Michael Lewis's book, Flash Boys was dutifully read and digested by yours truly and I thought that I would give you my review of it. Mr. Lewis is a talented writer and I felt as though I was watching a movie rather than reading a book. It was a novel with a story line full of interesting characters that could definitely be made into a movie. Since Mr. Lewis has other books of his that were made into movies, then I am certain he wrote it with that possibility in mind. Pretty smart on his part, don't you think?
The content is probably not easily understood by your average investor who doesn't understand trading securities or how Wall Street works. However, people like me can follow along without much effort, because of our background in the business. Regardless whether you are in the business or not, it provides a good education and the book is well researched.
I always admire people who achieve success in their endeavors and Mr. Lewis is no exception. He is extremely talented at telling a story. Although, I learned something long ago about these people. Generally, they are not that different from you and I. In fact, at some point in his writing career he was an unknown, but this did not deter him from his dream of being a successful writer. He kept at his dream and worked very hard to achieve that status. Other people give up too easily. People like Mr. Lewis show a tenacity to achieve their dreams no matter what obstacles stand in their way. That is the major difference in his success and the success of others like him. They have the tenacity to never give up.
In Flash Boys, he talks about a group of guys that you would never think could work together. It was almost like they were a bunch of misfits, weirdos and nerds. However, it was evident that Brad Katsuyama knew what he was doing. He is the guy with the talent to put the team together and that is precisely what he did. Most managers who hire people make the mistake of hiring people who are just like them. Mr. Katsuyama understands that he needed people with skill sets that were totally unique from his own. In fact, almost none of the people he hired for IEX had the same skills. They all were specialists who were very good at what they did. Mr. Katsuyama was the guy with the draft board, if you will. He had some spots to fill at each position and he and his team set out to draft the players.
Mr. Lewis goes into intricate detail about the personalities involved and how each of these team players found their way onto the IEX team. That is the story of the Flash Boys. The guys who worked at different jobs, but still managed to find their way to IEX. I have no doubt that IEX will be a success. All of the players on the team are focused to deliver their trading exchange services in a transparent manner. Sunlight is always good in business as opposed to the hidden tactics of some Wall Street firms. I would bet on the transparent guy over the opaque guy every time.
I think the people jumping up and down about high frequency trading have not read the book. They are making assumptions. My suggestion is to read the book, before you go on TV and spout off.
High frequency trading has it place. To me, like I mentioned in my last blog article, it is not much different than the market maker on the floor of a stock exchange with an order book. He can see all the people with the buy orders and all the people with the sell orders. He matches the orders and keeps the spread. This is similar to what they high frequency traders do, although I will admit that they have an advantage. Keep in mind however that their advantage might be fleeting. Nothing ever stays the same for very long, especially when it comes to technological innovation. Something else is sure to come along and upset the apple cart.
Unfortunately, this book is liable to get people all emotional about high frequency trading and cause some problems for these firms and their principals. Supposedly some of these firms are already under investigation by the FBI and the SEC. My advice is before you slap the cuffs on people, you should read the book and pay special attention to the story about Serge Aleynikov. What they did to him was totally ridiculous. His arrest was a result of a rush to judgment by people at Goldman Sachs who didn't know their ass from deep center field and conned the FBI into believing the he was stealing Goldman's secret sauce. All Serge was doing was being a computer geek and saving his open source work in a manner highly typical of computer geeks. Here is a lesson for anyone working in Corporate America. Whatever you make, design or write as an employee is not yours. You cannot take it with you when you leave, even if it was taken innocently like it was in Serge's case. Goldman was just sending a message to all computer programmers that worked for their firm and poor Serge was the sacrificial lamb.
Anyway, I hope cooler heads prevail, because slamming the brakes on high frequency trading firms will shut down over half of the stock market which is already weak since the 2008 Wall Street and banking debacles. If you want to guarantee another market meltdown, then do something really stupid and stop high frequency trading. Let's hope they don't do it.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Monday, March 31, 2014
Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt
No doubt you might have watched 60 minutes last night when author Michael Lewis said that Wall Street was rigged against the individual investor. No surprise to me what he had to say. However, individual investors really are not the ones getting hurt as bad as institutional investors.
If you are an individual investor and you want to buy 100 shares of a stock, then the electronic exchanges are not really making anything to speak of from your order. You as the investor are not going to be hurt by their order routing practices nearly as much as an institutional investor. For example, let's say that a big mutual fund company wanted to buy 20,000 shares of a stock at a limit price of $40 a share. According to Mr. Lewis, these electronic exchanges would have a millisecond of advance knowledge that the mutual fund company placed that order. If the electronic exchange has the opportunity, it will buy the same 20,000 shares at $39.95 and then turn around and sell it to the mutual fund at $40 a share, thus netting the 5 cents a share difference.
Is this really any different than the market maker on the floor of the NYSE? I don't think so. Every stock that trades has a bid (sell) and an ask (buy) price. The difference between the two is the spread. The market maker keeps the spread. He is a middle man in effect.
The electronic exchanges do the same thing. They jump in the middle of trades and attempt to make money from buyers and sellers of a stock. The companies are in business to make money. They are not in business to simply pass through orders without some compensation.
However, I want to give Mr. Lewis the benefit of the doubt and I have purchased his book and will read it for more details. I promise to report back to my readers the findings.
For a good read on what happens to clients when they sit down with financial advisors of banks, insurance companies and Wall Street firms, then look no further than my book, "Meet Wally Street. The Reason You're Stupid." My book is available for a limited time for $3.99 at Apple's iBooks, Amazon's Kindle and Barnes & Noble's Nook devices. This book is more relevant to individual investors.
If you are an individual investor and you want to buy 100 shares of a stock, then the electronic exchanges are not really making anything to speak of from your order. You as the investor are not going to be hurt by their order routing practices nearly as much as an institutional investor. For example, let's say that a big mutual fund company wanted to buy 20,000 shares of a stock at a limit price of $40 a share. According to Mr. Lewis, these electronic exchanges would have a millisecond of advance knowledge that the mutual fund company placed that order. If the electronic exchange has the opportunity, it will buy the same 20,000 shares at $39.95 and then turn around and sell it to the mutual fund at $40 a share, thus netting the 5 cents a share difference.
Is this really any different than the market maker on the floor of the NYSE? I don't think so. Every stock that trades has a bid (sell) and an ask (buy) price. The difference between the two is the spread. The market maker keeps the spread. He is a middle man in effect.
The electronic exchanges do the same thing. They jump in the middle of trades and attempt to make money from buyers and sellers of a stock. The companies are in business to make money. They are not in business to simply pass through orders without some compensation.
However, I want to give Mr. Lewis the benefit of the doubt and I have purchased his book and will read it for more details. I promise to report back to my readers the findings.
For a good read on what happens to clients when they sit down with financial advisors of banks, insurance companies and Wall Street firms, then look no further than my book, "Meet Wally Street. The Reason You're Stupid." My book is available for a limited time for $3.99 at Apple's iBooks, Amazon's Kindle and Barnes & Noble's Nook devices. This book is more relevant to individual investors.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
A New Twist on Guaranteed Income or More Shenanigans?
As mentioned in my book, Meet Wally Street. The Reason You're Stupid, I talk about my dad's favorite saying when it comes to insurance companies. "That was the old deal. This is the new deal." Generally, as my dad and I were keenly aware, insurance companies often come out with new products that for a time are good for clients. Their typical modus operandi is to make the new product very appealing to clients. Further, they make sure the compensation appeals to the insurance agents who sell it. Both of these factors are the key to the product's development. Later on after they have clients on the books, they jack up the fees that they charge, because you failed to read the fine print. With this in mind, let's delve a little deeper here, shall we?
Most RIA firms like mine are totally against Variable Annuities that are loaded down with commissions and fees. Therefore, insurance companies realize that they are missing out on the cream of the crop of financial advisors which are these RIA firms. So, they got their actuaries to design a product that would appeal to RIA's, or at least that is what they think. What they are really going after are the dually registered representatives who are also registered as an investment adviser with their broker-dealer's RIA firm.
Totally independent RIA's are not easily swayed by a new product from an insurance company. However, you cannot blame the insurance companies for trying. The goal of the insurance company is to put in place a disruption in the marketplace where those advisors who do not fall in line with the herd will be left out in the cold. That's the thought process anyway.
Here comes a new twist on a guaranteed income rider for RIA firms and their clients. Normally, these guaranteed income riders are attached to Variable Annuities. However, now you can attach them to any account with some limitations. You can have an account at your favorite custodian, like Schwab, TD Ameritrade or Fidelity and attach the rider to your brokerage or IRA type accounts. You can invest the account with a select list of no-load mutual funds or ETF's by popular fund families like Vanguard, Schwab, DFA, iShares and others. The taxation of those accounts stay the same. The guaranteed income rider does not change their existing tax status.
The supposed appeal is that you can add this guaranteed income rider to your account or accounts and then you are guaranteed an income stream no matter what happens to your account during the withdrawal phase. Well there are a lot more details to it than that simplistic explanation, but in a nutshell this will work for explanation purposes.
Let's take an example to make some more sense of this strategy of adding a guaranteed income rider to your brokerage account or IRA type account. Assume for a moment we have $500,000 in our brokerage account. The first mistake in making future assumptions is that returns are not consistent. In other words, if we assume a 5% return, then this is something that will never happen. Some years there will be negative returns and others there will be positive returns. No one can accurately predict the return of a $500,000 account over the next 20 years. So, what people do is just assume a flat number like 5%. With this awareness in mind, we will go ahead with the faulty 5% assumption.
$500,000 at 5% per year growth (net of advisor fees) will grow to $1,356,320.14 at the end of 20 years assuming monthly compounding. Let's assume that at the end of that 20 years, we will now turn on the income stream to provide us with 5% in income per year. We continue to earn 5% on the account, but since we are taking out 5%, this means we have a net growth of 0%. The amount we pull out each year will be $67,816.01. We can pull this out for 20 years before we run out of money. So, we grew it for 20 years to $1,356,320.14, then we pull out $67,816.01 for an additional 20 years until we are out of money. This is 40 years of use for the original $500,000. This is what you can assume WITHOUT the guaranteed income rider.
Now let's look at what happens when we add the rider. What will be the benefit of paying the extra fee for the rider? Let's give the fee for the rider the lowest available amount. At $500,000 you eligible for a 0.05% fee reduction from their lowest fee of 0.95% making the fee for our assumption 0.90%. The maximum rider charge could be as high as 2.35% depending on your financial advisors choice and the insurance company guarantee.
Let's take a look shall we? We start with $500,000, but because of the fee, we must subtract 0.90% from our 5% growth which nets us 4.1% per year. (Keep in mind that I am assuming the absolutely lowest fee.) At the end of 20 years, at 4.1% our $500,000 has grown to $1,133,664.34. We want to pull out the same that we grow each year so, pulling out 4.1% will net us $46,480.24 per year making our money last 24 years. However, we are already short $21,336.61 per year in income ($67,816.01 - $46,480.24) just for paying 0.90% for the rider.
The rider guarantees your ability to pull out 4 - 5.5% for the rest of your life if you are age 60 at the time you lock in the rider guaranteed. If we assume 5.5% withdrawal rate, then this would up our guaranteed income stream to $62,351.54. We are closer to our WITHOUT rider annual withdrawal of $67,816.01, but still $5,464.47 per year short. Of course, this assumption assumes that at age 40, you had $500,000 to grow for 20 years. Typical insurance company shenanigans. How many people do you know that have $500,000 at age 40 that they can invest for 20 years with no withdrawals allowed? No withdrawals allowed?
Yes, no withdrawals allowed or your guaranteed income amount is reduced. Also, that fee of 0.90% can be increased by another 0.75% to 1.65%. This knocks our annual income down to a 3.35% withdrawal rate if they raise the total rider fee to 1.65%. As I say in my book, "Remember what my dad said about insurance companies? That was the old deal. This is the new deal."
What if you were 60 years old when you invested the $500,000 and bought the annuity? It would grow as normal, but you can pull out more money in 20 years with the guaranteed income rider. Now that you are 80 years old (typical life expectancy for most people) you can pull out 7.5%. Well, if you are changing the assumption from age 60 to age 80 for the guaranteed income rider, then you have to do the same for WITHOUT the rider. At age 80, do you really need to pull money out for 20 years or more. You are already at life expectancy. The insurance company wants you to believe that you will live to age 100 and you can pull out 7.5% each year guaranteed no matter what. That $1,133,664.34 will last for 13 years pulling out $85,024.83 (7.5% per year), so what your guaranteed rider is assuming is that you will live past age 93 and they will agree to pay that $85,024.83 for the rest of your life. What is the rest of your life assuming you live to age 93? What is the insurance company's risk? Not much in my opinion.
WITHOUT the rider, if at age 80, we pull out the same $85,024.83, then our money will last to age 96. So, our $500,000 grew to $1,356,320.14 at the end of 20 years and we made it to age 96 by withdrawing the same $85,024.83 per year. Why do we need the rider again? We gave up a minimum of $222,655.58 in account growth over 20 years and have to cross our fingers that we never take a withdrawal, plus hope the insurance company doesn't raise the cost of our rider. Plus this also assumes that we do not want to leave our heirs a penny. Idiotic assumptions, are they not? Typical insurance company shenanigans. Since the whole driving force behind this is the guarantees, how good of a deal is this? Damn it man. I got you again, didn't I?
My dad always said, "You're like an Airedale dog. You are a whole lot smarter than you look." That goes for the people who read my book, by the way.
Most RIA firms like mine are totally against Variable Annuities that are loaded down with commissions and fees. Therefore, insurance companies realize that they are missing out on the cream of the crop of financial advisors which are these RIA firms. So, they got their actuaries to design a product that would appeal to RIA's, or at least that is what they think. What they are really going after are the dually registered representatives who are also registered as an investment adviser with their broker-dealer's RIA firm.
Totally independent RIA's are not easily swayed by a new product from an insurance company. However, you cannot blame the insurance companies for trying. The goal of the insurance company is to put in place a disruption in the marketplace where those advisors who do not fall in line with the herd will be left out in the cold. That's the thought process anyway.
Here comes a new twist on a guaranteed income rider for RIA firms and their clients. Normally, these guaranteed income riders are attached to Variable Annuities. However, now you can attach them to any account with some limitations. You can have an account at your favorite custodian, like Schwab, TD Ameritrade or Fidelity and attach the rider to your brokerage or IRA type accounts. You can invest the account with a select list of no-load mutual funds or ETF's by popular fund families like Vanguard, Schwab, DFA, iShares and others. The taxation of those accounts stay the same. The guaranteed income rider does not change their existing tax status.
The supposed appeal is that you can add this guaranteed income rider to your account or accounts and then you are guaranteed an income stream no matter what happens to your account during the withdrawal phase. Well there are a lot more details to it than that simplistic explanation, but in a nutshell this will work for explanation purposes.
Let's take an example to make some more sense of this strategy of adding a guaranteed income rider to your brokerage account or IRA type account. Assume for a moment we have $500,000 in our brokerage account. The first mistake in making future assumptions is that returns are not consistent. In other words, if we assume a 5% return, then this is something that will never happen. Some years there will be negative returns and others there will be positive returns. No one can accurately predict the return of a $500,000 account over the next 20 years. So, what people do is just assume a flat number like 5%. With this awareness in mind, we will go ahead with the faulty 5% assumption.
$500,000 at 5% per year growth (net of advisor fees) will grow to $1,356,320.14 at the end of 20 years assuming monthly compounding. Let's assume that at the end of that 20 years, we will now turn on the income stream to provide us with 5% in income per year. We continue to earn 5% on the account, but since we are taking out 5%, this means we have a net growth of 0%. The amount we pull out each year will be $67,816.01. We can pull this out for 20 years before we run out of money. So, we grew it for 20 years to $1,356,320.14, then we pull out $67,816.01 for an additional 20 years until we are out of money. This is 40 years of use for the original $500,000. This is what you can assume WITHOUT the guaranteed income rider.
Now let's look at what happens when we add the rider. What will be the benefit of paying the extra fee for the rider? Let's give the fee for the rider the lowest available amount. At $500,000 you eligible for a 0.05% fee reduction from their lowest fee of 0.95% making the fee for our assumption 0.90%. The maximum rider charge could be as high as 2.35% depending on your financial advisors choice and the insurance company guarantee.
Let's take a look shall we? We start with $500,000, but because of the fee, we must subtract 0.90% from our 5% growth which nets us 4.1% per year. (Keep in mind that I am assuming the absolutely lowest fee.) At the end of 20 years, at 4.1% our $500,000 has grown to $1,133,664.34. We want to pull out the same that we grow each year so, pulling out 4.1% will net us $46,480.24 per year making our money last 24 years. However, we are already short $21,336.61 per year in income ($67,816.01 - $46,480.24) just for paying 0.90% for the rider.
The rider guarantees your ability to pull out 4 - 5.5% for the rest of your life if you are age 60 at the time you lock in the rider guaranteed. If we assume 5.5% withdrawal rate, then this would up our guaranteed income stream to $62,351.54. We are closer to our WITHOUT rider annual withdrawal of $67,816.01, but still $5,464.47 per year short. Of course, this assumption assumes that at age 40, you had $500,000 to grow for 20 years. Typical insurance company shenanigans. How many people do you know that have $500,000 at age 40 that they can invest for 20 years with no withdrawals allowed? No withdrawals allowed?
Yes, no withdrawals allowed or your guaranteed income amount is reduced. Also, that fee of 0.90% can be increased by another 0.75% to 1.65%. This knocks our annual income down to a 3.35% withdrawal rate if they raise the total rider fee to 1.65%. As I say in my book, "Remember what my dad said about insurance companies? That was the old deal. This is the new deal."
What if you were 60 years old when you invested the $500,000 and bought the annuity? It would grow as normal, but you can pull out more money in 20 years with the guaranteed income rider. Now that you are 80 years old (typical life expectancy for most people) you can pull out 7.5%. Well, if you are changing the assumption from age 60 to age 80 for the guaranteed income rider, then you have to do the same for WITHOUT the rider. At age 80, do you really need to pull money out for 20 years or more. You are already at life expectancy. The insurance company wants you to believe that you will live to age 100 and you can pull out 7.5% each year guaranteed no matter what. That $1,133,664.34 will last for 13 years pulling out $85,024.83 (7.5% per year), so what your guaranteed rider is assuming is that you will live past age 93 and they will agree to pay that $85,024.83 for the rest of your life. What is the rest of your life assuming you live to age 93? What is the insurance company's risk? Not much in my opinion.
WITHOUT the rider, if at age 80, we pull out the same $85,024.83, then our money will last to age 96. So, our $500,000 grew to $1,356,320.14 at the end of 20 years and we made it to age 96 by withdrawing the same $85,024.83 per year. Why do we need the rider again? We gave up a minimum of $222,655.58 in account growth over 20 years and have to cross our fingers that we never take a withdrawal, plus hope the insurance company doesn't raise the cost of our rider. Plus this also assumes that we do not want to leave our heirs a penny. Idiotic assumptions, are they not? Typical insurance company shenanigans. Since the whole driving force behind this is the guarantees, how good of a deal is this? Damn it man. I got you again, didn't I?
My dad always said, "You're like an Airedale dog. You are a whole lot smarter than you look." That goes for the people who read my book, by the way.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Looping Back Around
The United States Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) has let loose of some of the areas that they will be looking at during upcoming examinations. Of course, the majority of their examinations appear to be directed at dually registered brokerage firms. These are firms that are both a registered broker dealer and also a registered investment adviser. I warned about these dually registered brokerage firms in my book.
Apparently, the SEC is realizing that a customer with a brokerage account who is suddenly moved to a investment advisory account may be getting the shaft. I call this "looping back around."
Looping back around is when the financial advisor has sold you a bunch of high commission and high expense products and then realizes that you probably are not interested in buying any more products of this kind. Therefore, they "loop back around" to sell you an investment advisory account that pays them an annual ongoing management fee. These advisors have already taken you to the cleaners on the products that they sold you, but because of the extreme pressure they have to meet their annual $250,000 revenue quota, they need to squeeze more revenue out of you. As a result, they "loop back around."
I talk about this in my book, Meet Wally Street. The Reason You're Stupid. These financial advisors want to be registered investment advisers like me, but they cannot give up the lure of big commissions from inappropriate product sales. After all, if they sell a Variable Annuity or a Non-Publicly Traded REIT, then they can make close to 10% with some of these products. On a $100,000 investment, that is $10,000. If they went straight to an investment advisory account when they first met you, then they might have only made $375 per calendar quarter.
When their revenue quota is $250,000 or more per year, then what they do is sell you a bunch of crap that helps them get closer to their revenue quota. Think about it. If you can make $10,000 or make $375 off of a new client, then which one will you choose? This is why the sub-title of my book is "The Reason You're Stupid." I am not trying to be insulting, but somebody needs to wake people up. They are getting this rip off treatment every day by Wally Street. About 85% of Americans are doing business with Wally Street. Sad, but true.
The SEC is not liking the fact that they "jacked you up" for $10,000 in commissions, then later turned around and put you in an investment advisory account. Their viewpoint apparently is that you should stay in one or the other and not be moved from one to the other. In my opinion, the SEC is missing the boat on this one. Instead of focusing on this shifting sands approach used by Wally Street, they should eliminate the inherent conflicts of interest that favor banks, insurance companies and Wall Street firms in the first place.
What if everyone who received investment advice was never sold high commission and high expense products with inherent conflicts of interest in the first place? Why doesn't the SEC work with Congress to eliminate this crap? These banks, insurance companies and Wall Street firms sell this crap and then all other investment advisers like me are tainted by the actions of Wally Street.
Why should people have to fear that being sold a bunch of crap every time that they need investment advice? Sometimes the simplest answer is right in front of your nose. In this case, the SEC's nose. Get Congress to change the laws and eliminate commissions altogether. Wouldn't that be nice?
The only way that you could get your financial advice would be from people who charge a fixed fee, an hourly fee or an assets under management fee. Fully disclosed in writing and no possibility of selling you crappy products loaded down with commissions. Perhaps, one day we might see the SEC or Congress take action on this issue. However, I have my doubts since the politicians pockets are full of Wall Street money.
Until then, the best that you can do is read my book and learn about using Independent Registered Investment Advisers instead of that rip off artist Wally Street.
Apparently, the SEC is realizing that a customer with a brokerage account who is suddenly moved to a investment advisory account may be getting the shaft. I call this "looping back around."
Looping back around is when the financial advisor has sold you a bunch of high commission and high expense products and then realizes that you probably are not interested in buying any more products of this kind. Therefore, they "loop back around" to sell you an investment advisory account that pays them an annual ongoing management fee. These advisors have already taken you to the cleaners on the products that they sold you, but because of the extreme pressure they have to meet their annual $250,000 revenue quota, they need to squeeze more revenue out of you. As a result, they "loop back around."
I talk about this in my book, Meet Wally Street. The Reason You're Stupid. These financial advisors want to be registered investment advisers like me, but they cannot give up the lure of big commissions from inappropriate product sales. After all, if they sell a Variable Annuity or a Non-Publicly Traded REIT, then they can make close to 10% with some of these products. On a $100,000 investment, that is $10,000. If they went straight to an investment advisory account when they first met you, then they might have only made $375 per calendar quarter.
When their revenue quota is $250,000 or more per year, then what they do is sell you a bunch of crap that helps them get closer to their revenue quota. Think about it. If you can make $10,000 or make $375 off of a new client, then which one will you choose? This is why the sub-title of my book is "The Reason You're Stupid." I am not trying to be insulting, but somebody needs to wake people up. They are getting this rip off treatment every day by Wally Street. About 85% of Americans are doing business with Wally Street. Sad, but true.
The SEC is not liking the fact that they "jacked you up" for $10,000 in commissions, then later turned around and put you in an investment advisory account. Their viewpoint apparently is that you should stay in one or the other and not be moved from one to the other. In my opinion, the SEC is missing the boat on this one. Instead of focusing on this shifting sands approach used by Wally Street, they should eliminate the inherent conflicts of interest that favor banks, insurance companies and Wall Street firms in the first place.
What if everyone who received investment advice was never sold high commission and high expense products with inherent conflicts of interest in the first place? Why doesn't the SEC work with Congress to eliminate this crap? These banks, insurance companies and Wall Street firms sell this crap and then all other investment advisers like me are tainted by the actions of Wally Street.
Why should people have to fear that being sold a bunch of crap every time that they need investment advice? Sometimes the simplest answer is right in front of your nose. In this case, the SEC's nose. Get Congress to change the laws and eliminate commissions altogether. Wouldn't that be nice?
The only way that you could get your financial advice would be from people who charge a fixed fee, an hourly fee or an assets under management fee. Fully disclosed in writing and no possibility of selling you crappy products loaded down with commissions. Perhaps, one day we might see the SEC or Congress take action on this issue. However, I have my doubts since the politicians pockets are full of Wall Street money.
Until then, the best that you can do is read my book and learn about using Independent Registered Investment Advisers instead of that rip off artist Wally Street.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)