Reduction in Regulations Save $1.3 Billion in Business Expenses This Year

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth

Most business are not be run for the benefit of their customers. They are being run for the benefit of the owners or shareholders. If they wanted to focus on their "customer needs" then why was it necessary to kill a regulation that would have required financial planners to work on behalf of their clients. I'm sure financial planners are relieved that they won't be required to work on behalf of their customers.

That one killed me. I was so looking forward to that going into effect.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth

Most business are not be run for the benefit of their customers. They are being run for the benefit of the owners or shareholders. If they wanted to focus on their "customer needs" then why was it necessary to kill a regulation that would have required financial planners to work on behalf of their clients. I'm sure financial planners are relieved that they won't be required to work on behalf of their customers.

In most cases, the better the customer feels about your product, the higher the margin you can command.

I've spent decades at corps that commanded significant price premiums vs competitors, and still won the largest piece of market share.

[WilliamSmyth]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

In most cases, the better the customer feels about your product, the higher the margin you can command.

I've spent decades at corps that commanded significant price premiums vs competitors, and still won the largest piece of market share.

My pointing out the financial planners is not purely an academic exercise. Both my widowed mother and my sister have been ripped off by financial planners who saw their large portfolios as an opportunity to acquire some of those assets for themselves by steering them into inappropriate investments which had the advantage of coming with large fees payable to the financial planners.



Clearly these separate financial planners did not care about what they were doing to their clients. Far as I can tell what they did is perfectly legal. It would have been nice to have a regulation that required them to work on behalf of their clients.

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth

My pointing out the financial planners is not purely an academic exercise. Both my widowed mother and my sister have been ripped off by financial planners who saw their large portfolios as an opportunity to acquire some of those assets for themselves by steering them into inappropriate investments which had the advantage of coming with large fees payable to the financial planners.



Clearly these separate financial planners did not care about what they were doing to their clients. Far as I can tell what they did is perfectly legal. It would have been nice to have a regulation that required them to work on behalf of their clients.

I was floored when I learned financial planners are under no obligation to do what is in their client's best interest. That is insane.

I was so happy when they changed that rule, and so unhappy when they repealed it.