2017 Republican Thread

[EvilMonkey]

I think this is a reasonable idea.

 

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/florida/bil...afety/396284288

 

 

[Chicago White Sox]

I think this is a reasonable idea.

 

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/florida/bil...afety/396284288

I think that is the single dumbest idea I have ever read and further proof that Florida is the stupidest state in the U.S.

[StrangeSox]

I feel like a lot of liberals (and conservatives) can benefit from this very reasonable position on Islam and the problems posed by it.

 

 

 

(1) Not every concern over Muslims is inherently racist.

 

(2) Not ever Muslim is a terrorist.

 

If we could get the people in this country to agree to those basic principles, we'd go a long, long way to addressing the problem.

 

I haven't watched this video, but Sam Harris has been hard core anti Islam for over a decade so I'm a little skeptical about the reasonableness of something he's offering.

[caulfield12]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...d-reagan-214742

 

"Does Trump actually want to succeed?" Interview with James Baker.

Edited February 6, 2017 by caulfield12

[NorthSideSox72]

While I am clearly upset by how awful Trump is, I have to say (this seemed like the best place) that I've seen a lot of overreaction to some things coming out of the executive. I think people are so angry that they just see red. Some examples:

 

--The financial advisor rule removal. This was a matter of pure practicality. It was well-intentioned legislation when it came out, but it was also wholly unworkable, and did not thing material to help people. Getting rid of it is not OMG THEY ARE GIVING THE BANKS ALL THE POWER AGAIN.

 

--The rule about guns that people are looking at as if the GOP wants to give guns to the mentally unstable, is really not accurate, as was pointed out earlier in this thread.

 

--The rule change to allow payments of more than 5k to the FSB was super-narrow and just allowed a specified set of companies to very specific business, to allow border controls to continue to function in both countries. This was not some sort of handover of control to the Russians, as people seem to think.

 

--While there are some confimation-level nominees that are clearly and entirely not proper for their jobs (DeVos is not in the same state as qualified, Tillerson has massive conflicts of interest, the new EPA guy wants to end it), most of them are not outright jokes. And this is a CONFIRMATION process, not a popularity contest. Trump won, and he gets wide latitude to fill his cabinet, unless they are just ridiculously unqualified. Most of the nominees pass muster, so let's not scream and yell about Dems not planting a flag.

 

Again, I think Trump has shown he's (so far at least) a disaster of a President. But that does not mean every single thing he and the White House have done are pure evil.

 

[southsider2k5]

While I am clearly upset by how awful Trump is, I have to say (this seemed like the best place) that I've seen a lot of overreaction to some things coming out of the executive. I think people are so angry that they just see red. Some examples:

 

--The financial advisor rule removal. This was a matter of pure practicality. It was well-intentioned legislation when it came out, but it was also wholly unworkable, and did not thing material to help people. Getting rid of it is not OMG THEY ARE GIVING THE BANKS ALL THE POWER AGAIN.

 

--The rule about guns that people are looking at as if the GOP wants to give guns to the mentally unstable, is really not accurate, as was pointed out earlier in this thread.

 

--The rule change to allow payments of more than 5k to the FSB was super-narrow and just allowed a specified set of companies to very specific business, to allow border controls to continue to function in both countries. This was not some sort of handover of control to the Russians, as people seem to think.

 

--While there are some confimation-level nominees that are clearly and entirely not proper for their jobs (DeVos is not in the same state as qualified, Tillerson has massive conflicts of interest, the new EPA guy wants to end it), most of them are not outright jokes. And this is a CONFIRMATION process, not a popularity contest. Trump won, and he gets wide latitude to fill his cabinet, unless they are just ridiculously unqualified. Most of the nominees pass muster, so let's not scream and yell about Dems not planting a flag.

 

Again, I think Trump has shown he's (so far at least) a disaster of a President. But that does not mean every single thing he and the White House have done are pure evil.

 

Another of the interesting things I would mention would be lost in the EO on the pipelines, he is requiring that it be done with American Steel, something that at least the Senators for Indiana had been pushing for a long time now.

[NorthSideSox72]

Another of the interesting things I would mention would be lost in the EO on the pipelines, he is requiring that it be done with American Steel, something that at least the Senators for Indiana had been pushing for a long time now.

Yeah but as I recall, it was left with a caveat of "where possible" or something, which makes it basically unenforceable.

 

[caulfield12]

While I am clearly upset by how awful Trump is, I have to say (this seemed like the best place) that I've seen a lot of overreaction to some things coming out of the executive. I think people are so angry that they just see red. Some examples:

 

--The financial advisor rule removal. This was a matter of pure practicality. It was well-intentioned legislation when it came out, but it was also wholly unworkable, and did not thing material to help people. Getting rid of it is not OMG THEY ARE GIVING THE BANKS ALL THE POWER AGAIN.

 

--The rule about guns that people are looking at as if the GOP wants to give guns to the mentally unstable, is really not accurate, as was pointed out earlier in this thread.

 

--The rule change to allow payments of more than 5k to the FSB was super-narrow and just allowed a specified set of companies to very specific business, to allow border controls to continue to function in both countries. This was not some sort of handover of control to the Russians, as people seem to think.

 

--While there are some confimation-level nominees that are clearly and entirely not proper for their jobs (DeVos is not in the same state as qualified, Tillerson has massive conflicts of interest, the new EPA guy wants to end it), most of them are not outright jokes. And this is a CONFIRMATION process, not a popularity contest. Trump won, and he gets wide latitude to fill his cabinet, unless they are just ridiculously unqualified. Most of the nominees pass muster, so let's not scream and yell about Dems not planting a flag.

 

Again, I think Trump has shown he's (so far at least) a disaster of a President. But that does not mean every single thing he and the White House have done are pure evil.

 

Have the financial advisors reformed since then in largely a positive way, that encourages more competition and less portfolio churning (going to a fee for % of asset increases on a yearly basis, for example, so the interests are aligned mutually)?

 

Many companies are keeping the changes they've made even with the rule removal.

 

Finally, we know that almost no active manager can beat the market, that load funds generally have a hard time making back their upfront losses, that having index funds that represent bonds and stocks weighted according to your age, a mixture of international/emerging markets, value/growth, small/med/large cap, no more than 10% in any one company...all are logical boilerplate, yet how many active advisors follow this strategy if it earns them 25-50% less money in commissions?

 

For the majority of investors under $500,000, they only need 3-4 Vanguard Index funds to capture a market return and mitigate their risk.

 

Even if you're skeptical it was costing investors $17 billion per year (Obama admin numbers), the idea that going back to the old system will benefit the majority of small and even medium wealth investors is hard to fathom.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Have the financial advisors reformed since then in largely a positive way, that encourages more competition and less portfolio churning (going to a fee for % of asset increases on a yearly basis, for example, so the interests are aligned mutually)?

 

Many companies are keeping the changes they've made even with the rule removal.

 

Finally, we know that almost no active manager can beat the market, that load funds generally have a hard time making back their upfront losses, that having index funds that represent bonds and stocks weighted according to your age, a mixture of international/emerging markets, value/growth, small/med/large cap, no more than 10% in any one company...all are logical boilerplate, yet how many active advisors follow this strategy if it earns them 25-50% less money in commissions?

 

For the majority of investors under $500,000, they only need 3-4 Vanguard Index funds to capture a market return and mitigate their risk.

 

Even if you're skeptical it was costing investors $17 billion per year (Obama admin numbers), the idea that going back to the old system will benefit the majority of small and even medium wealth investors is hard to fathom.

Whether or not someone should even use a financial advisor is a philisophical question, not one for law.

 

And while it certainly seems like a good idea to make sure advisors are acting in their clients' best interests, bear in mind that A) there are already rules to provide for that, and B) the new rule was not practically workable and would result in increased fees to the very customers they are looking to protect. Again, well-intentioned, poorly executed.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I think that is the single dumbest idea I have ever read and further proof that Florida is the stupidest state in the U.S.

Dumber than thinking a 'gun free zone' sign will protect you? if you prohibit people from protecting themselves legally, then you should be required to do so.

[caulfield12]

Whether or not someone should even use a financial advisor is a philisophical question, not one for law.

 

And while it certainly seems like a good idea to make sure advisors are acting in their clients' best interests, bear in mind that A) there are already rules to provide for that, and B) the new rule was not practically workable and would result in increased fees to the very customers they are looking to protect. Again, well-intentioned, poorly executed.

 

 

How would the fees be higher compared with current practices such as churning accounts for trade commissions and convincing unsuspecting clients that paying upfront loads for mutual funds will consstently lead to a higher ROI compared to index-tracking no load funds?

 

Essentially the model of The Mutual Fund Store, where they only make money if you make money...whatever split they charge, something like 1.5% of nav at the end of year.

 

Most typical middle class investors don't need hedge funds...or to get involved in puts, calls, warrants, etc.

[NorthSideSox72]

How would the fees be higher compared with current practices such as churning accounts for trade commissions and convincing unsuspecting clients that paying upfront loads for mutual funds will consstently lead to a higher ROI compared to index-tracking no load funds?

 

Essentially the model of The Mutual Fund Store, where they only make money if you make money...whatever split they charge, something like 1.5% of nav at the end of year.

 

Most typical middle class investors don't need hedge funds...or to get involved in puts, calls, warrants, etc.

Because when you impose lots of layers of regs that are overlapping in purpose, doing all that paperwork and documentation takes time, and therefore costs money. It's also less time doing what customers want them to do - analysis and guidance. That's not to say you should have no regs, but instead that you make sure you make the burden as low as possible to still achieve the ends.

 

And let's be frank, if all people want to do is pick a few mutual funds, they really don't need an advisor to begin with.

 

[Balta1701]

Because when you impose lots of layers of regs that are overlapping in purpose, doing all that paperwork and documentation takes time, and therefore costs money. It's also less time doing what customers want them to do - analysis and guidance. That's not to say you should have no regs, but instead that you make sure you make the burden as low as possible to still achieve the ends.

 

And let's be frank, if all people want to do is pick a few mutual funds, they really don't need an advisor to begin with.

But if they do meet with one...that advisor is going to do all they can to sell that person on the idea that they should invest in the products they sell rather than a few mutual funds.

[southsider2k5]

Because when you impose lots of layers of regs that are overlapping in purpose, doing all that paperwork and documentation takes time, and therefore costs money. It's also less time doing what customers want them to do - analysis and guidance. That's not to say you should have no regs, but instead that you make sure you make the burden as low as possible to still achieve the ends.

 

And let's be frank, if all people want to do is pick a few mutual funds, they really don't need an advisor to begin with.

 

Financial regulation in this country is a flat out disaster. You have dozens of different agencies, each with a piece of responsibilities of the overall pie. None of these organizations work together to share relevant information. Many of these rules have overlapping regulatory bodies, of which often don't disagree on the actual interpretation of the rules, and each tells the same firm to do something different with the same item.

 

Each of these agencies got their start out of a different federal agency, most of which don't even fall under the scope of the financial sector anyway (as in neither the SEC or the Federal Reserve bank as their heads)

 

This is just another step down that road of discombobulated financial regulations in a attempt to do some good, but without a true understanding of what actually would do some good here.

 

Do you really want to fix regulatory issues? Burn it all to the ground and start over again. Place all financial regulatory authority into the Federal Reserve bank. Give them the authority to investigate and connect all financial products, and not just the banking system. You could even do this with the SEC at the lead, but to me it doesn't sense to do it without the institution responsible for monetary policy being the head of it.

 

Then you have one agency with the ability to oversee all financial products, instead of just one thing at a time. You shouldn't have one body for stocks, one body for options, one body for bonds, one body for mortgage securities, one body for options, etc. Get it all under the same roof. Then you can start to fix what is systemic with the overall system, instead of just trying to stab at individual problems.

[caulfield12]

Financial regulation in this country is a flat out disaster. You have dozens of different agencies, each with a piece of responsibilities of the overall pie. None of these organizations work together to share relevant information. Many of these rules have overlapping regulatory bodies, of which often don't disagree on the actual interpretation of the rules, and each tells the same firm to do something different with the same item.

 

Each of these agencies got their start out of a different federal agency, most of which don't even fall under the scope of the financial sector anyway (as in neither the SEC or the Federal Reserve bank as their heads)

 

This is just another step down that road of discombobulated financial regulations in a attempt to do some good, but without a true understanding of what actually would do some good here.

 

Do you really want to fix regulatory issues? Burn it all to the ground and start over again. Place all financial regulatory authority into the Federal Reserve bank. Give them the authority to investigate and connect all financial products, and not just the banking system. You could even do this with the SEC at the lead, but to me it doesn't sense to do it without the institution responsible for monetary policy being the head of it.

 

Then you have one agency with the ability to oversee all financial products, instead of just one thing at a time. You shouldn't have one body for stocks, one body for options, one body for bonds, one body for mortgage securities, one body for options, etc. Get it all under the same roof. Then you can start to fix what is systemic with the overall system, instead of just trying to stab at individual problems.

 

 

How well would that have worked under Greenspan...there would have been zero oversight and regulation of the mortgage industry. You'd have the opposite problem, too much power concentrated in the hands of a few in Washington. Don't Republicans want to break up that power and let it devolve to the states?

 

How would you keep it apolitical...since Reserve Board commissioners are appointed by Dems and Republicans alike?

 

When was the last "bipartisan committee" to actually get something constructive done in Washington? Simpson/Bowles on budgeting?

Edited February 7, 2017 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

When was the last "bipartisan committee" to actually get something constructive done in Washington? Simpson/Bowles on budgeting?

That commission failed in its one goal - issuing an agreed upon budgetary framework that the Congress would vote on. It never issued a report or any official recommendations.

[Balta1701]

Financial regulation in this country is a flat out disaster. You have dozens of different agencies, each with a piece of responsibilities of the overall pie. None of these organizations work together to share relevant information. Many of these rules have overlapping regulatory bodies, of which often don't disagree on the actual interpretation of the rules, and each tells the same firm to do something different with the same item.

 

Each of these agencies got their start out of a different federal agency, most of which don't even fall under the scope of the financial sector anyway (as in neither the SEC or the Federal Reserve bank as their heads)

 

This is just another step down that road of discombobulated financial regulations in a attempt to do some good, but without a true understanding of what actually would do some good here.

 

Do you really want to fix regulatory issues? Burn it all to the ground and start over again. Place all financial regulatory authority into the Federal Reserve bank. Give them the authority to investigate and connect all financial products, and not just the banking system. You could even do this with the SEC at the lead, but to me it doesn't sense to do it without the institution responsible for monetary policy being the head of it.

 

Then you have one agency with the ability to oversee all financial products, instead of just one thing at a time. You shouldn't have one body for stocks, one body for options, one body for bonds, one body for mortgage securities, one body for options, etc. Get it all under the same roof. Then you can start to fix what is systemic with the overall system, instead of just trying to stab at individual problems.

I have zero issue with this suggestion and would generally support it.

[southsider2k5]

How well would that have worked under Greenspan...there would have been zero oversight and regulation of the mortgage industry. You'd have the opposite problem, too much power concentrated in the hands of a few in Washington. Don't Republicans want to break up that power and let it devolve to the states?

 

How would you keep it apolitical...since Reserve Board commissioners are appointed by Dems and Republicans alike?

 

When was the last "bipartisan committee" to actually get something constructive done in Washington? Simpson/Bowles on budgeting?

 

That is the exact opposite of what I just posted. The rest of it is just partisan posing.

[NorthSideSox72]

But if they do meet with one...that advisor is going to do all they can to sell that person on the idea that they should invest in the products they sell rather than a few mutual funds.

Well yeah. Do you expect a car dealer to tell people to go buy a bicycle?

 

It's only a problem if the car dealer sells them a car that he can easily discern they can't afford (and even that is more on the finance guys than the dealer/salesman). Beyond that, the consumer needs to bear a burden of understanding.

 

Which is why, as you've seen me say before, I am 100% on the idea that no one in this country should graduate high school without a course in basic finances to include not just balancing a checkbook, but understanding what mortgages, car loans, credit cards and plain vanilla investment vehicles are and how the work at a high level. It should be a basic proficiency standard, tested the same way reading, writing and arithmetic are.

 

[Chisoxfn]

Well yeah. Do you expect a car dealer to tell people to go buy a bicycle?

 

It's only a problem if the car dealer sells them a car that he can easily discern they can't afford (and even that is more on the finance guys than the dealer/salesman). Beyond that, the consumer needs to bear a burden of understanding.

 

Which is why, as you've seen me say before, I am 100% on the idea that no one in this country should graduate high school without a course in basic finances to include not just balancing a checkbook, but understanding what mortgages, car loans, credit cards and plain vanilla investment vehicles are and how the work at a high level. It should be a basic proficiency standard, tested the same way reading, writing and arithmetic are.

Yes. I cosign this times 100. In fact, if you ever run for office and get to a high enough position where you have a cabinet, I'd hope you would consider me for some form of a finance related committee member. The lack of education and stupidity around personal finances never ceases to amaze me (and for all I know, despite thinking I know what I'm doing, I too could be a giant dope making terrible investments).

[illinilaw08]

Well yeah. Do you expect a car dealer to tell people to go buy a bicycle?

 

It's only a problem if the car dealer sells them a car that he can easily discern they can't afford (and even that is more on the finance guys than the dealer/salesman). Beyond that, the consumer needs to bear a burden of understanding.

 

Which is why, as you've seen me say before, I am 100% on the idea that no one in this country should graduate high school without a course in basic finances to include not just balancing a checkbook, but understanding what mortgages, car loans, credit cards and plain vanilla investment vehicles are and how the work at a high level. It should be a basic proficiency standard, tested the same way reading, writing and arithmetic are.

 

That's not really an apt analogy though. Financial professionals and asset managers don't hold themselves out as salesmen. They hold themselves out as professionals who will take care of and invest your money.

 

Financial professionals are closer to lawyers in my mind. I'm a professional providing services to my clients and I have a duty of care that goes along with that - a standard that I have to be held to. I'm selling a service in that I'm billed an hourly rate and paid accordingly, but if I don't fulfill my duty, I can be sued.

 

If you want financial planners, asset managers, and other financial professionals to be held to the same standard as a car salesman, they should probably just be called salesmen.

[StrangeSox]

Even if we instantly implemented a "financial education" course and requirement today, though, you've still got tens of millions of people in this country who are already out of high school and may not have enough financial literacy to be aware of these issues and that their "adviser" they're trusting their life savings with may not have their best interests in mind. It's a common enough issue that some financial services firms even have commercials where people ask someone "how does your adviser get paid?" and the person sits there with a blank look on their face.

 

There are already people that are held to the fiduciary standard, so I guess I'm struggling to see why this couldn't be implemented to people who now only have to meet a "suitable" standard.

[caulfield12]

That is the exact opposite of what I just posted. The rest of it is just partisan posing.

 

 

You still haven't explained how you change that position from cheerleader/soothsayer for the economy to regulator. Seems to be a conflict. Like essentially allowing investment banks to grade their own securities since ratings agencies can no longer be trusted to be independent.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

You still haven't explained how you change that position from cheerleader/soothsayer for the economy to regulator. Seems to be a conflict. Like essentially allowing investment banks to grade their own securities since ratings agencies can no longer be trusted to be independent.

 

I don't think you understand the role of the fed at all. They are the banking system's regulatory body. The federal reserve bank isn't a PR firm. They are responsible for the safety and stability of the entire banking system. The fact that all of these financial products have relationships to the overall system alone is reason enough for them all to be done under one roof. While there has been a role of a cheerleader at times of trouble, that isn't the systems primary role at all. Not even close.

 

The fun part is bolded is exactly the rule that Congress enacted for grading of securities. They were pissed off at the ratings agencies, so they rewrote the rules to remove all mentions of the ratings and that system. Guess who is deciding credit worthiness of bonds now?

[southsider2k5]

Even if we instantly implemented a "financial education" course and requirement today, though, you've still got tens of millions of people in this country who are already out of high school and may not have enough financial literacy to be aware of these issues and that their "adviser" they're trusting their life savings with may not have their best interests in mind. It's a common enough issue that some financial services firms even have commercials where people ask someone "how does your adviser get paid?" and the person sits there with a blank look on their face.

 

There are already people that are held to the fiduciary standard, so I guess I'm struggling to see why this couldn't be implemented to people who now only have to meet a "suitable" standard.

 

As explained before, the costs will be ridiculous. Firms will go out of business, and people whose investments don't outweigh regulatory costs won't have options for investment firms anymore as firms will quit accepting them. The unintended consequences here are going to be disastrous for a lot of people.