This is a valuable video and a reminder of how our voices and money can make a difference although the voice and the money are small in the great scheme of things.
In the United States, at least, it comes down to regulations. Institutions do not guide individuals with tailored financial advice, representatives do. And those representatives must be registered by both the Securities Exchange Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and have passed the General Securities Representative Exam (the Series 7); there are 44 additional exams that may be required depending on the role a rep has with clients (investment bankers much also pass the Series 79, company employees with no client contact must pass either the Series 7 or the Series 99) or with the firm (if you are a principle of the firm, you must pass the Series 24 and probably a few others.) AND reps must be licensed with every state where they have clients: most states require passing the Uniform Combined State Law Exam (the Series 66) before you can even apply for a state license. So if a rep has clients in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, they must be registered as financial representatives in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. AND these licenses must be renewed every couple of years, by submitting continuing education work and re-taking an abbreviated version of all relevant exams. Not to mention, every rep and every supervisor and every principal in the firm must be able to pass a federal background check and may not have any kind of criminal record. Offering financial advice tailored to a specific client with any gaps whatsoever in these credentials is a federal felony and people get sent to prison for years. My understanding is that most countries regulate investment advisors and financial representatives in much the same way, so things should be similar in Canada, the UK, France, India, and so on. The net result is that there is considerable overhead, red tape, and regulations to operate as an investment advisor firm. It MUST be your principle focus, because otherwise the expense of meeting all the regulatory requirements does not make sense. So, entities like Friends Fiduciary do not go into that area of business.
Put it in index funds like vanguard S&P 500 or vanguard global if you don't understand stocks so much its easier for your mind and will create wealth in the long run
Thank you for making this video. This presses the hot buttons for me. I wish corporations were just made up of people. However, they are also shaped by a system, and there is so much systemically wrong about current corporate structure. I can respect unplugging from corporations doing harm to people, but then how do we speak to those powers if we are not shareholders and we are only speaking to corporate powers in which we hold shares? Is this truly an honest witness or an excuse to hold wealth? Are we not otherwise complicit?
Corporations should be 100% owned by charity foundations so there is no shareholder profit and destroying good companies and the foundation give back to society national or locally as long it gives back its better and will probably create companies to exist a longer time especially if they are forced to diversify a little so the foundation gets its funds
Hello Quakerspeak! I want to know what the Quaker perspective on seminary is, as I think about being a Quaker but also thought about going to seminary.
1.- I'm not a quaker, but I'm learning about them because their values intrigue me. 2.- Having said that, I believe that you can do both, and it is even more efecrive if you help those in need while being responsible with your own wealth.
This is a valuable video and a reminder of how our voices and money can make a difference although the voice and the money are small in the great scheme of things.
Interesting video, and I appreciate the thoughtful discussion in the comments here.
Why doesn't Friends Fiduciary help Individual quakers to make decisions about investment?
In the United States, at least, it comes down to regulations. Institutions do not guide individuals with tailored financial advice, representatives do. And those representatives must be registered by both the Securities Exchange Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and have passed the General Securities Representative Exam (the Series 7); there are 44 additional exams that may be required depending on the role a rep has with clients (investment bankers much also pass the Series 79, company employees with no client contact must pass either the Series 7 or the Series 99) or with the firm (if you are a principle of the firm, you must pass the Series 24 and probably a few others.) AND reps must be licensed with every state where they have clients: most states require passing the Uniform Combined State Law Exam (the Series 66) before you can even apply for a state license. So if a rep has clients in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, they must be registered as financial representatives in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. AND these licenses must be renewed every couple of years, by submitting continuing education work and re-taking an abbreviated version of all relevant exams. Not to mention, every rep and every supervisor and every principal in the firm must be able to pass a federal background check and may not have any kind of criminal record. Offering financial advice tailored to a specific client with any gaps whatsoever in these credentials is a federal felony and people get sent to prison for years. My understanding is that most countries regulate investment advisors and financial representatives in much the same way, so things should be similar in Canada, the UK, France, India, and so on.
The net result is that there is considerable overhead, red tape, and regulations to operate as an investment advisor firm. It MUST be your principle focus, because otherwise the expense of meeting all the regulatory requirements does not make sense. So, entities like Friends Fiduciary do not go into that area of business.
Put it in index funds like vanguard S&P 500 or vanguard global if you don't understand stocks so much its easier for your mind and will create wealth in the long run
Thank you for making this video. This presses the hot buttons for me. I wish corporations were just made up of people. However, they are also shaped by a system, and there is so much systemically wrong about current corporate structure. I can respect unplugging from corporations doing harm to people, but then how do we speak to those powers if we are not shareholders and we are only speaking to corporate powers in which we hold shares? Is this truly an honest witness or an excuse to hold wealth? Are we not otherwise complicit?
Corporations should be 100% owned by charity foundations so there is no shareholder profit and destroying good companies and the foundation give back to society national or locally as long it gives back its better and will probably create companies to exist a longer time especially if they are forced to diversify a little so the foundation gets its funds
Hello Quakerspeak! I want to know what the Quaker perspective on seminary is, as I think about being a Quaker but also thought about going to seminary.
Hi Darion! You might ask the folks at Earlham School of Religion. They are a Quaker seminary. esr.earlham.edu/
Mmmmmm. Helping those in need seems a better investment to me.
1.- I'm not a quaker, but I'm learning about them because their values intrigue me.
2.- Having said that, I believe that you can do both, and it is even more efecrive if you help those in need while being responsible with your own wealth.