WWTBAM Bored

This going to show either my total ignorance on the subject, or maybe something that once was valid but is not anymore.

I seem to recall some years ago where the President (and presumably the Veep) as well as Cabinet officers, in order to show they didn't use their position to profit, would put their holdings in a blind trust. IIRC, that was the unspoken excuse why some folks offered Cabinet posts declined them, because they couldn't actively manage investments.

Was/is that an actual law, or a policy, or just something some folks did voluntarily to look good?

The reason I ask, of course, is that begs the question -- how would President Trump handle that sort of thing? (Or for that matter, President H. Clinton?)

SpacemanSpiff wrote:This going to show either my total ignorance on the subject, or maybe something that once was valid but is not anymore.

I seem to recall some years ago where the President (and presumably the Veep) as well as Cabinet officers, in order to show they didn't use their position to profit, would put their holdings in a blind trust. IIRC, that was the unspoken excuse why some folks offered Cabinet posts declined them, because they couldn't actively manage investments.

Was/is that an actual law, or a policy, or just something some folks did voluntarily to look good?

The reason I ask, of course, is that begs the question -- how would President Trump handle that sort of thing? (Or for that matter, President H. Clinton?)

I'm not certain but I believe it was voluntary. --Bob

Here's more than you want to see. I'm not going to try to read all of it.

http://congressionalresearch.com/RS21656/document.php

Thanks, Bob. I found the operative part in there:

... federal officials in the executive branch of Government, other than the President or Vice
President, must generally “recuse” or disqualify themselves from participating in any
particular governmental matter in which they have a financial interest, or in which their
spouse, dependant children, partner, or business with which they are associated, has a
financial interest. Executive branch officials may also be required, under regulations
promulgated by the Office of Government Ethics [OGE], to recuse themselves from
certain governmental matters affecting an even broader category of persons or entities
with whom they have a “covered relationship.”

And it goes on from there about the blind trust thing. Basically, it's not applicable to the Prexy or Veep. What I remembered about it must have been about Cabinet folks.

Dick Cheney put his Halliburton stock in a blind trust, even though that regulation didn't include the V.P.

jarnon wrote:Dick Cheney put his Halliburton stock in a blind trust, even though that regulation didn't include the V.P.

How does that help? He still knew he owned it, right? I can see how it might make sense to turn all investments over to an independent wealth manager who has power of attorney to buy and sell things but who can't reveal what is currently in the account. Otherwise, it doesn't seem very blind.

TheConfessor wrote:

jarnon wrote:Dick Cheney put his Halliburton stock in a blind trust, even though that regulation didn't include the V.P.

How does that help? He still knew he owned it, right? I can see how it might make sense to turn all investments over to an independent wealth manager who has power of attorney to buy and sell things but who can't reveal what is currently in the account. Otherwise, it doesn't seem very blind.

My exact thought but for one thing. While he may have the power to influence the price of the stock up or down, he does not have the power to buy more or sell ahead of his decisions. So while he may be motivated to try and keep his investments valuable he can not take advantage of his ability to harm the value of the stock, which would be easier to do....always easier to harm something than to benefit it.

Not a perfect situation, but at some level you need to have some trust in your elected officials, something I think we all have trouble with from time to time.

BackInTex wrote:

TheConfessor wrote:

jarnon wrote:Dick Cheney put his Halliburton stock in a blind trust, even though that regulation didn't include the V.P.

How does that help? He still knew he owned it, right? I can see how it might make sense to turn all investments over to an independent wealth manager who has power of attorney to buy and sell things but who can't reveal what is currently in the account. Otherwise, it doesn't seem very blind.

My exact thought but for one thing. While he may have the power to influence the price of the stock up or down, he does not have the power to buy more or sell ahead of his decisions. So while he may be motivated to try and keep his investments valuable he can not take advantage of his ability to harm the value of the stock, which would be easier to do....always easier to harm something than to benefit it.

Not a perfect situation, but at some level you need to have some trust in your elected officials, something I think we all have trouble with from time to time.

Why would you assume it would be easier to harm a stock than benefit it?

Jeemie wrote: Why would you assume it would be easier to harm a stock than benefit it?

Because it is. It is always easier to destroy than create, to damage than repair, to make dirty than to clean. Law of nature.

If you have power, you can easily make people want to sell a stock, to get rid of it, drive the price down. Not so easy to convince people to buy one.

BackInTex wrote:

Jeemie wrote: Why would you assume it would be easier to harm a stock than benefit it?

Because it is. It is always easier to destroy than create, to damage than repair, to make dirty than to clean. Law of nature.

If you have power, you can easily make people want to sell a stock, to get rid of it, drive the price down. Not so easy to convince people to buy one.

If you give Halliburton favored status in military contracts, people are going to want to buy their stocks.

Government can easily add value to companies...just as easy as destroying their value, if not easier.

Jeemie wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Jeemie wrote: Why would you assume it would be easier to harm a stock than benefit it?

Because it is. It is always easier to destroy than create, to damage than repair, to make dirty than to clean. Law of nature.

If you have power, you can easily make people want to sell a stock, to get rid of it, drive the price down. Not so easy to convince people to buy one.

If you give Halliburton favored status in military contracts, people are going to want to buy their stocks.

Government can easily add value to companies...just as easy as destroying their value, if not easier.

The numbers don't support your hype.

Comparing Haliburton to other similar oilfield services companies (specifically Schlumberger and Baker-Hughes) during those years show HAL tracked very similarly.

KBR was a drag on Haliburton. That is why they divested KBR in 2007.