Trustee: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Known on the continent (though they hotly deny it) as a “[[fiduciary]]”. | Known on the continent (though they hotly deny it) as a “[[fiduciary]]”. | ||
Trustees may come in many different personalities, shapes and sizes but an oft-observed visitor to the financial services birdbath is the common speckled [[corporate trust and agency services provider]]. These are large, unwieldy bulge bracket birds. they offers [[paying agency]], [[security trustee]] and [[custody]] services to institutional and wealth management clients. They are very very fond of claiming [[indemnities][, disclaiming any liability for unexplained failures of their own staff to carry out the essential basic functions for which they are being paid, and will hotly protest that they make slim margins, have no upside exposure, and therefore should be be allowed to cry off any of the usual responsibilities expected of a prudent professional organisation in the financial services industry. Nettling them and their legal teams about the absurdity of these terms which, courtesy of immutable policy, said legal teams will have no power at all to vary is tremendous fun. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
Revision as of 22:59, 4 December 2019
|
One who holds the beneficial interest in something to which it has legal title on trust for someone else (that someone else being a “beneficiary”). In English law, a trust has no legal personality distinct from the trustee who constitutes it; in America and other far-flung places the trust itself (as distinct from its trustees) has its own ontological identity and may sue and be sued.
Known on the continent (though they hotly deny it) as a “fiduciary”.
Trustees may come in many different personalities, shapes and sizes but an oft-observed visitor to the financial services birdbath is the common speckled corporate trust and agency services provider. These are large, unwieldy bulge bracket birds. they offers paying agency, security trustee and custody services to institutional and wealth management clients. They are very very fond of claiming [[indemnities][, disclaiming any liability for unexplained failures of their own staff to carry out the essential basic functions for which they are being paid, and will hotly protest that they make slim margins, have no upside exposure, and therefore should be be allowed to cry off any of the usual responsibilities expected of a prudent professional organisation in the financial services industry. Nettling them and their legal teams about the absurdity of these terms which, courtesy of immutable policy, said legal teams will have no power at all to vary is tremendous fun.