Well, it still gets dark at the same time.

Some will move back, but I agree. I bet most people will stay. Once you have set up your life somewhere, uprooting again is daunting.

I see what you’re getting at. We should find a way to make people in this situation whole after forcing the sale of their positions when they enter the trust

I see what you’re getting at. We should figure out how to make someone asked to do that whole for their taxes owed as a result of selling. That would be a way to avoid potential conflicts arising

Regardless, his investments are in a blind trust. He hasn’t known what specific companies he is invested in since placing them in the trust. All he knows is what the overall performance of his investments is. That’s it.

There is a lot of misinformation and half information being thrown around about how blind trusts work, but the premise is as simple as that.

Carney’s assets are in a blind trust. He has zero visibility into what investments he holds. All he knows is the overall performance of the total.

Edit: after researching it, Carney’s stock options were included in the blind trust. This confirms he does not know what happens with them.

Regardless, options [to purchase stock] aren’t worth anything until they vest and are exercised by purchasing them. Unvested stock options are a promise by the company to allow the individual to purchase the options at a set rate once they vest. That’s it. They hold no immediate value. Generally breaking ties with a company means that your unvested options and RSUs are forfeit.

No, someone who understands how blind trusts work would believe it. Brookfield and Carney have nothing to do with how blind trusts work and zero control over the investments in his. You’re free to be a crazy conspiracy theorist, but own it.

No - Carney knows exactly what his investments were when they entered the blind trust. He does not know what they are now.

More likely, they instigated hateful rhetoric and were called out on it. They didn’t understand that they were being called out for their hateful views and words so it’s easier to say, “they yelled at me because I’m a white cis man” when the truth would force introspection

Go troll on facebook

Excellent point! We should do this to all our major industries

It’s vendor lockin on a country wide scale, from a hostile vendor.

And making the problem worse in the process

deleted by creator

We are going in circles now, but keep in mind that we are talking about unvested stocks. In my opinion the only way to have an equitable solution is to find a way of transferring the current market value of the unvested stocks into Carney’s blind trust. I can’t think of how to do this in a way that I would be happy as a taxpayer and he would be happy as a (former) shareholder, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a solution.

The complexity of the problem is one of the reasons why I don’t feel it is worth solving immediately.

Dude that’s crazy. As I said I didn’t vote for the guy but be realistic here. Asking someone to pay money to become PM is not a good precedent. Especially when we are talking about one of the world’s most prominent economists, taking a position like you have just makes you seem like you hate the person and nothing will make you happy.

What solution would you suggest?

His reaction isn’t great and agreed he should find a way to placate people who see it as a problem but IMO his reaction is separate from whether unvested stocks are an issue or not. When he took the job, taking a loss on his unvested stocks wasn’t part of the ethics screen, so presumably he’s annoyed at the goalposts having moved after he took the job.

The only equitable solution I can see is if the taxpayers wanted to pay Carney his unvested stocks at current market value (or as they were valued the day he took office), and then sign ownership of the stocks themselves over to the public. I can’t see that going over well with anyone so it just looks like a lose-lose situation.

If there are other solutions that don’t end up in such a quagmire I would like to understand them, but so far all the solutions sound worse to me than the problem

I disagree. I think drumming up outrage over this is a ploy to manufacture outrage over him being rich. We all already know he’s richer than any of us could ever dream of. I just want the government to focus on keeping Canadians safe and stable while our former ally wages economic war against us. This is a distraction at best.

Pierre not having a security clearance on its own is odd and disappointing, but fine on its own. The problem is that he used not getting a security clearance as a way for him to spread conspiracies about the things he could not know without clearance, but would know about with clearance. It was a bad faith argument.