Elizabeth Warren's Big Win: The New, Much-Needed Rule That Could Rein in Wall Street

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36497-elizabeth-warrens-big-win-the-new-much-needed-rule-that-could-rein-in-wall-street

Are you in the market for some good news? While everyone is being told to follow the excitement of the 2016 campaign to the exclusion of all else, out of the spotlight but not far away, the Obama administration is calmly trying to enact lasting progressive change. In the Labor Department earlier this month, consumer advocates won a big battle, as the vast middle class was “gifted” with a new requirement being placed on the financial services industry. As Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren explained, a glaring conflict of interest has been resolved in the favor of people saving for retirement. No longer can investment advisers recommend funds to their clients that reward them or their firms; instead, they must, without exception, direct customers into the best financial products, with lower or, sometimes, zero fees.

In her inimitable style, Warren crowed: “No more pushing products that generate financial benefits for advisers, while draining the customer’s savings.” It’s a very simple principle: “No more free vacations, cars, bonuses, fees, and other kickbacks.” Her mantra, as we know, is fairness. Her legislative agenda is to introduce new legal protections for consumers. She is quick to point out that most financial advisers are ethical, and work hard to help their clients. But these individuals have, for many years, been forced to compete with “slick-talking” advisers whose recommendations reflect personal incentives and produce “terrible results” for middle-class savers, amounting, the Labor Department says, to many billions of dollars.

Firms must now make a full disclosure. Facing the music, the largest independent company that manages retirement savings, with $450 billion in retirement assets, right away cut account fees for investors by “up to 30 percent.” Retirees win. The system can adapt. As Warren stated: “Americans are tired of a Washington that works great for the big guys and doesn’t work for anyone else.”

[Jackilope]

1. Love her!!!!

[brewens]

2. No fees! Sounds like more filthy hippies wantin' free stuff!

[Silver_Witch]

27. Indeed. Silly socialist!

[Hoyt]

3. That's a good ruling. One question, how is this not an accomplishment of Obama Admin?

[IronLionZion]

6. Because some people hate Obama

This law change has been in the works for a while and if you listen to the Freeper arguments against it you'll get a headache and maybe a nosebleed. "More free stuff to the undeserving who are too stupid to ...." and so on. It's like freepers don't want to admit that their own financial advisers may have been ripping them off to make themselves some kickbacks from pushing idiotic products like mortgage backed securities or collateralized debt obligations or risky high cost funds.

[fasttense]

25. It sounds like an Elizabeth Warren accomplishment and Not an Obama one

But if Obama did not stand in the way of a law that might help the middle class, just wait until the TPP is put into affect. This rule wont last under the requirements of TPP.

[Hoyt]

28. Sounds to me his admin promulgated the rule. But Obama doesn't get much

credit around here for anything. He just gets slammed for crud detractors say he "might do," approve Keystone, slash SS, and similar BS.

[rhett o rick]

29. I am glad to give Pres Obama credit when due, but I will also hold his feet to the fire

if it looks like he is going to do something that will harm the 99% like cut SS or Medicare. The best time to show your objection is before the act. I will also speak out when I think the president does something that I don't like. Isn't that how a representative government is supposed to work? Will you speak out when he does something you don't like? Or do you automatically like everything he does? If so then it's useless to have a discussion with you.

Let's take drone killing as an example. Do you, along with the Republicons love the drone killing? Lindsey Graham is ecstatic. He believes the number killed is around 4,700 which includes approx 4,400 innocent men, women and children. I believe that drone killing is a terrorist act, don't you agree?

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is defined as the use of violence, or threatened use of violence, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. In modern times, terrorism is considered a major threat to society and therefore illegal under anti-terrorism laws in most jurisdictions. It is also considered a war crime under the laws of war when used to target non-combatants, such as civilians, neutral military personnel, or enemy prisoners of war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/ticket/drones-killed-4-700-u-senator-says-141143752--politics.html?ref=gs

[Hoyt]

31. While you were watching closely, he greatly improved prescription drug coverage under

Medicare and did not cut Social Security. Have any links to your giving credit?

[rhett o rick]

32. Are you expecting me to give him credit for not cutting SS? How about the drone kills?

Do you favor that?

[bvar22]

34. He DID put our Social Security Money "on the table".

This forever turned OFF the power to the "Third Rail of Politics". (Don't ever fuck with Social Security, or you DIE.)

Whether you care to admit it or not, this is a HUGE gift to those who want to kill Social Security. Social Security will NOW be On-the-Table in every future budget negotiation until it is gone....just another poker chip.
ONLY a "Democratic President"could have done this.

Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

"We've got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor DID NOT call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CALLED FOR THAT," declared US Representative John Conyers in a press conference held by members of the House "Out of Poverty' Caucus on 07/27/11

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html

[Hoyt]

35. He might have put it on "the table" as a bluff, but there was ultimately no cut.

[bvar22]

36. Not THIS time,

but Daddy WAS gambling with the rent money,
and we all know what eventually happens.

[Dustlawyer]

4. I wish this had come years before, but glad it has happened!

My parents invested with Merrill Lynch during one of the biggest, booming markets, yet they managed to lose and fee away most of my parent's savings before they could pull out. They churned my parent's account horribly, making numerous trades without their knowledge.

Small investors like my parents all suffered from those greedy thriving assholes!

[JimDandy]

5. Churning is a scourge whether it's done by investment advisers

or apartment management companies. So sorry about your parents.

[IronLionZion]

8. index funds are usually best for ordinary people

low cost, broad diversification, and very little churn since the fund tracks an established index like the S&P 500. It's also very transparent so you know exactly what is going on.

Too many trades and you'll lose money just on the fees.

I tried entering the financial advisor profession years ago but the jobs were mostly for sales people to sell the company's products on commission rather than draw a regular salary from giving clients the best advise, so I didn't do it.

[dixiegrrrrl]

9. I ws lucky enough to know about Vanguard

which offers minimal fees and has a lot of self directed funds.
It took some homework but I found some good paying funds to invest in, took the money out 6 months before the 2008 crash.
I figured that NO one had more interest in my money than I did.

Bless Elizabeth for the changes, but now the question is....will the rules really be enforced????

[Jitter65]

14. Incrementalism is not always bad as long as you are moving in the right direction..you eventually

arrive at your destination.

[Skwmom]

19. Why not an unimportant issue, if this is our approach to solving the big bank issue we as a

country are truly screwed.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Related thread

Washington Republicans want to kill conflict-of-interest rule, say it will harm retirement savers.

[Ilsa]

10. The GOP is trying to undo the CFPB that she

Designed to protect consumers from unscrupulous lenders. GOP is claiming they have too much personal financial data on us. They want to unseat the director in favor of a board that reports to Congress.

I hope she'll be successful with this newest endeavor.

The fight never ends.

[zalinda]

11. This is great news for people who can afford to invest. eom

[Enthusiast]

12. Throw 'em a bone before we cut Social Security.

[Skwmom]

18. And that is all it is, a bone. It does not address the huge problems with Wall Street.

[Enthusiast]

21. It shouldn't be too much to ask that firms look out for the best interests

of the holder of a retirement account. Really, anything else should be against the law with Mandatory Minimums. I think the only way you rein in the abuses on Wall Street in throw them in jail.

In all things the citizen should expect the government to act on their behalf even if the wealthy corporations have to take a hit. But then I have a highly developed sense of fairness that is lacking in elected "representatives".

We really do need a political revolution.

[davidpdx]

13. It sounds like these are being made as regulations

If so, then they can be undone by any future administration. It is a win, but my question is if we get Hillary Clinton in there what are the chances she'll undo these things? I think it's very likely she will.

[AllyCat]

24. She would need to protect her backers

And SIL.

[99th_Monkey]

15. KnR nt

[Skwmom]

17. You do realize that this only address ONE problem and hardly reins in Wall Street.

Nothing like trying to oversell something...

[Skittles]

20. we've been conditioned to salivate over bone tosses

[TrueDemVA]

22. Sounds great, but

I know I am being pessimistic. I certainly hope this is not being done to make a future push to privatize Social Security.
Playing devils advocate.

[Scuba]

23. "... the Obama administration is calmly trying to enact lasting progressive change."

While pushing the TPP?????

[raging moderate]

26. Hooray for Elizabeth Warren!

We are so luck to have her in the Senate.

[Stryst]

30. So, I'm not, nor have I ever been middle class.

Why is the entire Dem pogrom designed around the middle class? What about those of us who spent our adult lives serving our country for an insultingly low paycheck only to get sick and told to live on $9,000 a year? I'm sure glad that those of you who are privileged enough to have enough money to actually save get to save more, but here in the real world most of us are struggling to make a decision between power, food, and medicine.

But congratulations Sen. Warren. At least someone is doing something, even if it won't ever help me or mine.

[eridani]

37. A financial transaction tax would be a big help here IMO

Also, the Warren rule will help prevent banksters from fucking up the economy again.

[houston16revival]

33. This will cut costs for investors

and spark a few law suits.