5 ms·

Then either you've never had to deal with regulatory compliance, or you've caused some serious liability risks to your employers (or yourself). It's a 24/7 issu

Then either you've never had to deal with regulatory compliance, or you've caused some serious liability risks to your employers (or yourself). It's a 24/7 issue, and there's no boundary between work/life when it comes to liability or complying with the law. It's the exact same reason that your lawyer friends will not dole out legal advice unless you're on the client role. Software is a lovely industry where these things don't matter until you're going public. But in banking, they do. A lot. The company is protecting itself from getting sued based on negligent advice given by one of its agents. This is why unless your job in a bank is to give financial advice, you don't give financial advice. Ever. To anyone outside you and your spouse.

darklajid 14y ago
You are correct. I have never had to deal with regulatory compliance. It's a concept that I read about and, after turning it around in my head for a while, dismiss with a sigh. Are you _payed_ for your services 24/7 in those jobs? Because if someone really likes to invade your life like this, this surely increases your pay-check? My lawyer friends (Here I've to insert the disclaimer that I have few) would certainly talk to me about law issues, if I ask for advice. Funny thought: Did anyone reading this board ever decline an IT support request from friends or family with the 'Yeah, well.. Listen. I'd love to help you, but I cannot provide you with computer related advice. Sorry. Company compliance thing, you know?' outside of office hours, on his/her free and _unpaid_ time? Certainly there are good reasons for regulations of some sectors/jobs. The article fails to mention a serious issue in this case and you couldn't convince me that there's a problem either.
- endersshadow 14y ago
  It's an impossible task to convince you. The inherent problem is that you dismiss the premise: If you're an agent of an investment firm, you cannot give financial advice in any capacity in the US unless you've passed certain certifications [1][2]. Them's just the breaks. It doesn't matter if it's amateur advice or for profit, the company is put into a very sticky liability situation if you're blogging and posting advice to Facebook. If you are quick to dismiss the law, then I really don't know what to tell you. The law's the law, and the company's trying to minimize its risk and liability. There are a lot of reasons that these laws came into place, but the fact of the matter is that they exist, and it's a world that you, admittedly, know nothing about. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_adviser#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_adviser#United_Stat... [2]: To clarify, there are situations where you could give advice that would not run afoul of the law. However, the line between that and actions that open your employer up to serious liability issues is very blurry, and so companies take the prudent action and make a blanket, "Don't give anyone anywhere financial advice and most certainly don't tell them to buy anything of ours unless you're paid to do that." The author knew what he was getting into, or at least should have known.

darklajid 14y ago

You are correct. I have never had to deal with regulatory compliance. It's a concept that I read about and, after turning it around in my head for a while, dismiss with a sigh. Are you _payed_ for your services 24/7 in those jobs? Because if someone really likes to invade your life like this, this surely increases your pay-check? My lawyer friends (Here I've to insert the disclaimer that I have few) would certainly talk to me about law issues, if I ask for advice. Funny thought: Did anyone reading this board ever decline an IT support request from friends or family with the 'Yeah, well.. Listen. I'd love to help you, but I cannot provide you with computer related advice. Sorry. Company compliance thing, you know?' outside of office hours, on his/her free and _unpaid_ time? Certainly there are good reasons for regulations of some sectors/jobs. The article fails to mention a serious issue in this case and you couldn't convince me that there's a problem either.

endersshadow 14y ago
It's an impossible task to convince you. The inherent problem is that you dismiss the premise: If you're an agent of an investment firm, you cannot give financial advice in any capacity in the US unless you've passed certain certifications [1][2]. Them's just the breaks. It doesn't matter if it's amateur advice or for profit, the company is put into a very sticky liability situation if you're blogging and posting advice to Facebook. If you are quick to dismiss the law, then I really don't know what to tell you. The law's the law, and the company's trying to minimize its risk and liability. There are a lot of reasons that these laws came into place, but the fact of the matter is that they exist, and it's a world that you, admittedly, know nothing about. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_adviser#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_adviser#United_Stat... [2]: To clarify, there are situations where you could give advice that would not run afoul of the law. However, the line between that and actions that open your employer up to serious liability issues is very blurry, and so companies take the prudent action and make a blanket, "Don't give anyone anywhere financial advice and most certainly don't tell them to buy anything of ours unless you're paid to do that." The author knew what he was getting into, or at least should have known.