Uh oh. This doesn't sound good. US bonds will probably be considered the only "safe" option according to the govt.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-...tUMCEA19KTmYlQ
His too.
Dept of labor and union CEO's will probably write it .
cram everyone into minimal-yield USTs, turn on the inflation for a few years to suck the wealth out, this has been the plan for some time
They'll get it through. Liberals get everything they want.
They'll certainly have input, probably regarding how much government backing will protect Union retirement funds against loss. The details will be written by the two or three biggest Wall St. brokerages, who will surprisingly be the only brokerages that conform to the new rules, and will also have generous government "safety nets".Originally Posted by oyarde
The rule has been the subject of intense behind-the-scenes lobbying, pitting major Wall Street firms and financial industry groups against a coalition of labor, consumer groups and retiree advocates such as the AARP.
The administration first proposed a regulation in 2010, but pulled it back following an industry outcry that the proposal would hurt rather than help investors by limiting choices.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
There is nothing wrong with the new requirement that brokers have a fiduciary duty to investors.
We've needed this duty for forever.
I'm sure Obama has our best interests in mind.
^ Some people never learn, do they? "If you like your plan...your doctor...your internet...your retirement account..."
When O Duce claims he wants to "help," it's time to grab the lube and bend over.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...unts-live-feed
Speaking at AARP headqusrters in Washington, President Obama will announce orders to the Labor Department to write new rules for financial managers who handle retirement accounts for working Americans. As USA Today reports, The White House says the goal is to end "hidden fees that hurt consumers and back-door payments that help Wall Street brokers," deals that costs retirees billions of dollars in savings. White House officials said they want new fiduciary standards that would require financial advisers to put clients' interests ahead of their own... and "buy our bonds."
We wonder how long before there will be an official asset allocation by dictat...
Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
--Albert J. Nock
The good news is that any type of interference in 401Ks risks crashing the markets, and politicians don't want that. But I can't help wondering WHY Obama is doing this.
The article makes it sound like the legislation only requires disclosures from financial advisers who have a conflict of interest. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Though I haven't seen any specifics on what was actually proposed. Anyone have a better article?
The article states that it failed last time they tried in 2010, when the Senate was controlled by the Dems. So I wouldn't be too sure about that.
If the government has to pass a law in order to make your investment adviser's advice 'trustworthy', then your investment adviser isn't trustworthy... Sounds like the making of the next TBTF.fi·du·ci·ar·y
fəˈdo͞oSHēˌerē,-SHərē/
adjective
Law
adjective: fiduciary
1.
involving trust, especially with regard to the relationship between a trustee and a beneficiary.
"the company has a fiduciary duty to shareholders"
It would also require them to report their fees better. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0LR0XR20150223
More at link.(Reuters) - U.S. brokers and financial advisers would face new constraints under a plan President Barack Obama put forward on Monday to reduce conflicts of interest and "hidden fees" that cost Americans billions of dollars in retirement savings every year.
In proposing the rules, Obama said he sought to protect Americans from being steered into costly retirement investments that produced high commissions for brokers but low returns for investors preparing for retirement.
Democrats and Republicans are trying to position themselves as champions of the middle class in the run-up to the November 2016 presidential election. Retired seniors are an important voting bloc.
The proposed rules, which the Department of Labor is expected to submit formally in the coming months, will inject political pressure into an already intense debate over brokers' obligations.
They would have an impact on thousands of brokerages, from large players such as Fidelity, Wells Fargo (WFC.N), Charles Schwab (SCHW.N) and Raymond James (RJF.N), to smaller, independent shops.
Brokers would be held to a higher "fiduciary standard," requiring them to put their clients' financial interests ahead of their own.
The White House said the proposals target fees and payments that on average lead to a full percentage point lower annual return on retirement savings at a cost to Americans of $17 billion a year.
In particular, Obama called for new rules preventing retirement brokers from steering clients' savings into funds with higher fees and lower returns, or advising clients to roll their funds over into higher-cost plans.
Brokers would be held to a higher "fiduciary standard," requiring them to put their clients' financial interests ahead of their own.
What does that even mean? How about, as a consumer, paying attention to every line of a contract you sign? How about caring about YOUR OWN money instead of letting government manage it.
This is just more laziness and irresponsibility by Americans too lazy to read a contract. Abdicate to government and lose more freedom. Again.
Translation- if you're too stupid or too poor to read through a 100 page document full of legalese abstractions, then you don't belong in society.
Man. I can't wait to reap the benefits of everyone else's savings. 401k, nope. IRA, nope. Stock Market, nope. Mutual funds, nope. I'd say I'm pretty safe from anything this guys thinking about doing. Unless he comes for the gold and guns. But I don't have any of those either. *wink*wink*
Dishonest money makes for dishonest people.
Andrew Napolitano, John Stossel. FOX News Liberty Infiltrators.
NOBP ≠ ABODr. Paul is living rent-free in the minds of the neocons, and for a fiscal conservative, free rent is always a good thing
And they wouldn't get it without so many pliant, obedient "conservatives"-usually beholden to the same special interests as "liberals".
Translation: Tee Vee keeps me from reading a three page document with compound sentences, so I exaggerate and cry about my crummy job.
Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 02-24-2015 at 02:51 AM.
Because the Federal government has such an excellent track record at managing its finances, it is going to help y'all some more with yours. No need to thank them. Just part of the job.
The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron
"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us