Lol, "petal stool".

never said or suggested that

Anybody want to throw out a line for Hoya's word bomb? Both for total letters/5 and one for actual words. I'd guess 3000/2500 but am not sure how latin may sway things. Add 200 words for each additional hour.

With the exception of the hyperbole of it costing "the average Joe hundreds of thousands over their lifetime," I agree with all of this. The average people should not be using financial advisers period. If you're a family with 2 adults in your 40s making between $50k and 500k a year then why are you doing anything other than passively investing in ETFs? Hiring an adviser and paying anything but tiny fees for passive investments is a leak for almost everyone.

Also, fwiw to others the regulations don't just affect banks which is part of the problem.

no, because...

literally no one understands the whole law. There are exactly 0 people in the world who understand it all and how it all fits together. The best anyone can do is understand small pieces of it. The complexity is part of what increases the compliance costs AND what creates loopholes because something sounds good in theory to a bunch of regulators. It doesn't matter if 100 regulators and 100k people in finance don't see a loophole in the regs, if 1 person does then it will be exploited. This is why we need simpler regulations.

We DO still need regulations, but they can't be this complex.

You're so unable to see things from other people's perspectives.

even if this was true, how does that pertain to my post?

Thanks for the more detail. What I meant by the last part was that I think of the banks as shameless Machiavellian profiteering turds who'll do anything for a buck akin to tobacco company executives but without the redeeming characteristics of at least doing some farming. Like, say, begging the gubment for trillions in handouts to avoid defaulting and wrecking the economy, then refusing to lend that new money because "risk". I mean I hate and distrust them. But I try to not let that bias blind me to other, possibly not fiendish reasons for their behavior. So when I hear, "Oh no, we can't comply now everything's gonna break." I automatically think there's just more money in it for them to say and possibly even do this, even on purpose. But like, could be lousy regs too.

Wordbomb has been delayed due to workbombs.

CDL, I recognize your loathing for Warren. Fair enough.

I don't think the Senate censoring her so that she cannot discuss the racism of the current nominee for Attorney General is her "being told the thing" about anything you agree with - it wasn't about finance, at all. It was about whether Jeff Sessions has a documented history of abject racism and violations of civil rights that render him unfit to serve as Attorney General, which is to say that he is unfit to head the Department of Justice since his political history is one of obvious and pervasive injustice to the point that he was chastised by the Republican Party for being so racist that even they needed him to pull it back.

So you're basically rooting for Republicans to censor facts about politicians because it makes you happy when Elizabeth Warren is sad, regardless of the consequences.

That's a tremendously terrible take.

I mean if what you want is a dude who will bless increased gerrymandering and legal voter suppression and encourage prosecutors to overcharge and reinforce the right of police to beat the **** out of people without fear or prosecution, then I mean, Sessions is your guy.

Yes I understand and you're right to view financial institutions that way

hoya,

I hate Sessions and think he is actually the worst of all the appointments, including DeVos.


If Trump was speaking on something...really anything regardless of how innocuous or even good it was and some Democrat had the balls to completely shut him down and take away his ability to speak on the issue would you not think it is utterly amazing? I would. That's how I felt about this.

No worries Hoya. I understand fully, as I'm currently in TRIAL. I highly anticipate your response, and I am not trying to play any gotcha games; just genuinely curious to see ur analysis.

It's not hyperbole. Assuming an average return of 7% lifetime, someone maxing out their IRA contributions from age 30 to 65 would lose over 200k in returns paying 100 basis points expense on a typical mutual fund instead of 5 basis points I pay on my S&P 500 ETF. And that's just the difference in the internal expense of whatever investment they have.

gl in TRIAL yo

one thing is that you ascribe to Robart a particular argument, but that argument isn't contained in his actual written order (which I read because I'm a nerd), so I can't really answer your question as to "his argument[s]" and thus must answer them as like an observer of Con Law or something

what kind of trial?

But it's a full third of the population whho evidently thought there were TWO brand new government healthcare systems for EVERYBODY? Like they actually thought Obama was such an arrogant prick that he named his system "Obamacare" officially like Walmart or something? Jesus, 40% of democrats, ffs?

This isn't like those other stupid things at all, and "don't know" was one of their options to answer.

Not even republican lawmakers in their wettest dreams could have hoped for this.

That's really stupid.

It took zero balls to shut her down. The context is totally different.

She wasn't saying something innocuous. She was trying to get on the record some more evidence that Sessions is not fit for office. If Trump was doing something altruistic and righteous, and a Dem tried to shut him down on it, that would be more infuriating than anything Trump has done so far.

I think you still don't understand the contempt for Democrats that most people itt have. You still view everything as a team sport, and it's insane.

Holy **** at the Spicer on Scott quote.

Sean Spicer:

Yeah, bro. Makes sense.

EDIT: The quote is accurate but it appears that it was a paraphrase, so I've inserted brackets. Here's the best direct quote of it I can find.

EDIT 2:

Here's video: https://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/sea...jeff-sessions/

I thought a financial advisor was just someone selling **** annuities or life insurance policies to his circle of trust.

wtf. wtffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff fffff

I think he's correct in the sense that hope is pretty much the maximum you could do...

Holliday, namath, etc.

We don't disagree that there are tons of terrible people in finance and that many of them would go to all kinds of lengths to make an extra buck. Some of these actions by some of these people are illegal or fraudulent. That doesn't mean every failure by a financial institution is illegal, fraudulent, immoral, or even poorly thought out. Sometimes worthwhile or even good ideas just don't work and blow up in your face and other times ideas that are merely ok or even bad in that they work out infrequently have payout diagrams that make them worth the risk. This happens in every other industry as well. Failures are routine, but they just don't play out as publicly because blowing up a rocket at SpaceX doesn't affect as many people as blowing up a bank does.

We should strive to have financial systems that allow people to profit and make money (just as any other industry would in a capitalistic society). This means that we should allow for firms to have some leeway to take risks and make mistakes. These firms shouldn't be forced to never do X because it failed once or required to always do Y because it succeeded once. Sure, if X is a universally terrible idea then don't allow it, but many things that have failed spectacularly at some point in the past can still be used as part of a responsible strategy. Likewise, if Y is something like "act in the interests of your clients" then that is fine to require.

Should finance be regulated more heavily than some other industries, yes. It is in some ways a utility and the system as a whole could be viewed as a partial public good as its successes and failures tend to lead the entire economy. That doesn't mean that senselessly complex regulation is the answer nor should we place incredible regulatory burdens on smaller players.

CDL, do you honestly think anyone disagrees with a word you just wrote?

Isn't it weird how the same people can laugh when you think Warren is an enemy of democracy?

This is where the hyperbole comes in. The average Joe is sporadically investing well below this level. A large percentage of people don't save for retirement at all, some don't save in some years when they have unexpected expenses or reduced incomes, and many others simply can't or don't max their contributions every year.