House quietly passed a rollback of Dodd-Frank yesterday-- "Financial Choice Act" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SirJon;52336466]sounds like a great time to move to the US for finance graduates[/QUOTE] I'm not so sure. Until these bills are passed, the industry is at the moment is still terribly over-regulated. Things are moving towards consolidation in the industry, where the only firms that will remain open are the massive rich ones who can afford to spend millions of dollars on regulatory compliance. This is not a favorable situation for new aspiring brokers/advisors. The DOL's Fiduciary Rule in particular compounds this problem by making commission-based business practically worthless for the amount of legal risk it incurs. If you're joining a big established firm with an existing clientele, you might be just fine, but it's a bad time to start out on your own. Source is me; I work at one of the top ten broker-dealers in the world in regulatory affairs--we've been constantly preparing for and interpreting the Fiduciary Rule for about two years.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;52336420]Second, you haven't caught on yet that I see both sides as just a different flavor of jerk? BOTH ARE CORRUPT and corrupt due to their followers.[/QUOTE] Not even quoting the rest because you basically just reword the same exact thing over and over. I've caught on that that's how you [I]think[/I] they are. But in reality you just shit on both whether it's actually relevant or not and make yourself out to be better than everyone else while to most people you just look like a fool instead. If you would bother reading what people say you'd see something quite odd. You'd see that those that support the Democrats largely agree that both parties are corrupt. What they disagree with you on wholeheartedly, however, is that both parties are nowhere near remotely equal in their corruption. Republicans are unequivocally the more corrupt and shitty of the two parties. Republicans work for only their own personal gain while trying to con their supporters into believing that they'll benefit from it too. Democrats do a lot of shit for their own gain but actually realize that going too far is destructive and will harm their own benefits. They also do a lot more for those that they're pledged to serve on top of that.

[QUOTE=Disgruntled;52334265]Literally trying to break the country and sell off the pieces. Fuckers should hang. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Calm Down" - rilez))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Not banworthy imo, some of these politicians arguably deserve some measure of harsh punishment and given their total apathy towards the welfare of others that they've demonstrated I'd argue some of them deserve hanging. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Derailing" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Chonch;52336631]I'm not so sure. Until these bills are passed, the industry is at the moment is still terribly over-regulated. Things are moving towards consolidation in the industry, where the only firms that will remain open are the massive rich ones who can afford to spend millions of dollars on regulatory compliance. This is not a favorable situation for new aspiring brokers/advisors. The DOL's Fiduciary Rule in particular compounds this problem by making commission-based business practically worthless for the amount of legal risk it incurs. If you're joining a big established firm with an existing clientele, you might be just fine, but it's a bad time to start out on your own. Source is me; I work at one of the top ten broker-dealers in the world in regulatory affairs--we've been constantly preparing for and interpreting the Fiduciary Rule for about two years.[/QUOTE] So if you guys can't be predatory, there's no money it if for you guys? Scuse me while I play the tiniest fucking violin.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52337152]So if you guys can't be predatory, there's no money it if for you guys? Scuse me while I play the tiniest fucking violin.[/QUOTE] Don't be a twat about this. You know just as well as I do that there are far more good advisers out there than bad, just like in any industry. There's a better way to do this than wiping out commissions and turning over the sector to the big firms on Wall Street. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - GunFox))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Chonch;52337869]Don't be a twat about this. You know just as well as I do that there are far more good advisers out there than bad, just like in any industry. There's a better way to do this than wiping out commissions and turning over the sector to the big firms on Wall Street.[/QUOTE] "we shouldn't make it illegal because people won't do it anyways, even though they totally did it last time it was legal" Holy shit am I sick of this imbecilic logic.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52337869]Don't be a twat about this. You know just as well as I do that there are far more good advisers out there than bad, just like in any industry. There's a better way to do this than wiping out commissions and turning over the sector to the big firms on Wall Street.[/QUOTE] I'm not being a "twat" about this I'm sick of predatory lending practices being advocated for by people. They're good for the predators. Not for anyone else. Yes, you are a part of that world. So naturally anytime anyone says anything to you that's negative and critical of this, they're a "twat". How does removing protections mean that the big Wallstreet firms have less power over the market? Explain

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;52337899]"we shouldn't make it illegal because people won't do it anyways, even though they totally did it last time it was legal" Holy shit am I sick of this imbecilic logic.[/QUOTE] I don't think your point is worth making if you have to write up an imaginary post to put it out there. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52337956]I'm not being a "twat" about this I'm sick of predatory lending practices being advocated for by people. They're good for the predators. Not for anyone else. Yes, you are a part of that world. So naturally anytime anyone says anything to you that's negative and critical of this, they're a "twat". How does removing protections mean that the big Wallstreet firms have less power over the market? Explain[/QUOTE] You need to re-read my post. The Fiduciary Rule in particular is what I take issue with. The current revision would place individual retirement accounts under far more scrutiny when it comes to surveilling for regulatory compliance. Systems must be developed and people must be paid to do this work. Small independent offices often simply cannot come up with the capital to accommodate these kinds of changes, so they are faced with three options; stop dealing in commission-based products in IRAs (i.e. most mutual funds and equities, two of the most popular retirement products) and take the revenue hit; stop using IRAs altogether and work through fee-based advisory accounts instead, depriving the office of revenue while increasing the tax burden on the clients; or keep everything the same and instead move your firm into one of the larger broker-dealer network that can afford to do the compliance work for you, and be restricted to that network's products and relatively inflexible selling practices. Alternatively, they can just close up shop altogether--from what I've seen this is the most popular option--and sell their book of business to a bigger office that can afford to take the revenue hits. Either way, the net effect of the Fiduciary Rule is the same: the richer offices that can afford to pay for the extra compliance will continue on as normal, while the smaller offices get shafted. I'm no fan of getting rid of Dodd-Frank, but I definitely think the Fiduciary Rule needs to be scrapped and revised by Congress (who were not even consulted on the original Rule, mind you; the entire thing was brainstormed by the Department of Labor with no input from anybody else except for a brief "comment period" that did fuck all).

[QUOTE=Chonch;52338140]I don't think your point is worth making if you have to write up an imaginary post to put it out there. You need to re-read my post. The Fiduciary Rule in particular is what I take issue with. The current revision would place individual retirement accounts under far more scrutiny when it comes to compliance surveillance. Systems must be developed and people must be paid to do this work. Small independent offices often simply cannot come up with the capital to accommodate these kinds of changes, so they are faced with three options; stop dealing in commission-based products in IRAs (i.e. most mutual funds and equities, two of the most popular retirement products) and take the revenue hit; stop opening IRAs altogether and work through fee-based advisory accounts instead, depriving the office of revenue while increasing the tax burden on your clients; or keep everything the same and instead move your firm into one of the larger broker-dealer network that can afford to do the compliance work for you, and be restricted to that network's products and relatively inflexible selling practices. Alternatively, they can just close up shop altogether--from what I've seen this is the most popular option--and sell their book of business to a bigger office that can afford to take the revenue hits. Either way, the net effect of the Fiduciary Rule is the same: the richer offices that can afford to pay for the extra compliance will continue on as normal, while the smaller offices get shafted. I'm no fan of getting rid of Dodd-Frank, but I definitely think the Fiduciary Rule needs to be scrapped and revised by Congress (who were not even consulted on the original Rule, mind you; the entire thing was brainstormed by the Department of Labor with no input from anybody else except for a brief "comment period" that did fuck all).[/QUOTE] So scrapping all of it to get rid of that is pretty much worth it? At what point do protections for consumers actually matter?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52338149]So scrapping all of it to get rid of that is pretty much worth it? At what point do protections for consumers actually matter?[/QUOTE] When consumer protections are enacted within the boundaries of the lawmaking process (i.e. through Congress), and written with the input of the industry and the well-being of its clients in mind (i.e. not how the Rule was drawn up), then I'll be satisfied.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52338178]When consumer protections are enacted within the boundaries of the lawmaking process (i.e. through Congress), and written with the input of the industry and the well-being of its clients in mind (i.e. not how the Rule was drawn up), then I'll be satisfied.[/QUOTE] Can you offer me even one sliver of evidence that we can trust the Financial industry in any way shape or form?

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52336397]What kind of human being can honestly look at a bill that is basically "do not allow the people who control the money to prey upon the ones who do not" and think, "this is something that must be removed for the good of the people!"[/QUOTE] Because it's not about the good of the people, it's about the good of the wealthy. In fact it's worse than I thought, because they specifically eliminated a section that would give the federal government the authority to "step in to ensure the institution's failure would not spread to the rest of financial system". They [I]want[/I] To Big To Fail because it means when they make mistakes, the poor pay for it. Fucking cunts.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52337869]Don't be a twat about this. You know just as well as I do that there are far more good advisers out there than bad, just like in any industry. There's a better way to do this than wiping out commissions and turning over the sector to the big firms on Wall Street. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - GunFox))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Oh, okey dokey. Might as well repeal murder laws while we're at it. After all, there are far more good people than murderers out there! While we're at it, let's get rid of statutory rape laws, too. After all, there's a better way to protect kids than wiping out a whole demographic of virgins to tap into!

Chonch is pretty naive and idealistic. Too bad poor people can't eat ideals. To get back on topic, this is a power play by the conservatives, install Betsy as the education head so the United States will become stupid enough that when the inevitable housing crash happens [B][U]AGAIN[/U][/B], they can just blame it on the Democrats. Foolproof plan, keep wondering why doing the same thing over and over again won't yield different results. Fucking insanity.

It's sickening that people with power are wanting to cause a volatile piece of history, that is barely reaching a decade old, to rhyme in order to make a pretty penny.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52338844]Oh, okey dokey. Might as well repeal murder laws while we're at it. After all, there are far more good people than murderers out there! While we're at it, let's get rid of statutory rape laws, too. After all, there's a better way to protect kids than wiping out a whole demographic of virgins to tap into![/QUOTE] Mods should stop enforcing the rules on facepunch because everyone will be nice and kind to one another.

[QUOTE=Kagu;52338957]Chonch is pretty naive and idealistic.[/QUOTE] Nah, that's not it. He's just willfully ignorant and goes far out of his way to put faith in people who are provably unreliable while not trusting those who have been proven reliable. He's more of a contrarian lacking in empathy than naive and idealistic.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52341154]Le evil bankers meme Can we trust the police force entirely? Can we trust all doctors equally? Can we trust the guy driving next to us on the highway not to suddenly pull his steering wheel to slam into us? There will always be people, in any sector, abusing the rules, but (economic) overregulation is just as bad as underregulation. I can't recall any good movies about overregulation, but The Big Short is a good (and [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anSPG0TPf84]fun (slight nsfw)[/url]) movie to watch if anyone wants to learn about some of these complicated financial structures the big boys make up and exploit.[/QUOTE] How the fuck is it "evil bankers meme"? Is it not "jeeze these guys ducked up less than a decade ago and now we're trying round two electric boogaloo?" I'm genuinely confused about the short term amnesia you're suffering if you think not trusting bankers is a fucking meme

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52341290]You missed the section below that[/QUOTE] And that part doesn't make any goddamn sense. Overregulation will ALWAYS be better than underregulation because if you don't have enough regulations, it's going to be really easy for people to screw over others and so many more will be doing that, while in the other case it's much harder so there's obviously going to be less of that happening. [editline]11th June 2017[/editline] Underregulation hurts the masses that can't do anything about it, overregulation hurts the big rich business that just have to do things in a way that's less shady or just take the hit and be a little bit less rich.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52341154]Can we trust the police force entirely? Can we trust all doctors equally? Can we trust the guy driving next to us on the highway not to suddenly pull his steering wheel to slam into us?[/QUOTE] Generally it's in these people's best interests to not do us harm, there's no real incentive for them to do us harm. Plus the examples you've given are against the rules, and we're in a thread about the GOP removing the rules. So it will be allowed for a banker to fuck you over for personal gain, and you better bet they will. They fucked over the entire world nearly a decade ago, what the hell makes you think they won't fuck over common people who don't understand the games they play?

Banks that are publicly traded companies have a obligation to the share holders to maximize short term profits. This has in the past caused issues, regulation seeks to minimize this. Regulations exist to help protect people from that short term profit drive that can and does and has fucked people over when no one is watching them to make sure they don't commit predatory practices. I don't want regulations to stifle the industry, I want them to protect from the numerous bad actors in the sector who still retain control of the companies that caused the recent crisis and will likely cause another one to further monopolize the market, and to make further short term profits.

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;52335116]if we see another financial crash of the same magnitude we're thinking another crippled world economy[/QUOTE] Yes, but you'd also see an incredible loss in faith in the U.S. economy. Two in a row in just over ten years could kill the U.S.'s status as a global economic leader - wouldn't be surprised to see the U.S. currency massively devalued. If this happens again, you'll have a more and more impoverished state with a giant, overfunded military and an angry, uneducated populace looking to blame somebody (other than their god-emperor). Recipe for love and happiness around the world.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52341154] There will always be people, in any sector, abusing the rules, but (economic) overregulation is just as bad as underregulation.[/QUOTE] On it's own a dubious claim with absolutely no citations, but is implementing rules after a financial crisis, rules made to prevent another crisis, really overregulation?

Wasn't part of the argument for Trump voting that Hillary was in the pockets of the banks and wall street and that Trump would take them to task and stand up for the little guy? Ooops...

[QUOTE=froztshock;52343726]Wasn't part of the argument for Trump voting that Hillary was in the pockets of the banks and wall street and that Trump would take them to task and stand up for the little guy?[/QUOTE] Only if you were stupid enough to believe the rich New York businessman that lives in a gold penthouse gives even the slightest shit about the average person.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52341154]Le evil bankers meme Can we trust the police force entirely?[/quote] Most do, many don't, which is why we have statutes in place to hold them accountable (and where those fail, we ask for more). [quote]Can we trust all doctors equally?[/quote] For most we can, for those we can't, there are statutes and regulations in place, and where those fail, we ask for more. Again, we ask to hold them accountable. [quote]Can we trust the guy driving next to us on the highway not to suddenly pull his steering wheel to slam into us?[/quote] For most we do, for those we can't we have laws and statutes to hold them accountable. The pattern repeats. [quote]There will always be people, in any sector, abusing the rules, but (economic) overregulation is just as bad as underregulation. I can't recall any good movies about overregulation, but The Big Short is a good (and [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anSPG0TPf84]fun (slight nsfw)[/url]) movie to watch if anyone wants to learn about some of these complicated financial structures the big boys make up and exploit.[/QUOTE] As I've said before, that there are people who abuse the system is why we have regulation to begin with. That they're as "strict" as people make them out to be goes to show the severity and how staunchly we strive to ensure that it can never happen again.