Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Abaco 8 months, 3 weeks ago
    Without getting into the details...About 80% of my work time in finance last year was to do regulatory/compliance work, which paid $0. As of 5 days ago I am out of that line of work.

    The DOL rule they are talking about was total malarkey. After decades of being told not to churn their clients the recent DOL ruling reversed that, actually encouraging churning on retirement accounts while simultaneously making it just about impossible for advisors to serve smaller investors. I'm glad that Trump is going after that. Meanwhile - please notice the regulations under Obama that were trying to force the lower working class into mandatory retirement accounts that invested in government securities.

    Anymore, I'm out. I'll be my own advisor. It pays more.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 8 months, 3 weeks ago
      The DOL rule was like many , it's intent may have been with the idea of helping the greater good, and it took any burden of risk from the investor and put it on the advisor. It attempted to drive small investors into "risk free" govt bonds. The rule would have been a disaster for independent financial advisors and a boon to the Wall Street Giants.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  edweaver 8 months, 3 weeks ago
    What took so long?

    The only regulation I want on the banking industry (or any industry) is accomplished via unencumbered Capitalism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 months, 3 weeks ago
      Trump must first repeal the federal reserve act to eliminate the unfair advantage and restore a free market in banking. If he does that, then I have no complaint with removing many regulations. If Trump doesn't do that then he is serving the banking cartel, not the people.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  edweaver 8 months, 3 weeks ago
        I agree, that is part of the "unencumbered" Capitalism we need. But Trump can't repeal. He can however sign the bill if Congress & the Senate get their act together. Not holding my breath.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 months, 3 weeks ago
          So Trump has already given the banksters what they want and there is much more (corrupt) incentive for congress to continue the cartel and let the banksters loot the rest of us.
          Trump, a good negotiator? Not when it comes to the banking cartel. No surprise there. He gave the banksters control of the treasury again. %^&*ing traitor.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  edweaver 8 months, 3 weeks ago
            I don't think the crony bankers ever lost control of the treasury. But the regulations hurt the smaller banks and the rest of us horribly. The red tape it created for the average home loan is disgusting. I did a refinance 5 years ago and said I would never do it again.

            I'm willing to see if the Trump administration can get us headed in the right direction before I pass judgment or get bent out of shape. :)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Dobrien 8 months, 3 weeks ago
              Yes . Ed , too often the answer to any of the large financial abuses is to punish the undeserving and the looters get bailed out. 177,000 pages of fed regulations and we let these politicians tell the world we are free.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by preimert1 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    Well, now I'm really confused. One of the opposition's claims against Hillary was that she was in league with Wall Sreet and would sell us out. Now it seems Trump is doing the selling. I think there ought to be a wall between the money that we savers deposit for our retirement and the
    money investment bankers speculate with. If they are successful, they keep the profits and if they lose, we tax payers bail them out. What's not for them to like? Some of the schemes the young hot-shots come up with are real flim-flams--a shell
    game with NO pea! I don't give a crap how much paper work they have to go through (creates jobs for humble office workers) so long as it protects MY nest egg. I simply do not trust big bank cartels to have MY interests at heart. I'll stick to the small local independent banks, or (a line from "Heat of the Night)"I'll keep my money under my mattress with my dog on it!"1
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    The Dodd-Frank act crippled small community banks (3,000+ out of business since), to the advantage of the big banks, who could absorb the increased overhead costs. Reinstating the Glass-Steagall division between investment and savings banks is the next step to be taken. Then we need to audit the Fed, preparatory to taking it out of commission.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    I agree with the assessment of both the Washington Post, and the CF below! The CFR was the one who got our CD rates down to next to nothing, as the banks were given unlimited printed cash from the CFR, no longer needing our investments. It was the CFR and the Hillary camp who e-mailed thier "shared goal" of creating a socially unaware population. However, all teh red tape created withing the banks from this law, make it much more difficult to do bssness, even for non-profits. We have to also remember that the world banks and the neighborhood banks are not equally to blame for the horrors of banking. The whole mortgage thing started with the Community Reinvestment Act of Carer, and was forced down the throats of bankers by Obama's ACORN (now SEIU) troops.
    Way back, however, the International bankers are responsible for the price of oil, going way back to when Saudi Arabia was started to get in the oild business, and the bankers set the price higher, then screwed them over.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    I am failing to see how less regulations and government control will equal preying on customers? The regulations, as we all know (the good intentions), always result in the customer paying for them. With less competition (with regulations), cartels and monopolies are a natural result. Every country that has tight government regulation on banks has bank monopolies and rapes the customers. Are you advocating the same? (with good intentions, of course...)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 months, 2 weeks ago
      I'm pretty sure we agree.
      The bankers created their own cartel by manipulating government in 1913. Unless the federal reserve act is repealed then there is a government sponsored, government created banking cartel, not a free market. Removing only a few recent regulations will not solve anything because the banking cartel remains and grows stronger. It's naive to think that this will have a significant positive effect.
      Recommend reading *The Creature From Jekyll Island *
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo