Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 08:44 AM) Bulls are clearly the furthest away from winning a championship. And that's what I care about. I don't even know how to figure that out. Bears don't have a QB on the roster capable of leading them to a superbowl, so I don't see it with them. Sox, hell if I know. We have no idea who any of these prospects are and what will happen. Football tends to have more turnover and quicker rises from bottom to top, so it could be the Bears, but I don't know how to justify that statement. I know you disagree that the Bulls will be unable to put another superstar around Butler, but given they have one of the best players in the land (in a sport where best players matter the most), I would still say Bulls are most likely of teams to be successful over the next 5 years. I don't know that I'd peg any of them to win a major championship in that span, at least not now. Maybe all the guys the Sox traded for go on to become superstars and it could happen, but there is no science / high probability I would put on that. It seems clear that the Bulls path is to target free agency this off-season and we'll see what happens. I think they are going to try another year with Butler and at that point, they'll see what they want to do. I think the report on Gar was more to shut everyone up from talking about the front office for the time being and stop the distraction. That said, none of us were in the rooms when the front office went the path of Wade / Rondo. They might have said, look JR, these moves aren't going to make us much different then being a 7th/8th seed, but here is what / how we see this move helping us take the next steps forward. So while fans might be dissapointed, the ultimate expectation and plan might actually be unfolding as they saw fit (obviously not in the sense that Niko sucks, etc, but more from a roster perspective). In fact, I can't imagine any of them thought Butler was going to take even more steps forward.

You know...despite all the Bulls struggles, they are still the professional sports team that currently provides me the most enjoyment (given that I'm not a huge hockey fan). Sox / Bears are awful. Even these past two years, I can still watch and vividly enjoy Bulls games. Not as much as I could during the Thibs era, but they are still a solid team who plays some good games. Yes, they do their share of frustrating things, but hey, if I'm comparing to my other franchises, the Bulls are by far had the most success (maybe a sad statement, but a true statement). I'm hoping the Bears change that soon...but Sox are a few years away from having what I'd call an entertaining product (in the sense that we can even be thinking about the playoffs).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:16 PM) 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. Does it make sense to you that only 401K money should be part of the fiduciary standard? The wrong party is driving this thing and ultimately it should be more in the hands of the SEC, imo, and applied consistently to those giving financial advice on registered products. By the way, sometimes a commission is a better strategy...for example, i might do something that I hold for a long long time and paying a commission vs. an asset based fee could actually save me significant money in the long run. The regulation of what was currently written was beyond onerous, that said, the intent of what the regulation wanted to do absolutely makes sense.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:16 PM) 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. They are still held to a suitability rule...it just is a lower bar then "fiduciary". I've seen a lot of stuff misrepresented by the media / radio talk shows regarding what is and isn't being impacted by the DOL rule. I do agree with you that they are not the equivalent of a car salesman and I think the quotes from the official white house people were awful regarding why they were doing what they were doing (and missed the point on the real reason there should be stay in the requirements around the DOL rule). Please note, that I am not lumping Dodd Frank into this, even though I have heard a lot of people who seem to think Dodd Frank has anything to do with the DOL Fiduciary rule.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:04 PM) 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).

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 12:16 PM) I think the scariest part of what is going on in this country right now is the complete disregard for actual facts. You have a guy who did nothing but make s*** up his entire campaign win the presidency and now you have a lot of his dumbass supporters believing everything he says even if it is directly contradicted by evidence. We are now a country that ignores facts and evidence and believes everything that the news says is "FAKE NEWS" (I know your post was in jest) when the actual fake news is coming from the president and his administration. Terrifying world. s***...do you really believe the White Sox didn't win the last 11 world series (since 05)? We won the off-season, dominated the regular season, and won in October...it was amazing. In fact, we were so good, Manfred told JR that he had to sell Sale and Q because other towns teams entirely gave up on baseball. It got so bad that they had to fake the Royals and Cubs winning the series (as if).

Randy Brown strongly defends his character and all of these "anonymous" reports. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baske...0204-story.html

Welcome back Soxy...how have you been?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 05:30 AM) What I've heard is its the best smart watch on the market, IF you have an iphone. The pebble was probably the best for awhile there but since fitbit bought them, I would play a wait and see what is developed there. Fitbit has a much better fitness app and community, and if they can leverage the superior pebble platform they could have something there. I love my Charge 2, but I wouldnt mind an apple watch. There are some very good honest reviews out there about the series 1 and 2. I agree with you that fitbit should be really interesting with pebble integration. That said, if you have an iphone, there is just so much more features that exist on the apple watch then any other. If you go android, so many more options that truly have full functionality. Most of the watch devises that work on an apple are so limited in what they can do paired with an apple phone vs. if they were paired to an android phone.

Bulls looked like they almost fouled boogie when he was taking a 3 point shot with the Bulls up 4 (tried to give Boogie a 4 point play near the buzzer). But they end up holding on (in dramatic fashion...never should have gotten here). Boogie ejected and now will be suspended for his next game haha (refs missed it...Lopez fouled him stupidly on that 3).

If they lose this...just pathetic. Had a big lead in the 1st half, which they pretty much blew...only to build back a 25+ point lead in the second half to see the lead come down to 3 and Kings on roll. Blew the Houston game too (albeit they did battle back in that one).

At least it is a good distraction while I work. On a sidenote, given how much all of my teams suck (Bears / Sox)...I honestly don't know what I'd do if the Bulls were in full blown tank mode. I literally don't know what sports I'd get to enjoy at that point.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 09:20 PM) It was really stupid of the Kings FO to sign Barnes. You don't want Cousins around that guy Yeah. It literally looked like Barnes was about to deck Boylen. I always wonder why I notice Boylan on the court more then Fred. Note: I swear Bulls never can just hold a big lead.

On replay...it wasn't as bad as it looked, Barnes was really the worst of it. I don't get it...let the Bulls players whine to the refs. Literally no reason for Cousins / Barnes to have done what they did.

Holy moley...something going down in this Bulls game. Rondo and Cousins get into it about something...Matt Barnes joins the frey and Cousins shoves a Bulls coach. Some people are getting ejected and I presume suspended over this. Not sure what got Rondo so steamed...he was still steamed when they went to break.

Got one for Christmas...it was a significant upgrade from the free pebble I have. I probably don't take near advantage of it as I should, but when I've gone on jogs, it is pretty damn nifty and I am a huge fan of the ability to text / read texts & emails from the phone (plus any of the reminders you have programmed). It probably isn't worth the overall cost, but when I'm in meetings and need to get a quick read/response to wife regarding pick-up or other kid related items, it comes in very clutch (plus just in general, I enjoy never needing my phone if someone calls me at the house or sends something to me (cause I never have it anywhere near me). But I'm not one who is overly glued to their phone so I'm sure I take advantage of like 10% of what the thing does. If you want to respond, etc, on an watch device, you have pretty limited options in general thanks to Apple's closed application. Biggest con is the battery life, while upgraded, still sucks to what I was used to from my pebble. I know quite a few people who have them and all seem to enjoy it. Again, I don't really think it is worth the price though...realistically it should cost half of what it does, imo.

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 01:43 PM) I think he means that, like the reason for my win, sudden death meant no extra point is kicked. So a TD winner in OT only meant 6 points versus a TD winner in regulation likely means 7. I think we all assumed that super bowl square pools pay out 1st through 4th quarter and if a game goes to overtime, no one gets a payout based upon overtime (since the squares and related payouts aren't typically set out that way).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 4, 2017 -> 09:28 AM) Those were two of the worst calls I have ever seen. How the NBA can't fix that stuff during a review is beyond me. I was literally laughing hysterically at those two calls. It was so awful. Literally cost the Bulls the game (they blew other opportunities late too). That said, the overall game was extremely entertaining and a great watch. But I literally don't know if I've seen much worse foul calls than those ones.

Don't live in Illinois so I don't follow this, but If I remember, a few years back, there was a lot of issues with the Saints when their owner was pushing some legislation that was anti-player? I don't remember how it ended, but there was a lot of bad press at the time.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 09:56 AM) He's really bad defensively and he is a bad rebounder on top of it. He isn't much of a rim protector and he can't defend at all in space or on the pick and roll. So we are essentially talking about Eddy Curry? I always liked Curry's offensive game, so much offensive talent...could never figure out how / why he was such an awful rebounder / defender.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 10:45 AM) The idea that someone can call themselves a "financial adviser" and sell you high-cost, high-fee investments that are better for their pocketbook than yours seems like a bad idea, though. Financial advisors already rules they have to follow...this was just taking it another step further by making the advisor a fiduciary and with that comes significant challenges. Just think if 5 years later you look at your investment or insurance product and go, geeze, this isn't so great, in hindsight X would have been better...now you sue said advisor saying what they gave you wasn't in your best interest. My view is, I wouldn't do much in terms of changing the rules other then fully disclosing to the consumer what fees I'm going to get paid on the various products I am recommending. That way, as a consumer, I can take their advice, but also have an understanding as to how the advisor is being compensated and this information might cause me to ask more questions, etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 10:38 AM) FINRA flat out said in the conference that they (as in the regulators) did not ask for this rule, and they did not want this rule. This was all on Congress. Congress was not a proponent of the DOL. The other main regulatory bodies kind of all stayed out of it. In fact, at various times there were many democratic and republican congressmen against the ruling due to the flaws.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 10:20 AM) From a consumer side, there would be no good reason to take on low net worth individuals. That is a great point and one I hadn't even thought about. You are spot on that you would never generate enough in commissions to make up for their added compliance costs. I am vividly familiar with the matter (as like you, there are direct impacts to my industry / company). The big issue was the department didn't really listen on those two pain points and how to streamline / enhance the process. That said, there are a lot of really good things that are included within the legislation as well. Another thing that is really odd to me is why should 401K money fall under one-set of rules while other funds don't. SEC is really who should be weighing in on this, imo.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 07:31 AM) Fair enough, and that's a heck of a lot better of an explanation than "people should be free to be gouged on commissions and fees they might not understand!" the administration has put forward. The explanation I saw was this, which I found awful: “We think it is a bad rule. It is a bad rule for consumers," said White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Thursday. “This is like putting only healthy food on the menu, because unhealthy food tastes good but you still shouldn’t eat it because you might die younger.”

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 07:22 AM) Having been to the most recent FINRA conference last year this rule was a big topic of discussion. FINRA basically said that Congress had no discussion with them about this rule, what it meant, and how to enforce it. It was a gigantic clusterf***. I understand the idea of what they were wanting to do here, but they basically put together an unrealistic and more importantly an unenforceable jumble of legalese to paper. It was basically going to run smaller firms out of business, and leave only the Goldman's of the world standing in the advisory roles because the compliance costs for small firms trying to prove something that is unprovable were going to produce a cost structure that was impossible for them to overcome. Realistically it wasn't going to what Congress wanted because they have no idea how this structure actually works. And that was what the body responsible for enforcing it had to say about it. 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).