Wait a minute. Why are we trying to deregulate the banks and

>>1773555

Oy vey, we learned our lesson. Trust us, we will never scam you again.

> President Trump is expected to sign two directives on Friday, ordering a review of financial industry regulations known as Dodd-Frank and halting implementation of a rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients
> and halting implementation of a rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients

What the fuck?

>>1773568

So this is what draining the swamp looks like.

>>1773555
Wall Street is just one massive meme

>>1773568
It's more complex than that. Look it up and don't just read some kneejerk response

File: Bob4Trump.jpg (72KB, 1382x908px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1382x908px

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>1773568
its funny how all of these economic issues could probably be fixed by forcing banks and shit to be 100% honest
>yeah we are just trying to make money off of you
>yeah you cannot afford this loan, fuck off
>yes buy these investments that totally arent based off of things that are losing money :^)

>>>/pol/

>>1773594

> and halting implementation of a rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients

There's no way to spin that positively. It's simply pro-bank and anti-consumer.

>>1773595
Seconded

HaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHQHQ

>>1773595

Seriously, what did he think would happen?

>>1773594
Relax, Trump is just playing 5 dimensional chess. There's no way your financial advisor will work in his best interests instead of yours. He will make America great again, you just wait and see.

File: Oil.png (368KB, 720x698px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 720x698px

>The Senate voted strictly along party lines Friday morning to repeal a regulation requiring disclosures for the payments that energy companies make to foreign governments.

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?

what did you expect with 5 former Jewman Sachs executives in Trump's cabinet ?

Holy shit every day I laugh a little harder about how hard Trump is currently fucking with burgerland

When will you understand that he is the most pro wall street and big finance president that the US has ever known ?

Why are you fags here?

Don't you realize that /biz/ doesn't give a fuck?

If banks make money, I make money.

You shouldn't be bitching, moaning, crying and feeling oppressed, you should take advantage of this.

>>1773555
>>1773555
Because FUCK THE SEC.

if i wanna nvest $40,000 of my after tax fucking dollars ina private placement memorandom then i will fucking so it.

Dont fucking take half of my goddamn paycheck in varius taxes and then tell me where i can and cant spend the rest.


Suck my fucking dick

>>1773568
Financial advisers are all retard con men.

Dont you think if they knew fuck all about investing they would be ona yacht???

>>1773597
Oh you have 1$ ina savings account? Here is a bullshit 3 cents a year for you.

Btw, i can now loan out $20...

>>1773706
Plebs think he is litterally hitler when he may single handedly save us from being cuck germany or cuxk france with brown people

File: 0826_census_race_fig1-2.jpg (71KB, 599x278px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 599x278px

>>1773734

Uh what? White births no longer account for the majority of births in the nation since 2012 or so. The white population declines 3% every 4 years and whites will be less than 50% of the population by ~2032 and that's okay. It's better to focus on integration and helping all Americans instead of wasting energy on hatred.

>>1773555
Because I can get richer, fucking faggot.

>>1773662
So the OPEP can still manipulate oil prices to keep that economy flowing. The brand new pipeline requires easy money to be built and managed. And ofc, that comes from bribing every possible official

It's going to be like Petrobras and the Brazilian government but in Murican style

>>1773833
Petrobras failed because the federal government used it to contain inflation through price control. Instead of subsidizing it within the government budget they simply made the company contract debt. Nothing of the sort can possibly happen in the United Stated.

>>1773555
probably because none of that is true and you're reading fake news.

>>1773662
military secrets
Thats a stupid question too. WHY would you want to reveal anything when you can just not.

>>1773865
Err wasn't it because they decided to make it their own personal ATM and collect excessive construction jobs so the overpriced money would be distributed among those involved in the rig?

Going from engineers to politicians, even legit social policies that got funded by this?

The point I was making was about allowing some form of bribery happening due to decreased transparency around the US oil industry, not regarding the efficiency of it or using it to fix oil prices to hide inflation rates

>>1773881
Those are already secret anon. The US embassy has been doing it since the Late 1800's, no need to legislate against transparency regarding national security since it's a principle of it.

They do it for non critical matters like business. My guess is they want more freedom to try and take over China's control of oil overseas

File: kot just.jpg (13KB, 252x212px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 252x212px

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/02/03/trump-to-sign-executive-order-calling-for-rollback-of-wall-street-reform/?utm_term=.9e6b5948056c

>“We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank,” Trump said during a meeting with business leaders Friday morning. “Because frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine, that had nice businesses, they just can’t borrow money … because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.”

Looks like Trump did it because his friends couldn't meet the standards to get loans, noting to worry about

>>1773917
ehh, this is just like brexit, probable economic downside but potential upside too. Even the Economist doesnt like dodd-franklin.

>>1773917
I can't get a business loan without signing over everything I own as collateral. I've got healthy cash flow, consistent income, and still they want me to collateralize over 5x the loan's value. Dodd Frank is forcing overly conservative lending practices on both consumers and banks. Meanwhile, if you're some rich dude, they'll lend you all the money you want.

>>1773920
>potential upside
>to brexit

what on earth could be a potential upside? besides muh white genocide?

>>1773926
the fact that the UK no longer needs Greece's and Estonia's approval to make trade deals with Japan or America.

>>1773926
>>potential upside
>>to brexit
1.establish FTA with europe
2. avoid all the EU red tape and stupid policiies, i know its nitpicking but they literally wanted to regulate the size of ORGANIC cucumbers

>>1773950
>1.establish FTA with europe
>2. avoid all the EU red tape and stupid policiies, i know its nitpicking but they literally wanted to regulate the size of ORGANIC cucumbers

In the whole Brexit discussion it's kind of been the point that 1. and 2. don't really go together. If you want to export into the EU, you need to stick to the common market rules, including cucumber size regulations, as dumb as they might be.

Brits can have fewer regulations for their domestic market, but as soon as they want to export into the EU, they'll obviously have to stick to EU standards.

This cannot be what Brexit is about, since nothing really changes. It's more about the fundamental freedoms, like unrestricted freedom of movement. So far we haven't seen a deal that grants free trade on par with the Common Market or the EEA, but doesn't mandate the appropirate standards and freedoms to be granted. So the Brits are looking at something entirely new, while the EU is desperately trying to make an example out of the UK so other countries think twice about leaving. I don't think getting an FTA will be as easy as you make it sound. The EU will always say "So what? Join the EEA!" like Norway or Switzerland, which would be the absolute worst. All the duties including paying membership fees, but no say in anything anymore.

>>1773706

>Hillary wins
>Social Justice train keeps chugging
>Trump wins
>Bankers and corporations get taxes and regulations cut

The Jews always win although /pol/'s denial is annoying.

>>1773922

It's not Dodd-Frank. I work underwriting commercial loans and the regulations aren't hurting us. We just have stricter underwriting standards for our approval package and more reporting. It's a pain in the ass at times but still necessary since you can't trust lots of banks. My bank's management is committed to maintaining our CAMELS rating of 1 and our A quality book of loans. But a nearby competitor gets our borderline deals we turn down because they plan of selling soon and what to grow their book so they'll willing to take higher risks. Further cutting regulation will result in some banks out there taking advantage and making bad loans.

Our lenders (the salespeople who find and bring in loan requests) would give pretty much anyone a loan is they could but us in the credit department keep them in check. Sadly, there are banks that are pretty lax but they have to answer to the regulators. Getting rid of the regulators is going to be bad.

Anyway, in regards to your situation, that seems highly unusual. Check with other banks since the only time we required such low loan to value was in high risk loans. Calculate your debt service coverage (cash flow of the company divided by total debt). If you're above 1.25x and your collateral isn't something odd like old star trek figurines, you shouldn't be having to offer so much.

>>1773555

>to stop printing money and increase its velocity

Just pls keep the volcker rule

Oh well the sooner he signs that bill the sooner the banks fuck over everyone again and the sooner markets will crash and i can buy in nice and low

>>1773595
Get rid of SS and Medicare.

>>1774115
thats why i said ''potential''' upside and ''''probable'''' downside

>>1773724
You don't get it, it's for "consumer protection".

Oh wow Trump maybe turned out be not that great a choice, who'd have thought America

>>1773600

Actually, I liked it. Do you have any idea how easy it is to take business away from shitty financial advisors?

>>1773568
>rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients

Talked with my guy today about this. It basically shifts the burden of proof in a lawsuit to the financial advisor and as a result they're going to stick to the government outlines of what an investment portfolio should look like. For me personally this means I need to keep more cash and bonds than I like. It applies to my Roth and regular 401k but not my regular brokerage account and the department that administers the rule doesn't have an enforcement arm.

If you think you are being protected by this you're kidding yourself.

>>1773555
>Muh "populist" president.

Boy that's the biggest campaign con that I'm surprised no one body check'd him on. This is why /pol/ and /biz/ will never get along.

>>1773595
OHHHHH FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGG

>>1774555

>old people have the highest voting rate
>directly nuke their benefits

That's a great plan to literally kill your political party

>>1773555

So Bitcoin goes up

>>1773555
>>1773568
>>1773587
>>1773593
>>1773595
>>1773597
>>1773600
>>1773662

Don't you idiots realise what this means? This will create the greatest stock market bull market in history (before it inevitably crashes a few years later). I'm talking 30 - 40% gains in the next 2 - 3 years.

>>1775414

It will if:

1. Tax cuts are passed
2. Banks start making loans left and right to everyone again
3. None of Trump's tariffs and anti-free trade shit materialize

If all those happens, the stock market will boom and then eventually crash when some retards fuck it all up. Although I switched all my holdings to cash and gold after the election because I'm not quite sure what will and what will not be implemented.

File: 71b.jpg (100KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 736x736px

America is going to fall into a civil war.

Trump or either a military general will declare himself a dictator.

Socialist/marxist/liberal antifa scum and universities are going to grounded to pulp.

Diehard freemarket reforms will be implemented.

Big wall with mexico

Rothschild dynasty will die

Israel is going to get nuked

Iran

New space race between China and USA

Europe will fall into non-importance and chaos,

EU dead

US republic dead

conservacucks purged (including you Ryan)

Long live the Empire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9R4zPTpS9w

>>1773555
To make more money. Want it? Buy financials. In fact you should've bought them on November 9.
>>1773568
That part was really just a political bargaining chip used by LBJ to win an election.

File: 1486002025636.jpg (24KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 350x350px

Here is trumps train of thought:

>Big government laws = garbage
>Lets remove all the laws regardless of what they do!

>>1774284
I don't mind banks making bad loans if they don't have government guarantees.

Banks should be allowed to fail if they take risks.

Survival of the fittest, that is true capitalism.
No bail outs.

>>1773555

Because my cronies have to be made richer and so do I!

>>1775466
so liberals will be ground to a pulp and conservatives will be purged.

that should wipe out almost all of the US population when you realize moderates won't stand for that shit either.

somehow I don't see less than 1% of the US population wiping out the remaining 99%. Liberals or conservatives alone could kill every fascist in the country and still have time left over for a bbq.

>>1773600
Companies do not have an obligation to the consumer. They have an obligation to their shareholders first and foremost.

>>1777002
>Companies do not have an obligation to the consumer
you can fill a large library with US consumer protection laws.

laws protecting shareholders probably wouldn't fill a single shelf.

>>1776887
This, and Trump formally opposes bank bailouts.

The nanny state is being torn down.

>>1777013
the nominal reason they were propped up is because most americans have their retirement accounts in those banks and the businesses they fund.

meaning if they fail the gov is going to have to pick up the tab via Social Security anyways. Not a concern for people that aren't near retirement age and those that believe they won't ever collect SSI anyways. But a bit of a concern for adults and the elderly. Which not coincidentally are most voters.

You don't actually want to be the party that crashes the economy and bankrupts tens of millions of households. Republicans think they want to be that party, but even the rashest politicians understand that's political suicide. Time will tell if the GOP manages to hang itself. I'd bet they won't do what you suggest. Most of the elderly that got bailed out vote Republican.

File: americlap.gif (2MB, 360x203px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x203px

>>1773595

>>1777011
Those laws exist percisely because of the lack of obligation.

>>1777016
Or, or, or, how about this: banks that do stupid things get a reputation for said stupidity, and people stop putting their retirement money into them the same way they stop putting their money into any shitty product.

Bailouts just put a lid on shitty bank practices, and effectively gives said practices the government seal of approval.

>>1777026
the laws ARE the obligation.

but we can play it your way. A company that feels no obligation to its customers will fail because no customer will use it. Meaning its obligation to its shareholders automatically creates a greater obligation to its customers.

unless you think companies magically produce money without customers.

>>1777032
>people stop putting their retirement money into them
which ignores the hundred million plus that already have and will lose everything. A hundred million people that will literally shoot you dead if you cost them everything they worked their whole lives for.

anarchists and libertarians love to think they'd survive their own policies. History doesn't agree.

>>1777033
So Apple should just give out iPhones for free right?

>>1777033
>A company that feels no obligation to its customers will fail because no customer will use it
You mean company that doesn't manage to convince the customer that he can trust them, company that doesn't convince the customer he needs their services and that it's in his interest to purchase them, and that any risk or failure involved is his own fault he should have researched beforehands.

>>1777038
if apple had no obligation to the customer the iPhone would either not work or would cost more than you can afford to spend. Or both.

In real life companies have obligations to produce products that work as advertised, and they have an obligation not to overcharge for them. Both concepts are common and well-known in the US, we regularly sue companies that fail at either task. Sometimes destroying them.

>>1777039
all of that convincing requires obligating the company to the customer first.

>>1777043
That's not acting in the best interest of the consumer though. That would be giving them away for free instead of taking money.

>>1777046
>That would be giving them away for free instead of taking money.
that's not in the best interest of the consumer because it means the company will go out of business and fail future consumers.

false dichotomy, you can't imagine a middle point where companies are obligated to customers, employees, vendors, local communities, and shareholders because you simply don't understand business. Ironic considering the board you're on.

>>1777048
Umm no? They could just get more money from shareholders. Hello????

>>1777045
yeah, but this obligation can be realized as either delivering a good product or manipulating and scamming the customer.

>>1777049
again, the company is obligated to both at the same time.

and again, you can't understand this because you're retarded.

>>1777050
one of those is allowed by law.

removing that law just means criminal enterprises which are more profitable than legal businesses will win in free market competitions.

>>1777052
>a rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients
Doesn't sound like that to me.

>>1777055
It's assumed that a reasonable business owner will act to protect their own interests.

so no law is required to protect them.

>>1777059
They can't if another law forces them to prioritize the interest of their clients

>>1777062
you see the two as mutually exclusive.

as I said, you don't understand business.

a business protects its own interests by prioritizing those of its clients.

>>1777064
No, because if you are prioritizing the interest of your clients everything would be free and you would be out of business.

>>1777055
what makes you think that "best interest of its clients" doesn't mean things like "ensure that clients are adequately informed of all risks, costs and benefits of the service before entering into contract"?
Obviously this is not in best interest of shareholders if the shareholders and/or management are scum that wants to strip income from the ignorant consumers.

>>1777069
again:
false dichotomy
you're retarded

prioritizing A does not mean completely ignoring or destroying everything that's not A.

>>1777070
If someone is too dumb to do his own research before putting his life savings into a retirement fund then he deserves to be scammed.

>>1777073
Let's say I have $10 million in profit this year. Should I pay out dividends to my shareholders, expand the business, or give money to consumers who bought my products?

>>1777077
you can't imagine doing all three and more?

that's why you'll never have that problem.

File: 1377968576288.png (44KB, 328x360px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 328x360px

>>1777074
okay

>>1777078
Any dollar going to one is a dollar not going to the others.

>>1777080
you have more than one dollar to spend.

real businesses pay all three expenses and thousands more you don't think about.

>>1777082
If you were acting in the best interest of your consumers you would be spending it all on the third option.

>>1777086
no, because if you were actually retarded enough to think you can only have one obligation at a time you'd never be allowed to run a business.

>>1777087
Do you not know what the word "best" means?

>>1777088
acting in someone's best interest doesn't mean acting in your own worst interest.

in fact it has nothing to do with your interests.

>>1777094
Putting one dollar towards your own interest means one dollar that didn't go to their interest, which means it wasn't there best interest.

>>1777095
your mistake is in thinking they own your dollars.

a financial advisor has an obligation to use the client's money for the client's best interest.

not their own. and as usual you're being retarded.

>>1777098
>what are fees

>>1777101
fees are the property of the advisor, so they aren't covered under the law.

the law only covers how the client's property is used.

>>1777105
The law covers which funds (which have different fees) the advisor can advise the client to invest in you fucking retard.

>>1775414
so what the fuck do i do? buy stock of all big banks and some large cap companies? I NEED CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS

>>1777106
the fees aren't covered by law because they don't belong to the client.

you saying they are doesn't magically make it so.

>>1777109
Do you even know what the law does?

>>1777107
Purchase $10,000,000 worth of Chevron and live off dividends.

>>1777110
it requires people with power of attorney to act in the best interest of their client.

that best interest doesn't mean they have to give everything they own to the client, and it doesn't mean they can't spend money on behalf of the client if it's in their best interest to do so.

you're still being retarded. The law currently exists, and you're not going to find any financial advisor anywhere that's going to give you their own money. So the law clearly doesn't say what you're pretending it does.

>>1777114
You seriously can't even bother to spend 10 seconds on Google to look up what the law is actually about?

>>1777116
no more than you can be bothered to look up what "best interest" means.

I assume you're not a native English speaker.
Trump is going to deport your ass.

>>1773555
Is /biz/ this retarded? I thought you guys understood economics

>>1777118
Ok I'm done. No need to discuss a law with someone who doesn't even know what it does.

File: doh.jpg (36KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 320x240px

>>1777122
we weren't discussing
I was explaining why "best interest" doesn't mean giving them everything you own and you were sucking your toes and being a fucking retard.

that's not a conversation, friend. That's you being literally retarded.

>>1777119
The more I come here the more I realize it's just kids trading $500 worth of crypto and memeing about everything else.

>>1777036
Go burn down the banker heads. Not the president. Because the bailouts happened the bankers weren't lynched in the streets. That generation of bankers could have been an historic example what would happen if bankers play stupid.

>>1773555
>when you realize he's letting the banks to create another bubble to pop and then won't bail them out and cause a huge portion of American debt to be alleviated

>Let's encourage capital investment in the United States
>Let's reduce the trade deficit

Hmmmm...

>>1777036
>let's not change anything because previous stuff

ok?

>>1773568
>and halting implementation of a rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients

define "acting in the best interests of their clients"

tell me how to detect when someone is breaking this rule

Hint: This is the goal of the law, and not what it actually does

>>1773797
>reddit

>>1773712
> If banks make money, I make money
Says the child that wasn't alive in 2008 when banks made record sums and tens of thousands of Americans lost their life savings and jobs

>>1774915
wow good thing YOUR GUY knows so much

government mandated portfolios huh?what a fucking chump

>>1775453
Well you're officially retarded. I've seen 10% gains since November in my conservative funds.

>>1773706
Because dumb 4chan memers are obsessed with identity politics, not the actual economy. And the average Republican voter is gullible and desperate for a little populism and a feeling someone was listening to them. Trump aced that and said everything they wanted to hear. He did it so well they're still praising him for saving their jobs and livelihoods even as he is in the process of ruining them.

Charisma is a terrifying thing.

You expect your lawyer to give you advice that most benefits you, and not to take a kickback from the other side. Fortunately there is a law that makes sure this is true.

You expect your doctor to give you advice that most benefits you, and not to take a kickback from drug companies. Fortunately there is a law that makes sure this is true.

You expect your financial advisor to give you advice that most benefits you, and not to take a kickback from mutual fund companies and annuity providers. Unfortunately, while there WAS law that makes sure this is true, Trump repealed it.

>>1773555
because wall st gets more power

>>1777033
Wrong.


There is no moral obligation to the consumers. Those laws are nothing more than artificial government force. Not saying I agree or disagree with any law or laws.

>>1780576
>There is no moral obligation to the consumers.
this is a business board, we weren't discussing morals. Businesses don't have morals.

>>1780578
>business don't have morals


EXACTLY!

That's the point I was trying to make.

>>1778662
>tell me how to detect when someone is breaking this rule
the consumer learns this when he finds out that his savings are gone or he ended up with debt he did not anticipate.

He can bring the contract he signed with the possibly dishonest advisor and the court will determine whether or not it was lopsided.

>>1780581
so when someone says a business has or has not an obligation they can only mean a legal obligation.

businesses have far greater legal obligations to consumers than they do to owners.

>>1773555
Why would this be a bad thing? Most regulations are bullshit and don't accomplish anything anyway.

>>1775414
>>1773706
>>1773712
truth, I am only disappointed it won't go all the way to unfettered laissez faire

>>1775453
basically true, I hope the protectionism is limited to token measures, cash and gold was a bit extreme though

>>1778788
should have bought the dip

>>1775407
But if they're LITERALLY going to die without it...

>>1773568
Goals vs actual results and incentives anon.

Those regulations pretty much allowed a bunch of bureaucrats with no experience regarding banking to decide what banks should do in order to best serve the people (the people being actually whiever advocated for said regulations).

Giving out loans to every asshole who came in looking for one because the government said so is what caused the 2008 crisis in the first place.

>>1775838
Look at that, you've discovered the tea party!

>>1773662
Because the world uses bribes to get things done, unlike in America where the threat of having your ass fucked stops you from achieving your dreams

>>1773568
Dodd-Frank has been nothing but a failed abortion. Thank god Trump is gettint rid of it.

>>1780373
Hard to get sued when you're following their guidelines. Don't worry it doesn't apply to your Robin Hood account.

>>1773797
This is not true. The nigger race dies at a younger age so while there are less white births, they live longer so the superior race doesnt die off so quickly

File: caution-sign-photo.jpg (25KB, 400x278px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x278px

>>1773568
>What the fuck?
Work for an investment firm here. We always act in the best interests of our clients, otherwise they wouldn't hire us, but proving that legally and mathematically is difficult. Investment carries risks, and when those investments don't pan out under the proposed rule you have to prove (using documents and formulas) that the actions you chose were the "right choices" (as defined by formulas and strategies that you outlined ahead of time) even though they led to "wrong ends" (investment losses).

Regardless of what you think of the rule or are for or against it the fact of the matter is that there is a HUGE burden put onto any company doing anything that might even remotely be considered "investment advice" right down to stuff like "you should invest your money instead of putting it in your mattress". Every interaction needs to be documented and it must comply with a script and the reasons for every investment choice need to be laid out long before its even made. It's a very onerous and burdensome regulation for those businesses that will cost them billions in extra compliance costs (which of course be passed along to the consumers).

I don't have an opinion on whether the rule is right or wrong but I really hate when people simplify complex issues down to a sentence that is totally lacking in any nuance and only serves to make people who disagree with it look like drooling morons.

>>1780752
on the plus side it gives people on /biz/ that lose money the grounds to subpoena and sue the shills here handing out advice without consequence.

File: IMG_0856.jpg (66KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1024x576px

Why is /biz/ full of faggot liberals? Oh yeah you're all fucking poor.

Dodd-Frank only helped the big banks by putting horrible burdens on small community banks and credit unions. Who could afford to comply the easiest? Big banks. Retards.

>>1780738
You're forgetting the child output and also the common /pol/ mistake of blaming everything on blacks and forgetting they're also getting outbreeded by other races in America.
You'd best hope that wall comes about.

>>1780608
Now you're just playing semantics.

The one and only obligation a corporation has is to its shareholders. When you say "legal obligations" you actually mean constraints imposed by government force.

>>1780780
>Now you're just playing semantics.
no I'm trying to get you to think where an obligation comes from if not by moral or by law.

you're not that smart though.

corporations don't just have one and only one obligation. That's fucking retarded.

>>1780752
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

The old rule, and the rule Trump is reinstating, never requires a financial advisor to prove that an investment recommendation was the "right choice" but merely that it was "suitable" for the investor. "Suitable" is a weasel-word that allows the financial advisor to sell almost anything to a client, EVEN WHEN CLEARLY BETTER ALTERNATIVES EXIST.

Why would an advisor ever sell a client a worse investment? BECAUSE THE ADVISOR GETS HUGE KICKBACKS. The "dirty little secret" of the investment world is that financial advisors get millions in kickback from actively managed mutual funds and annuity underwriters. Why do you think these products were shoved down the throats of a millions of average investors, even as low-fee funds and ETFs showed better performance year after year? Because Vanguard doesn't pay blood-money to shady advisors attract business.

To say that issue is too nuanced to discuss is bullshit. This is one of the least nuanced issues out there. ANY investor would expect that their financial advisor SHOULD act in the CLIENT'S best interests, first and foremost. Just like lawyers, and just like doctors. Allowing financial advisors to put their own pocketbooks ahead of their clients costs Americans BILLIONS in lost gains.

You want to argue that the issue is nuanced? OK, fine: give me one good reason why a paid, licensed financial advisor should be allowed to put their own interests ahead of the clients. Because that's what Trump is doing, and that's what Obama tried to stop.

One good reason. I'll be waiting.

>>1780819
They disclose all their "kickbacks" hombre. It's not really a secret. Lawyers and Doctors will also present choices to clients and patients and let them make the decision. Ultimately it's up to an individual to weigh risks and rewards and you don't get to blame your advisors for the outcomes of the decisions you make.

>>1780891
>They disclose all their "kickbacks" hombre.
In 4 point font, white ink, in a footnote, on page 148 of the prospectus (check here to decline receiving a copy of a the prospectus).

C'mon man.

>Lawyers and Doctors will also present choices to clients and patients and let them make the decision.

And they have a legal duty to make sure those choices are the best choices possible, given the risks. Non-fiduciary financial advisors DON'T EVEN HAVE TO SHOW YOU THE GOOD CHOICES. As long as they show you something "suitable" they're off the hook -- even when they make huge commission for pushing you into shitty investments.

>Ultimately it's up to an individual to weigh risks and rewards and you don't get to blame your advisors for the outcomes of the decisions you make.
That's not how professional advice works. You can sue your lawyer if they didn't put your interests first. You can sue your doctor if they didn't put your health first.

But you can't sue your financial advisor when he puts your financial interests below lining his pockets with Wall Street and insurance company kickbacks?

If the average investor is supposed to make their own decisions, THEN WHY DOES THE ADVISOR GET PAID?

Lastly, you still haven't answered my challenge: give me one good reason why a paid, licensed financial advisor should be allowed to put their own interests ahead of the clients.

>>1773555
The market will regulate itself :^)

>>1780922
Doctors prescribe 'suitable' treatments all the time. For example the 'best' cure might be sleeping it off but they'll give you some pills just to shut you up. Lawyers might preform in the same manner by advising a client to accept a plea bargain for something minor or a settlement to avoid a lengthy (or expensive) trial process that could reasonably get a favorable verdict.

Financial advisors can have knowledge of products that the individual does not, they can explain investing concepts and help with tax planning or insurance planning. A good financial advisor does more than just pick funds with the best yield. Plus this may shock you but not everyone wants the highest yield.

They shouldn't be putting their interests first but it's absurd to think that there just aren't good options within the fund families they get kickbacks from. If Vanguard started giving investment advisors $5 per $10,000 invested with them would they suddenly be a substantially less quality fund family?

>>1780956
>Doctors prescribe 'suitable' treatments all the time. For example the 'best' cure might be sleeping it off but they'll give you some pills just to shut you up.
No they don't. They prescribe the best options under the circumstances, even if that means being cautious. But you're missing the point anyway. The analogous case for doctor's would be if Drug A was the better choice but the doctor prescribed you Drug B because he's getting a kickback from the manufacturer of Drug B. Does that sound right to you?

>Lawyers might preform in the same manner by advising a client to accept a plea bargain for something minor or a settlement to avoid a lengthy (or expensive) trial process that could reasonably get a favorable verdict.
Yeah, and that's actually good advice for the client because it saves them money in the long run. If the lawyer was not subject to these rules, he'd do the OPPOSITE of your example: advise you to fight a lengthy battle just to run up his own bill. Does that sound right to you?

>Financial advisors can have knowledge of products ...
This is all fine, and I agree. It also has NOTHING to do with the topic of the thread.

>They shouldn't be putting their interests first but it's absurd to think that there just aren't good options within the fund families they get kickbacks from.
You're COMPLETELY missing the point, again. It's not that the investments being pushed by non-fiduciary advisors are inherently bad (as in they will lose you money, or they are unsafe). It's that there are usually better options THAT YOU'LL NEVER HEAR ABOUT because your advisor doesn't get paid to tell you about those options.

There's a reason why Vanguard doesn't and never will pay commission to financial advisors. As soon as you understand that, you'll awaken to why the fiduciary rule is needed.

>They shouldn't be putting their interests first
Then make it the law. Simple. Thanks for agreeing.

>>1780922
How does one get into the legal scamming business?

>>1780968
If drugs A and B will treat the same symptoms who cares if the doctor gets a kickback?

Similarly if two products fit into my investment strategy equally well why do I care if my broker makes $15?

Simple example to understand the problem of non-fiduciary advisors:

Do you think it would be ok if Amazon sellers could give free stuff to certain shoppers in exchange for automatic, glowing 5-star reviews? Of course not. It undermines the integrity of all reviews, and in many cases, would lead shoppers to buy bad products. And that's why Amazon outlawed the practice last year.

So why should financial advisors get huge kickbacks for pushing their clients to invest their savings into certain financial products, even when better options might exist?

It's bizarro-world that the rules should be tougher for recommending shampoo and shoelaces than for recommending mutual funds and retirement investments. Especially when you're PAYING for that financial advice out of your own pocket. At least Amazon reviews are free.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my challenge: give me one good reason why a paid, licensed financial advisor should be allowed to put their own interests ahead of the clients. If you want to quote me something from Trump, that's fine, since he's the one doing this. I'm just trying to see if there's a single reason for doing this, other than benefitting Wall Street fatcats.

>Is this called "draining the swamp"?

>>1780975
>How does one get into the legal scamming business?
It's actually very easy for a lawyer to scam their client. All you need is a law degree and low morals. That's why we have the fiduciary rules, and enforce them strictly. Cheat your client; lose your law license. Boom, simple. It doesn't stop all forms of abuse, but it's very effective.

Shame Trump is unwilling to apply the same rules to his Wall Street pals. So much for looking out for the little guy .....

>>1780998
I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Obviously if Options A and B are equivalent, then there's no harm. But Options A and B are rarely equivalent, unless you think index funds and annuities are the same thing. Do you?

>>1781002
How do I become one of these wall street people?
Asking for a friend.

>>1781002
Nah you're just being a vanguard shill. I hope all these funds do stop giving kickbacks and roll all that budget into commercials so they can be just like the drug industry and law firms you consider to be the shining example.

>>1781015

(you)

>>1781002

Good posts

>>1781015
>Nah you're just being a vanguard shill. I hope all these funds do stop giving kickbacks and roll all that budget into commercials so they can be just like the drug industry and law firms you consider to be the shining example.
And you're showing how ignorant and gullible you are. At no point in this thread did I advise anyone to invest in anything, let alone Vanguard. You do know what the word "shill" means, right?

>I hope all these funds do stop giving kickbacks and roll all that budget into commercials
Are you implying that this is a bad thing? I've been saying EXACTLY THIS since my FIRST POST: that financial advisors should be subject to the same fiduciary rules as doctors and lawyers. And you just wasted four posting "disagreeing" with me even though you admitted I was right (>>1780956) and agreed with my solution (>>1781015).

I swear to God, you sound mentally imbalanced right now.

>>1781023
I'm saying that drug companies and law firms subverted those same laws to mislead consumers on an even grander scale. But you would have realized that earlier if you weren't so obsessed with the idea that some broker is going to jeopardize his accounts to make $5.

>>1781043
>I'm saying that drug companies and law firms subverted those same laws to mislead consumers on an even grander scale.
No they didn't. Just because you don't like the commercials, doesn't mean there's anything misleading in them.

>f you weren't so obsessed with the idea that some broker is going to jeopardize his accounts to make $5.
Another logical failure on your part. The amounts in question are substantial. Financial advisors earn MILLIONS from these kickbacks. Just because you, yourself, are too poor for any of this to matter doesn't mean you can falsely dismiss the scale of the problem.

>>1781050
Nigga people go to doctors and tell them what to prescribe now causing the exact problem you blamed on irresponsible financial advisors earlier.

They earn millions because they invest and manage billions. Under any fee structure these people are going to make a killing. How is the current structure worse than them just taking a rake?

>>1781071
>Nigga people go to doctors and tell them what to prescribe now causing the exact problem you blamed on irresponsible financial advisors earlier.
And the doctor won't do it if it won't help the patient. But once again you miss the point (this is a fucking pattern with you). If the patient/client makes the choice, that's on the patient/client. But we're talking about cases where the advisor makes the recommendation. And in many cases, the decision, since advisors are often entrusted with discretion to make specific investment decisions.

You keep sidestepping the actual issue. Either you're very stupid or very aware that you're arguing from a weak position. Or both.

>They earn millions because they invest and manage billions. Under any fee structure these people are going to make a killing.
So because they earn a lot in fees we should ignore the abuses they perpetrate against the average investor? Great logic, child.

>>1781081
You're just super hung up on the process and I'm more concerned about the ends. Keep explaining how I don't understand you though it's pretty funny.

You haven't actually proved there have been any abuses. Providing something that's sufficient isn't generally considered abuse.

>>1781088
>I'm more concerned about the ends
You're concerned with evading the argument because you know I'm right. You already admitted it. Now you're just trolling for attention, and I've already overpaid.

Answer my question: give me one good reason why a paid, licensed financial advisor should be allowed to put their own interests ahead of the clients.

Any other posts, topics, or trolling from you will be ignored.

>>1781090
You literally haven't proved that's occurring so why would I bother?

File: 1482447690475.jpg (44KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 250x250px

>>1781095
>I-I didn't need to convince anyone of the merits of my position anyway!

>I-I just happen to enjoy wasting my life on 4chan shitposting! H-Honest!!!

>>1781106
>Anyone who doesn't recommend the highest returning fund from last year is abusing their clients.
>Anyone who doesn't recommend the position with the highest dividend is abusing their clients.
>Anyone who doesn't recommend the position with the most possible growth is abusing their clients.

Yeah I guess I'm not going to defend those. You can let me know what good ideas those are though.

>>1773599
Believe it or not, sometimes politics and business have a relation!

>>1781113
You're strawmanning again. No one said those were valid recommendations for a financial advisor to give to any client. There's no such thing as the "best" investment, and the fiduciary rules (as passed by Obama) would never have punished any financial advisor under ANY of your silly fact patterns.

What you're so desperate to ignore is the fact that what we're REALLY talking about is the alternatives that financial advisors DON'T EVEN DISCUSS with their clients, because they don't get kickbacks for them. You're literally arguing in favor of investor ignorance and deception. Why?

And yes, the problem is real. Thousands of complaints are filed in courts and with the SEC every year complaining of abuses by financial advisors. Stop denying reality.

So let's set the record straight. The fiduciary rules would not require a financial advisor to find the "highest return," "the largest dividend", or the "most growth." Period. No matter how many times you try to state otherwise, that's not the standard applied to any professionals. Doctors are not automatically liable if the patient dies. Lawyers do not automatically commit malpractice if the case is lost. And financial advisors would not automatically breach their fiduciary duty if an investment recommendation turned out not to be the highest or largest. Stop lying.

To be clear, all the fiduciary rules would require is that financial advisor put the interests of the client above their own interests. That's it. Any statement by you to the contrary is simply another lie.

And I'm still waiting for ANY good reason why Trump would repeal that rule.

File: 1358298081749.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>1780819
>give me one good reason why a paid, licensed financial advisor should be allowed to put their own interests ahead of the clients.
Because it's not about putting the advisor's interest ahead of the client's. That's exactly the sort of gross oversimplification I was arguing against. Reputable financial services companies generally take care of their customers because a reputation for shady dealing is toxic in finance. The difficulty comes when investments turn sour (which, statistically, they -do- from time to time) how do you PROVE that you WEREN'T acting in bad faith.

The cases aren't perfectly analogous but imagine your relative goes to the doctor, the doctor says your relative has a serious medical condition and needs to be operated on immediately. Your relative goes in for surgery and during the surgery complications arise and your relative dies. How does your doctor now prove that his recommendation of surgery was the right choice? Essentially, this is what the DoL rule is, but it applies to far more than just doctors prescribing surgery. It applies right on down to the CVS employee saying "Headache? Buy some aspirin."

I'm not saying the issue is too nuanced to talk about. People absolutely should talk about it and there's convincing arguments to be made in both directions, but you can fuck right off with the jingoistic simplifications, ignorant snark, and snide "I'll be waiting" BS.

>>1773600
does anyone act in the best interest of anyone other than themselves?

and don't try to dispel the question with "People sometimes give money to charity, that's a selfless act." because people only do that to satisfy themselves. Everyone and everything is 100% self-interest. Pass whatever regulations you like, you'll never change human nature.

Everything you are, were, will ever be, is all the product of 100% selfishness.

>TLDR
So no, it's not pro-bank and anti-consumer, it's pro human-nature, anti-polite social graces we all adhere to. And I fucking hate trump and think Dodd-Frank should stand.

>>1773637
Muh 5-D chess meme. Please keep your garbage shilling on /pol/

>>1773731
What? How in your right mind do you think that banks will be able to invest in anything if they are paying whiny man-children nearly half of what their bank is holding? Welcome to the real world.

>>1773734
Trump is nothing close to Hitler, he is obviously a cryptojew.

>>1774254
The Jews always place bets on both of the horses, as if they wouldn't. half/pol/ is just as retarded as full/pol/.

>>1775407
>implying voting actually matters

>>1775466
Fuck off, shill. Trump is only a saviour to Israel.

>>1776987
>Liberals or conservatives alone could kill every fascist in the country and still have time left over for a bbq.

This will just give the country's fascists a good enough motivation to start the race war, the only reason they haven't yet is pretty similar to the Cold War. It's really just a waiting game of "he started it".

>>1777107
>I NEED CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS
I don't think you're exactly getting the point of this whole capitalism thing, kiddo.

>>1777119
A very small percentage of those who actually have economic experience actually browse /biz/, majority of users are just teenagers or college students trying to find a get quick rich scheme without having to think of it up themselves.

>>1777125
>>1777128
Your stupid argument is clogging up the thread, shut the fuck up; nobody cares. You are just going to derail the thread.

>>1777842
>burn down the banker heads.
>implying they won't just be replaced by new ones

I doubt anybody is going to end up killing the Rothschil d anytime soon.

>>1780771
I am detecting a little bit of shill here.

>>1780778
>breeded

>>1781009
Are you a Jeew with family connections?
If you answered "No", then I don't think this option is right for you. Baby steps.

>>1781138
Yeah and I'm demonstrating the only objective way you can prove that a financial advisor put the client's interests above their own. If you've got another objective way of showing what that looks like feel free to throw it out there. How does one actually put the clients interests above their own? Collect zero fees? What a bargain! Percentage based fees would be fair but would likely result in the actual clients paying more and saving the funds money (this is the current preferred strategy btw). How is more fees for the clients in their best interests?

The reality is that a variety positions might meet a clients investment objectives and the client shouldn't give a fuck what fees are charged on the back end as long as their objectives are met or their strategy is followed. The ends matter and the means really don't.

>>1781138
>To be clear, all the fiduciary rules would require is that financial advisor put the interests of the client above their own interests. That's it. Any statement by you to the contrary is simply another lie.
>"I clearly don't know what I'm talking about but any evidence to the contrary of my preformulated opinion is simply another lie."

>>1781156
>Because it's not about putting the advisor's interest ahead of the client's.
That's literally what being a fiduciary means. You should look it up.

And just because most non-fiduciary financial advisors are honest doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate the bad apples. If anything, the regulations would have enhanced the reputation of the entire field, making people more (not less) likely to hire them.

>How does your doctor now prove that his recommendation of surgery was the right choice?
Another case of missing the point. As I told the troll above, the fiduciary rules DO NOT require a professional to be perfect or give ideal advice. Never has, never will. This is the misnomer that Trump apologists have been using to defend the repeal, but it's smoke and mirrors. Don't be so gullible.

I'm not going to retype my post where I dissected this in full. So go read >>1781138 and ask any questions if you're still confused.

>>1781164
If you think I'm wrong, then act like an adult and explain yourself. All you've done in this thread is make misstatements about the fiduciary rules. Either you're very stupid or very misinformed. So I have little hope for you.

>>1781172
At this point you really need to describe what acceptable behavior looks like to you instead of just pointing out unacceptable behavior.

>>1781179
I've already said it many times, as you well know. You're just trolling again because you lack either the capacity or facts to continue the discussion.

But for the benefit on anyone who scrolled straight to the bottom of the thread, I'm advocating for the regulation passed by President Obama and repealed by Trump before it took effect. The regulation would impost fiduciary duties on all licensed financial advisors, not just those registered with the SEC.

>How is it possible that you've been trying to debate me for two hours and you don't even know the regulation we've been discussion? Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, anon.

>>1781186
I'm pretty sure you're actually unfamiliar with the likely adjustments in behavior those regulations were going to result in.

Feel free to let me know whenever you figure out how you can prove you're acting in the best interests of another party. I'm sure it's a pretty straightforward process and not the nightmare I had outlined for me in a 3 hour conversation I had with my broker.

>>1781193
>Feel free to let me know whenever you figure out how you can prove you're acting in the best interests of another party.
Actually, I work in a profession where I am a fiduciary to my clients. By personal experience, as well as wisdom and intelligence, I obviously know more about this issue than you do.

But I don't like to argue from authority on an anonymous message board. Instead I rely on facts and logic provable outside my personal experience, even if my opinions are the product of my personal experience.

You, on the other hand, are clearly ignorant, young, and/or starved for attention. You're back on the ignore list until you answer my question: give me one good reason why a paid, licensed financial advisor should be allowed to put their own interests ahead of the clients.

Next time don't be such a faggot in a serious thread. Not every board is /b/ or /r9k/ and your schtick gets old very fast.

>>1781202
>I know all these wonderful things
>but I can't articulate them

K bro. Good luck on your LARP.

As someone with mainly a checking account who was considering opening a Roth IRA a few days ago, will this hit me hard? Is it worth it opening a retirement account before the regulations are gone or is it no longer safe now?

>>1773555
>believing clickbait from fakenews
come on anon, you should know better

>>1781517
A Roth IRA will likely be totally unaffected. If you are doing the management duties of your own money and buying stocks and bonds then it doesn't affect you. If you use account management services or trade in managed mutual funds then you will likely be affected by higher fees in the stable funds and lower returns in the less stable funds. Index funds shouldn't be affected greatly.

>>1781541
Ah, thank you. I only just started making more money and I was considering putting some aside for the future. I guess I can hold off investing in the mean time and focus on the Roth.

>>1781556
A Roth IRA is not a bank account. You shouldn't just dump money into it and leave it. It should be invested in something within the Roth IRA (most of them work very similar to a brokerage account). The big advantage of a Roth over a traditional IRA is that you pay no capital gains on withdrawals at retirement age. If you aren't sure what to do because you can't into investing buy some index funds.

>>1781575
So I should combine the Roth with another investment? Like I open up something along with the Roth and make two separate payments or do it in a large sum that gets split between the two?

>>1781616
What? The question doesn't even make sense. A Roth IRA is an investment account like a brokerage account but with rules on when you can take the money out and how much you can put in per year. Let's say I put $100 into mine. I can now use that $100 to buy various things like stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. When I get old and want to cash out for retirement I sell those things off (hopefully for a lot more than I paid for them) and transfer the money out of the IRA back into my bank account where I can spend it on things like groceries. The thing about a Roth IRA is that when you sell off your stocks and bonds and funds in a normal investment account you pay Uncle Sam a tax on the increase in value (so if you buy something for $100 and sell it for $1000 you pay a tax on that $900 you gained), with a Roth IRA you don't pay that so long as you promise not to withdraw until you are almost 60 years old.

>>1777043
>if apple had no obligation to the customer the iPhone would cost more than you can afford to spend
Then Apple would go under because the revenue would likely be less then the average variable cost.
>what is equilibrium price?
>what is profit maximization?
Learn economics before saying dumb shit next time.

>>1781748
Sorry, I have no financial knowledge so this is all new to me. So I basically would be using the funds in the Roth IRA to make investments from, which is where I would be making my retirement funds later in life.

>>1780785

>where an obligation comes from if not legal or moral

It doesn't. That's the very definition of "obligation".

There are absolutely no moral obligation to the consumer. Companies don't have morals, people have morals. Therefore that would be impossible.

Now moving on the the legal side of the argument. Any consumer protection law is nothing more than government intervention by force. Violation of any restrictions could effect the profitability of the company. Therefore adherence to any regulations is done to uphold duty to the shareholders. It has nothing to do with the consumers.

Friedman and Sowell have articulted this point much better than I ever could, but honestly I can't be bothered to dig through YouTube clips.

>>1773595
>would be dead without Medicare
Medicare =| obamacare

>>1773797
Sorry.

Not trying to be blatantly racist.

I meant all the fucking illegal mexicans and muslims need get the fuck out and die.

But yes, after that all races band together.

Crack dealing nigs in detroit could apply themselves well in manual labor. Meanwhile the whitey college cuck could get a descent job working from home if wed stop all the riots and bullshit.

We gonna maga.

I got faith

>>1773917
Stop reading after washington post.

Leftist beta cucks btfo with fake news please

>>1773922
...because the odds of you fucking it up are slim.

Get rich and reaply.

>>1774254
Sad truth.

But hey, at least hilary is done murdering veterans.

>>1774891
Btfo commie.

Give the man 3 days in office and he already maga.

Walks in.

Throws dick on oval office desk.

8 hard yesrs of unfucking ourselves. Some of it will be painfull u can bet.

Walls aint free.

Deportation aint free.

Cheap chink and mexican shit made by americans gonna go up.


But hoky fuck u cant thinkbshipping raw materials half was accross the world to come back asswmbled for 45 years makes sense...

>>1774555
Yes.

Btfo old people. If u didnt properly plan or have no family or friends u fucked up

>>1775466
But we don't have any leftist beta cuck fuckboi generals.

Not gonna happen.

>>1775325
/pol/biz/ here. gtfo /biz/ just has too many jews and /pol/ is redpilled on der juden

>>1775838
And he is right...

Weed is bad

Illegal mexicans should vote in our president

Force people to take in illegal imagrants

Let them drive.
Litterally how the fuck does this make sense

>>1776887
This.

GM should be dead.

I firmly believe this with half of my friends and family working there.

Its a painful truth and they hate hearing it.

I had an llc. I needed money. Oh well, fuck u anon. Thanks...

>>1776987
LOLOLOL.

plus conventional war is almost over. Once we hit draft points the shelling will start.

>>1777002
>>1777011


I hear its like having to run 2 seperat companies since u gotta keep them both happy.

Only way i would go public is if i was already rich and got a sweet paycheck until they ran me out or we got bought.

>>1777013
YESSIR


MAKE

AMERICA

GREAT

AGAIN.

>>1777016
...mutherfuckers shouldn't bet their retirement on a fucking stock market.
Is litteral insanity...


Muh 2% gainz.


Half the country will die broke and deserve to for trusting big government to have their best interest in mind and not think 1 minute about personal finance.

I wont die poor because i am going the other way.
Rip poorfags...

>>1777032
Yup.

All those jobs whaaaaa.


So, go flip burgers and learn not to work for cucks...

>>1777074
Preach!

2 of my best friends spent an hour trying to tell me that you cant lose money in a 401k and disproved any proof.

This i called and cancelled mine anyway while they will pay their entire lives and probably lose it.

I will have invested mine and sure maybe latter in a 401k or ira. But im not betting the bank. Is but a small piece after real estate, cattle, and oil produce me over 100k per year. Then maybe i will get a 401k.

>>1777087
Fucking let him. Start a failing reit and call me bruh.


Kek

>>1777107
Sadly there arent any or we would all be rich. Study your ass off and dable hear and there. Go with what works for you while putting little or nothing intonwhat dont. Continue until you are rich as fuck or die.

Sorry anon.it is the single biggest headache in my life.

I chose to invest in rental real estate because the tax law has many many benefits that other shit doesnt. And if the stock market crashes i can still sell my house.

Each investment is like getting a college degree.

Its not easy joining the 10%

>>1777113
Where to get 10 mill.

Lol.

With experience uncle cuck sam will give you a 10,500,00 loan for your 10 mill in rental real estate.

That is correct.

105%.

Maybe more.

>>1777128
Me too anon.

It os kinda fun to actively study personal finance and then see some retard try to push a failing stock or tell you they made 3.5 million in bitcoins...

>>1778788
2008 new housing development wageslave checking in.

Was told after 3 months job hunting in wichita kansas i wasnt skilled enough to be a janitor at a school.

2 years experience + moping up puke...

Packed my shit and moved.

2008 hirt my existence and rober kiyosaki called it in like 2005.

And EVERYONE called him a cuck.

When he was right nobody said shit.

He made a shit ton of money in 08 and /biz still calls hin an idiot. Yet daily supposed rich investwrs get on here and argue.

When i realised this i descided fuck 90% of biz and litterally do the exact opposite of what the majority says to do.

1.5 years ago a flood of fuck kiyosaki threads shows up. I bought a few more books and a $600 class.

That $600 gave me over $600 off the next $5,000 class and also saved me over 3k in bullshot payments and interest this far.

Oh, pushing 800 credit score and lowered debt a ton too.

I will be taking 2 $5,000 classes here next year and screenshot my sucesses and losses. I will post my financials on here and 100% half or more of u will call me a lying cuck.

Gonna celebrate my first million by doxing myself to u fucks.

>>1780578
My failed one did and my future ones will.

>>1780657
Tough shit.

Pay the price for being fucking stupid.

U had 80 goddamn years to prepare for retirement. Or at least what 20-60 so like 40 or 50?

Even with 20 years you should have your shit handled.

>>1780729
>muh bitcoins tho.

Kek

>>1773595
IM SO HAPPY THIS IS ALL GOING UP IN FLAMES ITS SO GREAT


HONESTLY PREFER THIS TO CLINTON WINNING

>>1780762
Just...

No financial advisor.

1 calls you call him a cuck and do it yourself.

Invest the time and study in yourself or get cucked.

That is the only way without blatant luck.

>>1780778
*sending prayers for wall

>>1780891
This.

But dont think they wont fucking try

>>1782337
>Apply yourself well in manual labor which is dying.

>Make much more money selling drugs which will always be a thing.

>>1782483
>"but.... automation isn't real, right senpai?"

Trade cucks btfo

>>1776887

banker here. this.

regulatory agencies run the banks. all we care about is making sure our underwriting is viewed favorably my regulators. its all i worry about, even more than whether the loan is actually good or not

and sometimes the two dont align

>>1782458
how about you invest the time to study English.

>>1773555
sooooooooo

would this be a good time to buy Fannie Mae?

>>1780600
He just talked about stockholders, not consumers

>>1774254
To be fair, Hillary was going to help Wall Street too. She was their horse until the last week of the race.

Here's hoping laissez-faire works for once, r-right guys?

>>1783296
no because markets are efficient and already priced this information in