6 ms·

Abandoning the fiduciary rule was a mistake

108 points by petethomas 8y ago

0n0n0m0uz 8y ago
Mistake for who? The gutting of the consumer protection served the function and constituency it was designed to.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  This. The article makes the assumption that the law was intended to help the masses. I'm just not certain that's the case in reality.
- rayiner 8y ago
  The rule was overturned by a federal court for overstepping the DOL’s statutory authority. What “constituency” are those unelected, life-tenured judges serving, exactly? Maybe the rule is a good idea, or maybe it isn’t. But the Obama administration tried to promulgate a massive new financial regulation through aggressive interpretation of existing statutory authority. A federal court didn’t buy it. That sometimes happens when you try to create new laws through executive bureaucracy rather than Congress. (Ironically, exactly the same thing has repeatedly happened to Trump.)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - MarkMc 8y ago
    The Trump adminstration has abandoned the fiduciary rule by not appealing the federal court's ruling. And Congress has abandoned the fiduciary rule by deciding not to pass a new bill that would be acceptable to the courts.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      The government won at trial, defended the win on appeal, and lost. There is no “appeal” from that. The decision of the court of appeals typically is the final word. The only avenues are petitions for discretionary review, reserved for special cases: rehearing (asking the appeals court to change its mind), or Supreme Court review. Such review is rarely granted (a few percent of cases), and generally only for a question of exceptional importance to the law, or where different courts of appeals reach conflicting decisions. Neither was true here.
  - addicted 8y ago
    It was overturned in court because the current administration refused to defend it. It’s possible that even if they had genuinely defended the rule in court it would have been overturned, but that’s not what happened and while technically you are right, in reality, the decision was a political and not a judicial decision.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      That is absolutely false. You can hear the hour long argument where the government defended the rule here: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-10238_7-31-2017.mp3 http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-10238_7-.... The Fifth Circuit then rendered a decision on the merits. The government didn’t file for rehearing or petition for Supreme Court review. But those are discretionary forms of review, reserved for special circumstances, and rarely result in overturning the appeals court decision.
- cfpb5ever 8y ago
  CFPB was also part of the handiwork of a true "enemy" of decent people-who-for-a-living in the United States, namely Mr. Mick Mulvaney. The current "interim" (wink wink) chief of staff at the White House which on its face is absolutely horrifying for a superpower but that's another issue for another day Pardon the businessinsider, this article summarizes pretty well Mr. Mulvaney's extracurricular activities there : https://static1.businessinsider.com/mick-mulvaney-turned-the-cfpb-into-a-do-nothing-government-cog-2018-7 https://static1.businessinsider.com/mick-mulvaney-turned-the... To be clear, you can have a good faith disagreement about how responsible people should be or how much government regulation you like but in this case specifically, this isn't a gee-golly difference of opinion on the scope/reach of government. Just speaking personally, I don't much want any gov regulation or intervention anywhere-- especially these days with who is charge-- but it was sure nice for about 15 minutes for there to be a public institution that provided some assurance that scumbag financial institutions who provably & very much regularly screwed over "little people" in little ways could be held to account in some measure. For the guv'mint is too big crowd, the CFPB was the agency which help expose Wells Fargo bank’s fake account scams. (If unfamiliar, these are some of the gory details: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/09/08/wells-fargo-fined-185-million-for-creating-accounts-its-customers-didnt-ask-for/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/09/08/w...) Another meat-and-potatoes example: pre-paid credit cards (a $65 billion industry in 2012 according to Pew.) Before the CFPB, prepaid credit card offers were dense and confusing legal documents , but this is what those offers must look like now: https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/wp-content/uploads/prepaid-card-label-lg.jpg https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/wp-content/uplo... They've even has a catchy line: “know before you owe!” Regular are getting hurt and when the next crisis comes we're going in a worse position to the efforts of these ridiculous characters like Mr. Mulvaney
village-idiot 8y ago
Pretty much every neutral observer called that one, and quite a few non-neutral ones too. There’s no rational way to justify allowing wealth managers to sell their clients products that are contrary to the clients’ interests, least of all under the laughable excuse of “customer choice”. The only question is, exactly how corrupt was this? Was it “the boss is an idiot and doesn’t understand”, or “they bought enough over priced hotel rooms”?
- koverda 8y ago
  I really don't think it's the ol' "boss is an idiot" thing.
- qmanjamz 8y ago
  Most other industries are allowed to sell products that are contrary to their clients' interests. I don't see why wealth management should be any different. If my mechanic can try to sell me a bunch of services I don't really need every time I go in for an oil change, I have no problem with the financial industry doing the same.
  - wbl 8y ago
    Because weath managers don't clearly differentiate between their advisory and sales roles and exploit ignorant people. If the result was fee only advisors were the only ones left that would be a good thing
  - inflatableDodo 8y ago
    I view this more as the mechanic being paid by a supplier to say that your clutch has failed when it hasn't.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    The difference is that your mechanic isn’t acting as your agent with regards to all things automotive, they represent the shop they work for. That differentiation of who’s responsible for what makes a huge difference. A financial advisor is much more akin to a lawyer, you pay them to represent your interests. And it is absolutely against the rules for your lawyer to not protect your best interests to the upmost extent of the law.
Zarath 8y ago
I'll play a bit of devil's advocate here: Was it though? Financial advisors were always mostly a ripoff for people with basic financial literacy who aren't trying to do crazy tax stuff or laddering CDs or something. If anything, this should just accelerate the switch to index funds.
- modriano 8y ago
  Even if financial advisors were always an inferior option than index funds, why should they be allowed to make financial decisions for their clients that are contrary to the best interests of their clients?
- omosubi 8y ago
  A lot of people aren't smart enough to know better though. The government should protect them from people scamming out of their money
krob 8y ago
Well, Trump administration is trying their best to muck things up as good as they can. Then they can be blamed for the next major depression type recession & costing the american public the welfare state of FDR.
diogenescynic 8y ago
It’s going to take generations to fix what the Trump administration and republicans like Mitch McConnell have done to this country. Never forget or forgive these assholes.
- yay_cloud2 8y ago
  Never forgetting or forgiving seems like an ineffective response. My entire being yearns for more.
  - diogenescynic 8y ago
    Obama tried that after the Bush admin lied to force us to go to war and it got us 6 years of Mitch McConnell’s obstructionist charades and republicans stealing a Supreme Court seat. Republicans consistently operate in bad faith. We need to prosecute these criminals instead of just moving on like this is normal. Otherwise, we’re just letting norms be destroyed as we lurch towards authoritarianism. The rule of law was under attack before Trump, but we need to take it back before it’s too late. We need to go through something like the deNazification initiative: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification
- mirimir 8y ago
  Yeah. Except that impacts of global climate change will likely be huge before that. So the US is very likely screwed. Irrevocably, at this point.
- mcphage 8y ago
  > It’s going to take generations to fix what the Trump administration and republicans like Mitch McConnell have done to this country You remember reading in history about a society that was on top, then lost its way, and then a few generations later got a second chance?
hguhghuff 8y ago
It’s a mistake if you believe that the government acts or should act in the interests of its citizens. If however you think the governments purpose is to further the interests of corporations, then it’s the opposite of a mistake.
- JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
  >It’s a mistake if you believe that the government ... should act in the interests of its citizens. I disagree here. I think a government should act in the interests of its citizens, and there are countries where this still occurs. The argument you are making is whether the US still does this is fair, but they absolutely SHOULD be doing it.
  - gdulli 8y ago
    They're saying the subject of the headline is a mistake. Not that the mistake is believing that's the purpose of government.
    - dnautics 8y ago
      What exactly is the purpose of government?
      - sdenton4 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure it has something to do with caves. Someone wrote a book about it once. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html (Less sarcastically, the Republic transitions pretty quickly from a discussing of "what's a good life" to "how can we structure society (and government) to help people live well?" It's a good book, even if the conclusions are a bit suspect.)
- qmanjamz 8y ago
  Corporations are owned by citizens, so it's not necessarily a mistake either way you slice it.
inflatableDodo 8y ago
Estimated cost to the financial advice market (by the financial advice market) of having to abide by the fiduciary rule - $2.4 billion https://www.investmentnews.com/article/20151230/FREE/151239992/dol-fiduciary-rule-could-take-2-4-billion-bite-out-of-financial https://www.investmentnews.com/article/20151230/FREE/1512399... Estimated cost over the next 30 years for retirees (by the Economic Policy Institute), just from the fiduciary rule being delayed for 18 months - $10.9 billion https://www.epi.org/publication/another-fiduciary-rule-delay-would-cost-retirement-savers-10-9-billion-over-30-years/ https://www.epi.org/publication/another-fiduciary-rule-delay... This isn't even capitalism. This is like some John Frum cargo-cult version, being acted out by people who have heard the word 'economics' but have at best only absorbed that it is something to do with people who like money and dressing in suits.
rayiner 8y ago
The very first sentence is quite misleading: > Last year, the Trump administration abandoned a regulation designed to protect U.S. savers from conflicted investment advice. That suggests that the Trump administration repealed the rule. What actually happened is that a federal appeals court vacated the rule because it overstepped the DOL’s statutory authority: https://images.thinkadvisor.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/415/299631/5th-Circuit_chamber-fiduciary-mandate.pdf https://images.thinkadvisor.com/contrib/content/uploads/docu.... (Among other things, the DOL departed from its own long-standing interpretation of a key statutory term.) When the article says the Trump administration “abandoned” the rule, it means that the administration declined to seek rehearing—basically, asking the appeals court to change its mind—or Supreme Court review. Of course, both of those options are long shots. A federal court of appeals decision in a case is almost always the last word. Further review is discretionary, and rare. That is especially true in a case like this one. The prerequisite for rehearing or Supreme Court review is typically a case of “exceptional importance” or where there are conflicting decisions among the courts of appeals for the different circuits. An esoteric financial regulation doesn’t fit either criteria.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Jerry2 8y ago
As a sidenote, anyone else noticed the heavy amount of browser fingerprinting on Bloomberg sites? I have a few extensions that block browser fingerprinting and whenever I go on Bloomberg sites, I get a bunch of warnings about canvas, fonts etc fingerprinting. Then, I'm immediately redirected to a page where I have to enter a recaptcha to view the page [0]. That page also states that they've "detected unusual activity from your network" winch is a total lie because if I disable those, I don't get a warning and get a paywall instead. [0] https://i.imgur.com/EEIcwK2.jpg https://i.imgur.com/EEIcwK2.jpg
- crashedsnow 8y ago
  The whole of the internet is a patchwork of ad blockers and ad block mitigations which come in the form of both aggressive JavaScript and the much-more-insidious passive aggressive "sponsored content". Possible that this fingerprinting is all in service of trying desperately to monetize. Unfortunately we only have ourselves to blame.
sara7262 8y ago
Just see the friendship between a baby and a big snake See in video what they are doing https://howto105.blogspot.com/2019/04/baby-with-snake.html https://howto105.blogspot.com/2019/04/baby-with-snake.html Now don't worry about mosquitoes if they come in your room they will die in your trap Make easily homemade mosquito trap With simple home remedies https://zoomtips.blogspot.com/2019/04/easily-make-mosquito-bottle-trap-step.html https://zoomtips.blogspot.com/2019/04/easily-make-mosquito-b... See world's top 5 most beautiful snakes and learn where they live and what they We all should know about it https://howto105.blogspot.com/2019/04/Beautiful-snakes.html https://howto105.blogspot.com/2019/04/Beautiful-snakes.html Mostly we see humans goalkeepers in football Match but now see the video of this dog goalkeeper And this dog is doing good as compare to some humans http://bit.ly/2IyYCmz http://bit.ly/2IyYCmz See the video of most dangerous bird and how he killed owner https://howto105.blogspot.com/2019/04/most-dangerous-bird-killed-owner-in-usa.html https://howto105.blogspot.com/2019/04/most-dangerous-bird-ki...
mnm1 8y ago
> To be clear, there are upstanding insurers and agents who sell indexed annuities only when appropriate. There were. Now investors simply cannot tell the difference so for all intents and purposes, there are not. If you're investing through a third party at this point, you're a fool and you'll be taken advantage of. There is no protection other than the law. This article and others should make that clear. Investors need to become experts themselves and learn about what they invest in as well as how to invest. It's a tall order but that's what it takes to not get ripped off now. That's what this administration wanted and that's what they got: a clear path to ripping people off on their retirement savings. What else would one expect from them?
- loeg 8y ago
  If you advertise you're a fiduciary, you still have a fiduciary duty to customers. Most "retirement planners" or "advisors" (e.g., Edward Jones' franchises) do not advertise a fiduciary duty. As a consumer, you may have to pay more up front to find a fiduciary-duty adviser, but that is money well spent and quickly pays for itself.

108 points by petethomas 8y ago

0n0n0m0uz 8y ago

Mistake for who? The gutting of the consumer protection served the function and constituency it was designed to.

bilbo0s 8y ago
This. The article makes the assumption that the law was intended to help the masses. I'm just not certain that's the case in reality.
rayiner 8y ago
The rule was overturned by a federal court for overstepping the DOL’s statutory authority. What “constituency” are those unelected, life-tenured judges serving, exactly? Maybe the rule is a good idea, or maybe it isn’t. But the Obama administration tried to promulgate a massive new financial regulation through aggressive interpretation of existing statutory authority. A federal court didn’t buy it. That sometimes happens when you try to create new laws through executive bureaucracy rather than Congress. (Ironically, exactly the same thing has repeatedly happened to Trump.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- MarkMc 8y ago
  The Trump adminstration has abandoned the fiduciary rule by not appealing the federal court's ruling. And Congress has abandoned the fiduciary rule by deciding not to pass a new bill that would be acceptable to the courts.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    The government won at trial, defended the win on appeal, and lost. There is no “appeal” from that. The decision of the court of appeals typically is the final word. The only avenues are petitions for discretionary review, reserved for special cases: rehearing (asking the appeals court to change its mind), or Supreme Court review. Such review is rarely granted (a few percent of cases), and generally only for a question of exceptional importance to the law, or where different courts of appeals reach conflicting decisions. Neither was true here.
- addicted 8y ago
  It was overturned in court because the current administration refused to defend it. It’s possible that even if they had genuinely defended the rule in court it would have been overturned, but that’s not what happened and while technically you are right, in reality, the decision was a political and not a judicial decision.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    That is absolutely false. You can hear the hour long argument where the government defended the rule here: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-10238_7-31-2017.mp3 http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-10238_7-.... The Fifth Circuit then rendered a decision on the merits. The government didn’t file for rehearing or petition for Supreme Court review. But those are discretionary forms of review, reserved for special circumstances, and rarely result in overturning the appeals court decision.
cfpb5ever 8y ago
CFPB was also part of the handiwork of a true "enemy" of decent people-who-for-a-living in the United States, namely Mr. Mick Mulvaney. The current "interim" (wink wink) chief of staff at the White House which on its face is absolutely horrifying for a superpower but that's another issue for another day Pardon the businessinsider, this article summarizes pretty well Mr. Mulvaney's extracurricular activities there : https://static1.businessinsider.com/mick-mulvaney-turned-the-cfpb-into-a-do-nothing-government-cog-2018-7 https://static1.businessinsider.com/mick-mulvaney-turned-the... To be clear, you can have a good faith disagreement about how responsible people should be or how much government regulation you like but in this case specifically, this isn't a gee-golly difference of opinion on the scope/reach of government. Just speaking personally, I don't much want any gov regulation or intervention anywhere-- especially these days with who is charge-- but it was sure nice for about 15 minutes for there to be a public institution that provided some assurance that scumbag financial institutions who provably & very much regularly screwed over "little people" in little ways could be held to account in some measure. For the guv'mint is too big crowd, the CFPB was the agency which help expose Wells Fargo bank’s fake account scams. (If unfamiliar, these are some of the gory details: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/09/08/wells-fargo-fined-185-million-for-creating-accounts-its-customers-didnt-ask-for/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/09/08/w...) Another meat-and-potatoes example: pre-paid credit cards (a $65 billion industry in 2012 according to Pew.) Before the CFPB, prepaid credit card offers were dense and confusing legal documents , but this is what those offers must look like now: https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/wp-content/uploads/prepaid-card-label-lg.jpg https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/wp-content/uplo... They've even has a catchy line: “know before you owe!” Regular are getting hurt and when the next crisis comes we're going in a worse position to the efforts of these ridiculous characters like Mr. Mulvaney

village-idiot 8y ago

Pretty much every neutral observer called that one, and quite a few non-neutral ones too. There’s no rational way to justify allowing wealth managers to sell their clients products that are contrary to the clients’ interests, least of all under the laughable excuse of “customer choice”. The only question is, exactly how corrupt was this? Was it “the boss is an idiot and doesn’t understand”, or “they bought enough over priced hotel rooms”?

koverda 8y ago
I really don't think it's the ol' "boss is an idiot" thing.
qmanjamz 8y ago
Most other industries are allowed to sell products that are contrary to their clients' interests. I don't see why wealth management should be any different. If my mechanic can try to sell me a bunch of services I don't really need every time I go in for an oil change, I have no problem with the financial industry doing the same.
- wbl 8y ago
  Because weath managers don't clearly differentiate between their advisory and sales roles and exploit ignorant people. If the result was fee only advisors were the only ones left that would be a good thing
- inflatableDodo 8y ago
  I view this more as the mechanic being paid by a supplier to say that your clutch has failed when it hasn't.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  The difference is that your mechanic isn’t acting as your agent with regards to all things automotive, they represent the shop they work for. That differentiation of who’s responsible for what makes a huge difference. A financial advisor is much more akin to a lawyer, you pay them to represent your interests. And it is absolutely against the rules for your lawyer to not protect your best interests to the upmost extent of the law.

Zarath 8y ago

I'll play a bit of devil's advocate here: Was it though? Financial advisors were always mostly a ripoff for people with basic financial literacy who aren't trying to do crazy tax stuff or laddering CDs or something. If anything, this should just accelerate the switch to index funds.

modriano 8y ago
Even if financial advisors were always an inferior option than index funds, why should they be allowed to make financial decisions for their clients that are contrary to the best interests of their clients?
omosubi 8y ago
A lot of people aren't smart enough to know better though. The government should protect them from people scamming out of their money

krob 8y ago

Well, Trump administration is trying their best to muck things up as good as they can. Then they can be blamed for the next major depression type recession & costing the american public the welfare state of FDR.

diogenescynic 8y ago

It’s going to take generations to fix what the Trump administration and republicans like Mitch McConnell have done to this country. Never forget or forgive these assholes.

yay_cloud2 8y ago
Never forgetting or forgiving seems like an ineffective response. My entire being yearns for more.
- diogenescynic 8y ago
  Obama tried that after the Bush admin lied to force us to go to war and it got us 6 years of Mitch McConnell’s obstructionist charades and republicans stealing a Supreme Court seat. Republicans consistently operate in bad faith. We need to prosecute these criminals instead of just moving on like this is normal. Otherwise, we’re just letting norms be destroyed as we lurch towards authoritarianism. The rule of law was under attack before Trump, but we need to take it back before it’s too late. We need to go through something like the deNazification initiative: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification
mirimir 8y ago
Yeah. Except that impacts of global climate change will likely be huge before that. So the US is very likely screwed. Irrevocably, at this point.
mcphage 8y ago
> It’s going to take generations to fix what the Trump administration and republicans like Mitch McConnell have done to this country You remember reading in history about a society that was on top, then lost its way, and then a few generations later got a second chance?

hguhghuff 8y ago

It’s a mistake if you believe that the government acts or should act in the interests of its citizens. If however you think the governments purpose is to further the interests of corporations, then it’s the opposite of a mistake.

JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
>It’s a mistake if you believe that the government ... should act in the interests of its citizens. I disagree here. I think a government should act in the interests of its citizens, and there are countries where this still occurs. The argument you are making is whether the US still does this is fair, but they absolutely SHOULD be doing it.
- gdulli 8y ago
  They're saying the subject of the headline is a mistake. Not that the mistake is believing that's the purpose of government.
  - dnautics 8y ago
    What exactly is the purpose of government?
    - sdenton4 8y ago
      I'm pretty sure it has something to do with caves. Someone wrote a book about it once. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html (Less sarcastically, the Republic transitions pretty quickly from a discussing of "what's a good life" to "how can we structure society (and government) to help people live well?" It's a good book, even if the conclusions are a bit suspect.)
qmanjamz 8y ago
Corporations are owned by citizens, so it's not necessarily a mistake either way you slice it.

inflatableDodo 8y ago

Estimated cost to the financial advice market (by the financial advice market) of having to abide by the fiduciary rule - $2.4 billion https://www.investmentnews.com/article/20151230/FREE/151239992/dol-fiduciary-rule-could-take-2-4-billion-bite-out-of-financial https://www.investmentnews.com/article/20151230/FREE/1512399... Estimated cost over the next 30 years for retirees (by the Economic Policy Institute), just from the fiduciary rule being delayed for 18 months - $10.9 billion https://www.epi.org/publication/another-fiduciary-rule-delay-would-cost-retirement-savers-10-9-billion-over-30-years/ https://www.epi.org/publication/another-fiduciary-rule-delay... This isn't even capitalism. This is like some John Frum cargo-cult version, being acted out by people who have heard the word 'economics' but have at best only absorbed that it is something to do with people who like money and dressing in suits.

rayiner 8y ago

The very first sentence is quite misleading: > Last year, the Trump administration abandoned a regulation designed to protect U.S. savers from conflicted investment advice. That suggests that the Trump administration repealed the rule. What actually happened is that a federal appeals court vacated the rule because it overstepped the DOL’s statutory authority: https://images.thinkadvisor.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/415/299631/5th-Circuit_chamber-fiduciary-mandate.pdf https://images.thinkadvisor.com/contrib/content/uploads/docu.... (Among other things, the DOL departed from its own long-standing interpretation of a key statutory term.) When the article says the Trump administration “abandoned” the rule, it means that the administration declined to seek rehearing—basically, asking the appeals court to change its mind—or Supreme Court review. Of course, both of those options are long shots. A federal court of appeals decision in a case is almost always the last word. Further review is discretionary, and rare. That is especially true in a case like this one. The prerequisite for rehearing or Supreme Court review is typically a case of “exceptional importance” or where there are conflicting decisions among the courts of appeals for the different circuits. An esoteric financial regulation doesn’t fit either criteria.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Jerry2 8y ago

As a sidenote, anyone else noticed the heavy amount of browser fingerprinting on Bloomberg sites? I have a few extensions that block browser fingerprinting and whenever I go on Bloomberg sites, I get a bunch of warnings about canvas, fonts etc fingerprinting. Then, I'm immediately redirected to a page where I have to enter a recaptcha to view the page [0]. That page also states that they've "detected unusual activity from your network" winch is a total lie because if I disable those, I don't get a warning and get a paywall instead. [0] https://i.imgur.com/EEIcwK2.jpg https://i.imgur.com/EEIcwK2.jpg

crashedsnow 8y ago
The whole of the internet is a patchwork of ad blockers and ad block mitigations which come in the form of both aggressive JavaScript and the much-more-insidious passive aggressive "sponsored content". Possible that this fingerprinting is all in service of trying desperately to monetize. Unfortunately we only have ourselves to blame.

sara7262 8y ago

Just see the friendship between a baby and a big snake See in video what they are doing https://howto105.blogspot.com/2019/04/baby-with-snake.html https://howto105.blogspot.com/2019/04/baby-with-snake.html Now don't worry about mosquitoes if they come in your room they will die in your trap Make easily homemade mosquito trap With simple home remedies https://zoomtips.blogspot.com/2019/04/easily-make-mosquito-bottle-trap-step.html https://zoomtips.blogspot.com/2019/04/easily-make-mosquito-b... See world's top 5 most beautiful snakes and learn where they live and what they We all should know about it https://howto105.blogspot.com/2019/04/Beautiful-snakes.html https://howto105.blogspot.com/2019/04/Beautiful-snakes.html Mostly we see humans goalkeepers in football Match but now see the video of this dog goalkeeper And this dog is doing good as compare to some humans http://bit.ly/2IyYCmz http://bit.ly/2IyYCmz See the video of most dangerous bird and how he killed owner https://howto105.blogspot.com/2019/04/most-dangerous-bird-killed-owner-in-usa.html https://howto105.blogspot.com/2019/04/most-dangerous-bird-ki...

mnm1 8y ago

> To be clear, there are upstanding insurers and agents who sell indexed annuities only when appropriate. There were. Now investors simply cannot tell the difference so for all intents and purposes, there are not. If you're investing through a third party at this point, you're a fool and you'll be taken advantage of. There is no protection other than the law. This article and others should make that clear. Investors need to become experts themselves and learn about what they invest in as well as how to invest. It's a tall order but that's what it takes to not get ripped off now. That's what this administration wanted and that's what they got: a clear path to ripping people off on their retirement savings. What else would one expect from them?

loeg 8y ago
If you advertise you're a fiduciary, you still have a fiduciary duty to customers. Most "retirement planners" or "advisors" (e.g., Edward Jones' franchises) do not advertise a fiduciary duty. As a consumer, you may have to pay more up front to find a fiduciary-duty adviser, but that is money well spent and quickly pays for itself.