Put your bank notes in your mattress or buy guns and ammo

Put your bank notes in your mattress or buy guns and ammo.

Government is not responsible for stupid people making stupid choices.

> Brokers should work for free

t.Socialist

but shouldn't the government do something about scams?

shouldn't you be able to sue if you get scammed?

No, misselling is still not legal.

>durr until this rule was created scamming was legal

Oh wait, the rule is not even in effect yet: "In April of this year, the fiduciary rule was set to take effect."

You're an idiot.

this is about Brokers knowingly selling you bad products, are you really going to defend that?

No, you shouldn't.

> Gambling
> Knowing

Pick one

There are a thousand different posts you could make like this about the trump administration and how cuckolded Sup Forums is for voting for trump but don't expect these idiots to admit they were wrong.

My personal favorite is how trump is going to kill net neutrality, HAPPY NOW RETARDS?

Go back to trolling jessi slaughters dad and ordering pizzas to people's front door and stop destroying things we all love and enjoy

No, it isn't. You're speaking about something you have no idea about.

Fraud is not legal. Scamming is not legal. Making false statements is not legal. Knowingly selling bad products is not legal.

...

A thousand ignorant, clueless posts like this?

Let's make a little deal, because you are so clever. Either

a) you demonstrate with a coherent argument how scamming is legal and "brokers knowingly selling you bad products" is legal as OP claims,

or b) if you fail to do that you kill yourself. Deal?

...

Great way to demonstrate that you are speaking about something you have any clue whatsoever about.

from the article:

"inancial advisers — who can be paid referral fees by asset managers for directing client money into their funds"

"brokers, financial advisers, and other finance professionals don't legally have to act in a client's best interest"

Why is it so obvious that you are either underageban or near it?

>Government is not responsible for stupid people making stupid choices
>Stupid people making stupid choices are responsible for his government

P O T T E R Y

Your post has the expert tones of a street lawyer resisting arrest

They have to try though. You can't give them money to invest and they take it to the dog track.

>trusting sleezy brokers with your hard earned money
>in current year 2017 with the limitless knowledge of the internet at your fingertips
>not doing your own time and research imto something as important as money.
>not paying $20-30 for solid investing books that give you great advice like The Intelligent Investor and A Random Walk Dowm Wallstreet.

You deserve to get scammed if you don't take even the slightest effort for something you can teach middle schoolers about. Investing is not that fucking complicated.

>They have to try
have to try what?

the only thing they have to try is to make money for themselves

Trump just made sure that they can legally put their own interests ahead of yours, Is that what you want?

Do your research before you hand all your money over to some guy. Finding reputable brokers isn't exactly rocket science.

>"inancial advisers — who can be paid referral fees by asset managers for directing client money into their funds"

Not "scamming" or "fraud". A company gives a bonus to someone who sells their products.

>"brokers, financial advisers, and other finance professionals don't legally have to act in a client's best interest"

Not "scamming" or "fraud". In addition to the current illegality of making false statements, there's a requirement that they sell a product that is suitable for the customer:

>Those who aren't registered, like brokers, just have to prove that the investment is suitable, not necessarily the best option

The requirement is that the product is suitable for the client. A fraudulent, bad, product would not fulfil this as you claim.

Basically, this is about creating a rule that SOMEONE SELLING A PRODUCT MUST PROVIDE THE ABSOLUTELY BEST POSSIBLE PRODUCT FOR EACH CUSTOMER.

A shoe shop? Legally you are required to sell THE SINGLE MOST SUITABLE PAIR OF SHOES TO EACH CUSTOMER, taking price and quality into consideration, and if you didn't do that they can sue you for damages.

A restaurant? Legally you are required to sell THE MOST SUITABLE MEAL FOR EACH CUSTOMER, taking everything including price into consideration, and if you don't do that they can sue you for damages.

A car dealership? A legal requirement that they sell THE MOST SUITABLE CAR OUT OF ALL CARS THEY HAVE and if they don't do that you can sue for damages.

This sure seems great - if you have not worked in a commercial business in your life. It creates a shitload of extra costs to PROVE that EACH CUSTOMER gets THE SINGLE MOST SUITABLE product for them.

Not "A SUITABLE" product as is the current standard, but THE SINGLE MOST SUITABLE out of a billion possibilities.

Basically you are completely clueless about this, believing that the rule would make "scams" and "fraud" illegal - when scam and fraud is already illegal.

As I pointed out, you're jerking off to any anti-Trump comment like a drooling retard. You have no clue at all about what you are speaking of. I have described the situation as it is above.

>investing money
>getting ripped off
1% problems boohoo

>Knowingly selling bad products is not legal.

In the mid 2000's bankers sold derivatives from mortgages that they knew were shit. Lots of people got fleeced.

tons of middle class people have retirement savings accounts that they rely on

>In the mid 2000's bankers sold derivatives from mortgages that they knew were shit. Lots of people got fleeced.

And Lehman Brothers intentionally went bankrupt because they knew very well the financial crisis was coming?

Anyway, the only post with any value in this thread is mine, here:

I don't know about the whole "Most suitable product" thing, but advisers can sell bad products that they know are bad

but using another analogy

if you buy from a used car salesman and they sell you a car that they know will break down soon then you got scammed

you are defending this kind of action, Trump is making sure this will remain legal

>And Lehman Brothers intentionally went bankrupt because they knew very well the financial crisis was coming?

They overgambled for a long time and this time it finally caught up to them. A lot of good people lost a lot of money.

No shit, risky investments carry risk.

Put your money into a basic ass index fund if you don't want as much risk.

>I don't know about the whole "Most suitable product" thing,

That is the entire single core point and effect of this legislation. It is literally the point of FIDUCIARY, from the name of the rule.

>but advisers can sell bad products that they know are bad


No, this is wrong. As I have already quoted to you from the article:

"Those who aren't registered, like brokers, just have to prove that the investment is suitable, not necessarily the best option"

A "bad product" as you call it would not be suitable.

>if you buy from a used car salesman and they sell you a car that they know will break down soon then you got scammed

Then it would be fraudulent misrepresentation, as well as a product that wasn't suitable.

Anyone who isn't a drolling anti-Trump moron, consider this your rare, free education. Sage goes in the options field.

>They overgambled for a long time

What is the definition of "overgamble"?

Did they know it was coming or not?

>What is the definition of "overgamble"?

Dude, are you a fucking tard? They kept selling shit derivatives based on even shittier mortgages. They KNEW the bottom was going to drop big time. They were selling shit that even Goldman and Morgan Stanley wouldn't touch. That's why Lehman was scrambling months before their collapse to shore up investors (even trying to sell to Korean companies).

>Did they know it was coming or not?
Yes.

>You are a responsible person
>you have not done responsible research when looking for a broker
Pick one, you poorfag piece of shit.

>>Did they know it was coming or not?
>Yes.

Absolutely Brilliant.

They loved gambling so much, that they kept gambling even as they knew they were going to go bankrupt.

Could they have taken positions that would EARN money during the financial crisis, as you say they KNEW would happen? Obviously yes. But they chose not to do that because..... they loved to gamble.

I love to gamble so much that I gamble even when I know I will lose. Brilliant.

>They loved gambling so much, that they kept gambling even as they knew they were going to go bankrupt.

You're a fucking moron who knows nothing of how Wall Street works. They've done this shit for hundreds of years.

They assumed 2 things:
1. They would find some big investment company to save their ass (this happens all time, a popular company gets into trouble and another company buts a big share for cheap).
2. The government would bail them out (they had just bailed out Bear Stearns and helped them sell to Chase Bank).

>I love to gamble so much that I gamble even when I know I will lose. Brilliant.
You should stop now. Your knowledge on this is extremely limited. By "gambling" they were winning short term money (derivative sales) but were risking long term collapse. Wall St. has done this many times in the past and it normally worked out for them (as per the reasons I gave above) but this time Lehman went so full fucking retard that no one could save them.

Unless he commited fraud in his scam, no. If he did commit fraud then he should be accused of fraud which is already a crime.

>This would have been illegal under Obama's executive order and you could sue.

>However Trump just repealed that order and now it's legal to screw investors over.

executive orders cannot make law.

>durr my mother was raped by a pack of niggers and I am trying to do the best I have with what i got

>They've done this shit for hundreds of years. .. They assumed 2 things: (retard shit)

A bank bailout universally wipes out shareholders.

The shareholders have representatives called the Board of Directors.

So... did the shareholders know they would be wiped out whether a bailout happened or not?

Did the Board know, and were perhaps bribed to keep quiet?


>>ME: "DID THEY KNOW IT WAS COMING OR NOT?"
>YOU: "YES."

In the real world, the US financial crisis was triggered by the massive interest rates leading up to it. Those were outside of Lehman control.

In the real world, they could have made far more money by betting on the financial crisis happening, as they KNEW IT WOULD HAPPEN per you.

In reality, the majority of the entire world presumed things would stay calm. The notion that Lehman's shareholders or board of directors intentionally wiped themselves out is retarded nigger-tier conspiracy shit, as is the idea that they LITERALLY KNEW THE CRISIS WAS HAPPENING, BUT MADE NO MOTION TO MAKE MONEY OFF IT.