From Newsgroup: aus.legal

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?
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

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
--
Linux Mint 22.1

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

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.

Failing that I'll of course just assume I'm correct. It's not worth
paying a lawyer for, hopefully.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

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.-a I've been
amazed that I get an answer to-a 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!

Failing that I'll of course just assume I'm correct. It's not worth
paying a lawyer for, hopefully.

--
Linux Mint 22.1

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0735CB61C58C9873B3267A9D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Felix 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.-a I've been
amazed that I get an answer to-a 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!

Failing that I'll of course just assume I'm correct. It's not worth
paying a lawyer for, hopefully.

I asked Mr. Google..

"if parent companies of ETF's go bust do investors in the ETF get back
the current value of their investment when the shares held by the ETF
are sold?"

Mr. Google responded..

"Yes, if the parent company of an ETF goes bankrupt, investors generally
do get back the current value of their investment because the ETF's
assets are held separately on trust, not as the company's property, by a custodian.Even though the product issuer (the company) might face
bankruptcy, the underlying shares and assets remain protected and
separate, ensuring investors receive their share of the net asset value."

(then there's further explanation and links)
--
Linux Mint 22.1


--------------0735CB61C58C9873B3267A9D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Felix wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:mgqptdFg4aU1@mid.individual.net">Computer
Nerd Kev wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Felix <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:none@not.here">&lt;none@not.here&gt;</a> wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">As I understand it, ETFs
(Exchange-Traded Investment Funds) are
<br>
separate entities from the parent companies that set them up
(eg.
<br>
BlackRock, VanEck, Global X). So if the parent company goes
<br>
bankrupt, investors in the ETF will get back the current
value of
<br>
their investment when the shares held by the ETF are sold
(assuming
<br>
it's closed down at that time). That money wouldn't be used
to pay
<br>
the debts of the parent company, at the expense of ETF
investors.
<br>
<br>
Correct?
<br>
</blockquote>
did you ask google? ie. AI
<br>
</blockquote>
No, I did some web searches (with Duck Duck Go) which came up
with
<br>
pages including some on Wikipedia with key information that
didn't
<br>
have references. From those I reached the above conclusion, but
I
<br>
won't believe some AI guessing from the same sources any more
than
<br>
what I concluded myself (indeed much less given the BS answers
I've
<br>
had while testing one of those chatbots out). I'm hoping for
some
<br>
human input, ideally based on broader experience than the top
<br>
search results.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
when I type a question in a browser address bar, the first part of
the google response, before the listings, is the AI answer.-a I've
been amazed that I get an answer to-a 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!
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Failing that I'll of course just assume I'm correct. It's not
worth
<br>
paying a lawyer for, hopefully.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I asked Mr. Google.. <br>
<br>
"if parent companies of ETF's go bust do investors in the ETF get
back the current value of their investment when the shares held by
the ETF are sold?"<br>
<br>
Mr. Google responded..<br>
<span data-huuid="17353744894112886435"><span><br>
"Yes, if the parent company of an ETF goes bankrupt, investors
generally do get back the current value of their investment
because the ETF's assets are held separately on trust, not as
the company's property, by a custodian.</span><span> </span></span><span
data-huuid="17353744894112882758"><span>Even though the product
issuer (the company) might face bankruptcy, the underlying
shares and assets remain protected and separate, ensuring
investors receive their share of the net asset value."</span><span
class="pjBG2e" data-cid="5558bab1-3410-43ae-97fd-8c2e8254c267"><span
class="UV3uM"> <br>
</span></span></span><span data-huuid="16890998711225338626"><span
role="heading"></span></span><br>
(then there's further explanation and links)<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Linux Mint 22.1</pre>
</body>
</html>

--------------0735CB61C58C9873B3267A9D--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

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

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
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

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

Failing that I'll of course just assume I'm correct. It's not worth
paying a lawyer for, hopefully.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

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

Failing that I'll of course just assume I'm correct. It's not worth
paying a lawyer for, hopefully.

--
Linux Mint 22.1

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

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

then you must not have asked about what it can't answer

Failing that I'll of course just assume I'm correct. It's not worth
paying a lawyer for, hopefully.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

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

Failing that I'll of course just assume I'm correct. It's not worth
paying a lawyer for, hopefully.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

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

then you must not have asked about what it can't answer

there aren't any questions it can't answer :)

Failing that I'll of course just assume I'm correct. It's not worth
paying a lawyer for, hopefully.

--
Linux Mint 22.1

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

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

but that's not a question. you have to ask 'what is drywall', or say
'tell me about drywall'. I don't use Chrome, but I put just 'drywall' in Firefox, and got nothing until I made a question of it.

Failing that I'll of course just assume I'm correct. It's not worth
paying a lawyer for, hopefully.

--
Linux Mint 22.1

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

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

or say 'tell me about drywall'.

Still nothing from the AI when you ask that

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

Failing that I'll of course just assume I'm correct. It's not worth >>>>>> paying a lawyer for, hopefully.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

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. There must be more
official definitions hiding somewhere?

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?

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.

"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
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Felix <none@not.here> wrote:

Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

Felix <none@not.here> wrote:

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 don't use Google and I'm not interested in AI nonsense. AI
answers would only prompt me to read the sources it got the info
from (where that's available), and then why not just read those
sources in the first place?

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

Well I've seen some answers you got and posted before and I wasn't
impressed, but if you like it shooting you with a shotgun blast of
vaguely related info which is often misleading if not completely
incorrect, that's your problem.

bother with websites or FAQ's, etc., any more. It seems there's nothing
AI doesn't know!

Well yeah, that's your problem. Like when people used to reply on
Usenet to tell me I should "post to xyz Web forum instead, where
everyone is these days", I'd rather people just assume that if I'm
posting here, I've chosen not to use AI.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.legal

Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

Felix <none@not.here> wrote:

Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

Felix <none@not.here> wrote:

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 mys

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

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.

Ah, so you really don't understand ETFs

Wrong, as always

(or are you talking about Electronic Fund Transfers?)

Wrong, as always

at all.

Wrong, as always

There are lots of ETFs that aren't even designedto make long-term gains,

Irrelevant

and it doesn't mean the companies running them go bust

It does when the EFT fails

- they make their money from fees,not from the investments directly.

And when the EFT goes bust, there are no fees anymore

If not enough people invest in the ETFto cover the cost of running it, theyclose it down by selling the shares

Which are worthless when it has failed

and paying out the value to investors at that time.

No money to do that with

The investors don't lose out,

Corse they do when the EFT is worthless

they still get paid for
their part of the investments made by the ETF when it sells all its
shares.

Pity the shares are worthless.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/exchangetradedfunds/09/etf-out-of-business.asp

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.

Rubbish, many companys offer ETFs designednot to all perform well at
the same time.

Irrelevant to why it went bust.

All the "Bear" funds on this list (which is missing lots)are supposed
to perform well in a bear market - ie. whenmany of the company's other ETFs will be doing badly:

Irrelevant to why it went bust when there wasnt a bear market

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_exchange-traded_funds

This one's been running for ten years with -20.05% p.a. return in
that time according to it's own webpage:

And that means that fuck all are actually stupid enough
to buy those shares and the share price is worthless.

https://www.betashares.com.au/fund/australian-equities-strong-bear-fund/

But if the market takes a sudden dive,

Didnt happen even in 2008 or with Trump's tariff stunts

investors anticipating that can make moneybefore it rebounds and wipes that fundsgain out again in the long term.

And that happens very quickly even with Trump's tariff stupiditys

So it's obviously possible to invest in an ETF that would perform
well even when overall the investments made by the company that
created it are doing badly. If the investment company goes broke,
whether that's because not enough people buy their ETFs for them to
make enough money from fees, or another part of their business
fails, it doesn't imply that every ETF they run is performing badly.

That's not the situation you were worried about
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2