Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

flotsam

(3,268 posts)
Mon Aug 27, 2018, 04:45 PM Aug 2018

I have a question about blind trusts...

I know the person who places his finances in trust can no longer make monetary calls, but is he equally banned in talking to his trustee, even in a general manner, about any future decisions he would be involved in? In short I knowthe guy who's finances are in trust is blind but is it possible his fiduciary is merely near-sighted??? Can someone describe the legal bounds?

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I have a question about blind trusts... (Original Post) flotsam Aug 2018 OP
Ideally, you can know the current value and put money in or take it out, unblock Aug 2018 #1
Here's an example. Igel Aug 2018 #2
Thank you both flotsam Aug 2018 #3

unblock

(52,183 posts)
1. Ideally, you can know the current value and put money in or take it out,
Mon Aug 27, 2018, 04:57 PM
Aug 2018

You're just not supposed to know what it's invested in.

Igel

(35,296 posts)
2. Here's an example.
Mon Aug 27, 2018, 06:20 PM
Aug 2018

Under Bush II there was some apparent conflict of interest. Somehow some legislation he promoted or at least signed would have a impact--I think it was somehow timber related.

His tax return for the preceding year showed that he held some nominal share of stock that was affected by the law. He claimed he didn't know. I don't recall if the tax return had already been filed by the time the legislation was passed. In any event, he had no control over the stock, didn't have any reason to be concerned about the stock because he had no say and could have no (legal) say over it, and by the time the legislation was signed there was no way he or anybody else could know if he *still* owned the stock. In other words, whatever was in the (extensive) paperwork, he was to have no opinion over it. I'd personally avoid digging into the paperwork if I knew I had no say over it. Just sign and move on.

A blind trust is supposed to be just that blind. You don't know what you own, you have no say over what you own, and you're not supported to give guidance. Your affairs, but you have no connection to them beyond mere ownership.

flotsam

(3,268 posts)
3. Thank you both
Mon Aug 27, 2018, 06:29 PM
Aug 2018

I still have doubts but I think I follow how you say it should be. We have come a long mile from Jimmy Carter having to sell a peanut farm. The GOP complained about his brother selling "Billy Beer" even though the president had no participation in the business and the name Carter was nowhere on the product. Couldn't the president at least rename his building "Fred Towers"???

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I have a question about b...