Jump to content

DOL Fiduciary Ruling


Recommended Posts

 

No, "think of the children" is a catchall. Carbon emissions..."but think of the children!" Logging bans to protect rare snails..."but think of the children!" Gun regulation, airport security, affordable home-ownership, "think of the children!"

 

Fiduciary requirements for managing retirement accounts..."think of the children!"

 

 

No, it's going to accomplish exactly what Obama wants: force people to rely more on the government for retirement. The government is not just the source of all help, it is the ONLY source of help. See our previous "myRA" discussion.

That's right. To Obama we're just snake oil salesmen. And that's another "great" idea. Glad I'm planning on retiring in 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not even sure this will help anything. All I know is that the system is ripe for corruption and that op-ed I posted confirmed a lot of what I felt was going on with my 401k plan I use to fund it. The investments were just pie charts with colors and the guy selling me this crap couldn't get into anything at all what was actually in them. The Goldman guy saying they were dumping unprofitable investments on clients was exactly what I expected. And I was pretty shocked that it took this long to finally outlaw the conflict of interest between the investments sold and those selling them. Seriously?

 

If you think the guy selling your 401k is a planner you're a fool and going to him for advice is foolish. Sure I'm being general here but most plan advisors are poor planners. You don't like your 401k go to your plan administrator and have them change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No kidding. That's why the smaller client will be left out and on their own. Obama wanting to help the small investor is going to backfire. When left to their own devices they will end up in a worse place. It's been shown time and time again. Hell even "smart" investors have bad behaviors.

 

You know I just thought of an horrible outcome of this. You're likely to see a lot more fixed insurance products (fixed annuities) being sold in retirement accounts. I assume this ruling only pertains to securities business. :doh:

I believe Agents that sell annuities will also be impacted by this ruling. And Tom's right about the money grab with the myRA. It, like the ACA, is just the first step in confiscating the wealth that private citizens have invested and saved. Teresa Ghilarducci's concept is gaining traction.

The plan that could render your 401(k) obsolete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Agents that sell annuities will also be impacted by this ruling. And Tom's right about the money grab with the myRA. It, like the ACA, is just the first step in confiscating the wealth that private citizens have invested and saved. Teresa Ghilarducci's concept is gaining traction.

The plan that could render your 401(k) obsolete

 

Variable and indexed annuities yes because they are securities. Fixed rate annuities are governed by each state's DOI. So I'm not sure about this.

 

The issue is making fees the major deciding factor in a recommendation. I had a client who wanted a lot of bells and whistles on his mom's annuity. I told him the annual fee would be 4%. He said he didn't care seeing it was doing exactly what he wanted which was guarantee his mom income for life and guarantee him and his sister the principal in a death benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you think the guy selling your 401k is a planner you're a fool and going to him for advice is foolish. Sure I'm being general here but most plan advisors are poor planners. You don't like your 401k go to your plan administrator and have them change it.

As I've already stated, I don't fund it anymore. I've gone the IRA route and just general investing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not dumb enough to let a POS like you handle my money. Seriously! Can only imagine the poor fools you "advise"

 

Perfect example of doing it alone. I don't know your situation but not contributing to your 401k and doing an IRA instead is typically not very smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfect example of doing it alone. I don't know your situation but not contributing to your 401k and doing an IRA instead is typically not very smart.

 

 

Pretty sure "not very smart" describes his situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The administration is on fire this week with lame duck anti-corporate actions.

 

Wait 'til people fully digest the stealth provisions in the inversion rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's pretty obvious if people are expecting financial advice they should be able to count on the fact that it's going to be real advice to help improve your situation," says Bill Harris, the CEO of Personal Capital and former CEO of PayPal.

Many advisers genuinely want to help their clients. But currently, it is legal for an adviser to get paid more money (similar to a kickback) if he or she gets you to invest in fund A instead of fund B.

For example, an adviser might make $200 if he or she has you invest $10,000 in a stock fund but only $130 if he or she has you invest in a bond fund, according to University of Mississippi law professor Mercer Bullard. Advisers recommend the fund that pays them more about half the time, one study found.

"Brokers are salespeople. They sell whatever they and their firm make the most money on," argues Harris. His firm already abides by the rule. It charges clients a flat fee for advice so there's no conflict of interest.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/06/investing/retirement-investing-fiduciary-rule/

 

And that's wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Agents that sell annuities will also be impacted by this ruling. And Tom's right about the money grab with the myRA. It, like the ACA, is just the first step in confiscating the wealth that private citizens have invested and saved. Teresa Ghilarducci's concept is gaining traction.

The plan that could render your 401(k) obsolete

 

GRAs aren't another form of Social Security, the authors said. Workers' savings are held within their own accounts, though the Social Security Administration would administer payments.

 

:wallbash:

 

Yeah it's "your" money, the Government is just going to manage it for you

 

Forward!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He doesn't agree with what? You not taking advantage of an $18k tax deduction because you can't read a pie chart?

 

And the employer match.

 

"Hey, I'll leave an $18k deduction and immediate 50% return on the table! Because...fees!" !@#$ing dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the employer match.

 

"Hey, I'll leave an $18k deduction and immediate 50% return on the table! Because...fees!" !@#$ing dumbass.

 

He'd have a point if he mentioned he stopped his 401k due to fees but he dumped it because he couldn't figure out the pie chart allocations. I think he's color blind or something. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He'd have a point if he mentioned he stopped his 401k due to fees but he dumped it because he couldn't figure out the pie chart allocations. I think he's color blind or something. :wacko:

 

I thought he was being allegorical with that one. Though he was most likely just obfuscating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...