“This is purely the intro to my garbage avoidance of reality.”
I don’t need to hear the rest.
The reality is that should someone give you a 100 million and you’re of normal intelligence, have no substance abuse issues or debts or anything of the like, it’d be trivial to invest some of that money into hiring professionals who know what they’re doing, and that your only requirements are to get, idk 100k a year to use for yourself, and to have it as safe as possible.
You disagree that that would be trivial to do? Soo… avoiding reality it is then.
We’re not talking about investing the money to “make money” in the sense that proper investors would with 100mil that they would invest in what they deem to be worth the risk. They expect decent roi for that sort of money. But we’re talking about roi that would be enough to sustain a person living very moderately.
That’s literally not an issue at all. Although I used “Swiss banks” as a meme, because I know you won’t understand the nuances of European institutions and Swiss banks would probably actually charge for holding that money, so you’d want to put it in a German bank more so than a Swiss one. But there’s tons of safe options for just putting it in and being able to make HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of interest a year.
And your argument is that “no no you can’t do that what if the world economy collapses completely and money has no value, huh? then you won’t have your interest if there’s no money in the world!” (I remember someone mentioning “strawmen” earlier…)
That’s a lot of writing to admit you have no idea what the meaning behind the words I said. Look if you can’t even understand the basics taught in the series 7, you are the target for the rich.
It’s really not. Which is why there are laws around accredited investing and why agents have to learn the Series 7 and follow Finra rules. But if you literally don’t understand anything I said, it’s obvious why you think it’s magic.
Lets put your hypocrisy in a different light. If all jobs require skill, then the job of a financial advisor requires skill because it’s trivial to make 100k from 10 million? It’s as if your trying to argue that there IS unskilled labor and we should complain about them.
You should never hire a financial advisor. That’s like going to see a chiropractor for back pain. What one needs is a fiduciary. And hiring one when you’ve a 100 million is beyond trivial. And a fiduciary making 100k with a 100 million is beyond trivial.
There’s no hypocrisy. All jobs require skill. Being an ultrawealthy cumstain isn’t a job or a skill. Money makes money. Small money doesn’t make money, but a lot of money will.
Oh dear lord. A fiduciary is a financial advisor. In fact it’s the purpose of the Series 7 to make sure they’re one and the same. Here’s an article on it.
Like I said, if you don’t even understand what I’m saying, it’s not a surprise you’re as ignorant as you are.
*Edit: And just so you know, the reason I keep harping on the series 7 is because it forces financial advisors to be fiduciaries. It’s the WHOLE POINT of the test. Good lord, how do people like you survive in this world?
*Edit 2: Man this comment. You really didn’t know financial advisors have fiduciary responsibility? And yet you knew the word fiduciary? How? How do you exist?
*Edit 3: Wait wait wait, what do you think fiduciary means? I get the feeling you think it means something else.
Again, ignoring the actual arguments to pretend like I’m not making sense.
I’m laughing out loud at the irony of you talking about strawmen. You keep assuming we’re gonna work in America, when I’ve explicitly stated hypotheticals in Europe. But someone might not have the understanding of European financial institutions, would they? And so they’d desperately cling on to the pretense that they hold some arcane secrets with their asinine avoidance of reality. What you’re doing is equivocating. (I know you’ll have to use a dictionary. :/)
You know exactly why that standardisation is happening. But you’re pretending as if I should know the most recent developments in the US, when you don’t even understand the very basics of European banking? Seems like a bit of a hypocritical strawman. ;DD
Clearly the point I’m making there is that just like chiropractors, “financial advisers” didn’t used to have a fiduciary duty. They’re fixing the problem I was talking about. Which you pervert into pretending like I have no idea what I’m talking about. It’s utterly ridiculous.
This is my third language. What if I were to be as ethnocentric as you? Oh right, you would seize to have the ability to communicate with me due to you not speaking my language, but me being able to speak your language. Now when I was in business school like fucking 20 years ago, shit was kinda different. That doesn’t matter though, as the basic argument you’re making is ridiculous ESPECIALLY for someone who seems to (at least attempt to) work in the financial sector.
You’re saying explicitly that it wouldn’t be trivial for someone with a fiduciary duty towards you to make you 100k when you give them 100 mil to play with? Just how shit of a finance person are you if can’t do 100k roi on 100 mil (and yes, of course everything has small risks, but again, aside from the entire world economy crashing)? :D
You’re not making any sense. You said to seek out a fiduciary not an advisor. Now you’re claiming that some time in the past, which would be distant past btw, that’s when I should have seeked out a fiduciary? What you’re saying makes no sense. Anyway, EU has the same fiduciary laws for institutional investors like financial advisors.
Also, it doesn’t matter HOW shit someone can be at their job the reality is it’s easy to fuck it up. So, you just admitted it takes skill to be a financial advisor. Congrats you played yourself.
You’re not making any sense. You said to seek out a fiduciary not an advisor. Now you’re claiming that some time in the past, which would be distant past btw,
That’s the link you just linked in your previous comment. Your link.
Hmm, what’s that first sentence there? Didn’t bother to get past the title, did you? :(
Until relatively recently, the term “financial advisor” was used to describe various positions across the financial industry.
The Reg BI is from 2020.
So to you “relatively recently” actually means “the distant past”?
I wish you well in your studies, but you really are just sorely wrong about this, and now you’re just having a tantrum and trying to assert knowing more, while actually linking evidence supporting how I’m in the right and how I understand that you need a financial advisor who has a fiduciary duty towards you — something which not all financial advisors had until five years ago. See in my language, you wouldn’t even understand the words (and Google translate does not work well on Finnish.)
At no point has anyone made the argument that financial advisors don’t need skill. But see they’re financial ADVISORS, because they don’t have the capital to invest.
You’re explicitly saying that you couldn’t make reliably make 100k roi on 100 million? Man, I hope you didn’t pay for your schooling (here in the first world we have free education :P), because if you did, you really need to go and ask for your money back and spend it more wisely.
The money makes the money, as we live in a system of exploitation of labour. The megawealthy cumstains are also exploiting the work of the financial advisors, duh. The megawealthy cumstains still can make hundreds of thousands a year because CAPITAL MAKES CAPITAL.
Squirm all you want you’re just utterly wrong and can’t address the actual argument anymore so all you have is that childish and pretentious equivocating.
“This is purely the intro to my garbage avoidance of reality.”
I don’t need to hear the rest.
The reality is that should someone give you a 100 million and you’re of normal intelligence, have no substance abuse issues or debts or anything of the like, it’d be trivial to invest some of that money into hiring professionals who know what they’re doing, and that your only requirements are to get, idk 100k a year to use for yourself, and to have it as safe as possible.
You disagree that that would be trivial to do? Soo… avoiding reality it is then.
We’re not talking about investing the money to “make money” in the sense that proper investors would with 100mil that they would invest in what they deem to be worth the risk. They expect decent roi for that sort of money. But we’re talking about roi that would be enough to sustain a person living very moderately.
That’s literally not an issue at all. Although I used “Swiss banks” as a meme, because I know you won’t understand the nuances of European institutions and Swiss banks would probably actually charge for holding that money, so you’d want to put it in a German bank more so than a Swiss one. But there’s tons of safe options for just putting it in and being able to make HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of interest a year.
And your argument is that “no no you can’t do that what if the world economy collapses completely and money has no value, huh? then you won’t have your interest if there’s no money in the world!” (I remember someone mentioning “strawmen” earlier…)
That’s a lot of writing to admit you have no idea what the meaning behind the words I said. Look if you can’t even understand the basics taught in the series 7, you are the target for the rich.
You’re just afraid to argue this because you know I’m right.
It’s beyond trivial to get a ~100k yearly roi on 100 million.
It’s really not. Which is why there are laws around accredited investing and why agents have to learn the Series 7 and follow Finra rules. But if you literally don’t understand anything I said, it’s obvious why you think it’s magic.
Lets put your hypocrisy in a different light. If all jobs require skill, then the job of a financial advisor requires skill because it’s trivial to make 100k from 10 million? It’s as if your trying to argue that there IS unskilled labor and we should complain about them.
Nothing magical about interest.
It’s beyond trivial.
You should never hire a financial advisor. That’s like going to see a chiropractor for back pain. What one needs is a fiduciary. And hiring one when you’ve a 100 million is beyond trivial. And a fiduciary making 100k with a 100 million is beyond trivial.
There’s no hypocrisy. All jobs require skill. Being an ultrawealthy cumstain isn’t a job or a skill. Money makes money. Small money doesn’t make money, but a lot of money will.
Oh dear lord. A fiduciary is a financial advisor. In fact it’s the purpose of the Series 7 to make sure they’re one and the same. Here’s an article on it.
https://wealthadvisors.smartasset.com/fiduciary-costs-benefits-sem1/
Like I said, if you don’t even understand what I’m saying, it’s not a surprise you’re as ignorant as you are.
*Edit: And just so you know, the reason I keep harping on the series 7 is because it forces financial advisors to be fiduciaries. It’s the WHOLE POINT of the test. Good lord, how do people like you survive in this world?
*Edit 2: Man this comment. You really didn’t know financial advisors have fiduciary responsibility? And yet you knew the word fiduciary? How? How do you exist?
*Edit 3: Wait wait wait, what do you think fiduciary means? I get the feeling you think it means something else.
Again, ignoring the actual arguments to pretend like I’m not making sense.
I’m laughing out loud at the irony of you talking about strawmen. You keep assuming we’re gonna work in America, when I’ve explicitly stated hypotheticals in Europe. But someone might not have the understanding of European financial institutions, would they? And so they’d desperately cling on to the pretense that they hold some arcane secrets with their asinine avoidance of reality. What you’re doing is equivocating. (I know you’ll have to use a dictionary. :/)
You know exactly why that standardisation is happening. But you’re pretending as if I should know the most recent developments in the US, when you don’t even understand the very basics of European banking? Seems like a bit of a hypocritical strawman. ;DD
Clearly the point I’m making there is that just like chiropractors, “financial advisers” didn’t used to have a fiduciary duty. They’re fixing the problem I was talking about. Which you pervert into pretending like I have no idea what I’m talking about. It’s utterly ridiculous.
This is my third language. What if I were to be as ethnocentric as you? Oh right, you would seize to have the ability to communicate with me due to you not speaking my language, but me being able to speak your language. Now when I was in business school like fucking 20 years ago, shit was kinda different. That doesn’t matter though, as the basic argument you’re making is ridiculous ESPECIALLY for someone who seems to (at least attempt to) work in the financial sector.
You’re saying explicitly that it wouldn’t be trivial for someone with a fiduciary duty towards you to make you 100k when you give them 100 mil to play with? Just how shit of a finance person are you if can’t do 100k roi on 100 mil (and yes, of course everything has small risks, but again, aside from the entire world economy crashing)? :D
You’re not making any sense. You said to seek out a fiduciary not an advisor. Now you’re claiming that some time in the past, which would be distant past btw, that’s when I should have seeked out a fiduciary? What you’re saying makes no sense. Anyway, EU has the same fiduciary laws for institutional investors like financial advisors.
http://www.purposeofcorporation.org/fiduciary-duties.pdf
So, I don’t know what you’re on about.
Also, it doesn’t matter HOW shit someone can be at their job the reality is it’s easy to fuck it up. So, you just admitted it takes skill to be a financial advisor. Congrats you played yourself.
That’s the link you just linked in your previous comment. Your link.
Hmm, what’s that first sentence there? Didn’t bother to get past the title, did you? :(
The Reg BI is from 2020.
So to you “relatively recently” actually means “the distant past”?
I wish you well in your studies, but you really are just sorely wrong about this, and now you’re just having a tantrum and trying to assert knowing more, while actually linking evidence supporting how I’m in the right and how I understand that you need a financial advisor who has a fiduciary duty towards you — something which not all financial advisors had until five years ago. See in my language, you wouldn’t even understand the words (and Google translate does not work well on Finnish.)
At no point has anyone made the argument that financial advisors don’t need skill. But see they’re financial ADVISORS, because they don’t have the capital to invest.
You’re explicitly saying that you couldn’t make reliably make 100k roi on 100 million? Man, I hope you didn’t pay for your schooling (here in the first world we have free education :P), because if you did, you really need to go and ask for your money back and spend it more wisely.
The money makes the money, as we live in a system of exploitation of labour. The megawealthy cumstains are also exploiting the work of the financial advisors, duh. The megawealthy cumstains still can make hundreds of thousands a year because CAPITAL MAKES CAPITAL.
Squirm all you want you’re just utterly wrong and can’t address the actual argument anymore so all you have is that childish and pretentious equivocating.