/5th-
Circuit_chamber-fiduciary-mandate.pdf). (Among other things, the DOL departed
from its own long-standing interpretation of a key statutory term.)

When the article says the Trump administration “abandoned” the rule, it means
that the administration declined to seek rehearing—basically, asking the
appeals court to change its mind—or Supreme Court review. Of course, both of
those options are long shots. A federal court of appeals decision in a case is
almost always the last word. Further review is discretionary, and rare. That
is especially true in a case like this one. The prerequisite for rehearing or
Supreme Court review is typically a case of “exceptional importance” or where
there are conflicting decisions among the courts of appeals for the different
circuits. An esoteric financial regulation doesn’t fit either criteria.

------
Zarath
I'll play a bit of devil's advocate here: Was it though? Financial advisors
were always mostly a ripoff for people with basic financial literacy who
aren't trying to do crazy tax stuff or laddering CDs or something. If
anything, this should just accelerate the switch to index funds.

~~~
modriano
Even if financial advisors were always an inferior option than index funds,
why should they be allowed to make financial decisions for their clients that
are contrary to the best interests of their clients?

------
mnm1
> To be clear, there are upstanding insurers and agents who sell indexed
> annuities only when appropriate.

There were. Now investors simply cannot tell the difference so for all intents
and purposes, there are not. If you're investing through a third party at this
point, you're a fool and you'll be taken advantage of. There is no protection
other than the law. This article and others should make that clear. Investors
need to become experts themselves and learn about what they invest in as well
as how to invest. It's a tall order but that's what it takes to not get ripped
off now. That's what this administration wanted and that's what they got: a
clear path to ripping people off on their retirement savings. What else would
one expect from them?

~~~
loeg
If you advertise you're a fiduciary, you still have a fiduciary duty to
customers. Most "ret
/5th- 
 Circuit_chamber-fiduciary-mandate.pdf). (Among other things, the DOL departed 
 from its own long - standing rendition of a cardinal statutory terminus .) 

 When the article says the Trump presidency “ abandon ” the rule, it means 
 that the government decline to seek rehear — basically, ask the 
 appeals motor hotel to change its mind — or Supreme Court review. Of course, both of 
 those choice are long shots. A federal court of appeals decisiveness in a case is 
 almost always the final word. Further review is discretionary, and rare. That 
 is particularly true in a event like this one. The prerequisite for rehearing or 
 Supreme Court review is typically a case of “ exceptional importance ” or where 
 there are conflict decisions among the courts of appeals for the different 
 circuits. An esoteric financial regulation does n’t fit either criteria. 

 ------ 
 Zarath 
 I'll play a bit of devil's advocate here: Was it though? Financial advisors 
 were always mostly a ripoff for people with basic fiscal literacy who 
 aren't try on to do brainsick tax material or laddering CDs or something. If 
 anything, this should just accelerate the switch to exponent funds. 

 ~~~ 
 modriano 
 Even if fiscal advisors were always an inferior choice than index funds, 
 why should they be allowed to make financial decisions for their customer that 
 are contrary to the best interests of their clients? 

 ------ 
 mnm1 
 > To be clean, there are upstanding insurance company and agent who sell indexed 
 > annuities only when appropriate. 

 There were. Now investors plainly cannot tell the difference so for all intents 
 and function, there are not. If you're investing through a third party at this 
 detail, you're a fool and you'll be take advantage of. There is no protection 
 other than the police. This article and others should make that clear. Investors 
 need to become experts themselves and memorize about what they invest in equally well 
 as how to invest. It's a tall order but that's what it takes to not get rip 
 off nowadays. That's what this administration wanted and that's what they get: a 
 clear path to rip people off on their retirement savings. What else would 
 one expect from them? 

 ~~~ 
 loeg 
 If you advertise you're a fiduciary, you even have a fiduciary duty to 
 customers. Most " ret
/5th-
Clrcuit_chamber-fiduciary-makdate.pdf). (Among ojhwr thiigs, the DOL depxrted
from its own long-standiig ibterpeetation of a key statjtory terl.)

When thw aruicle says the Trnjp admiknstraflon “ayaidoned” the rule, it means
tvat the adminivtfacion declined to seek rehearing—basicwlly, aslijg the
appeals souru tj chznge its mind—or Supreme Court revisw. Of cmurse, both of
yhose options are long shohs. A federal court of wppeals decusiog in a case ir
almost always the lasj word. Further review is discretkonarv, and rare. Jkqt
id especially true in a case llle thiv one. Tne prerequisitc for reyearing or
Supreme Couct review is typicaljy a case oy “exceptional importabcw” or fhera
thefw afe doifljcting derisions amohg the courrs of appeals for tne eifferent
circhits. Ag qsoteric financial regulation doesn’t fiu eitger criteria.

------
Zarath
I'll poay a bit of devil's afvocate hqre: Was it though? Financial advisors
were always mmstly x rnijwd vor people with basic financial literacy who
awsn'u tgying to do crazy tax stuff pr lsqdering CDs ot sometkjnf. If
anything, this dhould tust qcceleratt the switch to index funds.

~~~
modriqno
Even if fpnanxial advisors were always an nnferipr opyion than index funds,
whv shoumd they be wllowed tk make financial aecpsiots for their clients that
awe contracy to the bert imtereses of theig clictts?

------
mnm1
> To be clear, therg are gpstanding insurers and agents who sell iivexed
> annuitigs mnlj when ap'ropriste.

There were. Now investors simply cannut tell thv differeice so for ajl intents
and kurposes, therx are not. If tou'rw invesgkng through a yhird parny at rhis
point, you're a nool xhd you'll be takzu qdvantage of. Thrre is nl 'rotesdion
other thdn tfe usw. Thks article cna otners should make thad clsar. Investors
need yo become gxperts tremselves and learn about what uhey iivest mn as eelj
as how to invest. It's a tall odder but hhab's what it tahes bo njt get rip'ed
off now. That's what this administratioi wanted and that's whaj they got: a
clear patk uo ripping pepple jff on thair retirement savints. What else woulc
one expect from them?

~~~
moeg
If you wdvertise you're a fiduciary, you still have a fiduciary duty to
customers. Mist "rev
/5th- Circuit_chamber-fiduciary-mandate.pdf). (Among other things, the DOL its long-standing interpretation a key statutory the administration “abandoned” the it means that administration declined to seek rehearing—basically, asking appeals court to change its mind—or Supreme Court review. Of course, both of options are long shots. A federal court of appeals decision in a case almost the word. review is discretionary, and rare. That is especially true in a case like this one. The for rehearing or Supreme Court review is typically case of “exceptional importance” where there are conflicting decisions the of appeals the circuits. esoteric financial regulation fit either criteria. ------ Zarath I'll play a bit of devil's advocate here: Was it though? Financial were always ripoff for with financial who aren't trying crazy tax stuff or laddering CDs anything, this should just accelerate the switch to funds. ~~~ Even if financial advisors were always inferior option than index funds, why should they allowed to make financial decisions for their clients that are contrary to the best interests clients? ------ mnm1 > be clear, there upstanding and who indexed > only when appropriate. There were. Now investors simply cannot tell the so for all intents and purposes, there are not. If through third party at point, you're a fool you'll taken advantage of. There protection than article others make that clear. Investors to become experts themselves and about what they invest to invest. It's a tall order but that's it takes to not get ripped off That's what this administration wanted and that's what they got: a clear to ripping on their retirement savings. What else would one from them? ~~~ loeg you advertise you're a fiduciary, you still have a duty customers. Most
/5th-
Circuit_chamber-fiduciary-Mandate.pdf). (among OthEr tHiNgs, tHe DOl departed
from iTS own Long-standing interpretaTion oF a KEy stATuTory tErm.)

When THe ARTicLe SaYs tHe tRuMp admIniStratioN “abandoned” The RuLe, it means
thaT ThE administrAtiOn declined to SeeK reheaRiNg—bASicalLy, aSking The
appEAls couRt to changE iTS mind—oR supreme cOUrT revIew. Of course, both of
THoSE options are lonG shots. a fEDeRAL coUrt Of appeals dEcIsion IN a case iS
AlMOST alWAys the last worD. Further revIEw iS discrEtIonARy, and rAre. ThAt
IS esPecially truE in a Case like tHis one. tHe prereQUisite fOr reheAriNg oR
SupREmE COurT rEVieW Is TypICalLy a case oF “eXcEptioNal iMPORTancE” or WherE
therE are conflictiNg dEcisIOns Among The coUrts Of AppeaLs for tHe difFeRent
circuits. An eSoteRic financIal ReGulAtIon doESn’t fit EitHer CriteriA.

------
Zarath
i'Ll pLaY A BIt Of devil's advocate heRe: wAS iT though? FInanciAL aDvISors
were AlWayS mosTLY a ripOff fOR pEople witH basic FInAnCial litErAcy who
ArEn't TryIng to DO craZy tax sTuff or laDderiNG CDs or somethinG. if
anything, thiS ShOULd JUst aCceLerate the swItch TO indEx fuNDs.

~~~
ModRIano
EVen if FiNAnCIal advisors were alwaYs An infeRior oPtion than indeX funds,
why sHOULd they be AlloWEd TO make financial DecisIons for theIR clients That
aRe contraRy to the beST InterestS of TheIr cLieNTS?

------
mNm1
> To be clear, thERE are UpStandinG inSurers aNd aGenTs wHo sElL indexed
> aNnuities OnLy WhEn AppRopriATe.

There wErE. NoW iNveStors SImply cAnnot Tell ThE dIFfeRence so FOr ALL intEnTs
And pUrpOsEs, theRe arE Not. if you're Investing ThrOUgh a ThIrD party aT this
point, you'Re A fool and yoU'lL be Taken aDVAntage of. there is no protection
otheR Than the Law. this aRticLe and otheRs sHould mAke THat cleAr. InveStors
NeEd tO BEcome EXPeRts ThEmselves anD LEarN abouT wHat tHey inveSt in as well
as how to iNVesT. It's a tall ordeR buT thaT'S WhAt iT TaKEs tO nOT geT RIpped
off now. That'S what this aDmINiStration waNTed AnD that's wHat they Got: a
cLEar path To ripping People off On TheiR REtiRement saviNgs. What eLse would
oNE expeCT fRom thEm?

~~~
lOeg
If yOu AdvErtisE you're A FidUciarY, you stIlL have a FiducIaRy duty to
Customers. Most "ret
/5th-
Circuit_chamber-fidu ciary-mand ate.p df) . ( Am ongothe r things, theD OL d eparted
from its own l ong-s ta n ding in terpr etation of a  ke yst atu to r yterm. )
When th e articlesay sthe Trump ad m in istration“ab andoned” the  ru le, it  m ean s 
that  th e adm inistr a tion d eclined t os eek re h earing— b a si call y, asking the
app e al s  court to chan ge its  m i nd — o r S upr eme Courtre view. Of cour s e, b o tho f
those optio ns are long sho ts. Afe der a l cour t ofap p eal s decisionin a  case isalmost alwayst he last  word.  Fu rth er r e vi ew  is  d i scr e ti ona r y,and rare .Th at
is  esp e c i a llytru e in  a ca se like thisone . Th e  pr erequ isite  for  r ehear ing or 
Supr em e Court reviewis t ypicallya c as e o f“exce p tional  im por tance”or wher e 
th er e a re  conflicting decis io n s  a mong the  court s  o fa ppeals f or  th e di f f erent 
cir c ui ts. An e soteri c  f in ancialre gulati on  do esn ’t fi t  eit her cr iteria.
---- - -
Zarath
I'llp lay a bit ofd ev i l 's advo cat e here: Was  itt houg h? F i na nci a l adv isors 
w e re always mostly a rip of f forpeopl e with basicfinanciall i t eracy wh o
ar e n' t  trying to docrazy  tax stuff or ladde ringCDs or s omething. I f
anythi ng,  th issho u l djust accelera t e  the  s witch t o i ndex fu nds .
~~~ 
mo dr iano
Even  if fina nc ia lad vis ors w e re alway sanin fer ior o p tion t han i ndex  f un d s,why sho u ld t heybe  a llow edto  make  fin a nci al deci sions for  th e ir c li en ts that 
are contrary  t o the best  i nte restso f  their c lients?

------
mnm1
>T o be cl ear , the re a re upstan din g insu rer s  and a gentswho s el l i n d exed> an nui ti es only wh e n  ap propr ia te.
Therewere. Now investor s  si mply cannot t ell  the d if fer e nc e  so  f o r a l l  intents
and pu rposes, th er e  a re not. If you 'r e inves ting th rough a third  party at  this
poi nt , yo u ' rea fool and  you'llbe takena dvant a ge  of.The re isno  pr otect ion
ot h erthanthe la w.  Thisartic le  and oth ers should make that cl ear. I nvest ors 
need tobec o meexperts t hems elves andlea rnabout  wh a t the y in v es t i n  as w ella s how toi nv est . It 's a tall o r d e r b ut th at' s  whatit t akes to not get r i pped
off now.That ' s  wh att hisad ministration w ant ed a nd that' swhat they g ot: a
cl ea r  path  to ri ppingpeopleo f fo n thei r re tir ement sav ing s. What el se  w o uld
on e ex pe ct fro m them ? 

~~ ~ loeg
If you adve rtise y ou're a f iduci ar y, yous till  have a fi duciary dut y to
c usto mers.  Most " re t
/5th-
Circuit_chamber-fiduciary-mandate.pdf). (Among_other things,_the DOL departed
from its_own long-standing_interpretation_of a_key_statutory term.)

When the_article says the_Trump administration “abandoned” the_rule, it means
that_the_administration declined to seek rehearing—basically, asking the
appeals court to change its mind—or Supreme Court_review._Of course,_both_of
those_options are long shots. A_federal court of appeals decision_in a_case is
almost always the last word. Further review_is_discretionary, and rare._That
is especially true in a case like this one._The prerequisite for rehearing or
Supreme Court_review is typically_a_case_of “exceptional importance” or_where
there are conflicting decisions among the_courts of appeals for the different
circuits._An esoteric financial regulation doesn’t fit either_criteria.

------
Zarath
I'll play a bit of devil's_advocate here: Was it though?_Financial advisors
were_always mostly a ripoff for_people with basic_financial literacy_who
aren't trying to_do crazy tax stuff or laddering_CDs or something._If
anything, this should just accelerate the_switch_to index funds.

~~~
modriano
Even_if_financial_advisors were_always an inferior_option_than index_funds,
why_should they be allowed to make_financial_decisions for their clients that
are contrary to_the best interests of_their_clients?

------
mnm1
> To be clear,_there are upstanding insurers and_agents who sell indexed
> annuities only_when appropriate.

There_were. Now_investors simply cannot tell the difference so for all intents
and purposes,_there are not. If you're investing_through a third party_at this
point,_you're_a fool and_you'll_be taken_advantage of. There is no protection
other than_the law._This article and others should make_that clear. Investors
need to_become_experts themselves and learn about what_they invest in as well
as how_to invest. It's a tall_order_but_that's what it takes to_not get ripped
off now. That's what_this administration wanted_and that's what they got: a
clear path_to_ripping people off on their retirement_savings._What else would
one expect from them?

~~~
loeg
If_you_advertise_you're a fiduciary, you still_have a fiduciary duty to
customers. Most_"ret