<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lunchtime Links 4-18</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2010/04/18/lunchtime-links-4-18/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2010/04/18/lunchtime-links-4-18/</link>
	<description>Option ARMageddon</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 01:58:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: MattStiles</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2010/04/18/lunchtime-links-4-18/comment-page-1/#comment-5487</link>
		<dc:creator>MattStiles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:57:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/?p=5961#comment-5487</guid>
		<description>Question: does selling something that is unsuitable to a client not violate the fiduciary responsibility of a securities dealer?  Doesn&#039;t this supercede  the &quot;they should have done their homework&quot; argument?   And if so, why do the supposed free-market defenders cite the later and completely ignore the former?  I&#039;m inclined to think that these folks don&#039;t actually believe in free-markets at all and are simply shilling for the banks.  

Acknowledging the lack of fiduciary responsibility would implicate bankers themselves, so they conveniently ignore that aspect.  Similarly, the &quot;more regulation&quot; camp seem to ignore the blatant legal violations as that would imply that if the law were only followed properly and securities dealers were actually held accountable, then more regulation wouldn&#039;t be necessary.  

Nobody seems to see it in their best interest to pursue the most obvious solution: follow the law as it is written.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Question: does selling something that is unsuitable to a client not violate the fiduciary responsibility of a securities dealer?  Doesn&#8217;t this supercede  the &#8220;they should have done their homework&#8221; argument?   And if so, why do the supposed free-market defenders cite the later and completely ignore the former?  I&#8217;m inclined to think that these folks don&#8217;t actually believe in free-markets at all and are simply shilling for the banks.  </p>
<p>Acknowledging the lack of fiduciary responsibility would implicate bankers themselves, so they conveniently ignore that aspect.  Similarly, the &#8220;more regulation&#8221; camp seem to ignore the blatant legal violations as that would imply that if the law were only followed properly and securities dealers were actually held accountable, then more regulation wouldn&#8217;t be necessary.  </p>
<p>Nobody seems to see it in their best interest to pursue the most obvious solution: follow the law as it is written.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
