3 ms·

You seem confused by my frustration with tools towing the company line rather than providing reliable investment advice. Personally, I prefer retaining the opt

You seem confused by my frustration with tools towing the company line rather than providing reliable investment advice. Personally, I prefer retaining the option to sue people that pull stunts. But to each their own... =3

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> I prefer retaining the option to sue people that pull stunts If that's an option for you, sure. I work in finance and retain FINRA arbitration as a customer. When I'm signing with clients, I do not like to include it--I have a strong advantage in court and don't want a venue that's biased against me as a professional. All of this is totally irrelevant to ETFs, mutual funds and CMOs because those are distributed funds whose terms aren't negotiable after offering. (If you're worrying about suing the guy selling you ETFs, you're doing something wrong. Probably overtrading.)
- Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > having a robust legal position is still rather important Zero competent securities lawyers will argue waiving FINRA arbitration universally puts one into a more robust legal position. For most Americans, it waives significant consumer safeguards and opens up realms of litigation tactics that are barred by industry rules but not law.
    - eadler 2y ago
      I'd believe this in very specific contexts but I can't find any reliable explanation of what those might be. Can you point me to anything worthwhile to read on the topic? I am fairly certain that consumer and employment pre-dispute arbitration agreements are strongly negative but I haven't learned enough about FINRA/securities arbitration to have a strong opinion.
      - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        In general, forced arbitration is not an effective legal posture for investors, and a common instrument applied to suckers. Sociopath structured parasitism always poses a liability around treasure. Handle or hire your own due diligence solutions... Seriously, don't assume either of our nonsense applies in your country. =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> I prefer retaining the option to sue people that pull stunts If that's an option for you, sure. I work in finance and retain FINRA arbitration as a customer. When I'm signing with clients, I do not like to include it--I have a strong advantage in court and don't want a venue that's biased against me as a professional. All of this is totally irrelevant to ETFs, mutual funds and CMOs because those are distributed funds whose terms aren't negotiable after offering. (If you're worrying about suing the guy selling you ETFs, you're doing something wrong. Probably overtrading.)

Joel_Mckay 2y ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > having a robust legal position is still rather important Zero competent securities lawyers will argue waiving FINRA arbitration universally puts one into a more robust legal position. For most Americans, it waives significant consumer safeguards and opens up realms of litigation tactics that are barred by industry rules but not law.
  - eadler 2y ago
    I'd believe this in very specific contexts but I can't find any reliable explanation of what those might be. Can you point me to anything worthwhile to read on the topic? I am fairly certain that consumer and employment pre-dispute arbitration agreements are strongly negative but I haven't learned enough about FINRA/securities arbitration to have a strong opinion.
    - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
      In general, forced arbitration is not an effective legal posture for investors, and a common instrument applied to suckers. Sociopath structured parasitism always poses a liability around treasure. Handle or hire your own due diligence solutions... Seriously, don't assume either of our nonsense applies in your country. =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ