The problem is, his stock options may not have vested, and Carney would be aware of the vesting schedule. It could be years before he (or whoever is managing the trust) could exercise those options and/or sell those shares.
In other words, the trust may not be ‘blind’ in practice.
This was the original criticism from reporters such as Rosie Barton, and many of Carney’s supporters never bothered to try to understand the issue.
As soon as they vest, they are entered into the blind trust and Carney will have no knowledge or input into what happens with them
Unvested stocks can’t really be part of a blind trust because the holder can’t do anything with them until they have vested, and the vesting schedule being known means that the “blind” isn’t there in the blind trust
If Pierre wants to go get a job and succeed to the point where he gets stocks, good luck and more power to him.
IMO this hasn’t really been an issue in Canada before because generally we elect lawyers or career politicians. If we want a higher bar for divestment then let’s get that into law so that it applies either later in Carney’s term or for the next PM. In the meantime I am happy that Carney has fulfilled the requirements of the ethics commissioner and don’t believe that we have any clear mechanisms today to deal with unvested stocks owned by our politicians.
It is IMO very unlikely that a large percentage of Carney’s net worth will be from (currently) unvested stocks. He’s entered everything that can be into a blind trust and once vested these currently unvested stocks will go to the blind trust. Until that happens this grey area seems like much ado about nothing.
And to be 100% clear I did not vote Liberal in this latest election.
The problem is, his stock options may not have vested, and Carney would be aware of the vesting schedule. It could be years before he (or whoever is managing the trust) could exercise those options and/or sell those shares.
In other words, the trust may not be ‘blind’ in practice.
This was the original criticism from reporters such as Rosie Barton, and many of Carney’s supporters never bothered to try to understand the issue.
As soon as they vest, they are entered into the blind trust and Carney will have no knowledge or input into what happens with them
Unvested stocks can’t really be part of a blind trust because the holder can’t do anything with them until they have vested, and the vesting schedule being known means that the “blind” isn’t there in the blind trust
And when will that be? Will that happen while he is PM? Carney knows, and we don’t. And that’s the problem!
When they vest? Generally stocks vest to a schedule like x% per month over 4 years from when they were issued.
So why doesn’t Carney disclose this? Do you agree he should?
He could I guess, but it’s pretty standard stuff so the outrage over it seems manufactured to me.
Personally I’ve not heard of a PM having millions in unvested stock options before this one, so, not sure how standard it is.
If Poilievre was doing the same, would you have the same response?
If Pierre wants to go get a job and succeed to the point where he gets stocks, good luck and more power to him.
IMO this hasn’t really been an issue in Canada before because generally we elect lawyers or career politicians. If we want a higher bar for divestment then let’s get that into law so that it applies either later in Carney’s term or for the next PM. In the meantime I am happy that Carney has fulfilled the requirements of the ethics commissioner and don’t believe that we have any clear mechanisms today to deal with unvested stocks owned by our politicians.
It is IMO very unlikely that a large percentage of Carney’s net worth will be from (currently) unvested stocks. He’s entered everything that can be into a blind trust and once vested these currently unvested stocks will go to the blind trust. Until that happens this grey area seems like much ado about nothing.
And to be 100% clear I did not vote Liberal in this latest election.
We don’t have a clear legal mechanism, but we to have the power of public outrage.
The whole point of conflict of interest legislation is that politicians should not have, nor be seen to have, opportunity for personal gain.
Carney could easily clear this up to satisfy critics like myself. Choosing not to only makes it look worse, frankly.
People mad about Poilievre not having a security clearance should also be mad about this.