Tiberius Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 And ming. Don't forget ming. ding and ling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 And ming. Don't forget ming. The emperor or the dynasty? Either way, you should capitalize the 'M'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 The thing that struck me about it was how strikingly similar it was to a high-yield savings account. (They actually refer to it as a savings account in the literature.) The only real benefit I saw was that interest accrues tax-free...but given how it works, that'll save most people with myRAs about $50/year. To lock up their money long-term in an ultra-conservative portfolio. And it's primarily marketed to young people who should be investing aggressively. I think they might be requiring the wrong people to be fiduciary... Yeah, it's a predatory product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Yeah, it's a predatory product. Should probably submit a complaint about it to the appropriate authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 And ming. Don't forget ming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/does-your-financial-advisor-have-a-fraud-record/ Not mine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/does-your-financial-advisor-have-a-fraud-record/ Not mine! What's your point? How many industries can you look up the disciplinary records and career history of the person your looking to work with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Apparently, Ming can't afford a spell checker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Apparently, Ming can't afford a spell checker. He can. It's just that every thousand years he calls upon the great god Dyzan, and for his glory - and their mutual pleasure - misspells a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 5, 2016 Author Share Posted April 5, 2016 The DOL will be making their ruling tomorrow and from everything we've seen it's not going to be good from our perspective. The number of people that are going to bail from this industry due to the major change in their comp structure which will leave lots of people without representation is going to be huge. Good job Obama! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/04/05/fiduciary-ruling-investor-adviser-advisor/82655312/ "Q: Will this new rule be hard on advisers? A: This rule isn’t much of change for advisers who already hold themselves to the fiduciary standard, and will not have a big effect on their business model (but could lead to some compliance and paperwork changes). For those who are new to following the fiduciary standard, there could be a lot of long-term benefit to advisers here in that customers will now know that the adviser is legally and ethically required to work in their best interest, which fosters greater trust in their guidance and can lead to a more fruitful relationship for both over time. For advisers whose business model depends on high fees and commissions, the rule is going to be disruptive, and those advisers may want to look at this rule as an opportunity to adapt their business model to one that serves the best interest of the consumer, or face losing clients to the myriad more transparent and lower-cost options out there." Lop the bottom off of the pyramid based business? Good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Leave millions of people without financial advisors... what could possibly go wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/04/05/fiduciary-ruling-investor-adviser-advisor/82655312/ "Q: Will this new rule be hard on advisers? A: This rule isn’t much of change for advisers who already hold themselves to the fiduciary standard, and will not have a big effect on their business model (but could lead to some compliance and paperwork changes). For those who are new to following the fiduciary standard, there could be a lot of long-term benefit to advisers here in that customers will now know that the adviser is legally and ethically required to work in their best interest, which fosters greater trust in their guidance and can lead to a more fruitful relationship for both over time. For advisers whose business model depends on high fees and commissions, the rule is going to be disruptive, and those advisers may want to look at this rule as an opportunity to adapt their business model to one that serves the best interest of the consumer, or face losing clients to the myriad more transparent and lower-cost options out there." Lop the bottom off of the pyramid based business? Good! Yup, take a quote from someone who's made a career out of criticising financial advisors as your supporting view that financial advisors are bad. Newsflash, financial advisors are in it to make a living. If you eliminate one income stream, their fees will go up or people will abandon financial advice altogether. What can go wrong in that scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 6, 2016 Author Share Posted April 6, 2016 http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/04/05/fiduciary-ruling-investor-adviser-advisor/82655312/ "Q: Will this new rule be hard on advisers? A: This rule isnt much of change for advisers who already hold themselves to the fiduciary standard, and will not have a big effect on their business model (but could lead to some compliance and paperwork changes). For those who are new to following the fiduciary standard, there could be a lot of long-term benefit to advisers here in that customers will now know that the adviser is legally and ethically required to work in their best interest, which fosters greater trust in their guidance and can lead to a more fruitful relationship for both over time. For advisers whose business model depends on high fees and commissions, the rule is going to be disruptive, and those advisers may want to look at this rule as an opportunity to adapt their business model to one that serves the best interest of the consumer, or face losing clients to the myriad more transparent and lower-cost options out there." Lop the bottom off of the pyramid based business? Good! Glad to see you and USA Money take an extremely simplistic view of the ruling. You're a simpleton so I'm not surprised. USA on the otherhand? Wait that doesn't surprise me either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Glad to see you and USA Money take an extremely simplistic view of the ruling. You're a simpleton so I'm not surprised. USA on the otherhand? Wait that doesn't surprise me either. Yes... Simple... Same as the DOL. Thank you for your advice. Sorry, this simplton doesn't need the advice... Especially, that's not in my best intetest when investing my million... I am such a stupid old-fashion simpleton with a bunch of money. "Give a man a fish (or advice in this case) or teach him to fish? Sounds like you want to give him a fish. I guess they get what they deserve then? Right? You're such a hypocrite. Teach them to control their own destiny... Stupidly simple, isn't it? Hold the "professionals" to a higher standard. Sounds pretty simple to me. Like I said, it does disrupt the pyramid based, high fee driven business models... Puts a dent in the employment schemes out there. KISS=Keep it simple stupid. You would be wise to take that sage advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 I suppose that's true if you a) believe making investment decisions is simple, b) believe most Americans have the necessary knowledge, research, and access to varied financial products to make wise investment decisions, and c) that most individuals make rational spending and investment decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 7, 2016 Author Share Posted April 7, 2016 Yes... Simple... Same as the DOL. Thank you for your advice. Sorry, this simplton doesn't need the advice... Especially, that's not in my best intetest when investing my million... I am such a stupid old-fashion simpleton with a bunch of money. "Give a man a fish (or advice in this case) or teach him to fish? Sounds like you want to give him a fish. I guess they get what they deserve then? Right? You're such a hypocrite. Teach them to control their own destiny... Stupidly simple, isn't it? Hold the "professionals" to a higher standard. Sounds pretty simple to me. Like I said, it does disrupt the pyramid based, high fee driven business models... Puts a dent in the employment schemes out there. KISS=Keep it simple stupid. You would be wise to take that sage advice. Once again you're taking a very simplistic view of the industry and the ruling. I suggest you either educate yourself or get involved in a conversation you're more knowledgeable about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=0 This explains a lot about why reform was needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=0 This explains a lot about why reform was needed A four year old OpEd about an institution that only deals with large institutional investors in a non-fiduciary capacity explains a lot about a rule being implemented which effects small individual retail investors and their relationships with their financial advisors? Go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=0 This explains a lot about why reform was needed An op-ed about irresponsible fiduciaries demonstrates that requiring everyone be a fiduciary is necessary reform? This is why you and your ilk are mocked. Because of massive and embarrassing failures in basic logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts