Postponement of new investment advisor fiduciary obligation rule

Archived From: Finance
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
ICYMI, announced today: a delay in the new fiduciary obligation for investment / financial / retirement advisors that was planned for April, 2017.  Provides more months for that industry to tack on fees that customers may not know about.

References:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/trump-financial-executive-actions/ 
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-executive-orders-watering-down-dodd-frank-financial-regulations-n716481 

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Hey stop it you guys! They paid good money to get that rule repealed! Don't you think those donations ... err campaign c... (more)

Shandril (Feb. 18, 2017 @ 7:37p) |

Well the point is to put you and your parasitic company out of business.

Crazytree (Feb. 19, 2017 @ 12:12a) |

Same type of people who testified under oath before Congress that smoking is good for you.

Crazytree (Feb. 19, 2017 @ 12:28a) |

Staff Summary
  • Also categorized in:
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

Legalized conflict of interest at best. Legalized fraud at worst. Thanks Trump.

Apparently, the delay will be extended at least two years. Probably permanently delayed, until we have a President from the other tribe again.

I don't see how this benefits anyone except the banks. So much for draining the swamp.

Lurker1999 said:   I don't see how this benefits anyone except the banks. So much for draining the swamp.
  Well it benefited shareholders in investment banks today, which was probably good for a lot of investors.  Just make sure you aren't one of trh suckers being overcharged for annuities or some other crap investment product and enjoy the subsidized brokerage services paid for by others' inattention.  It's just like using a 2% CC when you buy groceries to stick it to the merchant and raise costs of everyone who pays by cash or check.  It's the FWF way.

Everything is going as planned.

We have to remember: 40%+ of the country wants this. Trump's approval rating is above 40%.
Not only that, but the majority of Americans voted for a Republican Congress, and they're supporting this as well.

We've really become two separate nations, with a democracy that's devolved into winner-take-all tribalism. Once SCOTUS is fully politicized, the last check on the majority is gone.

canoeguy1 said:   We have to remember: 40%+ of the country wants this. Trump's approval rating is above 40%.
Not only that, but the majority of Americans voted for a Republican Congress, and they're supporting this as well.

We've really become two separate nations, with a democracy that's devolved into winner-take-all tribalism. Once SCOTUS is fully politicized, the last check on the majority is gone.

  I wouldn't say a majority voted for a Republican Congress - Democratic candidates for Congress received more votes than Republican candidates for Congress, but thanks to Gerrymandering, Republican won more seats.  Similar to how Clinton got 3,000,000 more votes than Trump, but he's occupying the White House.  SCOTUS was fully politicized when Scalia was there - it will just return to that state and go into overdrive when Trump gets to appoint another justice.  It's time to bend over and kiss our ass goodbye - thanks to the 40% who went beyond the kiss and just stuck their whole head up there.

I love how the argument from the banks is that this rule "limits consumer choice." Really what they mean is that it limits consumer choice away from products that are extremely profitable for banks and a bad deal for customers.

xerty said:   
  Just make sure you aren't one of trh suckers being overcharged for annuities or some other crap investment product and enjoy the subsidized brokerage services paid for by others' inattention. 

  Is that actually true?

canoeguy1 said:   We have to remember: 40%+ of the country wants this. Trump's approval rating is above 40%.

 

  Umm, if you subtract that from 100% ...

Any prediction/suggestion how we can benefit from this?

I'm waiting for the haydays of sign-up bonuses to come back.

On the other hand - I'll try to make sure I take very long-term positions on blue chips or index funds so that I don't have to play to rigged game.

Any other non-obvious suggestions how to profit off of this?

puddonhead said:   Any other non-obvious suggestions how to profit off of this?
  Buy small cap investment banks like COWN or JMP, but they're both already up a fair bit on the news (long).  

Most readers of Fatwallet know to ask questions about their investments advisor/salesperson/broker.
1)  Are you a licensed fiduciary?  
2) How are you paid?
3) What are the fees?

I think Schwab services are some of the most transparent.

 

puddonhead said:   I'm waiting for the haydays of sign-up bonuses to come back.


 

  

Bank sign-up bonuses seem to be up.  Not related to this but interesting nonetheless.
 

rufflesinc said:   xerty said:   
  Just make sure you aren't one of trh suckers being overcharged for annuities or some other crap investment product and enjoy the subsidized brokerage services paid for by others' inattention. 

  Is that actually true?

The problem with this premis is that old people are the group most vulnerable to scamming and they're also the group that almost solely uses retirement/investment advisors. None of them benefit from this. (Nor do their heirs)

It's not the same as credit card bonuses.

Aren't retirement advisors a scam to begin with? Letting them do their worst would wake people up sooner

I foresee some states, those supporting consumer rights, creating their own legislature that will required fudiciary obliigation for retirement funds.

schop said:   Aren't retirement advisors a scam to begin with? Letting them do their worst would wake people up soonerNo, it wouldn't. Most people are not reading FWF or bogleheads and have no idea they're getting screwed.

baplus8 said:   ICYMI, announced today: a delay in the new fiduciary obligation for investment / financial / retirement advisors that was planned for April, 2017.  Provides more months for that industry to tack on fees that customers may not know about.

References:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/trump-financial-executive-actions/ 
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-executive-orders-watering-down-dodd-frank-financial-regulations-n716481

 Actually, that delay has not happened - at least so far - http://www.kitces.com/blog/president-trump-executive-order-memorandum-no-fiduciary-rule-delay/ 
 

I received an email from Personal Capital. For those of you who don't know, it's an account aggregation site like Mint, Yodlee, etc. According to this blog: https://www.personalcapital.com/blog/personal-capital-news/bill-harris-former-ceo-intuit-calls-baloney-j-p-morgan-intuit/ repeal of Dodd-Frank and specifically section 1033 http://www.dodd-frank-act.us/Dodd_Frank_Act_Text_Section_1033.ht... will make sites like Personal Capital obsolete.

Obviously, the big banks like Chase want to control all of your info so that they can sell you their products and so, they want to repeal this section of the law. I don't know what I'd do with sites like Mint, Yodlee, and Personal Capital. I find them indispensable.

jhburgess said:   
canoeguy1 said:   We have to remember: 40%+ of the country wants this. Trump's approval rating is above 40%.
Not only that, but the majority of Americans voted for a Republican Congress, and they're supporting this as well.

We've really become two separate nations, with a democracy that's devolved into winner-take-all tribalism. Once SCOTUS is fully politicized, the last check on the majority is gone.

  I wouldn't say a majority voted for a Republican Congress - Democratic candidates for Congress received more votes than Republican candidates for Congress, but thanks to Gerrymandering, Republican won more seats.  Similar to how Clinton got 3,000,000 more votes than Trump, but he's occupying the White House.  SCOTUS was fully politicized when Scalia was there - it will just return to that state and go into overdrive when Trump gets to appoint another justice.  It's time to bend over and kiss our ass goodbye - thanks to the 40% who went beyond the kiss and just stuck their whole head up there.

  False on the house vote.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oArjXSYeg40u4qQRR93qveN2...

If there is that much personal concern over fiduciary duties, one can always use one of the larger robo-advising services, w/o advisory fees. They mostly trade in ETFs so if the entire sector goes up or down, the ETFs follow.

I've actually met and spoken to one retiree couple who switched from an active money manager (and were getting killed by fees anyway) and switch to robo-advising,

 i see all the crying above. But there has to be a reason why this was put in place and why oneside wants it gone.
 So trumps friends can make money isnt an answer.

owenscott said:    i see all the crying above. But there has to be a reason why this was put in place and why oneside wants it gone.
 So trumps friends can make money isnt an answer.

  Do you care to share the answer? 

Follow the money. 

scripta said:   
schop said:   Aren't retirement advisors a scam to begin with? Letting them do their worst would wake people up sooner
No, it wouldn't. Most people are not reading FWF or bogleheads and have no idea they're getting screwed.

  You can't make anything idiot proof, as there will always be a smarter idiot haha...

realisticly, if people are investing or doing anything in life, it should be researched and have a well thought out plan. "Consumer" protection is just in place for the people that can't take the time to use their brain. Get rid of the regulation that safe guard dumb people, Darwin will handle the rest! So sick of hand holding the general public because they can't be bothered to think about what they are doing.

keaton85 said:   
scripta said:   
schop said:   Aren't retirement advisors a scam to begin with? Letting them do their worst would wake people up sooner
No, it wouldn't. Most people are not reading FWF or bogleheads and have no idea they're getting screwed.

  You can't make anything idiot proof, as there will always be a smarter idiot haha...

realisticly, if people are investing or doing anything in life, it should be researched and have a well thought out plan. "Consumer" protection is just in place for the people that can't take the time to use their brain. Get rid of the regulation that safe guard dumb people, Darwin will handle the rest! So sick of hand holding the general public because they can't be bothered to think about what they are doing.

  In the same vein, I suggest we get rid of FDA. The smart customers will always carry their x-ray diffractometers to the restaurants for lead in the burgers. The dumb ones will get weeded out eventually. I am sure it will increase choices for the customer and bring down the prices.

mrmonty said:   
keaton85 said:   
scripta said:   
schop said:   Aren't retirement advisors a scam to begin with? Letting them do their worst would wake people up sooner
No, it wouldn't. Most people are not reading FWF or bogleheads and have no idea they're getting screwed.

  You can't make anything idiot proof, as there will always be a smarter idiot haha...

realisticly, if people are investing or doing anything in life, it should be researched and have a well thought out plan. "Consumer" protection is just in place for the people that can't take the time to use their brain. Get rid of the regulation that safe guard dumb people, Darwin will handle the rest! So sick of hand holding the general public because they can't be bothered to think about what they are doing.

  In the same vein, I suggest we get rid of FDA. The smart customers will always carry their x-ray diffractometers to the restaurants for lead in the burgers. The dumb ones will get weeded out eventually. I am sure it will increase choices for the customer and bring down the prices.

   Touché, I would have to revise that statement, as it was extremely broad...

xerty said:   
Lurker1999 said:   I don't see how this benefits anyone except the banks. So much for draining the swamp.
  Well it benefited shareholders in investment banks today, which was probably good for a lot of investors.  Just make sure you aren't one of trh suckers being overcharged for annuities or some other crap investment product and enjoy the subsidized brokerage services paid for by others' inattention.  It's just like using a 2% CC when you buy groceries to stick it to the merchant and raise costs of everyone who pays by cash or check.  It's the FWF way.

  
I'm not worried about the average guy, I'm worried about the elderly who don't understand all the ins and outs of investing. They will bear the brunt of the deceptions from the investment bankers I can assure you.

owenscott said:    So trumps friends can make money isnt an answer.
   
So what are your alternate facts?

owenscott said:   But there has to be a reason why this was put in place and why oneside wants it gone.

 So trumps friends can make money isnt an answer.

 I have to say, huh?!  Agree or disagree with the action, these two sentences together doesn't make any sense.

keaton85 said:   mrmonty said:   keaton85 said:   scripta said:   schop said:   Aren't retirement advisors a scam to begin with? Letting them do their worst would wake people up soonerNo, it wouldn't. Most people are not reading FWF or bogleheads and have no idea they're getting screwed.You can't make anything idiot proof, as there will always be a smarter idiot haha...

realisticly, if people are investing or doing anything in life, it should be researched and have a well thought out plan. "Consumer" protection is just in place for the people that can't take the time to use their brain. Get rid of the regulation that safe guard dumb people, Darwin will handle the rest! So sick of hand holding the general public because they can't be bothered to think about what they are doing.
In the same vein, I suggest we get rid of FDA. The smart customers will always carry their x-ray diffractometers to the restaurants for lead in the burgers. The dumb ones will get weeded out eventually. I am sure it will increase choices for the customer and bring down the prices.
Touché, I would have to revise that statement, as it was extremely broad...
Revising won't help, you've already spilled your guts. Consumer protection isn't just in place for the people that can't take the time to use their brain. It is there to protect idiots and geniuses alike from entities that don't ask for your IQ when they break laws and ignore ethics to screw you out of your hard earned money to unfairly enrich themselves. So sick of explaining this because you can't be bothered to use your brain.

It is strange how continuing the status quo is suddenly such a calamity.

Krazen1211 said:   It is strange how continuing the status quo is suddenly such a calamity.
  is that a quote from Frederick Douglass?

Krazen1211 said:   It is strange how continuing the status quo is suddenly such a calamity.
Yes... The bank bailouts and financial crash were just the status quo, not unprecedented, and there's no reason to try and prevent a repeat?

I guess when "news" consists of tweets in broken 2nd grade English, who could be expected to remember events from 9 years prior?

samko said:   
owenscott said:    i see all the crying above. But there has to be a reason why this was put in place and why oneside wants it gone.
 So trumps friends can make money isnt an answer.

  Do you care to share the answer? 

Follow the money. 

  I get it. Trump haters i get it. Hurt feelings the queen of mean didnt make it. Im honestly trying to figure out the logic as to why he would even do this. There is a reason. Its not so that his bank friends can make money as much as you haters think it is.
...
 heck the reason maybe foolish and wont accomplish what hes going to do. But there is a reason. I cant think of what it is ... so i ask.
(its 100% absurd to say hes doing it so his friends can make money when he (she did tho) refused to take campaign donations from banks ... i mean paid speeches and such.
...
 again ... if ur just going to guess it has to be so his friends make more money save yourself the post. If thats really the reason ... ill see when nobody else says anything different.
 

"Cohn told the Journal that the rule is “bad” in part because it forces consumers into funds with lower fees even if they are not the best investments for them. "
 it still doesnt make any sense.  Im digging.  .

i see the banks complain about compliance costs.

owenscott said:   
samko said:   
owenscott said:    i see all the crying above. But there has to be a reason why this was put in place and why oneside wants it gone.
 So trumps friends can make money isnt an answer.

  Do you care to share the answer? 

Follow the money. 

  I get it. Trump haters i get it. Hurt feelings the queen of mean didnt make it. Im honestly trying to figure out the logic as to why he would even do this. There is a reason. Its not so that his bank friends can make money as much as you haters think it is.
...
 heck the reason maybe foolish and wont accomplish what hes going to do. But there is a reason. I cant think of what it is ... so i ask.
(its 100% absurd to say hes doing it so his friends can make money when he (she did tho) refused to take campaign donations from banks ... i mean paid speeches and such.
...
 again ... if ur just going to guess it has to be so his friends make more money save yourself the post. If thats really the reason ... ill see when nobody else says anything different.

  

So you got nothing, huh?  Just pullin "facts" outta your .......... , huh?    

 

owenscott said:   
  I get it. Trump haters i get it. Hurt feelings the queen of mean didnt make it. Im honestly trying to figure out the logic as to why he would even do this. There is a reason. Its not so that his bank friends can make money as much as you haters think it is.
...
 heck the reason maybe foolish and wont accomplish what hes going to do. But there is a reason. I cant think of what it is ... so i ask.
 

The "reason" is irrelevant if the policy is bad. It's ok. Since you can't think of it, I'm sure you'll be appointed to head it.

Skipping 71 Messages...
BostonOne said:   
lauvec1 said:   The reason why it is being repealed is because it results in significant costs for financial institutions to institute, only to have a less productive advisors that have to spend hours documenting to the nth detail why they recommended a product or service to a client. Financial firms will only pass these costs onto investors, so everyone loses. One more thing. Main street investors with 100k-250k of investable assets will be transferred to call centers by these institutions because it is too expense for them to work with an advisor. Bottom line is you either have a trustworthy advisor or you don't and even if this rule remains in place the scumbags will find a way to work around it.
  In my experience, advisors making recommendations that are not in the client's interest (mostly due to high fees) are endemic, and not an example of rogue one-off advisors like you're making it seem.

  Same type of people who testified under oath before Congress that smoking is good for you.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017