Top Law Schools

Can anyone tell me what type/level of restrictions are placed on associates with active investment portfolios?

Are you just restricted from investing in certain companies i.e. the ones that you bill for work done or is it more restrictive i.e. all of the firm's client?

FYI--->I work for a Big Four Accounting firm so I am well aware of independence issues/Chinese wall/Channel 1 vs Channel 2 clients etc....

Thank you in advance

i think most firms have a do not trade list

patogordo wrote:i think most firms have a do not trade list

Regardless of your level of involvement with the client? That sounds super restrictive to me

sashafierce wrote:

patogordo wrote:i think most firms have a do not trade list

Regardless of your level of involvement with the client? That sounds super restrictive to me

Information typically isn't shielded. I can look up information on tons of shit I'm never even remotely involved with.

i have no idea what the SEC regs say but i doubt you can trade any company that is a client of your firm

sashafierce wrote:

patogordo wrote:i think most firms have a do not trade list

Regardless of your level of involvement with the client? That sounds super restrictive to me

It's incredibly restrictive. HTH.

Desert Fox wrote:

sashafierce wrote:

patogordo wrote:i think most firms have a do not trade list

Regardless of your level of involvement with the client? That sounds super restrictive to me

Information typically isn't shielded. I can look up information on tons of shit I'm never even remotely involved with.

Does that mean that if I work at a law firm regardless of rank/department/level of involvement I cannot actively trade the shares/bonds of companies on the "no trade list"?

sashafierce wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

sashafierce wrote:

patogordo wrote:i think most firms have a do not trade list

Regardless of your level of involvement with the client? That sounds super restrictive to me

Information typically isn't shielded. I can look up information on tons of shit I'm never even remotely involved with.

Does that mean that if I work at a law firm regardless of rank/department/level of involvement I cannot actively trade the shares/bonds of companies on the "no trade list"?

That's the rule at my firm. Also, if you check the "no trade list" too often the firm will tell you to get back to work.

IAFG wrote:

sashafierce wrote:

patogordo wrote:i think most firms have a do not trade list

Regardless of your level of involvement with the client? That sounds super restrictive to me

It's incredibly restrictive. HTH.

I am starting to realize that.

Is there a way to find out how restrictive a firm is before you starting working for them or are the restrictions universal (meaning that there is no such thing as a less restrictive firm)

No, there will not be a difference between firms in enforcement. I guess if you went to, say, a Real Estate boutique, the list will be shorter.

Index funds are the way go. I have been doing a lot of research on this. I assume the bigger the firm the larger the restrictions. Go SEC and rule 10b-5

Policies vary, but if your firm has a wide roster of corporate clients, the unofficial policy is almost certainly "don't trade stocks you idiot."

Use index funds and/or hire an investment manager (but don't actually do that it's a waste of money).

In some firms you have to register your trades. I do but I am in the securities practice.

If you violate your firms trading policy though it is an excellent way to get reprimanded.

UVAIce wrote:Index funds are the way go. I have been doing a lot of research on this. I assume the bigger the firm the larger the restrictions. Go SEC and rule 10b-5

I dunno, I work in Transactions now so I spend a very large portion of my day analysing and valuing companies so I was hoping to use my knowledge to actively value/trade shares for my own little portfolio but now I am thinking that may not be possible since I would like to work in Big Law.

jarofsoup wrote:In some firms you have to register your trades. I do but I am in the securities practice.

If you violate your firms trading policy though it is an excellent way to get reprimanded.

I am familiar with the requirement of having to register trades but the whole "no trade list" seems a bit excessive imo...but what do I knw I am just a 0L

thesealocust wrote:Policies vary, but if your firm has a wide roster of corporate clients, the unofficial policy is almost certainly "don't trade stocks you idiot."

Use index funds and/or hire an investment manager (but don't actually do that it's a waste of money).

I agree with you, I don't see the value in hiring an investment manager. I personally think that I know enough (and continue to learn more everyday) about the stock exchange, stock valuation & accounting to manage my own portfolio.

But that's because I work in the field,for people outside the field learning about Beta, risk premiums and off balance sheet transactions might be a bit of a hassle.

sashafierce wrote:

thesealocust wrote:Policies vary, but if your firm has a wide roster of corporate clients, the unofficial policy is almost certainly "don't trade stocks you idiot."

Use index funds and/or hire an investment manager (but don't actually do that it's a waste of money).

I agree with you, I don't see the value in hiring an investment manager. I personally think that I know enough (and continue to learn more everyday) about the stock exchange, stock valuation & accounting to manage my own portfolio.

But that's because I work in the field,for people outside the field learning about Beta, risk premiums and off balance sheet transactions might be a bit of a hassle.

I feel like you're missing the point. It's not about paying for knowledge you don't have, it's about not getting investigated by the fucking feds.

off the balance sheet transactions? risk premiums? well we've got ourselves a regular warren buffet here

This guy is a tremendous goober. I really don't like him

sashafierce wrote:

jarofsoup wrote:In some firms you have to register your trades. I do but I am in the securities practice.

If you violate your firms trading policy though it is an excellent way to get reprimanded.

I am familiar with the requirement of having to register trades but the whole "no trade list" seems a bit excessive imo...but what do I knw I am just a 0L

It's not excessive, it's just the way the ethical rules for lawyers work.

sashafierce wrote: But that's because I work in the field,for people outside the field learning about Beta, risk premiums and off balance sheet transactions might be a bit of a hassle.

Learning a bit about "beta" from this post.

IAFG wrote:

sashafierce wrote:

thesealocust wrote:Policies vary, but if your firm has a wide roster of corporate clients, the unofficial policy is almost certainly "don't trade stocks you idiot."

Use index funds and/or hire an investment manager (but don't actually do that it's a waste of money).

I agree with you, I don't see the value in hiring an investment manager. I personally think that I know enough (and continue to learn more everyday) about the stock exchange, stock valuation & accounting to manage my own portfolio.

But that's because I work in the field,for people outside the field learning about Beta, risk premiums and off balance sheet transactions might be a bit of a hassle.

I feel like you're missing the point. It's not about paying for knowledge you don't have, it's about not getting investigated by the fucking feds.

My response to him is based on his comment about investment managers and usefulness.

I am getting the point. Based on your response and the response of a few others in this thread, I now know that actively managing a portfolio as a Big Law Associates may not be possible.

Thank you for your input

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

sashafierce wrote:

jarofsoup wrote:In some firms you have to register your trades. I do but I am in the securities practice.

If you violate your firms trading policy though it is an excellent way to get reprimanded.

I am familiar with the requirement of having to register trades but the whole "no trade list" seems a bit excessive imo...but what do I knw I am just a 0L

It's not excessive, it's just the way the ethical rules for lawyers work.

I guess that I am comparing this new info to what I already know which is a bad comparison since it is two completely different fields

Thanks

patogordo wrote:off the balance sheet transactions? risk premiums? well we've got ourselves a regular warren buffet here

your funny

Hipster but Athletic wrote:This guy is a tremendous goober. I really don't like him

goober