Wait a minute. Why are we trying to deregulate the banks and scrap consumer protections?

Seconded

HaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHQHQ

Seriously, what did he think would happen?

Relax, Trump is just playing 5 dimensional chess. There's no way your financial advisor will work in his best interests instead of yours. He will make America great again, you just wait and see.

>The Senate voted strictly along party lines Friday morning to repeal a regulation requiring disclosures for the payments that energy companies make to foreign governments.

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?

what did you expect with 5 former Jewman Sachs executives in Trump's cabinet ?

Holy shit every day I laugh a little harder about how hard Trump is currently fucking with burgerland

When will you understand that he is the most pro wall street and big finance president that the US has ever known ?

Why are you fags here?

Don't you realize that Veeky Forums doesn't give a fuck?

If banks make money, I make money.

You shouldn't be bitching, moaning, crying and feeling oppressed, you should take advantage of this.

Because FUCK THE SEC.

if i wanna nvest $40,000 of my after tax fucking dollars ina private placement memorandom then i will fucking so it.

Dont fucking take half of my goddamn paycheck in varius taxes and then tell me where i can and cant spend the rest.

Suck my fucking dick

Financial advisers are all retard con men.

Dont you think if they knew fuck all about investing they would be ona yacht???

Oh you have 1$ ina savings account? Here is a bullshit 3 cents a year for you.

Btw, i can now loan out $20...

So he can become wealthier

Plebs think he is litterally hitler when he may single handedly save us from being cuck germany or cuxk france with brown people

Uh what? White births no longer account for the majority of births in the nation since 2012 or so. The white population declines 3% every 4 years and whites will be less than 50% of the population by ~2032 and that's okay. It's better to focus on integration and helping all Americans instead of wasting energy on hatred.

Because I can get richer, fucking faggot.

So the OPEP can still manipulate oil prices to keep that economy flowing. The brand new pipeline requires easy money to be built and managed. And ofc, that comes from bribing every possible official

It's going to be like Petrobras and the Brazilian government but in Murican style

Petrobras failed because the federal government used it to contain inflation through price control. Instead of subsidizing it within the government budget they simply made the company contract debt. Nothing of the sort can possibly happen in the United Stated.

probably because none of that is true and you're reading fake news.

military secrets
Thats a stupid question too. WHY would you want to reveal anything when you can just not.

Err wasn't it because they decided to make it their own personal ATM and collect excessive construction jobs so the overpriced money would be distributed among those involved in the rig?

Going from engineers to politicians, even legit social policies that got funded by this?

The point I was making was about allowing some form of bribery happening due to decreased transparency around the US oil industry, not regarding the efficiency of it or using it to fix oil prices to hide inflation rates

Those are already secret user. The US embassy has been doing it since the Late 1800's, no need to legislate against transparency regarding national security since it's a principle of it.

They do it for non critical matters like business. My guess is they want more freedom to try and take over China's control of oil overseas

washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/02/03/trump-to-sign-executive-order-calling-for-rollback-of-wall-street-reform/?utm_term=.9e6b5948056c

>“We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank,” Trump said during a meeting with business leaders Friday morning. “Because frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine, that had nice businesses, they just can’t borrow money … because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.”

Looks like Trump did it because his friends couldn't meet the standards to get loans, noting to worry about

ehh, this is just like brexit, probable economic downside but potential upside too. Even the Economist doesnt like dodd-franklin.

I can't get a business loan without signing over everything I own as collateral. I've got healthy cash flow, consistent income, and still they want me to collateralize over 5x the loan's value. Dodd Frank is forcing overly conservative lending practices on both consumers and banks. Meanwhile, if you're some rich dude, they'll lend you all the money you want.

>potential upside
>to brexit

what on earth could be a potential upside? besides muh white genocide?

the fact that the UK no longer needs Greece's and Estonia's approval to make trade deals with Japan or America.

>>potential upside
>>to brexit
1.establish FTA with europe
2. avoid all the EU red tape and stupid policiies, i know its nitpicking but they literally wanted to regulate the size of ORGANIC cucumbers

>1.establish FTA with europe
>2. avoid all the EU red tape and stupid policiies, i know its nitpicking but they literally wanted to regulate the size of ORGANIC cucumbers

In the whole Brexit discussion it's kind of been the point that 1. and 2. don't really go together. If you want to export into the EU, you need to stick to the common market rules, including cucumber size regulations, as dumb as they might be.

Brits can have fewer regulations for their domestic market, but as soon as they want to export into the EU, they'll obviously have to stick to EU standards.

This cannot be what Brexit is about, since nothing really changes. It's more about the fundamental freedoms, like unrestricted freedom of movement. So far we haven't seen a deal that grants free trade on par with the Common Market or the EEA, but doesn't mandate the appropirate standards and freedoms to be granted. So the Brits are looking at something entirely new, while the EU is desperately trying to make an example out of the UK so other countries think twice about leaving. I don't think getting an FTA will be as easy as you make it sound. The EU will always say "So what? Join the EEA!" like Norway or Switzerland, which would be the absolute worst. All the duties including paying membership fees, but no say in anything anymore.

>Hillary wins
>Social Justice train keeps chugging
>Trump wins
>Bankers and corporations get taxes and regulations cut

The Jews always win although /pol/'s denial is annoying.

It's not Dodd-Frank. I work underwriting commercial loans and the regulations aren't hurting us. We just have stricter underwriting standards for our approval package and more reporting. It's a pain in the ass at times but still necessary since you can't trust lots of banks. My bank's management is committed to maintaining our CAMELS rating of 1 and our A quality book of loans. But a nearby competitor gets our borderline deals we turn down because they plan of selling soon and what to grow their book so they'll willing to take higher risks. Further cutting regulation will result in some banks out there taking advantage and making bad loans.

Our lenders (the salespeople who find and bring in loan requests) would give pretty much anyone a loan is they could but us in the credit department keep them in check. Sadly, there are banks that are pretty lax but they have to answer to the regulators. Getting rid of the regulators is going to be bad.

Anyway, in regards to your situation, that seems highly unusual. Check with other banks since the only time we required such low loan to value was in high risk loans. Calculate your debt service coverage (cash flow of the company divided by total debt). If you're above 1.25x and your collateral isn't something odd like old star trek figurines, you shouldn't be having to offer so much.

>to stop printing money and increase its velocity

Just pls keep the volcker rule

Oh well the sooner he signs that bill the sooner the banks fuck over everyone again and the sooner markets will crash and i can buy in nice and low

Get rid of SS and Medicare.

thats why i said ''potential''' upside and ''''probable'''' downside

You don't get it, it's for "consumer protection".

Oh wow Trump maybe turned out be not that great a choice, who'd have thought America

Actually, I liked it. Do you have any idea how easy it is to take business away from shitty financial advisors?

>rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients

Talked with my guy today about this. It basically shifts the burden of proof in a lawsuit to the financial advisor and as a result they're going to stick to the government outlines of what an investment portfolio should look like. For me personally this means I need to keep more cash and bonds than I like. It applies to my Roth and regular 401k but not my regular brokerage account and the department that administers the rule doesn't have an enforcement arm.

If you think you are being protected by this you're kidding yourself.

>Muh "populist" president.

Boy that's the biggest campaign con that I'm surprised no one body check'd him on. This is why /pol/ and Veeky Forums will never get along.

OHHHHH FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGG

>old people have the highest voting rate
>directly nuke their benefits

That's a great plan to literally kill your political party

So Bitcoin goes up

Don't you idiots realise what this means? This will create the greatest stock market bull market in history (before it inevitably crashes a few years later). I'm talking 30 - 40% gains in the next 2 - 3 years.

It will if:

1. Tax cuts are passed
2. Banks start making loans left and right to everyone again
3. None of Trump's tariffs and anti-free trade shit materialize

If all those happens, the stock market will boom and then eventually crash when some retards fuck it all up. Although I switched all my holdings to cash and gold after the election because I'm not quite sure what will and what will not be implemented.

America is going to fall into a civil war.

Trump or either a military general will declare himself a dictator.

Socialist/marxist/liberal antifa scum and universities are going to grounded to pulp.

Diehard freemarket reforms will be implemented.

Big wall with mexico

Rothschild dynasty will die

Israel is going to get nuked

Iran

New space race between China and USA

Europe will fall into non-importance and chaos,

EU dead

US republic dead

conservacucks purged (including you Ryan)

Long live the Empire
youtube.com/watch?v=R9R4zPTpS9w

To make more money. Want it? Buy financials. In fact you should've bought them on November 9.
That part was really just a political bargaining chip used by LBJ to win an election.

Here is trumps train of thought:

>Big government laws = garbage
>Lets remove all the laws regardless of what they do!

I don't mind banks making bad loans if they don't have government guarantees.

Banks should be allowed to fail if they take risks.

Survival of the fittest, that is true capitalism.
No bail outs.

Because my cronies have to be made richer and so do I!

so liberals will be ground to a pulp and conservatives will be purged.

that should wipe out almost all of the US population when you realize moderates won't stand for that shit either.

somehow I don't see less than 1% of the US population wiping out the remaining 99%. Liberals or conservatives alone could kill every fascist in the country and still have time left over for a bbq.

Companies do not have an obligation to the consumer. They have an obligation to their shareholders first and foremost.

>Companies do not have an obligation to the consumer
you can fill a large library with US consumer protection laws.

laws protecting shareholders probably wouldn't fill a single shelf.

This, and Trump formally opposes bank bailouts.

The nanny state is being torn down.

the nominal reason they were propped up is because most americans have their retirement accounts in those banks and the businesses they fund.

meaning if they fail the gov is going to have to pick up the tab via Social Security anyways. Not a concern for people that aren't near retirement age and those that believe they won't ever collect SSI anyways. But a bit of a concern for adults and the elderly. Which not coincidentally are most voters.

You don't actually want to be the party that crashes the economy and bankrupts tens of millions of households. Republicans think they want to be that party, but even the rashest politicians understand that's political suicide. Time will tell if the GOP manages to hang itself. I'd bet they won't do what you suggest. Most of the elderly that got bailed out vote Republican.

...

Those laws exist percisely because of the lack of obligation.

Or, or, or, how about this: banks that do stupid things get a reputation for said stupidity, and people stop putting their retirement money into them the same way they stop putting their money into any shitty product.

Bailouts just put a lid on shitty bank practices, and effectively gives said practices the government seal of approval.

the laws ARE the obligation.

but we can play it your way. A company that feels no obligation to its customers will fail because no customer will use it. Meaning its obligation to its shareholders automatically creates a greater obligation to its customers.

unless you think companies magically produce money without customers.

>people stop putting their retirement money into them
which ignores the hundred million plus that already have and will lose everything. A hundred million people that will literally shoot you dead if you cost them everything they worked their whole lives for.

anarchists and libertarians love to think they'd survive their own policies. History doesn't agree.

So Apple should just give out iPhones for free right?

>A company that feels no obligation to its customers will fail because no customer will use it
You mean company that doesn't manage to convince the customer that he can trust them, company that doesn't convince the customer he needs their services and that it's in his interest to purchase them, and that any risk or failure involved is his own fault he should have researched beforehands.

if apple had no obligation to the customer the iPhone would either not work or would cost more than you can afford to spend. Or both.

In real life companies have obligations to produce products that work as advertised, and they have an obligation not to overcharge for them. Both concepts are common and well-known in the US, we regularly sue companies that fail at either task. Sometimes destroying them.

all of that convincing requires obligating the company to the customer first.

That's not acting in the best interest of the consumer though. That would be giving them away for free instead of taking money.

>That would be giving them away for free instead of taking money.
that's not in the best interest of the consumer because it means the company will go out of business and fail future consumers.

false dichotomy, you can't imagine a middle point where companies are obligated to customers, employees, vendors, local communities, and shareholders because you simply don't understand business. Ironic considering the board you're on.

Umm no? They could just get more money from shareholders. Hello????

yeah, but this obligation can be realized as either delivering a good product or manipulating and scamming the customer.

again, the company is obligated to both at the same time.

and again, you can't understand this because you're retarded.

one of those is allowed by law.

removing that law just means criminal enterprises which are more profitable than legal businesses will win in free market competitions.

>a rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients
Doesn't sound like that to me.

It's assumed that a reasonable business owner will act to protect their own interests.

so no law is required to protect them.

They can't if another law forces them to prioritize the interest of their clients

you see the two as mutually exclusive.

as I said, you don't understand business.

a business protects its own interests by prioritizing those of its clients.

No, because if you are prioritizing the interest of your clients everything would be free and you would be out of business.

what makes you think that "best interest of its clients" doesn't mean things like "ensure that clients are adequately informed of all risks, costs and benefits of the service before entering into contract"?
Obviously this is not in best interest of shareholders if the shareholders and/or management are scum that wants to strip income from the ignorant consumers.

again:
false dichotomy
you're retarded

prioritizing A does not mean completely ignoring or destroying everything that's not A.

If someone is too dumb to do his own research before putting his life savings into a retirement fund then he deserves to be scammed.

Let's say I have $10 million in profit this year. Should I pay out dividends to my shareholders, expand the business, or give money to consumers who bought my products?

you can't imagine doing all three and more?

that's why you'll never have that problem.

okay

Any dollar going to one is a dollar not going to the others.

you have more than one dollar to spend.

real businesses pay all three expenses and thousands more you don't think about.

If you were acting in the best interest of your consumers you would be spending it all on the third option.

no, because if you were actually retarded enough to think you can only have one obligation at a time you'd never be allowed to run a business.

Do you not know what the word "best" means?

acting in someone's best interest doesn't mean acting in your own worst interest.

in fact it has nothing to do with your interests.

Putting one dollar towards your own interest means one dollar that didn't go to their interest, which means it wasn't there best interest.

your mistake is in thinking they own your dollars.

a financial advisor has an obligation to use the client's money for the client's best interest.

not their own. and as usual you're being retarded.

>what are fees

fees are the property of the advisor, so they aren't covered under the law.

the law only covers how the client's property is used.

The law covers which funds (which have different fees) the advisor can advise the client to invest in you fucking retard.

so what the fuck do i do? buy stock of all big banks and some large cap companies? I NEED CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS

the fees aren't covered by law because they don't belong to the client.

you saying they are doesn't magically make it so.