mek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just a shame that ethecs is the most illogical of
> all of the sections. That one about the covered
> call still annoys me. You can almost picture
> another (hypothetical) ethics question, where the
> angry son/daughter has discovered that their
> parent's portfolio has been restricted from the
> benefits of upside-gain.... it makes my head spin
Ethics isn't illogical. Its just that sometime we are not aware of the true picture as it should be.
By the way, in my opinion as long as the actual owner is alive the question of others(his/her sons and daughters) should not arise.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just a shame that ethecs is the most illogical of
> all of the sections. That one about the covered
> call still annoys me. You can almost picture
> another (hypothetical) ethics question, where the
> angry son/daughter has discovered that their
> parent's portfolio has been restricted from the
> benefits of upside-gain.... it makes my head spin
Ethics isn't illogical. Its just that sometime we are not aware of the true picture as it should be.
By the way, in my opinion as long as the actual owner is alive the question of others(his/her sons and daughters) should not arise.