Reply With Quote
it's obvious you don't have a clue. But you don't want to learn so just keep trolling.
Define define!
it's obvious you don't have a clue. But you don't want to learn so just keep trolling.
For those who want to learn something: Here's what the NASD has to say on exercising discretion in a client's account. Essentially Obama charged his broker with violating 2510 b.
http://nasd.complinet.com/nasd/displ...on#r1159005054
2cents, does every broker in this country need written authorization for every single transaction the broker makes for every client in every case without exception?
Yes or no.
Mute subject. If he really did have a blind trust, it is a non-issue.
There seem to be degrees of blindness. Say you didn't want to know the specific stocks you owned but gave instrucions to the broker to not make certain investments out of principle or risk or whatever. Is that completely blind?
Nope.
There are also all kinds of limited fiduciary agreements that 2cents will never acknowledge because he is either totally ignorant of them or just doesn't want to admit they exist because it might negate his entire tirade.
They do.
you're can't even frame a question from all the information that been provided. You're somewhere in left field without hope.
Yes or no.
what does your question have to do with Obama? You're in left field because you think your question has something to do with this thread and it doesn't.
If you want to learn, I'll teach you, but other than that go to the troll forum.
Is there any kind of fiduciary agreement outside of a completely blind trust where a broker can make stock transactions on a clients behalf without the client having to approve each individual stock transaction in writing?
Yes or no.
Yes, it can be as simple as a written note signed by the client.
Is there such a thing as a conditional "blind" trust? Asking
in all sincerity. I don't think there would be. I know most
politicians, once elected, place their holdings in blind trust
to stop any questions about their investments. Which
I assume Obama did, and if he did, then what is the
problem with his investments. I assume blind means
he cant have a say on where his money is invested. But
I really don't know. I don't have the problem.
Then why did you act like it couldn't possibly be that way in Obama's case?
Pretty disingenuous of you.
not at all, because of the word Broker infers a non-fiduciary. Financial Advisor would be used if he was a fiduciary.
Obama claims that he was trying to make a conditional blind trust where he could have instructions where NOT to put his money -- tobacco stocks and the like. So it couldn't have been a completely blind trust. Ironically, this was just the kind of conflict of interest he said he was trying to avoid.
My take is he's a neophyte when it comes to investing. He never really had much to invest before his book deal.
A broker could never receive such premission?
And a word would imply. You as the reader would infer.
If he's that stupid I'm not electing him as my President. I want someone smarter than W.
Way to help out there
he would cease being a broker. A broker is an agent of a company and represents the companies best interest. An Advisor, which could be a broker if he received such permission, is a fidicuiary and works for the client.
You'd never vote for him anyway. I probably won't either.If he's that stupid I'm not electing him as my President. I want someone smarter than W.
Way to help out there
Is it so difficult to say "yes" or "no"?
A broker can receive permission to make trades on a client's behalf in a fiduciary agreement.
Simple.
See, you didn't have to drag this out over two days.
False...if he says what I want to hear during the debates on foreign policy I might vote for him.
I didn't respect Kerry for ample reasons...
#1. He was traitor.
#2. He wasn't even a traitor with conviction.
#3. He wanted the US to be subservient to the corrupt UN body and some of the most corrupt countries in Europe.
And #4...
He was running on an out of Iraq platform...last President to run on a cut and run platform was Nixon in 72...how'd that turn out?
I think Nixon and Ford were complete assholes when it came to Vietnam...basically throwing the Vietnamese under the bus for their own political benfit. Not only that but they left a roadmap to success for other countries that engage us in warfare.
I am not as close minded as most of the people on this board...I just have strong feelings about what it's going to take to fix the middle east. And it's not going to be fixed by negotiations, sanctions, and sticking our heads in the sand...
I seriously doubt I will be voting for him...but it's not guranteed I won't like it was with Kerry. Don't mistake the Democrat failure to come up with a decent candidate in 04 as party bias on my part.
In any case...you are more naive that 2cents if you think Obama didn't know what was going down...
Again, what does that have to do with Obama?
Obama's argument is that he had no knowledge of the purchase. He could have supported his argument if there was a fiduciary agreement in place. That's why they mentioned the Blind Trust.
It may take more than two days to teach you, if that's possible.
His claim was they were working under the terms of the conditional blind trust they were working to define. Is it possible to work under the terms of an agreement that is not finalized but includes a fiduciary component?Again, what does that have to do with Obama?
Obama's argument is that he had no knowledge of the purchase. He could have supported his argument if there was a fiduciary agreement in place. That's why they mentioned the Blind Trust.
I'll answer for you so we can wrap this up this month.
Yes.
the fiduciary component is what helps "clear" him, so if there was another fiduciary component he sure as would have let everyone know. is
Since there wasn't a fiduciary component, the "we were working on a blind trust" is his only out.
For the record, we're misusing fiduciary, but it doesn't matter in our argument.
He did.the fiduciary component is what helps "clear" him, so if there was another fiduciary component he sure as would have let everyone know.How do you come up with that? The word broker?Since there wasn't a fiduciary component, the "we were working on a blind trust" is his only out.For the record, you misused the word "infer." That doesn't help your claim as the final authority on the English language.For the record, we're misusing fiduciary, but it doesn't matter in our argument.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions