Tall order
So Mark Carney has put all his holdings in a blind trust, as the law dictates for a prime minister. So what? The problem with blind trusts for rich people like Carney is that he knows what’s in it and the folks who supervise these things aren’t likely to change the contents very much. This issue matters in the case of Carney because I would assume that the value of his blind trust is something like $25 million. That’s got to be far more personal wealth than any previous Canadian PM.
Some of that will be invested in bonds and other such assets that anyone would just hang onto. No problem there. Other holdings, however, are likely in equities where values can go up and down. But blind or not, he knows what he holds. His trustee isn’t likely to eliminate shares held in a blue-chip Royal Bank, if he holds them, and he probably does. Will such a holding change his government’s stance towards Royal? Or other Canadian banks? Maybe not, but who knows?
There must also be future payments due to Carney from Brookfield, his former home. Top executives tend to set up payouts that extend over a long period of time, just like New York Mets slugger Juan Soto who recently signed a 15-year $765 million contract that could outlast his playing career. We’ve already seen Carney “forget” a Brookfield activity during his time seeking office. Will there be more such moments?
To my mind, a blind trust is a deaf-and-dumb idea.
So, what’s the answer? I say, let’s do away with blind trusts. Instead, a newly elected prime minister must cash out as much as he/she can at the time of assuming office. In addition, they must reveal any and all future payments that can’t be collateralized immediately. That way, we voters know when prime ministers are acting in their own best interests and when they might not be.
But Carney has another shortcoming, and I use the word carefully. To my mind, he’s a little short to be a leader. When he met recently with King Charles as well as the British and French leaders all the photographs showed him pretty much an equal in height. Carney is 5’9″ while the King and the two leaders are both in the 5’8″ to 5’10” range.
But what happens when Carney visits the White House? At 6’3″ Trump will tower over him by 6″ – half a foot – and stand a good chance of dominating the conversation as a result. Maybe that’s why Trump is last on Carney’s call list of leaders.
I would submit that PM Paul Martin was both wealthier and in a more controversial position. Wealthier, considering that he and partner Lawrence Pathy bought Canada Steamship Lines for $195 million in 1981 (over $600 million in current dollars by my estimate of cumulative CPI), and though reputedly highly leveraged, Martin managed to buy Pathy out in 1988 and own CSL outright. More controversial since, as you may recall, ownership of CSL eventually passed to Martin’s sons in order to avoid any “distraction” despite Martin’s CSL shares being under a “Supervisory Agreement” up until that time. But given the continued family ownership, PM Martin would have been aware how his government’s policies might impact his sons’ wealth if no longer himself directly. (Similarly, the relationship between Deco Labels and Premier Doug Ford warrants some scrutiny).
Bloomberg has reported Carney’s options in Brookfield to be worth $6.8 million as at December 31, 2024, based on public filings. I assume they mean U.S. dollars given the source. I haven’t bothered trying to validate back to fillings. Likewise, I haven’t looked into the details, but in my experience of such incentive plans with my former employer (I’ve since retired), one needs to differentiate between vested and non-vested options and forfeiture rules on leaving employment. Carney also served as Chairman of Bloomberg LP, for which one would assume similar accrued long-term compensation perhaps. Considering how lucrative such plans tend to be over time, Mr. Carney’s decision to walk away (to say nothing about walking away from a Goldman Sachs Managing Directorship all those years ago) suggests, to me anyway, that money and wealth accumulation are not his primary motivations. Honourable wouldn’t you say?
Being 5’ 9” myself, I’ve been mindful of the view that height can matter in one’s ascendancy in life. Of the five CEOs I served under, three of the four I met personally were taller than me. I have enough self-awareness to avoid feeling that not grasping the golden ring myself is due strictly to vertical limitation. Still, having shook hands with Pierre Trudeau in 1980 after a campaign luncheon speech, I was struck that he was no taller than me. The Kennedy-Nixon televised debate is well trod terrain for the role of optics, yet, sadly, what would American voters have felt had they known at the time that Kennedy suffered from Addison’s disease, or of his debilitating back injury? What of FDR’s polio related paralysis? Trump’s height advantage versus Carney (or Macron’s) reminds me more of a dimwit jock. Marty McFly versus Biff Tannen. David versus Goliath even? I judge leaders from what they have from the neck up, even if I don’t have to strain mine while shaking their hand.