Is this a good time to start investing already?

[alfred russel]

What are you doing with all your money if you aren't investing it?

Deposits, including in various currencies, and I bought some real estate.

Doesn't your firm have an investment advisor to talk to?

[dps]

Another CdM comment laced with criticisms of Marty, amazing how he manages to shoehorn them in.

Yeah, but I'm wondering if "sole" was intended as a pun, or if it was just a misspelling.

Anyway, Marty, when you're investing for the long term, the sooner you do so, the better.  So now is a better time than next year.

If you're talking about investing for the short term, though, it's much more iffy.

[Martinus]

What are you doing with all your money if you aren't investing it?

Deposits, including in various currencies, and I bought some real estate.

Doesn't your firm have an investment advisor to talk to?

Nope. 

[Barrister]

(nb, I won't be "playing" at stocks - it's too much hassle considering our firm's corporate governance rule etc.)

I work for a publicly-traded company and the only rules revolve around trading our company's stock during blackouts and using knowledge gained at work to influence trading (which presumably only affects trading the company's stock and the stock of its competitors and possibly vendors/clients).

My firm works *for* countless publicly listed companies and we often have access to insider information. I need to get a specific permission from our London HQ to do any share deal in the public market.

That sounds surprising.  In my very first lawfirm I started out in the securities department, so pretty much by definition every single one of our clients were publicly listed companies, or were intending to become public companies.  I do not recall any such restriction.

[Martinus]

(nb, I won't be "playing" at stocks - it's too much hassle considering our firm's corporate governance rule etc.)

I work for a publicly-traded company and the only rules revolve around trading our company's stock during blackouts and using knowledge gained at work to influence trading (which presumably only affects trading the company's stock and the stock of its competitors and possibly vendors/clients).

My firm works *for* countless publicly listed companies and we often have access to insider information. I need to get a specific permission from our London HQ to do any share deal in the public market.

That sounds surprising.  In my very first lawfirm I started out in the securities department, so pretty much by definition every single one of our clients were publicly listed companies, or were intending to become public companies.  I do not recall any such restriction.

You are probably not covered by MAD, if that was just a Canadian lawfirm.

[crazy canuck]

(nb, I won't be "playing" at stocks - it's too much hassle considering our firm's corporate governance rule etc.)

I work for a publicly-traded company and the only rules revolve around trading our company's stock during blackouts and using knowledge gained at work to influence trading (which presumably only affects trading the company's stock and the stock of its competitors and possibly vendors/clients).

My firm works *for* countless publicly listed companies and we often have access to insider information. I need to get a specific permission from our London HQ to do any share deal in the public market.

You mean to tell me your firm's policies do not allow you to set up the equivalent of a blind trust so that you are able to participate in the equity market?  Or more to the point you havent been able to figure that out yet? Its posts like this that perpetuate the meme that you are not really a lawyer

[Barrister]

You are probably not covered by MAD, if that was just a Canadian lawfirm.

I don't know what MAD is, but yes it was a Canadian firm (though a national firm - the same one Malthus works for currently).  Thinking about it, I think there was a 'do not trade' list that was circulated, but that is still a long way from having to get permission to make any trade.

[crazy canuck]

(nb, I won't be "playing" at stocks - it's too much hassle considering our firm's corporate governance rule etc.)

I work for a publicly-traded company and the only rules revolve around trading our company's stock during blackouts and using knowledge gained at work to influence trading (which presumably only affects trading the company's stock and the stock of its competitors and possibly vendors/clients).

My firm works *for* countless publicly listed companies and we often have access to insider information. I need to get a specific permission from our London HQ to do any share deal in the public market.

That sounds surprising.  In my very first lawfirm I started out in the securities department, so pretty much by definition every single one of our clients were publicly listed companies, or were intending to become public companies.  I do not recall any such restriction.

It is suprising indeed.  This sounds more like just another one of Marti's "look at me look at me, I have more money then some of you" threads.

[alfred russel]

You mean to tell me your firm's policies do not allow you to set up the equivalent of a blind trust so that you are able to participate in the equity market?  Or more to the point you havent been able to figure that out yet? Its posts like this that perpetuate the meme that you are not really a lawyer

I think he was just saying he can't actively trade individual stocks. So funds that his company doesn't directly work with and a blind trust would be okay (I would think). I haven't heard of having to get each transaction approved, but I have heard of do not trade lists that are so extensive people just run every transaction by compliance.

I am surprised that he would work for 10 years as a high earner and leave his cash in deposit accounts. It seems such a waste to work hard for money and then just let it sit there.

[Martinus]

You mean to tell me your firm's policies do not allow you to set up the equivalent of a blind trust so that you are able to participate in the equity market?  Or more to the point you havent been able to figure that out yet? Its posts like this that perpetuate the meme that you are not really a lawyer

I think he was just saying he can't actively trade individual stocks. So funds that his company doesn't directly work with and a blind trust would be okay (I would think).

Yeah, this.

[Martinus]

You are probably not covered by MAD, if that was just a Canadian lawfirm.

I don't know what MAD is, but yes it was a Canadian firm (though a national firm - the same one Malthus works for currently).  Thinking about it, I think there was a 'do not trade' list that was circulated, but that is still a long way from having to get permission to make any trade.

Market Abuse Directive.

[crazy canuck]

I think he was just saying he can't actively trade individual stocks. So funds that his company doesn't directly work with and a blind trust would be okay (I would think). I haven't heard of having to get each transaction approved, but I have heard of do not trade lists that are so extensive people just run every transaction by compliance.

I am surprised that he would work for 10 years as a high earner and leave his cash in deposit accounts. It seems such a waste to work hard for money and then just let it sit there.

Yep, that is exactly what he should have said.  Which is what lead to my comment of why the meme continues to exist.

[Grey Fox]

Sometimes, you guys should learn to just read between the lines. Also, stuff might get lost in translation.

[DGuller]

Sometimes, you guys should learn to just read between the lines. Also, stuff might get lost in translation.

Is there any secret to reading between the lines? I tried doing just that with Marty's post, but all I saw between the lines was just blank space.

[CountDeMoney]

Another CdM comment laced with criticisms of Marty, amazing how he manages to shoehorn them in.

Yeah, but I'm wondering if "sole" was intended as a pun, or if it was just a misspelling.

You should fucking know better than that.