Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 5424

Do Investment Advisers Need a Break From Certain Record-keeping Requirements?

Argument in favor

A lot the requirements that are being changed by this bill don’t make sense given how the advisers’ firms are structured, and there’s bipartisan support for these regulatory changes.

Berto's Opinion
···
09/09/2016
Overregulation creates unnecessary costs and lost efficiency. Yes, we want to make sure consumers of these investment services are shielded from negligence; but there's a better way to do that. These regulations create both costs to the firm for compliance, and cost to the government (taxpayers) for auditing and enforcement. Wherever possible, we should eliminate those costs, and instead opt for stricter punishments, if and when fund managers act negligently and actively de-fraud investors. In some countries, fraudulent practices are punished with mandatory jail time, and require fraudsters to pay back DOUBLE the losses they caused. That's a huge disincentive for unethical behavior.
Like (15)
Follow
Share
John's Opinion
···
09/08/2016
I'm always in favor of reducing the government footprint on the economy.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
William's Opinion
···
09/09/2016
Regulation is needed so we never have another recession as bad as the Great Recession
Like (3)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Congress shouldn’t allow investment advisers to get relief from record-keeping and reporting requirements, as they were put in place to ensure investors’ assets are protected.

Richard's Opinion
···
09/09/2016
If anything they need more accountability.
Like (40)
Follow
Share
Lycos's Opinion
···
09/09/2016
Theses requirements were put in place for a reason and to provide a "break" would imply that they are not regulations rather a form of punishment imposed on a child. Once a break is provided there would only be desires for a longer "break" or doing away from the regulations all together.
Like (18)
Follow
Share
nickarnold's Opinion
···
09/10/2016
Insane that this would pass. These are the types of deregulations that provided a lack of ability to track down those who were fraudulent in the 2008 era.
Like (16)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed September 9th, 2016
    Roll Call Vote 261 Yea / 145 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
      Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets
    IntroducedJune 9th, 2016

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Prior to Introduction and Referral.
  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • calendar
    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 47 - 12.
  • action
    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 114-698.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 540.
  • action
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 844 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2357 and H.R. 5424.
  • action
    Rule H. Res. 844 passed House.
  • action
    ORDER OF PROCEDURE - Mr. Hurt asked unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to recommit on H.R. 5424 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule 20.
  • action
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 844.
  • action
    Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2357 and H.R. 5424.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 5424.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 844, the House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Foster amendment.
  • action
    Mrs. Torres moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Financial Services.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Torres motion to recommit with instructions pending a reservation of a point of order. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to add at the end of the bill a section pertaining to Report on Emergency Vehicle Response Times of Companies Owned by Private Funds. Subsequently, the reservation was removed.
  • action
    The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Torres motion to recommit, the Chair put the question on adoption of the motion and by voice vote, announced the noes had prevailed. Mrs. Torres demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the motion to recommit until later in the legislative day.
  • action
    Considered as unfinished business.
  • action
    On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 176 - 232 (Roll no. 494).
  • vote
    On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 261 - 145 (Roll no. 495).
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • referral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed September 9th, 2016
    Roll Call Vote 261 Yea / 145 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
      Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets
    IntroducedJune 9th, 2016

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    Overregulation creates unnecessary costs and lost efficiency. Yes, we want to make sure consumers of these investment services are shielded from negligence; but there's a better way to do that. These regulations create both costs to the firm for compliance, and cost to the government (taxpayers) for auditing and enforcement. Wherever possible, we should eliminate those costs, and instead opt for stricter punishments, if and when fund managers act negligently and actively de-fraud investors. In some countries, fraudulent practices are punished with mandatory jail time, and require fraudsters to pay back DOUBLE the losses they caused. That's a huge disincentive for unethical behavior.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    If anything they need more accountability.
    Like (40)
    Follow
    Share
    Theses requirements were put in place for a reason and to provide a "break" would imply that they are not regulations rather a form of punishment imposed on a child. Once a break is provided there would only be desires for a longer "break" or doing away from the regulations all together.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    Insane that this would pass. These are the types of deregulations that provided a lack of ability to track down those who were fraudulent in the 2008 era.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    No! They ripped us off big time and some still continue ripping off investors. Records are and should be mandatory.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Seriously?! 🙄😳
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Nope. This is required to know if they have your best interest in mind. Also, don't forget to ask your advisor if they are a fiduciary. If they say no, then take your money elsewhere. Only fiduciaries are required to invest in accordance with their clients best interest.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Documentation allows one to record responsibility. Why wouldn't you want to take responsibility for your decisions unless they were of questionable morality or legality?
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    More help for the wealthy. Never anything done for working people. You're the worst
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    I'm always in favor of reducing the government footprint on the economy.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Some of you people must be suffering from short term memory loss-these are the people who lack accountability and crash the economy when regulations are taken away. Wall St. needs to be on a firm leash at all times.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Regulation is needed so we never have another recession as bad as the Great Recession
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    There is not enough regulation of financial sector.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    While I'm all for decreasing the size of the federal bureaucracy, the SEC rules on individual investment activities is so confusing that I am wary of changing any reporting requirements that give the illusion of easing work on the investment industry. The KISS principle, recommended by other posts should be at the forefront of all of this.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Trying to help criminals again huh?
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Banks and investment firms need all the regulations we can muster. Just look at Wells Fargo! Full me twice, shame on me.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    There is no reason to change existing rules. Given the number of advisors, it is hard to believe the industry is being "stifled"
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    The is is currently only minimal oversight of the entire financial industry, by poorly funded, toothless agencies that finance industry insiders actually scoff at. Look at Madoff - even with dozens of reports to regulatory agencies over a period of years, there was never even a single audit meaningful enough to uncover almost unimaginable fraud. The financial advisors who routinely steered their clients toward Madoff-managed funds, always took their cut, but didn't have any liability or pay any penalty once the funds were found to be empty. I'm not inclined to reduce their record keeping requirements because that just makes fraud easier at their level.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Based solely on the information provided, I perceive the best course of action would be to vote "yea." If these requirements truly are extraneous, then requiring a firm to keep such a record on an item in which they have zero affiliation with would be absolutely moronic. The result of such an action would mean a loss of productivity for the affected worker, directly harming the firm, and indirectly causing an extra burden to the market.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Again, deregulation of Wall Street, especially this kind of legislation which ENCOURAGES concealing information or not even reporting it, is bound to harm the citizenry. Shame on the corrupt Republican Congress for even proposing such hogwash.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE