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
    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