The boss told you back in 2015 about a horrible new Obama regulatory order, which would have made it extremely difficult for certain people to keep their financial advisors once their portfolios reached a certain level of value. It's complicated, but the long and short of it is that the rule would impose a massive tax hit on high-value portfolio holders if the commissions they pay to their advisors exceed a certain amount.
The rule never made any sense, as it got in between professional relationships between investors and their advisors that both parties were perfectly happy with. If a growing portfolio earns an advisor more commissions, and the investor is fine with that, why does the federal government need to interfere in that relationship? It doesn't. But plaintiffs' attorneys love the idea of the rule because it has the potential to spur new lawsuits, and we all know how beholden Democrats are to the plaintiffs' bar and its many generous campaign contributions.
