraps want.

More @ Obama holdovers defy Trump, refuse to stop regulatory assault on financial advisors

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Simple solution fire all managers that REFUSE to follow orders.

 

[Timmy]

Trump is not czar ya know .

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He IS President and HE DOES set policy to be followed by the Executive Branch which this falls under. Fire them all.

 

[Winston]

And congressional Dimbocraps are doing everything in their power to stop the changes the president wants made.

So what was the Labor response? Last week the holdovers from the Obama Administration announced that “the Department has concluded it would be inappropriate to broadly delay application of the fiduciary definition and Impartial Conduct Standards.”

Translation: We don’t care what an elected President says.

And it won’t get better until Alex Acosta is confirmed as Labor Secretary. Just what Shyster and his fellow Dimbocraps want.

More @ Obama holdovers defy Trump, refuse to stop regulatory assault on financial advisors

Your article is very misleading and there is no tax involved as far as I know. Actually, it is a pretty simple ruling. It simple elevates the status of every single financial professional that works with retirement funds to a fiduciary under the terms of the the ERISA of 1974. In common terms it simply means that those financial professionals must put the concerns of their clients above their own self-interests.

 

[Manonthestreet]

And congressional Dimbocraps are doing everything in their power to stop the changes the president wants made.

So what was the Labor response? Last week the holdovers from the Obama Administration announced that “the Department has concluded it would be inappropriate to broadly delay application of the fiduciary definition and Impartial Conduct Standards.”

Translation: We don’t care what an elected President says.

And it won’t get better until Alex Acosta is confirmed as Labor Secretary. Just what Shyster and his fellow Dimbocraps want.

More @ Obama holdovers defy Trump, refuse to stop regulatory assault on financial advisors

Your article is very misleading and there is no tax involved as far as I know. Actually, it is a pretty simple ruling. It simple elevates the status of every single financial professional that works with retirement funds to a fiduciary under the terms of the the ERISA of 1974. In common terms it simply means that those financial professionals must put the concerns of their clients above their own self-interests.

Big Bank Protection bill

 

[Mousterian]

From the link:
'The rule never made any sense, as it got in between professional relationships between investors and their advisors that both parties were perfectly happy with.'
This didn't ring any bells for you? I can't quite believe that you are one of the mega-wealthy who will be subject to this new oversight.
Of course they are happy with the existing free-for-all-(weathy)! These conspiracies have allowed the transfer of wealth to the top to become a tsunami, so the 1% live in obscene luxury, while the workers fall into poverty.
To 'obey' the Supreme Oligarch would require the Public Servants (that's what they are, you know!) to betray the people they serve (the Public!), and side with the enemies of the people.

 

[BULLDOG]

And congressional Dimbocraps are doing everything in their power to stop the changes the president wants made.

So what was the Labor response? Last week the holdovers from the Obama Administration announced that “the Department has concluded it would be inappropriate to broadly delay application of the fiduciary definition and Impartial Conduct Standards.”

Translation: We don’t care what an elected President says.

And it won’t get better until Alex Acosta is confirmed as Labor Secretary. Just what Shyster and his fellow Dimbocraps want.

More @ Obama holdovers defy Trump, refuse to stop regulatory assault on financial advisors

That particular change needs to be stopped, Why would you want a financial adviser to be able to hide the fact that his advice would be good for him, but bad for you?

 

[Winston]

From the link:
'The rule never made any sense, as it got in between professional relationships between investors and their advisors that both parties were perfectly happy with.'
This didn't ring any bells for you? I can't quite believe that you are one of the mega-wealthy who will be subject to this new oversight.
Of course they are happy with the existing free-for-all-(weathy)! These conspiracies have allowed the transfer of wealth to the top to become a tsunami, so the 1% live in obscene luxury, while the workers fall into poverty.
To 'obey' the Supreme Oligarch would require the Public Servants (that's what they are, you know!) to betray the people they serve (the Public!), and side with the enemies of the people.

Like I said, the article is bogus. Here is a good explanation of the "Fiduciary Rule" as it has been called. It has been under discussion for years.

DOL Fiduciary Rule: Everything You Need to Know

Again, this is pretty simple. Today, under existing rules, a broker, or an insurance agent, or a financial planner handling your retirement money only has to show that the investment vehicle in which he has placed your retirement funds in is "suitable". Under the new standard, he would have to show that his recommendations were the best choice, not just a suitable choice.

What the hell is wrong with that? It prevents money managers from placing their own interest in a higher commission ahead of the financial interest of the client they are suppose to be taking care of. Ghez, it is like common sense, basic business, general courtesy.

I have millions under management, the majority of it qualified money, retirement funds, the very assets this legislation concerns. I got no problem with the rule. I do what is best for the client. If I do that, the compensation part takes care of itself. But believe me, I have cleaned up some pretty big messes in my time that this new rule would have prevented.

 

[Winston]

And congressional Dimbocraps are doing everything in their power to stop the changes the president wants made.

So what was the Labor response? Last week the holdovers from the Obama Administration announced that “the Department has concluded it would be inappropriate to broadly delay application of the fiduciary definition and Impartial Conduct Standards.”

Translation: We don’t care what an elected President says.

And it won’t get better until Alex Acosta is confirmed as Labor Secretary. Just what Shyster and his fellow Dimbocraps want.

More @ Obama holdovers defy Trump, refuse to stop regulatory assault on financial advisors

That particular change needs to be stopped, Why would you want a financial adviser to be able to hide the fact that his advice would be good for him, but bad for you?

Oh, they can continue to hide that reality from clients with non-qualified funds. It is just those retirement funds that they have to be straight up about.

 

[busybee01]

That article is a bunch of garbage. This is one time that Obama had the right idea. It requires the financial advisor to put the best interests of their client above their best interests. Right now a financial advisor can put a client into a fund not because it is the best fit for their client but because it pays them a commission. A potential lawsuit is a way of holding them accountable.

It is little wonder that Trump was told this was bad. Trump's economics team is from Wall Street so naturally they are going to protect Wall Street. The swamp is still there but the alligators have changed. When Trump holds cabinet meetings Goldman Sachs can have a board meeting.

 

[hadit]

The issue is not whether the Obama rule was a good idea or not. The issue is whether the agency has the authority to act contrary to the president's orders. If it does not, the people doing so will rightly face consequences.