There is a serious effort underway to get more financial advisors to run for public office. It is a fairly safe assumption that the vast majority of financial advisors are at least vaguely familiar with sound financial practices, as well as investment vehicles. In fact, the fee-only financial advisors are even intimately familiar with the notion that they must do whatever is right for their clients/voters, which is called fiduciary responsibility. So, why aren't there any financial advisors serving in Congress?
Maybe, the reason that SEC auditors cannot identify the dozen or so Ponzi schemes each year is because they are blindly following laws written by non-financial advisors? If so, Congress NEEDS real financial advisors.
While I have been a city councilman and appointed to two different state authorities by two different governors in two different states, there is no way I would ever run for office again!
The securities industry is tightly regulated. Running for office makes a financial advisor subject to excessive regulatory audits, as well as his employer. (One of the largest brokerage firms recently fired two stockbrokers who filed to run for a political office.) If I vote a certain way, did I do it because I thought it was the right thing to do? Or, did I vote to benefit my clients, who might own certain securities? I am guilty until proven innocent. Every vote that helps my clients would be suspect, while every vote that doesn't help my clients puts me in violation of my fiduciary responsibility to do whatever is in the their best interest.
Plus, my clients should not penalize me for my political beliefs, but they are human, after all, and political vitriol is fashionable these days. And, no client wants to read some political attack on their financial advisors, like he filed his income tax return late one year while serving in the Army.
Personally, I'd rather find some windmill and attack it!
But, is America better off without financial advisors in Congress?
Maybe, the reason that SEC auditors cannot identify the dozen or so Ponzi schemes each year is because they are blindly following laws written by non-financial advisors? If so, Congress NEEDS real financial advisors.
While I have been a city councilman and appointed to two different state authorities by two different governors in two different states, there is no way I would ever run for office again!
The securities industry is tightly regulated. Running for office makes a financial advisor subject to excessive regulatory audits, as well as his employer. (One of the largest brokerage firms recently fired two stockbrokers who filed to run for a political office.) If I vote a certain way, did I do it because I thought it was the right thing to do? Or, did I vote to benefit my clients, who might own certain securities? I am guilty until proven innocent. Every vote that helps my clients would be suspect, while every vote that doesn't help my clients puts me in violation of my fiduciary responsibility to do whatever is in the their best interest.
Plus, my clients should not penalize me for my political beliefs, but they are human, after all, and political vitriol is fashionable these days. And, no client wants to read some political attack on their financial advisors, like he filed his income tax return late one year while serving in the Army.
Personally, I'd rather find some windmill and attack it!
But, is America better off without financial advisors in Congress?
