301–310 of 452 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and crypto doesn’t have any inherent risk like a sitting President creating a crypto currency where he has 80% of the currency, will probably make a half billion dollars and then do a rug pull. https://fortune.com/2025/01/22/donald-trump-net-worth-memeco...
it's a ... memecoin - a category of crypto assets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, why do you need a video chat? Can't you just have a phone call? I don't get the need to see someone's face
I don't get the need for synchronous comms at all. I can book airplane tickets, food delivery, e-commerce generally, and most other things through a web interface. Not sure why I need to talk to somebody to get a mortgage aside from Know Your Customer but even then a short signing ceremony at the end would be best.
Maybe I'm in graduate school and my salary is called a 'stipend' and I don't get any payslips, plus I have a part-time job in sales where my base salary is very low and about 75% of my income is commission, and also my girlfriend will be helping with the mortgage, but not the deposit, and she's a Ukrainian refugee and self-employed content creator.
An expert who's seen it all before would know how to navigate my situation properly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ETFs are mostly irrelevant from a 401(k) perspective because no one is trading on a daily basis. Some 401(k) plans do now offer ETFs among the investment options but for the most part they have always focused on regular mutual funds. Average expense ratios have come down a bit since 2008.
Regular mutual funds usually have higher risk and tax exposure than the ETFs... Met a lot of bums in suits trying to sell me on several flavors of BS over the years. lol =3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> bonded fiduciary services I never saw this term before. Google shows me nothing. Can you explain what you mean, please?
> never saw this term before They’re mixing up a securities term (irrelevant to banking per se and cash management totally). What they mean is getting an adviser who is bound to act as your fiduciary versus as a counterparty [1]. If you’re trusting your portfolio management entirely to a third party, they should be a fiduciary. That said, people outside finance seem to make a bigger deal out of this than it is—in Ame…
I think you are feigning ignorance for some reason or posting AI slop,
Best of luck =3
My warning is this: Be careful what you wish for. If we were to switch to a full digital currency, there are significant concerns that money could be allocated like a voucher, where it could be sent and only spent in a certain way. Suddenly the government decides those receiving some kind of social care allowance must spend different parts in different ways, i.e. a minimum of 50% MUST be spent on rent (an extremely enticing proposition in a recession). Perhaps there is a tax for not spending enough, or on the correct thing. Perhaps there is a micro-tax for moving it around. Maybe the micro-tax is dependant on your social credit score. The slippery slope goes on.
The only thing currently stopping this is that you can withdraw your entire wage each month and spend it however you want, without such a tax. The government or banks cannot be certain of precisely how you spend your money when using cash. The very moment cash is gone, such implements can be created and there is nothing you can do about it.
Maybe I am behind the times, but I don't like the sound of "disruption" in the banking industry. That last time I saw "disruption" was in 2008, and many people lost their homes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> never saw this term before They’re mixing up a securities term (irrelevant to banking per se and cash management totally). What they mean is getting an adviser who is bound to act as your fiduciary versus as a counterparty [1]. If you’re trusting your portfolio management entirely to a third party, they should be a fiduciary. That said, people outside finance seem to make a bigger deal out of this than it is—in Ame…
While phonetically similar to a "securities term", the conversation was about legal agreements with a registered professional. I think you are feigning ignorance for some reason or posting AI slop, Best of luck =3
No. A "bonded fiduciary service" is not a thing. That's why there are literally zero hits on Google for that string.
You're thinking about an adviser--who must be a registered professional in the U.S., but that's a separate topic--who agrees to be bound as a fiduciary. (Bonding is a surety concept [1]. If someone is arguing their fiduciary duties are stronger because they're bonded, please report them to your regulators because that's nonsense.)
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/what-does-bonded-mean-definitio...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re mixing up adviser fees (ETFs have lower fees than mutual funds; neither is directly related to adviser fees), toxic assets, CMOs, balloon mortgages and possibly management fees and carried interest. These are related concepts inasmuch as they’re all financial terms.
You seem confused by my frustration with tools towing the company line rather than providing reliable investment advice. Personally, I prefer retaining the option to sue people that pull stunts. But to each their own... =3
If that's an option for you, sure. I work in finance and retain FINRA arbitration as a customer. When I'm signing with clients, I do not like to include it--I have a strong advantage in court and don't want a venue that's biased against me as a professional.
All of this is totally irrelevant to ETFs, mutual funds and CMOs because those are distributed funds whose terms aren't negotiable after offering. (If you're worrying about suing the guy selling you ETFs, you're doing something wrong. Probably overtrading.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very US centric article, a lot of the disruptions listed are incumbent 'big bank' products in other jurisdictions. I feel the lack of adaptability is likely a result of US market conditions/regulations rather than lack of innovation.
I think it could also be cultural. In my country people are perfectly happy to have a video chat with a bank employee about mortgages but in other country's you still need to go into a branch office for that kind of thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, why do you need a video chat? Can't you just have a phone call? I don't get the need to see someone's face
I have had video chats with my bank. The video part was not super important but nice given the magnitude of the transaction (house loan things). The more important part was the screensharing to sho the advisors calculations and other info.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While phonetically similar to a "securities term", the conversation was about legal agreements with a registered professional. I think you are feigning ignorance for some reason or posting AI slop, Best of luck =3
> While phonetically similar to a "securities term", the conversation was about legal agreements with a registered professional No. A "bonded fiduciary service" is not a thing. That's why there are literally zero hits on Google for that string. You're thinking about an adviser--who must be a registered professional in the U.S., but that's a separate topic--who agrees to be bound as a fiduciary. ( Bonding is a surety…
I already donated to the Yellow Feather Fund friend, as I recognized some people are very special in this world =3