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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).