• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will Trump Block Investor Protection?

C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Financial Industry Groups Fear Trump Will Block Investor Protection Rule : NPR

The rule requires that financial advisers act in their clients best interest when it comes to their retirement accounts. It has been widely supported by consumer groups, unions and financial watchdogs.
Click to expand...

When you go to a doctor or a lawyer, they're required to act in your best interests. A financial adviser, though - no. It's often perfectly legal for an adviser to say, you should invest in these mutual funds - they're great - even though the fees are outrageously high, and the adviser gets a fat commission for getting you to buy them.
Click to expand...

They cite "too much paperwork" as the only reason to block it because it reduces incentive to work with smaller clients (who are often easier to screw over). But Trump wouldn't want to let financial experts to be able to exploit small time investors. He would never do anything like that.
 
CriticalThought said:
Financial Industry Groups Fear Trump Will Block Investor Protection Rule : NPR




They cite "too much paperwork" as the only reason to block it because it reduces incentive to work with smaller clients (who are often easier to screw over). But Trump wouldn't want to let financial experts to be able to exploit small time investors. He would never do anything like that.
Click to expand...

So you think small investors should potentially not have the same access to investment services large investors do?

That's a curious position.
 
ocean515 said:
So you think small investors should potentially not have the same access to investment services large investors do?

That's a curious position.
Click to expand...

That would be such a valid argument if it were the investors complaining about it, but this is coming from the advisors. Also, how interesting that it seems your position is there can only be two positions. Rather than finding ways to keep the rule and add exceptions for smaller investors that also communicates the risks they would be taking, we have to chuck out the bathwater and the baby.

The 401k I had at my last job was a high fee scheme. It was an expensive education.
 
CriticalThought said:
That would be such a valid argument if it were the investors complaining about it, but this is coming from the advisors. Also, how interesting that it seems your position is there can only be two positions. Rather than finding ways to keep the rule and add exceptions for smaller investors that also communicates the risks they would be taking, we have to chuck out the bathwater and the baby.

The 401k I had at my last job was a high fee scheme. It was an expensive education.
Click to expand...

There are a myriad of protections in the law governing the investment industry, and investment councilors. Most are designed to protect investors from unscrupulous operators.

This issue relates to one aspect the industry appears to believe will lead to "unintended" consequences related to extensive paperwork and related effort that would dissuade investment councilors from taking on small investor clients.

I don't get the sense blocking this Investor Protection Rule means the door will be open to wholesale fraud and theft by those offering such services.
 
ocean515 said:
There are a myriad of protections in the law governing the investment industry, and investment councilors. Most are designed to protect investors from unscrupulous operators.

This issue relates to one aspect the industry appears to believe will lead to "unintended" consequences related to extensive paperwork and related effort that would dissuade investment councilors from taking on small investor clients.

I don't get the sense blocking this Investor Protection Rule means the door will be open to wholesale fraud and theft by those offering such services.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. That is why it requires an immediate executive directive from the president? Let's stick to the facts, not conjecture.
 
CriticalThought said:
Uh huh. That is why it requires an immediate executive directive from the president? Let's stick to the facts, not conjecture.
Click to expand...

So you deny there are a myriad of protections already in place?

Seems you're the one caught in the conjecture mill, and the new Administration may be applying it's policy of reducing the mountain of meaningless regulation that strangles commerce and growth.
 
ocean515 said:
There are a myriad of protections in the law governing the investment industry, and investment councilors. Most are designed to protect investors from unscrupulous operators.

This issue relates to one aspect the industry appears to believe will lead to "unintended" consequences related to extensive paperwork and related effort that would dissuade investment councilors from taking on small investor clients.

I don't get the sense blocking this Investor Protection Rule means the door will be open to wholesale fraud and theft by those offering such services.
Click to expand...
If this is a legit complaint, than perhaps the law should be tweaked to offer protection while allowing reasonable access? This B.S. all-or-nothing portrayal is nonsensical throwing-the-baby-away-with-the-bathwater, and is designed to further political goals.

No way do I trust the guys that gave us 2008-2009, to self-police themselves! :doh
 
Chomsky said:
If this is a legit complaint, than perhaps the law should be tweaked to offer protection while allowing reasonable access? This B.S. all-or-nothing portrayal is nonsensical throwing-the-baby-away-with-the-bathwater, and is designed to further political goals.

No way do I trust the guys that gave us 2008-2009, to self-police themselves! :doh
Click to expand...

I think people are ignoring the huge number of regulations that were passed post 2008-9, in the wake of the BS the banking industry laid on the Nation.

These regulations even went into the legal industry and the type of relationship a lawyer handling a clients trusts can have.

This one element is certainly not the only layer of protection afforded investors.
 
ocean515 said:
I think people are ignoring the huge number of regulations that were passed post 2008-9, in the wake of the BS the banking industry laid on the Nation.

These regulations even went into the legal industry and the type of relationship a lawyer handling a clients trusts can have.

This one element is certainly not the only layer of protection afforded investors.
Click to expand...
You are right in that 2008-9 was due to a complex scenario.

But the point remains, that the financial industry cannot be trusted to self-police itself.
 
Chomsky said:
You are right in that 2008-9 was due to a complex scenario.

But the point remains, that the financial industry cannot be trusted to self-police itself.
Click to expand...

I see no indication that eliminating this particular requirement would result in the financial industry being relieved of all regulation.

Why are you exaggerating so extremely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom