|
Post by yogibearbull on Apr 23, 2024 18:49:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johntaylor on May 18, 2024 14:16:19 GMT
Regardless of where a person might stand on whether this is a good idea, it is stretching rulemaking
|
|
|
Post by gman57 on May 18, 2024 14:26:09 GMT
Yeah, what are they thinking! Imagine... they would have to act in your best interest not theirs. Anyone who makes money off investors will be totally against this. I mean, if I can't make money off your retirement plans selling you stuff that makes me more money than you... this is not capitalism. What about my retirement plans!
"When you're named a fiduciary and accept the role, you must – by law – manage the person's money and property for their benefit, not yours."
|
|
|
Post by johntaylor on May 18, 2024 15:07:40 GMT
The point wasn't whether somebody might agree with the thrust of the change (I do).
Trying to do this via rulemaking is stretching it, thus inviting litigation.
Substantive changes have to be done properly (legislation).
|
|
|
Post by yogibearbull on May 18, 2024 15:09:42 GMT
But what about the SEC that rules without even rule-making?
|
|
|
Post by johntaylor on May 18, 2024 15:25:20 GMT
The Administrative Procedure Act is part of a chain of authority (legislation, regs, rules).
Any executive is tempted (as Lord Acton said) to exercise power in the most convenient and expeditious manner, but substantive changes need to be made by legislation to ultimately withstand judicial scrutiny.
Otherwise, you have -- and this is a bipartisan issue -- a sort of perma administrative ruling class unresponsive to voters.
|
|