Posted on 03/01/2015 7:22:49 AM PST by Enlightened1
Under the false pretense of calling for new and tougher so-called fiduciary standards for financial brokers, advisers and retirement plan representatives, the White House once again horned in on Wall Street’s compensation formulas.
However, what the president surely knows is that a vast majority of retirement plans — IRAs and 401(k)s — are in simple fee-based products like mutual funds. The commission-based accounts are for those who prefer to direct their brokers in certain purchases inside some of their retirement products.
The key to the White House’s interference is in its nuanced language.
Currently, a broker may make a recommendation that must be “suitable” for retirement account assets such as 401(k)s and IRAs.
However, the president wants to take it a step further and mandate that it be in an investor’s “fiduciary best interest.”
The administration surely knows that commission rates and fees on Wall Street have never been better for the consumer, and to pretend to be able to offer even cheaper rates seems disingenuous.
It also opens a huge can of worms.
What if an investor who has been successful with Apple wants to buy 100 more shares of the tech giant for his or her self-directed IRA?
Does the administration really want a broker to interfere because in the broker’s opinion it isn’t in the “best interest” of the investor?
It’s all about control. It’s your money, America. The system functions quite well. Adding more pages of red tape will not improve performance, but it just may get your broker to drop your account, just as many credit lines were closed after Dodd-Frank passed.Come on, IRAs and 401(k)s are the few savings products that actually do work in this country for everyone.
IRAs and 401(k)s are personal retirement accounts, not government pensions. Please keep your hand out
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
"If you like your retirement plan, you can keep your retirement plan. Period," lied the Obama.
Spread the wealth - well, NOT the Conmander-And-Sheik's wealth, though. If Obama likes his healthcare and his retirement plan and his Internet and his weather, HE'LL keep all that. After all, he's not a peasant, like you and me.
For you and I, mere peasants, there's ObamaCare, ObamaNet, ObamaWarm, and now ObamaRetire.
This is not just a White House issue...they have all been trying to get into these accounts, even prior to 2006.
Frankly, this is why we should all have lumpy mattresses.
They will just force a certain percent into Govt Bonds/bills.
Redline here
Shemitah
That’s certainly interesting. First time I’ve heard of it.
If you want to really find out what’s going on, research the middle class task force that was created early in the Obama administration. The expansion of ERISA (under the department of labor) and the proposed lifetime annuities are cause for real concern. They have proposed that a portion of qualified plans be carved out for lifetime annuities that start at the citizens age 75. Of course, they want these lifetime annuities to be funded by government, not life insurance or annuity companies.
This easily morphs into “for the best interests of the investor, the government says you must invest X% of the account in government bonds.”
Gee who didn’t see this coming. Anything that benefits the citizen 100% guaranteed this enemy of the United States will attack it. Can we start the rebellion now?
How come you abandoned the thread on FREEPER sleepers ?
Because the stupid troll kid got his idiot young can toasted but good. The Viking Kittehs might be dialing up the juice as we speak....
Yes and SSI was supposed to mimic the annuitization of a life policy, look how good that has worked out, it is broke. Yes you are correct, hidden in a bill forwarded by Rep Richard Neal of Mass a few years ago was reference to a gov t. guaranteed note or some other instrument I had never heard of before. I asked here on FR, what is it? Do any FR-finacial Pro's ever heard of it? I hadn't, neither did they. My guess is it what you talked about and what Teresa Ghilarducci has been on a screed about and that is 401k's are no good bla, bla, bla...
Uh-huh, right.... I am not buying any of what they are pedaling...
The a White House is proposing to shut out private investment councillors from managing personal 401Ks by putting an additional 15% tax on accounts that are managed by an investment councilor if you keep the same one that you used before retirement.
It was in the WSJ last week.
Who's brain fart is this? What if you are using a SEP-IRA for your 401k as lets say a high end attorney and you retire and want to use the same firm before and after retirement you can't? What about that relationship? It is a relationship business! You mean you have to change because they say so? Where is this in the Investment Advisory Act of 1934? Yes Dodd-Frank-FINRA what a flippin' mess... Un-Freakin-Believeable...
If your talking Yellen bucks, they're easy to mess with. All you have to do is inflate them out of existence, or simply change the color.
Oh, you can continue to use the same advisor, but you will pay 15% sur charge to the government .
I don’t think that it applies to people who are already retired.
Government: The home invasion robbery that never ends.
Title of the article?
As long as that lumpy is made up of something besides FRN’s.
They can steal the value out of those easier than anything, without one person in 100 knowing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.