Posted on 03/05/2016 7:11:03 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
...radio show host Dave Ramsey caused a firestorm on Twitter last week when he weighed in against the “fiduciary rule”—the controversial pending Department of Labor regulation that would impose new restrictions on a vast swath of financial professionals who handle IRAs and 401(k) accounts. Yet, Ramsey was only echoing concerns about the costs of the rule already expressed by Members of Congress from both parties.
Ramsey Tweeted, “this Obama rule will kill the Middle Class and below ability to access personal advice.” A war of Tweets then broke out between opponents of the rule, and supporters, the latter of which includes fee-based investment advisers expected to benefit from the new costs the rule will shower on their broker competitors.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
she is only interested in killing prosperity.
This appears to me to be setting precedence that ultimately could lead to rules harmful to conservative talk radio.
IOW they are establishing basis, as well trial balloon they can then draw upon to lead towards that goal. So much of talk radio is in fact advisory.
Yeah Mitt who cares if Hillary Wins?
Are you responding to the correct thread?
The intent is to hold advisers culpable for changes in the market. If an advisor tells you to buy a stock and it later goes bust the client or the government can come in fine the advisor for giving bad advise. The whole point is to again protect people from themselves after all we are all too stupid to make our own decisions. The eventual result will be that middle class investor will be unable to find anyone willing to handle their investments, so they will be forced to turn to the government for advice.
You are correct. Very succinct explanation.
Please, Obama, take my lifetime savings and manage it for me because it’s so expensive to get advice and no one will serve me anyway.
So in other words, we will all have to manage our own 401ks, because no company in their right mind would dare take on that risk?
We don't want to outlaw speech, we just want to license it.
How about books, and their authors?????
But, whatever, do not ban Dear Abby!!!!!
License - The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act.
Now that we are talking about the 1st Amendment, I wonder if giving the Swedes control of the Web’s internet address es is really a good idea.
You did recognize my sarcasm, right?
I know you probably did, but I just want to make sure.
Yea, but there are a lot of folks that miss that nuance. :-)
I’ve always only used fee based advisors.
IF someone isn’t charging you a fee directly then they darn well are making their money somewhere, and you can bet it’s on the investments they put you into.
Plenty of inaccurate hyperbole on both sides of this. It’s not going to kill any financial advisor to have to remind their client that the advisor may have a financial interest in what they put the client into. OTOH a couple of friends are financial advisors and they consider this to be a real PITA; nothing insurmountable but a pain...
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.
