馃攳
Court Rules Financial Advisers Now Free To Screw You - YouTube
Channel: The Young Turks
[0]
A FEDERAL COURT HAS RULED
AGAINST AN OBAMA ERA REGULATION
[4]
THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY KEEP A
CLOSE EYE ON FINANCIAL ANALYSTS
[9]
AND ENSURE THAT THEY SELL
PRODUCTS THAT KEEP THE BEST
[12]
INTERESTS OF THE CONSUMER IN
MIND.
[15]
THESE ARE NONFIDUCIARIES,
[19]
INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT HAVE ANY
PARTICULAR CREDENTIALS TO BE
[22]
SELLING THESE PRODUCTS, BUT THEY
ARE SALESPEOPLE WHO HAVE TITLES
[26]
SUCH AS FINANCIAL ANALYST,
FINANCIAL ADVISOR, FINANCIAL
[30]
CONSULTANT, FINANCIAL PLANNER,
INVESTMENT CONSULTANT, AND THEY
[33]
PREVIOUSLY, PRIOR TO THESE OBAMA
ERA REGULATIONS, HAD NO
[39]
OBLIGATION, NO LEGAL OBLIGATION,
TO SELL YOU PRODUCTS WITH YOUR
[44]
BEST INTERESTS IN MIND.
[45]
IN FACT
OFTEN TIMES THEY WOULD SELL
[47]
RETIREMENT PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS
THAT WOULD NOT HELP THEM, BUT
[52]
WOULD GIVE THEM COMMISSION AND
ALSO GIVE THEM OTHER FINANCIAL
[56]
INCENTIVES TO SELL THOSE
PRODUCTS.
[58]
NOW IN 2016 OBAMA'S
[60]
ADMINISTRATION DID IMPLEMENT
SOME REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THAT
[65]
THESE INDIVIDUALS WORKED IN YOUR
BEST INTERESTS, AND TODAY, I'M
[69]
SORRY, YESTERDAY, A FEDERAL
COURT DECIDED TO RULE AGAINST
[73]
THOSE REGULATIONS.
[74]
NOW LET ME
GIVE YOU THOSE DETAILS --
[75]
I JUST WANT TO PAUSE, ANA,
BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS SO
[99]
IMPORTANT.
[100]
THAT GOES TO THE
HEART OF NOT JUST THIS CASE AND
[102]
THIS ISSUE BUT THE HEART OF THE
PROBLEM IN OUR GOVERNMENT.
[105]
IT
[106]
WAS TWO JUDGES APPOINTED BY
REPUBLICANS, AND HENCE THE
[110]
CORRUPTING OF THE JUDICIARY.
[111]
IT'S NOT THAT REPUBLICANS CAN'T
[112]
APPOINT JUDGES, OF COURSE THEY
CAN, BUT THEY ARE SELECTING
[115]
JUDGES THAT ARE ONLY
PRO-CORPORATE.
[120]
IN FACT NEIL
[121]
GORSUCH GOT THE SUPREME COURT
NOMINATION BECAUSE HE WAS THE
[125]
ONLY JUDGE IN THE COUNTRY THAT
RULED THAT A CORPORATION HAS THE
[128]
RIGHT TO ORDER ONE OF THEIR
WORKERS TO FREEZE TO DEATH, AND
[132]
THEN FIRE HIM IF HE DISREGARDS
THAT ORDER.
[134]
THAT'S AN AMAZING
[136]
RULING.
[137]
EVERY OTHER JUDGE WHO
LOOKED AT THAT CASE SAID NO, BUT
[138]
THAT WAS GORSUCH'S WAY OF SAYING
I WILL DO ANYTHING FOR
[142]
MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND
THAT GAVE HIM THE SUPREME COURT
[144]
SEAT.
[145]
SO WE PRESELECTED JUDGES
TO MAKE RULINGS LIKE THIS.
[149]
SO
[150]
THEY RULED IT IS UNREASONABLE TO
EXPECT THAT A FINANCIAL ADVISOR
[156]
WOULD HAVE YOUR BEST INTERESTS
IN MIND.
[158]
THE REASONABLE POSITION
[159]
WOULD BE FOR THEM TO ROB YOU
BLIND.
[162]
SO FOR THEM TO CARE ABOUT
[163]
YOU, THEIR CUSTOMER OR THEIR
CLIENT, AND FOR THE GOVERNMENT
[166]
TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS, IS
TOTALLY UNREASONABLE.
[170]
AND THAT
[171]
IS THE CORPORATE POSITION, IT'S
UNREASONABLE FOR US TO SACRIFICE
[175]
EVEN A PENNY OF OUR PROFITS TO
LOOK OUT FOR OUR CUSTOMERS
[178]
OR CLIENTS.
[179]
LET'S HEAR FROM THE JUDGES WHO
RULED AGAINST THE REGULATIONS,
[184]
ONE OF THEM WAS JUDGE EDITH
JONES, WHO WAS NOMINATED BY
[188]
RONALD REAGAN, HERE IS WHAT
JUDGE JONES HAD TO SAY --
[211]
I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT
ATTEMPT AT LOGIC BECAUSE THERE
[216]
WAS NO LOGIC THERE.
[217]
THESE ARE
PEOPLE WHO PREVIOUSLY, PRIOR TO
[219]
THESE REGULATIONS, DIDN'T HAVE
TO DISCLOSE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[223]
WHEN SELLING CERTAIN RETIREMENT
PRODUCTS, AND PUSHING FOR
[227]
CERTAIN INVESTMENTS, WHICH BY
THE WAY IN A LOT OF CASES THESE
[230]
INVESTMENTS WOULD WORK AGAINST
THEIR CLIENT, IT WOULD ACTUALLY
[233]
DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
THEY WOULD HAVE IN THE LONG RUN
[236]
FOR THEIR RETIREMENT, BUT THEY
DIDN'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE THE
[238]
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR THE
INCENTIVES THEY WERE GIVEN TO
[242]
SELL THOSE TERRIBLE PRODUCTS TO
THESE CONSUMERS.
[246]
AND ALSO THEY
[247]
WOULD CHARGE FEES, AND THE
REGULATION ESSENTIALLY TOOK CARE
[253]
OF, OR PREVENTED THEM, FROM
CHARGING CERTAIN FEES THAT AGAIN
[257]
IN THE LONG RUN WOULD AMOUNT TO
A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT, THAT YOU
[261]
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RETIRE WITH
AS MUCH AS YOU COULD HAD YOU
[265]
KNOWN WHAT WAS AT PLAY BEHIND
THE SCENES.
[267]
SO IT WAS PROVIDING
[269]
OVERSIGHT, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY
IT WAS PROVIDING INFORMATION TO
[273]
THE CONSUMER SO YOU KNEW WHAT
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WERE AT
[276]
PLAY AND THE TYPES OF FEES
YOU WERE BEING CHARGED.
[280]
SO THIS IS CRAZY.
[282]
I KEEP THINKING THE WHOLE
POINT OF GOVERNMENT IS TO
[286]
PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THE
DUPLICITOUS -- THIS ISN'T JUST
[290]
DUPLICITOUS, IT'S CRIMINAL, IT'S
THE POTENTIAL TO SORT OF GRIFT
[296]
--
[297]
BUT EVEN IF IT'S JUST
DUPLICITOUS --
[298]
MY PARENTS WERE BOTH DOCTORS,
IF A DOCTOR COULD BE LIKE I'M
[305]
GOING TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING THAT
MIGHT KILL YOU AND NOT TELL YOU
[308]
THAT IF IT WILL MAKE THE
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY A LOT OF
[309]
PROFIT -- WELL, THAT'S KIND OF
HAPPENING.
[315]
WE USED TO HAVE A LOT OF LAWS
PERTAINING TO CONSUMERS, LIKE A
[317]
LEMON LAW, A CAR SALESMAN
COULDN'T SELL YOU A CAR THAT HE
[321]
KNEW DIDN'T FUNCTION.
[323]
AND THAT'S
JUST A CAR.
[326]
BUT YOU COULD LOSE
[327]
YOUR WHOLE SAVINGS AND CORPORATE
JUDGES VIEW IT AS WHOLLY
[331]
UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT THEY
TELL YOU THE TRUTH ABOUT IT.
[335]
ONE
[336]
OF THE THINGS THEY DO THAT ANA
WAS REFERRING TO IS EXCESSIVE
[338]
TRADING, THEY TAKE COMMISSION ON
EACH TRADE, FOREIGN SAMPLE, AND
[345]
EVERY TIME YOU LOSE THAT MONEY
AND THEY GAIN THAT MONEY.
[348]
SO
[349]
THEY HAVE RIGGED THAT SYSTEM SO
THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY,
[352]
THANK YOU FOR INVESTING FOR US,
WE NOW HAVE YOUR MONEY AND YOU
[355]
DON'T.
[356]
NOT THE WHOLE PRINCIPAL,
A OBVIOUSLY, BUT IT'S A WAY OF
[358]
MILKING YOU FOR THEIR PROFIT
WITHOUT TELLING YOU.
[361]
AND IF WE
[362]
CAN HAVE A LEMON LAW ABOUT CARS
YOU CAN CERTAINLY HAVE IT ABOUT
[365]
YOUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS AND
YOUR ENTIRE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.
[370]
THING ABOUT WHO THEY PREY ON.
[372]
THEY PREY ON RETIREES.
[373]
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
[375]
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MOST
VULNERABLE, IN SOME CASES MOST
[380]
GULLIBLE BECAUSE THEY AREN'T AS
COMFORTABLE WITH THESE THINGS,
[383]
I'M GENERALIZING BUT THAT'S
TRUE, ONE THING TO POINT OUT,
[386]
ANA, BEFORE YOU GO ON, IS THIS
IS THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, IT'S A 2-1
[390]
DECISION, EARLIER THIS WEEK THEY
GAVE ANOTHER 2-1 DECISION IN
[395]
FAVOR OF TEXAS AGAINST SANCTUARY
CITIES.
[400]
SO YOU AREN'T IN THE
[402]
NINTH DISTRICT ANYMORE, YOU
AREN'T IN THIS FAVORABLE COURT,
[404]
BUT THESE ARE BOTH 2-1
DECISIONS.
[407]
IN THE SANCTUARY
[408]
CITIES CASE IN TEXAS THEY WILL
APPEAL FOR A HEARING WITH ALL
[415]
SEVEN MEMBERS, OR NINE MEMBERS,
OF AN APPEALS COURT AND THEY
[420]
PROBABLY WILL WANT TO DO THAT IN
THIS CASE AS WELL BECAUSE THIS
[422]
IS WHAT YOU HAVE WITH THE
CIRCUIT APPEALS COURTS, WHEN
[426]
THEY KNOW THEY CAN GET A GOOD
DECISION THEY GET A SMALLER
[428]
NUMBER, THEY GO TO A 2-1.
[430]
TWO THINGS I WANT TO POINT
OUT, ONE IN REGARD TO WHAT CENK
[434]
MENTIONED, THE CONSTANT TRADING
IS SOME THING THAT IS PUSHED
[438]
TOWARDS CONSUMERS, THEY ARE
REFERRED TO AS ACTIVE MANAGEMENT
[443]
OR ACTIVE FUNDS OR ANNUITIES,
AND THE WHOLE POINT IS SO THEY
[448]
DO CONSTANT TRADING, AND AGAIN
THAT'S WHEN THE INDIVIDUALS
[452]
DOING THE TRAINING ON YOUR
BEHALF MAKE MONEY BUT IT DOESN'T
[454]
NECESSARILY WORK TOWARD YOUR
BEST INTERESTS, OR IN YOUR BEST
[458]
INTERESTS, BECAUSE YOU WILL
LIKELY LOSE MONEY WHEN THERE IS
[461]
THAT MUCH ACTIVITY GOING ON.
[463]
TO
YOUR POINT, MICHAEL, SOMETHING
[466]
INTERESTING DID HAPPEN.
[467]
NOW EVEN
THOUGH THIS COURT RULED AGAINST
[469]
THE REGULATIONS, ANOTHER CIRCUIT
COURT ALSO MADE A DECISION ON
[473]
THIS REGULATION THAT WAS
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, SO THIS IS
[476]
LIKELY TO GO TO THE SUPREME
COURT, WHICH ISN'T NECESSARILY
[480]
GOOD NEWS CONSIDERING WE HAVE A
CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT
[484]
CURRENTLY.
[485]
ANOTHER CIRCUIT COURT
DECISION HAS TAKEN AN OPPOSITE
[487]
TRACK, MEANING THE CONTINUING
FIGHT COULD BE HEADED TO THE
[490]
SUPREME COURT.
[491]
ANOTHER PIECE OF
INFO YOU SHOULD KNOW IS THAT THE
[494]
SEC IS TRYING TO DRAFT ITS OWN
VERSION OF REGULATION IN
[498]
RESPONSE TO THIS --
[516]
OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE A
VERSION OF THAT REGULATION AT
[520]
THE MOMENT, BUT WE'LL SEE HOW
THAT TURNS OUT.
[523]
IN FULL DISCLOSURE, EDITH
JONES, THE JUDGE, NO RELATION.
[526]
SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO RECUSE
YOURSELF.
[530]
BECAUSE WE TAKE OUR
[531]
ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES VERY
SERIOUSLY.
[534]
ONE LAST THING, THOSE
[536]
WORDS SHE USED, EDITH JONES
USED, REALLY STRUCK ME.
[540]
AND
[541]
AGAIN IT GOES TO THE HEART OF
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM.
[542]
SHE DEEMED THE ATTEMPT TO
PROTECT CONSUMERS AS ARBITRARY
[548]
AND CAPRICIOUS.
[549]
LIKE, ALMOST A
SLAP IN THE FACE, SAYING HOW
[553]
DARE YOU TRY TO STAND UP FOR THE
CITIZENS?
[556]
NO, THE CORPORATIONS
[557]
RULE US ALL AND THEY CAN DO
ANYTHING THEY LIKE, THEY CAN
[560]
TRICK YOU, TAKE YOUR MONEY, LIE
TO YOU, AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU
[565]
CAN DO ABOUT IT, AND IF THE
GOVERNMENT TRIES TO STAND UP FOR
[567]
YOU, IN THE RARE CASE IT TRIES
TO STAND UP FOR YOU, WE WILL
[570]
DEEM IT ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS.
[573]
HOW DARE THEY?
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage