Regulation

[RobinFinderson]

I disagree. The EPA writes rules all the time that dictate how they will enforce legislation, and these rules give them great latitude in enforcement to the point that the rules themselves become regulatory. Take the Clean Air Act, for example. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has authority to regulate companies to keep them from polluting, but the definition and extent of pollution are determined by the agency. Hence, the EPA decides how to limit CO2 emissions, which it has taken upon itself to categorize as a pollutant, including who can emit CO2 and to what extent it can be emitted.

I think you and I have found common ground on everything else.

BTW, cowboy, the EPA does conduct a cost/benefit analysis. I suppose folks can still argue with the methodology, or claim bias, but they should be able to produce some evidence in support of their claims.

[byu71]

Let's say you have hired someone to manage your assets. At some point in time the manager decides the best place for say 30% or more of your assets belong in cash. Let's also say some asset class drops 25% and he/she moves you into that asset class and it recovers 15%. Overall, your manager does a good job and you are happy with him/her.
The manager's fee is 1% on assets managed.

Question 1) Does the manager deserve the 1% on the assets that were in cash during some period of time.

Question 2) Should the answer to question 1 be between you and your manager or should a government regulator decide for you.

[byu71]

Just got out of our compliance meeting updating on what is coming.

I am not going to go into any details, but I am sincere when I tell you what is being done by the regulators is no help to the investment advisory service or more importantly to the client.

Contrary to popular opinion, investment advisors on the whole are honest and really do have emotional pain when markets are terrible and the client is down. They may know they don't have hindsight, but it still hurts.

This stuff though is a big bonus to lawyers. I doubt the regulators even understand what they are asking to be done.

Note: This is all my personal opinion.

[Indy Coug]

I doubt the regulators even understand what they are asking to be done.

Oh, they definitely don't.

[landpoke]

Just got out of our compliance meeting updating on what is coming.

I am not going to go into any details, but I am sincere when I tell you what is being done by the regulators is no help to the investment advisory service or more importantly to the client.

Contrary to popular opinion, investment advisors on the whole are honest and really do have emotional pain when markets are terrible and the client is down. They may know they don't have hindsight, but it still hurts.

This stuff though is a big bonus to lawyers. I doubt the regulators even understand what they are asking to be done.

Note: This is all my personal opinion.

Sounds like someone's bitter about getting their fat management fees cut.

[byu71]

Sounds like someone's bitter about getting their fat management fees cut.

Shame on me if I conveyed that. The meeting had nothing to do with cutting fees.

[Katy Lied]

Regulation works best when it affects the incentive scheme but not the mechanism. A very simple example is a bottle deposit, which monetizes used bottles. Some people will recycle their own bottles to make a few dollars. Other people will throw their bottles away when they drink in public parks, leaving them for bottle scavengers. Others will dispose at home, and sophisticated municipalities will separate garbage from recyclables. So here are 3 different mechanisms used to do what government wants: to recycle.

In the financial marketplace, government wants to regulate the mechanisms of financial transactions. They want to make it safe for all investors, ignoring the many varied risk profiles of different investors. This suppresses the investors with high risk preference, and funnels all the money to safe investments at very low rates. Start up companies and risky high tech ventures cant attract capital.

[landpoke]

Shame on me if I conveyed that. The meeting had nothing to do with cutting fees.

Too soon for that joke I guess. Is there a summary of the pending regulation on the net somewhere? I'm a big advocate for knowing how I'm about to be @#$%^&

[byu71]

Too soon for that joke I guess. Is there a summary of the pending regulation on the net somewhere? I'm a big advocate for knowing how I'm about to be @#$%^&

I would really like to add more, but we are regulated to the point that I think I had better say no more.

I remember some poor smuck who gave out a specific stock recommendation over a internet board and got fined and his license suspended. This was clear back in the 90's when regulations supposedly weren't so bad.

[Surfah]

Can anyone really support this regulation?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/ru...g-farm-chores/

[Goatnapper'96]

Can anyone really support this regulation?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/ru...g-farm-chores/

Rural America has to do a much better job of telling their story. The demographics continue to change as smaller and smaller percentages of US citizens/occupants live rural. While I think this administration is likely less friendly to rural interests than others, this type of clueless regulation reflects that the average American is less and less informed as to what rural life is and what benefits rural American provides the country.

With each generation fewer and fewer kids even have "grandpa's farm" to visit.

I am no fan of Obama but I think the problems run much deeper and the academic wankers at the land grant universities need to get their shit together.

[Moliere]

Can anyone really support this regulation?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/ru...g-farm-chores/

My inlaws live in a farming community. A decade ago many of the kids would be working the summers on the farms and making a decent sum. Fast forward to today, my SIL is actually moving in with us for 8 months (before college starts) because there are no farm jobs available for her. It's partly due to regulation and partly due to the horrible economy. Very sad, except for the fact we will have an unpaid babysitter!

[Pelado]

Jonah Goldberg claims social liberals don't believe in live and let live:

Social liberalism — better understood as progressivism — is a worldview that seeks to use the state to support its preferred values and culture. That isn’t libertarianism. Support for abortion rights does not make you a libertarian; it makes you someone who wants very lax regulations on abortion for ideological reasons. Which is why socially liberal bureaucrats in D.C. want to make you wait 24 hours to get a tattoo of a baby on your arm, but there’s no waiting to have an abortion.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...#ixzz2f5eRlFUY