HardWorkingDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 06:46 PM
Original message |
|
If I have it right, I understand the reason a person puts investments into a blind trust is to remove any possibility of committing any action that might benefit the investments and avoid the appearance of impropriety or wrongdoing.
My question is, if so, then is it the responsibility of the investment manager to make decisions in regards to those investments? For example, if the manager sees there is trouble ahead, is he or she responsible for making decisions that would limit a person's investments, like selling or moving money around without the investor's knowledge?
|
bryant69
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 06:48 PM
Response to Original message |
1. It would probably depend on the structure of the trust? |
|
I would guess. In this case one would hope that there would be very little control on behalf of Mr. Frist, but that evidently wasn't the case. Bryant Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
|
rzemanfl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 06:48 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Frist's trust was "blind" like Jamie Foxx was blind because he was |
elehhhhna
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 06:55 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The trustee manages the dough, PERIOD.
Seems the trust assets are not "blinded" if one dissolves one trust and places the assets in another--so changing trustees regularly defies the entire concept.
Frist is a thieving lying cheating video-diagnosing shitbag.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:12 PM
Response to Original message |