Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Down But Not Out: Vanguard Says Trump Rules Cull Won’t Hurt ETFs
"Trump adviser ... Scaramucci has compared the fiduciary rule [for IRAs, 401Ks] to the infamous Dred Scott decision, a 1857 Supreme Court ruling that denied black Americans citizenship."
Would that be because the SEC rule would hold financial advisors slaves to the truth? I'm really having trouble parsing this comment.
Here's Anthony Scaramucci, the Skybridge Capital founder and Trump fund-raiser and adviser, on the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule:
“It's about like the Dred Scott decision,” Mr. Scaramucci said.
He made the analogy because he views the DOL rule as discriminatory, Mr. Scaramucci wrote in a follow-up email.
“The left-leaning Department of Labor has made a decision to discriminate against a class of people who they deem to be adding no value,” he wrote. “They are judging what should happen in a free market and attempting to put financial advisers out of work."
I guess that we should let anyone serve as a financial advisor, because otherwise we're discriminating against unlicensed "practitioners". After all, not all of them are charlatans. Who are we (or the DOL) to say?
Remarkably, Palin-esque. You are denying the right (or is it removing standing?) of an entire class of people to determine the meaning of words as they see fit. That's just unfair, prima faciae.
C'mon, you guys are just trying to befuddle us with elitist vocabulary and some words that don't look like English. Pretty soon you'll be using elitist punctuation like the semicolon.
Comments
Would that be because the SEC rule would hold financial advisors slaves to the truth? I'm really having trouble parsing this comment.
I guess that we should let anyone serve as a financial advisor, because otherwise we're discriminating against unlicensed "practitioners". After all, not all of them are charlatans. Who are we (or the DOL) to say?
You are denying the right (or is it removing standing?) of an entire class of people to determine the meaning of words as they see fit. That's just unfair, prima faciae.