Trump's a chump

[Plane]

Everything depends on who runs the trust, of course.

No .

The point is that the owner is not running the trust himself.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The investor can put a large number of restrictions on what the trust can invest in. That is perfectly understandable. But that means that it is not really a "blind" trust. If I say invest only in NYSE stocks, munis, bonds, or restrict investments in specific fields, then it is really NOT a "blind " trust at all. And of course, I am sure that the owner of any "blind" trust can check and see how his investments are doing as well.

It is hardly "blind" to say that my money can be in either Merck or Pfizer or perhaps both, but some administrator will decide rather than me.

[Plane]

For the elected , "blind "is the point.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Well, as I said, it really isn't all that blind, is it?

[Plane]

Well, as I said, it really isn't all that blind, is it?

That is why Romney asked Obama this question in the debates.

President Obama's own retirement account is and should ber hard for the president to look at and guide, it is probly just as invested in China and  sheltered in the CAymans as anyone eleses.

[Xavier_Onassis]

it is probly just as invested in China and  sheltered in the Caymans as anyone else's.

----------------------------------------------------
It is stupid to assume that Cayman Islands investments are commonplace.

As for investments in China, they have not done well for three years now.

[Plane]

But Obama does not know whether they are or not, neither does Romney, that is the point of a trust being blind.

Romney was just pointing out the odvious.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I imagine that the person who owns a blind trust knows exactly what is in it.

The blind part simpley means that he cannot decide what or when to buy or sell.

[Plane]

I imagine that the person who owns a blind trust knows exactly what is in it.

The blind part simpley means that he cannot decide what or when to buy or sell.

Congressmen really should not know what their investments are in , lest their decisions be based on shelfishness.

Govenors and presidents also.

A cupple of months ago we learned that a lot of Congressmen know exactly how they are invested and are both guiding their accounts to take advantage of upcoming votes and probly also voting to takew advantage of their investments.

This is leagal ,barely, and should be discouraged somehow, it is too close a cousin to insider trading.

All of the Congressmen involved owe Martha Stewart an abject apology, for not taking their medicine when they deserve it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is not illegal, but it should be.

If you want to be an investor in stocks and bonds, don't run for office. There are l;ots pof things you could invest in besides stocks and bonds.

[Plane]

It is not illegal, but it should be.

If you want to be an investor in stocks and bonds, don't run for office. There are l;ots pof things you could invest in besides stocks and bonds.

There is nothing you can invest in that can't benifit or be harmed by Congressional legislation.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is hardly true.

Rental property is almost entirely governed by local laws.

There are many other businesses that are barely affected by Congress.

[Plane]

That is hardly true.

Rental property is almost entirely governed by local laws.

There are many other businesses that are barely affected by Congress.

Real Estate can gain value greatly if you know ahead of time where the new roads will be routed, or can loose value quickly if new laws change environmental requirements for its use.

There isno such thing as an investment that is unaffected by congressional legislation , whether positively or negatively .

It would be best if the congressmen involved were entirely seaparated from knoledge of their investments and their trust managers were entirely seaparated from knoledge of the congressmans voteing.

Govenors and Presidents also.

This seems to be the situation for only a minority of them, and there seems little disadvantage to those who flagrantly use insider knoledge , this situation could be better.

If president Barak Obama and govenor Mitt Romney have been ignoring their investments , then I am pleased with the both of them.

I do not know how to verify this as fact , but they both seemed pleasingly ignorant in the debate.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There isno such thing as an investment that is unaffected by congressional legislation , whether positively or negatively .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true.

There may be no TYPE that can be entirely unaffected by legislation, but most real estate and farmland is unaffected by Congress.

My father bought 33 acres of horse pasture in 1965 and held it until he died in 1986. He served 12 years as a Country Recorder of Deeds. I sold it in 1990. The sale price amounted to a yearly return of 2.5% for the time we owned it. There were no Congressional laws regarding pasture or horses so far as I know. The guy who I sold it to said he wanted to build a house on it, but so far, there has been nothing built. Sometimes there are horses and sometimes there are a few cows there.

[Plane]

No , the value of that land can change a lot due to legislation.

If there was wetland , pond, creek or swamp on or near that land , it would have become very difficult to develop it during this period , many land owners have lost a lot as such land lost value due to wetland preservation.

The land bank came and went , roadways have to be chosen, regulations on land use happen sporadicly. If a Congressman were heavily invested in real estate he would very likely be often presented with the temptation to legislate in benefit of his own type of real estate.

I don't think it would be hard to find an example.