Galloism wrote:Seangoli wrote:
The best reason I've ever heard from anybody on the subject as to why we shouldn't have it is that financial advisers will work in their clients best interest anyway, as that will tend to make the most money. Thus making the rule unnecessary, and needlessly difficult to comply with.
The problem is, of course, that there are people who know the system well enough to figure out a means in which their clients are getting shafted, but they come out ahead.
Well, what the rule effectively does is prohibit self-dealing or churning.
But given trump has been caught himself self-dealing to the shareholders detriment, it's no surprise he would be against rules prohibiting actions like his.
I would not doubt if he moves to make it so corporations can legally decide to not pay their debtors while circumventing the bankruptcy process. Because it helps businesses!
On a serious note, for someone who said he was going to get tough on Wall Street, this move seems like it's just the sort of wet-dream that sleazy Wall Streeters love. It's also absolutely terrible.
)
