we have professional standards for medical doctors who are obligated to seek the best for the patient and advise the patient accordingly.

we have professional standards for lawyers who have an obligation to their clients *first*.

these are a couple areas where if you're seeking professional advice, you are probably dealing with something serious, or potentially serious. your finances are serious or potentially serious. Why not have similar standards?

Let me turn the question around. Explain why it is better for the financial advisers to be permitted to put your interests behind their own? the term snake oil comes to mind. Caveat emptor? Let the market decide? Why have any regulations regarding truth in lending for example? That's just a big fucking hassle. an unnecessary expense.

as for widening the problem to everyone, lemme ask you. have you yourself been subject to terrorists violence? Probably not, I hope not. Yet, you have to go through aaaalll the bullshit, with the rest of us, for a chance to reduce risk. Why is this a good idea? Widen the problem to include everyone. That's crap. You don't have to seek the advice, you don't have to fly, you don't have to get sick or arrested.

But... when you do. you want the people taking care of you, advising you, to be looking out for you first, don'cha? I do.

edited to add:
1--fixed typo
2--wow, serious tailposting, I missed the intervening 20 posts, give or take. this was due to just opening the thread to the most recent unread post, then I posted. then I saw my post and aaaaalll the others I failed to notice on the next page when I readthenposted. oops, sorry.

no. fuck ut and fuck his bullshit opinion.

insufferable, preachy, know-it-all cunt
"my tunnel vision gives me superpowers!"

Good idea, you had a losing hand...

and you played it badly.



Still I am interesting in hearing your defense of the suspension of the rule. I'm interested in hearing a rationale for why it's a better idea for the public to have the lower "suitability standard" in place of the higher "fiduciary standard".

If you come back and play, I'll share my marbles with you.


ok, that was dirtier than I thought at first. srsly, though, if you got an argument to make, I'm open to hearing it.

The investopedia article does mention a drawback where smaller firms may have to shut down or sell themselves to other firms, due to compliance costs.

Of course, some of those will be doing so due to not being able to scam their customers anymore, so I'll shed no tears for them. But there may well be honest firms that have some problem with the required paperwork.

Just being devil's advocate here; I'm fully in favor of implementing the rule. But that's what the Republicans will be referring to when they say the rule will diminish customer choice.

I haven't been following this but when the Republicans monetize privatize Social Security would everyone be effected? The new privatizations, as in education, have been less about saving money for taxpayers and more about channeling tax dollars up the income ladder, trickle up economics if you will.

regulation, or...
 

...buyer beware.

In the first, some one else protects you.

In the second, 'you' protect you.

Best advice: if you got money to gamble away, throw the dice yourself.

You protect you in both cases. With regulation, it's easier to do so, and you have a mechanism of redress if they cheat you anyways.

"You protect you in both cases."

Difference is: in the first, when some one else is doin' the defending, that some one is usually the one settin' up the paremeters. In the second, you decide. Now, mebbe the other guy has your best interests in mind, mebbe he doesn't. Always, though, you'll have your best interests in mind.

I simply think you're a better defender of you than the other guy can ever be.

Or, you're supposed to be.

#

"With regulation, it's easier to do so,"

Easier is not always preferable.

#

"and you have a mechanism of redress if they cheat you anyways."

Even in an unregulated world you have the option for redress...just have to be willing and able to get dirty, is all.

And really, that's what it's about, isn't it?

Some folks can get dirty, but too many can't or won't (so nobody gets to).

Reminds me of a private back-n-forth I had with Lamp way back, he favoring regulations (of a sort), me advocating for a d.i.y. approach, with my own experiences to back that approach up.

He didn't talk to me much after that.

No, you still decide in both cases.

I agree, it's Reagan's trickle UP plan, redux.

So it was you, I thought it was me. :lol2:

Nice plan, henry, you just roll up your shirtsleeves and give the guy running your 401k a fat lip? :litebulb: Turns out we don't need any laws, about anything at all! :rollanim:

"No, you still decide in both cases."

No, only in one.

"401k"

I don't have one of those.

"Turns out we don't need any laws, about anything at all!"

Hyperbole.