StrangeSox

When you check Equifax's site to see if your data was stolen, you get the benefit of agreeing to mandatory arbitration which bars you from any sort of class action or lawsuit within the court system. edit: you can thank the Scalia ruling several years back in AT&T v Concepcion that held forced arbitration that bars class action is perfectly fine and couldn't possibly lead to any widespread problems and malicious incentives. Most consumer and even many employment contracts have these provisions these days, effectively barring most people from access to the court systems when they have a civil complaint and instead forcing them into private arbitration. Blocking class actions ensures companies will never see anywhere near the full civil impact from widespread abuse/fraud/etc. because an overwhelming majority of people won't file suit especially if it's a relatively low-dollar amount on an individual basis (e.g. $100 damages per person but across a million people). don't know why editing broke that quotes to badly.

We're talking about the difference between "suitability" aka salesmen holding themselves out as advisors while not necessarily disclosing up front that they can and do put their interests above yours and people with a fiduciary duty to put your interests first. Forgive me if I mix up the exact terminology, but I don't see how that point doesn't stand. Yes, broker-dealers are licensed, but they're still putting their duty to their brokerage (and their commission checks) above yours, and that's perfectly legal. In the long run, on average, that situation is worse for the individual investor because of the high fees that are sucked out of the accounts year after year, and many of these products carry up front loads as well. The car dealer analogy isn't 1:1, but no analogy ever is. But the "suitability" financial professional is still closer to the car salesman who's #1 goal is profit for themselves and the dealer than it is to an impartial fiduciary. When I go to a tax professional, I expect them to be giving me unbiased advice that will benefit me the most, not advice that isn't necessarily "bad" for me but maximizes their own profits. Why should a financial professional be any different? The industry is generally pretty opaque and most people don't even realize that there's a suitability/fiduciary difference and that many financial professionals make their living based on what they sell you, not on giving you impartial advice. The common sense investing advice is actually pretty simple, and for an overwhelming majority of people, there's zero need for complex investments. How many people who currently utilize the services of broker-dealer salesmen wouldn't be better served by a one-time fee meeting with a fiduciary advisor who'll steer them into appropriate low-cost financial investments? Basically, is there a reason why the advice in "If You Can" doesn't apply broadly? If you follow that (or other advice along the same lines e.g. Bogle), there's no need to pay a bunch of fees that can amount to up to 40% of your total account value over your lifetime for financial "advice" and management. Yes, some people have complex scenarios, but those are generally higher net worth people who would have no problem finding and paying for fiduciary advisors to work out the best tax and estate planning they need. https://www.etf.com/docs/IfYouCan.pdf

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2017 -> 10:01 AM) This is all about financial advisors. Actual, certified financial advisors with a fiduciary duty to avoid conflicts of interest or financial "advisors" in the same sense that the guy down at the dealership is an automotive "advisor" who puts his bottom line ahead of mine? Is your personal money invested with one of these "advisors?" What sort of fees are you paying for their advice?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2017 -> 09:55 AM) If you are OK with less information and choices for consumers, that's good, because this is exactly what is going to happen. Retirees aren't going to be able to ask anyone about complicated tax and investing questions such as the IRS rules for forced divesting. You think the average 70 year old knows that or is comfortable going to the internet to find it? The unintended consequences here are going to be really bad for some people. CPA's and financial advisers still exist. They just won't have as easy of a time finding someone holding themselves out as a "financial professional" who's really a salesman.

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.

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.

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.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 8, 2017 -> 08:31 AM) Anyone with an idea that bad should be shamed into oblivion. Alas, CNN panels Clinton campaign senior positions galore

can we talk about Verrit for a second? what on earth was ever supposed to be the point of Snopes.com but with serial numbers? Why is a "verrit code" better or even different than a URL?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2017 -> 07:41 AM) I will settle for Hillary going away

And now there's a big earthquake off of Mexico in the Pacific that's causing a tsunami.

Why would a sitting senator who's very popular go away?

Irma the only storm on record to maintain 185+ windspeed for as long as it has. Over 69 hours.

So much hype before the broadcast about kluber, gives up two homes in three batters

video from the eye wall passing through Turks and Caicos earlier https://twitter.com/RyanGaydos/status/905927121029226496

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

Irma on the right, 1992's devastating Andrew superimposed on the left

National Hurricane Center's latest model run is in agreement with the earlier Euro model--straight up the peninsula. And hurricane-force winds in Atlanta.

There's a lawsuit against Arkema, the company that owns that chemical plant in Texas that was in danger of a major explosion. Throughout the whole ordeal, they refused to disclose what was actually onsite and how much, citing terrorism concerns.

Or he's angry at McConnell and Ryan and has been publicly and privately feuding with them for weeks/months, and this was a way to screw them over. He seems to be motivated by media attention and spite, which in this case he gets both. Seriously, if Trump gets the DREAM Act signed and permanently removes the debt ceiling brinksmanship, he'll get heaps of praise for it. One of the things he talked about with Schumer adn Pelosi this morning was about how good the media coverage of their meeting yesterday has been.

that animated map, but a single composite image

We're within the window where the models get pretty accurate. This looks extremely bad for southern Florida.