Financial News

[StrangeSox]

How it went down, per source:

-GOP pushed for 18 mo debt limit hike. Then 6 mo

-Dems dismissed 6 mo. Pitched 3 mo

-Trump then agreed to 3 mo

— Sarah Ferris (@sarahnferris) September 6, 2017

 

[Jenksismyhero]

How it went down, per source:

-GOP pushed for 18 mo debt limit hike. Then 6 mo

-Dems dismissed 6 mo. Pitched 3 mo

-Trump then agreed to 3 mo

— Sarah Ferris (@sarahnferris) September 6, 2017

 

He's got them right where he wants them!

[southsider2k5]

How it went down, per

s

ource:

-GOP pu

s

hed for 18 mo debt limit hi

k

e. Then 6 mo

-Dem

s

di

s

mi

s

s

ed 6 mo. Pitched 3 mo

-Trump then agreed to 3 mo

 

—

S

arah Ferri

s

(@

s

arahnferri

s

)

S

eptember 6, 2017

 

DEMOCRATS WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO DEFAULT! Did I do that right?

[StrangeSox]

No, because Democrats are more than willing to provide the votes to increase the limit. If there wasn't the HFC Suicide Caucus in the House, Republicans wouldn't even need their votes.

 

e: debt ceiling should still be abolished though

Edited September 6, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Everyone realizes that "increasing it through December" means it actually increases through like next June because of the expensive, taxpayer dollar wasting "Emergency fund moving measures" Treasury keeps doing right?

[bmags]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-...0907-story.html

 

Could be very important for Chicago. Provides ample opportunity to retain Northwestern/UofI/UofC talent pipeline in state, and CHicago's much more decent job at adding housing makes it possible.

 

It is a good candidate, and clearly chicago leaders feel snakebitten over the foxconn deal, even if they shouldn't. If they get this, huge boon to the city.

[maggsmaggs]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-...0907-story.html

 

Could be very important for Chicago. Provides ample opportunity to retain Northwestern/UofI/UofC talent pipeline in state, and CHicago's much more decent job at adding housing makes it possible.

 

It is a good candidate, and clearly chicago leaders feel snakebitten over the foxconn deal, even if they shouldn't. If they get this, huge boon to the city.

I feel like the political instability and high taxes of Illinois and the poor finances of both Chicago and Illinois will be the nail in he coffin for getting Amazon to build here. There are undoubtedly many positives for Chicago, as you mentioned, but a couple huge negatives.

[bigruss]

U of I and their CS program feeding into Amazon is a huge draw as well.

[bmags]

U of I and their CS program feeding into Amazon is a huge draw as well.

 

Yeah, and we all know they would consider u of michigan as part of that pipeline as well.

 

We all know the negatives for illinois and chicago, but there was a reason we were a possible olympic destination. There are few major cities that still have the capabilities in terms of land and housing that Illinois has, as well as a pipeline of great college programs.

 

I don't think we'll get it, but what a hope to have for the city.

[bmags]

Seems like everyone thinks Chicago is out, but this is what machines are made for. No f***ing way you could build in Nova/DC a campus that's required and deal with housing for the additions. Same with Boston.

 

Toronto/ATL I all believe.

[StrangeSox]

Huge huge data breach at Equifax. Nearly 150m people affected, hundreds of thousands of credit cards too.

[Balta1701]

Huge huge data breach at Equifax. Nearly 150m people affected, hundreds of thousands of credit cards too.

3 of their scumbag execs sold off a couple million dollars in stock weeks ago after they were informed of the breach before they told the rest of the world they lost every adult in the US's info.

[bmags]

https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-protect-...=social_twitter

 

Info on what to do. My info was compromised. They gave me a sign up date for their credit watch program for a year. Gee thanks.

[Balta1701]

https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-protect-...=social_twitter

 

Info on what to do. My info was compromised. They gave me a sign up date for their credit watch program for a year. Gee thanks.

The good news is I can buy your social security number in just over a year and still be you. Because it's good that a company can screw over the entire country in exchange for a year of credit protection.

 

They should be required to do it for life for everyone, but they won't be. People should go to jail but they won't.

[Harry Chappas]

The good news is I can buy your social security number in just over a year and still be you. Because it's good that a company can screw over the entire country in exchange for a year of credit protection.

 

They should be required to do it for life for everyone, but they won't be.

 

The thing is why would I trust their credit protection?

[Balta1701]

The thing is why would I trust their credit protection?

Because you don't have a choice, just like we don't have a choice which credit bureau a company chooses to use when we want to purchase something, so shut up and go buy something, important people are doing business.

[bmags]

I feel the same, they should be required to solely exist to right the wrongs of their tremendous f***up.

 

Whenever you stop and think about it, it seems like such a terrible idea for this to be a private industry. But your government deciding your credit-worthiness seems worse.

 

At the very least, a public credit history (no score) with an established process to challenge and remove fraudulent activity seems more fair.

 

This is exactly why the CFPB should continue to exist.

 

[Balta1701]

I feel the same, they should be required to solely exist to right the wrongs of their tremendous f***up.

 

Whenever you stop and think about it, it seems like such a terrible idea for this to be a private industry. But your government deciding your credit-worthiness seems worse.

 

At the very least, a public credit history (no score) with an established process to challenge and remove fraudulent activity seems more fair.

 

This is exactly why the CFPB should continue to exist.

And they won't have to because money. So take your 1 year of credit protection and shut up.

[bmags]

It's also annoying as f*** when you have lifelock/credit monitoring. I actually put holds on Experian activity so every time a new line gets opened I have to hop on a 15 minute phone call to verify identity.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

The biggest flaw was two fold...one how do you litigate against it...a total disaster from that perspective, and two, with the increased cost of compliance, etc, associated with it, the lower to middle class consumer will get pushed to the side, because you won't be able to generate the returns to meet the costs for those investors. Huge huge issue with both good and bad parts to the legislation (imo).

 

It turns out, this is exactly what is happening. Consumers are getting less choices, less advice, and costs are going up across the board. Gage nailed what would happen on the consumer side. The SIFMA white sheet is out there if anyone wants to check it out.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/fina...-with-financial

 

The Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule has not yet fully taken effect, and already retirement savers are feeling the burden. Both the financial services industry and the public have seen in real time the negative effect that the rule has had on retirement savings and on retirement investors.

 

In the last 15 months, investors have seen a loss of product choices, loss of a financial professional to talk to, more expensive products and the relegation of retirement savers to the internet or call centers. We have seen small accounts terminated, shifts to advisory solutions for retirement savers and access to municipal bonds and new issues cut off. We’ve also seen confusing differences between the products and services that may be offered to personal taxable accounts versus retirement accounts.

 

Retirement savers have been incorrectly led to believe the rule did not require anything other than that their financial professionals acting in their interest and therefore would have little impact on them. These savers are reasonably upset at what they see as wholesale changes in the products and services available to them, along with fundamental changes in their relationship with their financial professional.To quantify the rule’s impact, The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) recently commissioned a study, surveying a cross-section of SIFMA members to analyze the potential impact of the rule. The 21 financial institutions included in the study represent 43 percent of U.S. financial advisors and 30 percent of the retirement savings assets in the market.

 

The study found that access to brokerage advice services has been eliminated or limited by many financial institutions as part of their approach for complying with the rule, and that retirement assets have shifted to fee-based or advisory programs because of those limitations.

 

In fact, 53 percent of study participants reported limiting or eliminating access to advice brokerage for retirement accounts, impacting 10.2 million accounts and $900 billion AUM.

 

Roughly 90 percent of study participants reduced access to or choices within the products offered to retirement savers as a result of efforts to comply with the rule. Products affected include mutual funds, annuities, structured products, fixed income and private offerings, impacting 27.3 million accounts.

 

Survey participants indicated that they spent approximately $595 million preparing for the initial June 9, 2017 deadline and expect to spend over $200 million more before the end of 2017. Multiplied industry-wide, that equates to a projected spend in excess of $4.7 billion in start-up costs relating to the rule, far-exceeding the Department of Labor’s 2016 estimated start-up costs for broker-dealers of $2 billion to $3 billion. The ongoing costs to comply are estimated at over $700 million annually.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

how many of these "financial professionals" are just salesmen recommending high fee funds that just happen to help their bottom line the most?

 

this appears to be a "study" by a lobbying group for the financial professionals/salesmen whose profits would be negatively impacted by the rule and that piece is written by the guy in charge of the lobbying group, so maybe take his conclusions with a grain of salt.

Edited September 8, 2017 by StrangeSox

[bigruss]

Seems like everyone thinks Chicago is out, but this is what machines are made for. No f***ing way you could build in Nova/DC a campus that's required and deal with housing for the additions. Same with Boston.

 

Toronto/ATL I all believe.

ATL seems like a mess to live in, not saying Chicago has good infrastructure but it blows Atlanta out of the water from what I've heard.

 

Not sure if Toronto has the pipeline of talent, but at the same time they may not be too worried about it because developers will go work for them no matter what.

[StrangeSox]

Atlanta does have a burgeoning software engineering/tech sector. Toronto seems to have a decent number of tech companies already, too. Property prices make pretty much everywhere but the Bay Area look sane, though.

[southsider2k5]

how many of these "financial professionals" are just salesmen recommending high fee funds that just happen to help their bottom line the most?

 

this appears to be a "study" by a lobbying group for the financial professionals/salesmen whose profits would be negatively impacted by the rule and that piece is written by the guy in charge of the lobbying group, so maybe take his conclusions with a grain of salt.

 

Whether you want to give them the fake news treatment or not, the statistical conclusions are there. Choices are being eliminated, fewer people have access to advice because it is too risky to give, and costs are going up... just like was predicted by everyone by the DOL.

[StrangeSox]

yeah but my underlying point is questioning how worthwhile that "advice" even is in the first place. you could do a heck of a lot worse than just dumping everything into a low-cost Fidelity/Vanguard target date fund or other low-cost products, and a lot of the products offered by broker-dealer 'financial professionals' are great for the b-d's but not so great for the investors.

 

I can't go buy a sack of dog s*** at the grocery store after being "advised" by the grocery store's in-house Dog s*** Professional, but I'm okay with not having that advice or that choice. To put it another way, if high-cost financial professionals that are ultimately worse for the average investor are being eliminated, I think that's a good thing.

Edited September 8, 2017 by StrangeSox