I was to understand last year that fee-paying family clients should be treated just the same as any other client. However I’m reading that when there is an oversubscription of shares, members should “forgo any sales to themselves or their immediate families to free up addional shares for clients” Is this a discrepancy? Why would you take away from your family if they are fee-paying?
you wouldn’t - i don’t think they are implying clients that are family members… just family - that are non clients
Is a difference between family accounts and immediate family accounts. The employee has gains benefit from immediate family accounts (wife and kid), but family accounts (aunt, uncle, brother) should be treated like any other client.
immediate family = same principle residence
what about bastard children?
Jscott24 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what about bastard children? That depends if they live with you or your wife’s boyfriend.
limit ipos to personal and family accounts - the stipulation is new issues (ipos)
McLeod81 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jscott24 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > what about bastard children? > > > That depends if they live with you or your wife’s > boyfriend. i love this forum…
“Erin Toffler, a portfolio manager at Esposito Investments, managers the retirement account established with the firm by her parents. Whenever IPOs become available, she first allocates shares to all her other clients for whom the investment is appropriate; only then does she place any remaining potion in her parents’ account, if the isssues is appropriate for them. She has adopted this procedure so that no one can accuse her of favoring her parents”
That is put forth as an example showing that she is doing her parents an unnecessary injustice! Correct practice would be to allocate for her parents like any other client.