The problem defined
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, founded at the direction of Obama, with Elizabeth Warren as its first chairman, has been a target for conservative politicians
and many in the financial-services industry since its creation in 2010, with the passage of Dodd/Frank (July 2010). At issue are at least two matters, one being the fact that besides being an oversight agency in such matters as the Wells Fargo banking scam, it is also a wealth redistribution agency, moving 12 billion dollars of cash relief into the hands of 25 million folks who may or may not have been financially harmed. And that is because of a second and more profound problem.
As it turns out, the language written into the bill is purposefully vague, giving existing agency heads the right to "interpret" the law in ways that suit the purposes and redistribution agenda of the Marxist inspired Progressives currently in charge. In fact, the language is “ . . . . so broad
and vague that it has let them go after anything they don’t like, even
if there’s no evidence of any consumer harm or injury,”
This federal oversight agency wants to allow clients to sue financial advice services . . . . . a good thing on the surface, but a very bad thing in view of the fact that "financial advice," in and of itself, is being criminalized.
Advice versus Product Performance
Look, the Market Place is volatile and full of risk. This federal agency is working to take as much risk out of market investment as possible, rather than punishing wrong doers after the fact. Even worse, the agency is working to prevent the giving of financial advise as to certain financial products, rather than allowing the market place to determine what is viable and what is not. Understand that we are not talking about what is legal or not, only what is financial viable, and, therefore, preferable, or not. We are talking about advice that, in the end, may prove to be errant advice. Under Obama, only good advice is allowed, and it ain't good unless it makes a profit - per Obama thinking.
Protection of the Unsuspecting Consumer versus Governmental Meddling
Progressive do-gooder oversight has decided (not the consumer but the agency) that certain comparable low cost Index (S&P) Funds are more to the liking of the consumer than some higher-cost and actively managed index funds and is making it illegal to get counsel as to these funds. The funds exist and are legal, but the consumer cannot get financial counseling as to the purchase and or profitability of these pre-existing and legal Market Funds. Financial counseling will be illegal, not certain Index funds.
During the Trump era, you may become familiar with Anthony Saramucci. He is an adviser to the Trump transition team, a FoxBusinessNews adviser, and, is the founder of SkyBridge Capital. He argues that this provision/purpose of the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Agency policy would force small investment advisers out of business and drive folks away from managed Index Funds that might actually serve the financial client better. At the heart of this practice is the Progressive's hatred for "profit." Market managers make a profit for the services, and, the Federal Government has decided that this is evil.
Insight into the comprehensive nature (or not) of the Trump Era
The anti-advice provisions of the Agency's oversight law, will not go into full affect until April of 2017. The Trump presidency can, apparently, simply decide not to enforce this aspect of the Consumer Protection Agency, or choose to ask for a complete revision of the oversight statute(s) . . . . . we are talking about Dodd/Frank.
At any rate, this is a potential "first strike" aspect of the Trump agenda. If he goes there, it will tell his supporters much as to just how comprehensive his review and/or replacement of the Obama's progressive agenda will be.
________________________
Related article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/the-glory-days-of-elizabeth-warren-s-cfpb-are-numbered
No comments:
Post a Comment