From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Rod Speed wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 12:11:21 +1000, Felix <none@not.here> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 19:43:15 +1000, Felix <none@not.here> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 19:00:29 +1000, Felix <none@not.here> wrote:

Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

Felix <none@not.here> wrote:

Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

As I understand it, ETFs (Exchange-Traded Investment Funds) are >>>>>>>>> separate entities from the parent companies that set them up (eg. >>>>>>>>> BlackRock, VanEck, Global X). So if the parent company goes
bankrupt, investors in the ETF will get back the current value of >>>>>>>>> their investment when the shares held by the ETF are sold
(assuming
it's closed down at that time). That money wouldn't be used to >>>>>>>>> pay
the debts of the parent company, at the expense of ETF investors. >>>>>>>>>
Correct?

did you ask google? ie. AI

No, I did some web searches (with Duck Duck Go) which came up with >>>>>>> pages including some on Wikipedia with key information that didn't >>>>>>> have references. From those I reached the above conclusion, but I >>>>>>> won't believe some AI guessing from the same sources any more than >>>>>>> what I concluded myself (indeed much less given the BS answers I've >>>>>>> had while testing one of those chatbots out). I'm hoping for some >>>>>>> human input, ideally based on broader experience than the top
search results.

when I type a question in a browser address bar, the first part
of the google response, before the listings, is the AI answer.
I've been amazed that I get an answer toa obscure or difficult
questions regarding software and hardware, or anything really, so >>>>>> much so that I never bother with websites or FAQ's, etc., any
more.a It seems there's nothing AI doesn't know!

You don't always get an AI response

I always have

Try asking about drywall using chrome

I was wanting to know the history after someone
on facebook claimed that that was invented in the
usa and that no one else used it for ages.

I just used the word drywall, nothing else

And it did the same thing with NDIS when I had forgotten Gillard's name

but that's not a question. you have to ask 'what is drywall',

Still nothing from the AI when you ask that

you do when using Firefox with google search engine

or saya 'tell me about drywall'.

Still nothing from the AI when you ask that

you do with Firefox with google as the search engine

I don't use Chrome, but I put just 'drywall' in Firefox, and got
nothing until I made a question of it.

I normally do get an AI response when I just the relevant word

yes, but I guess it depends on what the word is. I usually ask specific questions and get very specific results. Here's the response to "What is
the history of drywall"

Drywall was invented in 1916 by the United States Gypsum Company (USG)
as a faster, cheaper alternative to traditional plaster, initially known
as Sackett Board and later Sheetrock.Though slow to gain initial
acceptance, its adoption surged during the labor shortages of World War
II and accelerated during the post-war housing boom. By the mid-20th
century, drywall became the standard for interior walls and ceilings in residential and commercial construction due to its speed, efficiency,
and cost-effectiveness.

Key Milestones in Drywall History

1916:
The U.S. Gypsum Company invents modern drywall, consisting of gypsum
plaster sandwiched between paper layers, as a quicker alternative to wet plaster.

Early Years (1910s-1930s):
Early adopters viewed drywall as a less durable, "poor man's plaster,"
and builders were initially hesitant to use it.

World War II:
The urgent need for rapid construction of military bases and factories
made drywall's efficiency and speed invaluable, significantly increasing
its demand and popularity.

Post-War Boom (1940s-1950s):
The massive housing demand following the war further cemented drywall's position. Contractors and builders quickly recognized the ability to
build homes and workplaces in a fraction of the time it took with
plaster, boosting profits.

Mid-20th Century:
Drywall officially becomes the standard building material in North
America and eventually the world, replacing plaster in most residential
and commercial applications.

Why Drywall Was a Game-Changer
Speed and Efficiency: Unlike plaster, which requires long drying times, drywall is installed "dry," allowing for much faster construction. Cost-Effectiveness: Drywall is cheaper to produce and requires less
labor to install than traditional lath and plaster.
Ease of Installation: The simple process of installing pre-made panels
made it accessible to both skilled and unskilled workers.
Fire Resistance: The core gypsum is inherently fireproof, adding a key
safety benefit to its practical advantages.
--
Linux Mint 22.1

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 14:11:33 +1000, Felix <none@not.here> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 12:11:21 +1000, Felix <none@not.here> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 19:43:15 +1000, Felix <none@not.here> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 19:00:29 +1000, Felix <none@not.here> wrote:

Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

Felix <none@not.here> wrote:

Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

As I understand it, ETFs (Exchange-Traded Investment Funds) are >>>>>>>>>> separate entities from the parent companies that set them up >>>>>>>>>> (eg.
BlackRock, VanEck, Global X). So if the parent company goes >>>>>>>>>> bankrupt, investors in the ETF will get back the current value >>>>>>>>>> of
their investment when the shares held by the ETF are sold >>>>>>>>>> (assuming
it's closed down at that time). That money wouldn't be used to >>>>>>>>>> pay
the debts of the parent company, at the expense of ETF
investors.

Correct?

did you ask google? ie. AI

No, I did some web searches (with Duck Duck Go) which came up with >>>>>>>> pages including some on Wikipedia with key information that didn't >>>>>>>> have references. From those I reached the above conclusion, but I >>>>>>>> won't believe some AI guessing from the same sources any more than >>>>>>>> what I concluded myself (indeed much less given the BS answers >>>>>>>> I've
had while testing one of those chatbots out). I'm hoping for some >>>>>>>> human input, ideally based on broader experience than the top
search results.

when I type a question in a browser address bar, the first part of >>>>>>> the google response, before the listings, is the AI answer. I've >>>>>>> been amazed that I get an answer to obscure or difficult
questions regarding software and hardware, or anything really, so >>>>>>> much so that I never bother with websites or FAQ's, etc., any
more. It seems there's nothing AI doesn't know!

You don't always get an AI response

I always have

Try asking about drywall using chrome

I was wanting to know the history after someone
on facebook claimed that that was invented in the
usa and that no one else used it for ages.

I just used the word drywall, nothing else

And it did the same thing with NDIS when I had forgotten Gillard's name

but that's not a question. you have to ask 'what is drywall',

Still nothing from the AI when you ask that

you do when using Firefox with google search engine

or say 'tell me about drywall'.

Still nothing from the AI when you ask that

you do with Firefox with google as the search engine

Bullshit when you use just one word

I don't use Chrome, but I put just 'drywall' in Firefox, and got
nothing until I made a question of it.

I normally do get an AI response when I just the relevant word

yes, but I guess it depends on what the word is. I usually ask specific questions and get very specific results. Here's the response to "What is the history of drywall"

But there isnt always a very specific question

And it doesnt answer the specific claim I was researching,
the claim that it was unique to the USA for a very long time
which is a bare faced pig ignorant lie

Drywall was invented in 1916 by the United States Gypsum Company (USG)
as a faster, cheaper alternative to traditional plaster, initially known
as Sackett Board and later Sheetrock.Though slow to gain initial acceptance, its adoption surged during the labor shortages of World War
II and accelerated during the post-war housing boom. By the mid-20th century, drywall became the standard for interior walls and ceilings in residential and commercial construction due to its speed, efficiency,
and cost-effectiveness.

Key Milestones in Drywall History

1916:
The U.S. Gypsum Company invents modern drywall, consisting of gypsum plaster sandwiched between paper layers, as a quicker alternative to wet plaster.

Early Years (1910s-1930s):
Early adopters viewed drywall as a less durable, "poor man's plaster,"
and builders were initially hesitant to use it.

World War II:
The urgent need for rapid construction of military bases and factories
made drywall's efficiency and speed invaluable, significantly increasing its demand and popularity.

Post-War Boom (1940s-1950s):
The massive housing demand following the war further cemented drywall's position. Contractors and builders quickly recognized the ability to
build homes and workplaces in a fraction of the time it took with
plaster, boosting profits.

Mid-20th Century:
Drywall officially becomes the standard building material in North
America and eventually the world, replacing plaster in most residential
and commercial applications.

Why Drywall Was a Game-Changer
Speed and Efficiency: Unlike plaster, which requires long drying times, drywall is installed "dry," allowing for much faster construction. Cost-Effectiveness: Drywall is cheaper to produce and requires less
labor to install than traditional lath and plaster.
Ease of Installation: The simple process of installing pre-made panels
made it accessible to both skilled and unskilled workers.
Fire Resistance: The core gypsum is inherently fireproof, adding a key safety benefit to its practical advantages.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote

As I understand it, ETFs (Exchange-Traded Investment Funds) are
separate entities from the parent companies that set them up (eg.
BlackRock, VanEck, Global X).

That's not true

Well I admit that I made the assumption that ETFs in the USA are
structured the same as in Australia. Some references from the
Wikipedia page on ETFs describe them as either individual
investment companies or trusts:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1222333/000119312514287007/d766507dfwp.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20170503111329/https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/ic-25258.htm#seci

If it's different here (I'm only interested in ETFs on the ASX),
does our government have similar pages explaining how it works?

It's implied in pages I've found, but not stated nearly as
explicitly as on those SEC pages from the USA. Theremust be more
official definitions hiding somewhere?

There is with any publicly listed operation on the
ASX as far as what happens when it goes bust.

There is no special protection for EFTs in this country

It's not about special protection for ETFs specifically, but
whether they're structured in a way that the assets aren't used to
pay the debts of the investment company if it goes bankrupt. Of
course there'd be no hope if you bought shares in the investment
company itself and it went bust, but ETFs aren't the same as that,
they're separate (separate trusts as it turns out).

OK, this seems close:
https://www.asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/managed-funds/exchange-traded-products/

"Exchange traded products (ETPs) are open-ended registered managed
investment schemes (registered scheme). Units in the scheme are
traded on licensed Australian exchange.

There are three broad categories of ETPs:

exchange traded funds (ETF)s - unit trusts that are registered
schemes that track an index or a market segment" ...

So they're an "open-ended registered managed investment scheme" and
a "unit trust", but it doesn't say they're a company like most are
in the USA? ASIC says here they're a "unit trust", but that's still
a separate legal entity from the parent company?

Nope

Cite?

So if the parent company goes
bankrupt, investors in the ETF will get back the current value of
their investment when the shares held by the ETF are sold (assuming
it's closed down at that time). That money wouldn't be used to pay
the debts of the parent company, at the expense of ETF investors.

Correct?

Nope

Since by this (admittedly brief) definition says a Unit Trust holds
funds on behalf of its "unit holders" (ETF investors in this case),
it seems reasonable to assume that those funds wouldn't be used to
pay the debts of the company that set up that trust if they went bust.

The reality is that the shares become worthless

Any examples of that happening?

"unit trust

A legal structure that holds assets for the benefit of unit
holders. A trustee administers the trust, makes decisions about
trust assets and is responsible for distributing income and capital
according to the number of units each investor holds. Any profits
made by the trust must be distributed to unit holders at the end of
the financial year."
https://moneysmart.gov.au/glossary/unit-trust

That's not talking about ASX listed operations

Where do they talk about that then? I couldn't find any more
specific info on the ASX website. Anyway Unit Trusts seem to be
specifically for investment schemes so I don't see how the
definition would be different just when they're listed on the
ASX.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote

As I understand it, ETFs (Exchange-Traded Investment Funds) are
separate entities from the parent companies that set them up (eg.
BlackRock, VanEck, Global X).

That's not true

Well I admit that I made the assumption that ETFs in the USA are
structured the same as in Australia. Some references from the
Wikipedia page on ETFs describe them as either individual
investment companies or trusts:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1222333/000119312514287007/d766507dfwp.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20170503111329/https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/ic-25258.htm#seci

If it's different here (I'm only interested in ETFs on the ASX),
does our government have similar pages explaining how it works?

It's implied in pages I've found, but not stated nearly as
explicitly as on those SEC pages from the USA. Theremust be more
official definitions hiding somewhere?

There is with any publicly listed operation on the
ASX as far as what happens when it goes bust.

There is no special protection for EFTs in this country

It's not about special protection for ETFs specifically, but
whether they're structured in a way that the assets aren't usedto pay
the debts of the investment company if it goes bankrupt.

If the operation which setup the EFT has gone bust it would
be because the EFTs that it has setup has tanked, so you are
looking at the wrong side of the problem.

Of course there'd be no hope if you bought shares in theinvestment company itself and it went bust, but ETFs aren't thesame as that,
they're separate (separate trusts as it turns out).

But like I just said, if the operation which set up the EFT
has gone bust, it would be because the EFT has imploded.

OK, this seems close:
https://www.asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/managed-funds/exchange-traded-products/

"Exchange traded products (ETPs) are open-ended registered managed
investment schemes (registered scheme). Units in the scheme are
traded on licensed Australian exchange.

There are three broad categories of ETPs:

exchange traded funds (ETF)s - unit trusts that are registered
schemes that track an index or a market segment" ...

So they're an "open-ended registered managed investment scheme" and
a "unit trust", but it doesn't say they're a company like most are
in the USA? ASIC says here they're a "unit trust", but that's still
a separate legal entity from the parent company?

Nope

Cite?

Irrelevant to why the operation that setup the EFT has gone bust

So if the parent company goes
bankrupt, investors in the ETF will get back the current value of
their investment when the shares held by the ETF are sold (assuming
it's closed down at that time). That money wouldn't be used to pay
the debts of the parent company, at the expense of ETF investors.

Correct?

Nope

Since by this (admittedly brief) definition says a Unit Trust holds
funds on behalf of its "unit holders" (ETF investors in this case),
it seems reasonable to assume that those funds wouldn't be used to
pay the debts of the company that set up that trust if they went bust.

The reality is that the shares become worthless

Any examples of that happening?

Yep

"unit trust

A legal structure that holds assets for the benefit of unit
holders. A trustee administers the trust, makes decisions about
trust assets and is responsible for distributing income and capital
according to the number of units each investor holds. Any profits
made by the trust must be distributed to unit holders at the end of
the financial year."
https://moneysmart.gov.au/glossary/unit-trust

That's not talking about ASX listed operations

Where do they talk about that then?

Not something the regulators talk about

I couldn't find any more specific info on the ASX website.

There are plenty of examples of EFTs going bust

Anyway Unit Trusts seem to be
specifically for investment schemes so I don't see how the
definition would be different just when they're listed on the
ASX.

That's because there are plenty of examples of EFTs exchange traded going bust
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2