Avoid Paywall

Avoid Paywall

Rather than having a fire sale (selling all investments, which implies in the short term), the trustee sells and buys investments as he sees fit without consulting the owner. It’s just Poilievre adding a step that seems obvious to the ignorant and harms the person he’s attacking.

How is the portfolio manager selected? Surely the best risk/reward would be a fully diversified etf fund which would require some liquidation, but many managers try to actively trade but the majority also fail.

Avoid Paywall

Avoid Paywall

Avoid Paywall

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.

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)

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.

What exactly do you want done with unvested shares?

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:

1. Doesn’t get to tell the person managing what to do (buy or sell)
2. 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

“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?

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

And that’s exactly my point. So go on, answer the question please?

go use google is the answer…

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