Poilievre wants Carney to cash out blind trust, says ethics screens insufficient
-
Poilievre just wants to get his name in the news media. Any excuse or frivolous point will do.
-
Just put the fries in the bag, Peter Polliver. Oh wait, your non-existent skill-set makes you ineligible for even that sort of job.
-
I don’t like that I agree with Poilievre here.
But it’s unclear what the vesting schedule for Carney’s Brookfield stock options is. Meaning that whoever is administering the ‘blind’ trust may not even have the ability to decide whether to exercise those options while Carney is in office.
I can’t see how that’s not a problem tbh
Edit: if you’re gonna downvote this, then go ahead and tell everyone what a vesting schedule is, and what the vesting schedule for Carney’s stock options is. I’ll wait.
What exactly do you want done with unvested shares?
-
Fine by me. Most of the policies Carney proposed will support big companies and people with stocks.
If Carney sells his stocks and doesn’t have investments he’ll be like a significant proportion of Canadians.
Join us, rich boy.
(And Poilievre can sell his ten rental properties and donate his parliamentary pension to cats or something)
It’s a blind trust. Maybe they’ve already been sold. He doesn’t know. And because it’s in a blind trust, if he did want them sold he:
- Doesn’t get to tell the person managing what to do (buy or sell)
- Couldn’t be told by the manager whether they had been sold
This is as stupid as the excuses to not get a security clearance
-
I don’t know how Carney was managing his investments previously, and switching to a different fund has the same issues I raised before, but ask yourself this question. How is this more relevant for Carney than all the other politicians, and why are these demands being made of only him? I’m don’t have a problem with limits on how politicians invest, but I expect the investment advantages are similar for most politicians at a given level of politics, especially for the senior politicians. So why is Poilievre banging on this drum, and not broader anti-corruption measures?
I assume because hes a green guys who has written books on it, worked as a director of ESG at Brookfield, and is now seen as potentially giving green subsidies. Obviously it looks better if he doesnt own a vast leaning towards Brookfields when he dishes out subsidies to for-profit corporations. I agree that whenever a politician has obvious conflict of interests it should be rectified and incentives neutralized.
-
I assume because hes a green guys who has written books on it, worked as a director of ESG at Brookfield, and is now seen as potentially giving green subsidies. Obviously it looks better if he doesnt own a vast leaning towards Brookfields when he dishes out subsidies to for-profit corporations. I agree that whenever a politician has obvious conflict of interests it should be rectified and incentives neutralized.
So we should stop having politicians from having investments in housing, right?
-
What exactly do you want done with unvested shares?
Carney could, for instance, sign away any future claim to them.
At the very least, Canadians deserve to know what the vesting schedule is. But he’s a rich man already. If he was really in politics for the greater good (doubtful!), and if he cared about not having conflicts of interest or even appearing not to (also doubtful!), then he’d have zero qualms about giving up these Brookfield options.
Instead, he gets mad at anyone who questions the arrangement, and continues to push projects in sectors that Brookfield is heavily invested in.
-
It’s a blind trust. Maybe they’ve already been sold. He doesn’t know. And because it’s in a blind trust, if he did want them sold he:
- Doesn’t get to tell the person managing what to do (buy or sell)
- Couldn’t be told by the manager whether they had been sold
This is as stupid as the excuses to not get a security clearance
The problem is, his stock options may not have vested, and Carney would be aware of the vesting schedule. It could be years before he (or whoever is managing the trust) could exercise those options and/or sell those shares.
In other words, the trust may not be ‘blind’ in practice.
This was the original criticism from reporters such as Rosie Barton, and many of Carney’s supporters never bothered to try to understand the issue.
-
“We’re calling on the Prime Minister to sell his investments, turn them into cash, hand them to a trustee who can invest them in a way that is completely blind to him so that he does not have any knowledge of what he owns”
I assumed this was what a blind trust is, can you educate me what a blind trust actually is?
google is free.
-
I don’t like that I agree with Poilievre here.
But it’s unclear what the vesting schedule for Carney’s Brookfield stock options is. Meaning that whoever is administering the ‘blind’ trust may not even have the ability to decide whether to exercise those options while Carney is in office.
I can’t see how that’s not a problem tbh
Edit: if you’re gonna downvote this, then go ahead and tell everyone what a vesting schedule is, and what the vesting schedule for Carney’s stock options is. I’ll wait.
google is free
-
google is free
And that’s exactly my point. So go on, answer the question please?
-
And that’s exactly my point. So go on, answer the question please?
go use google is the answer…
-
go use google is the answer…
Not sure what you think I meant.
I know what a vesting schedule is. Do you?
And Carney has not disclosed what the vesting schedule for his Brookfield stock options is.
-
The problem is, his stock options may not have vested, and Carney would be aware of the vesting schedule. It could be years before he (or whoever is managing the trust) could exercise those options and/or sell those shares.
In other words, the trust may not be ‘blind’ in practice.
This was the original criticism from reporters such as Rosie Barton, and many of Carney’s supporters never bothered to try to understand the issue.
As soon as they vest, they are entered into the blind trust and Carney will have no knowledge or input into what happens with them
Unvested stocks can’t really be part of a blind trust because the holder can’t do anything with them until they have vested, and the vesting schedule being known means that the “blind” isn’t there in the blind trust
-
As soon as they vest, they are entered into the blind trust and Carney will have no knowledge or input into what happens with them
Unvested stocks can’t really be part of a blind trust because the holder can’t do anything with them until they have vested, and the vesting schedule being known means that the “blind” isn’t there in the blind trust
And when will that be? Will that happen while he is PM? Carney knows, and we don’t. And that’s the problem!
-
And when will that be? Will that happen while he is PM? Carney knows, and we don’t. And that’s the problem!
When they vest? Generally stocks vest to a schedule like x% per month over 4 years from when they were issued.
-
So we should stop having politicians from having investments in housing, right?
I would love to have that terrible pick for housing minister be liquidated, that is a prime example of blatant corruption.
-
I would love to have that terrible pick for housing minister be liquidated, that is a prime example of blatant corruption.
Well, there’s nothing stopping Poilievre and his wife from selling the rental properties they own, which should help remove some conflict of interest they may have in this issue which is so important to many Canadians, and he doesn’t even have to get the approval of anyone but his wife to make it happen (and that only for one of them).
-
When they vest? Generally stocks vest to a schedule like x% per month over 4 years from when they were issued.
So why doesn’t Carney disclose this? Do you agree he should?
-
If he cashes out of his investments, then what does PP expect him to do, hold a massive cash position, and eat inflation?
