dream on wellington capital.., page-4

Plenty of dog whistling (but little pro bono work) from the legal FRAT. Here's some dog whistling to the High Court about Wellington's recent loss to ASIC

http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/files/asic-v-wellington-capital-99691.pdf

My prediction is the High Court will hear the case and ASIC will lose. Trustees have the power to do whatever they want. Especially with trust clauses like PIF's clause 13. Provided that WC acts in our interests.

I note however that despite the length of clause 13, it is silent on distributions to unit holders. And yet clause 19.1 is very clear that "it is the role of the Responsible Entity to seek and invest the funds of the scheme in Authorised Investments". That's what we entrust Wellington Capital to do. It's not Wellington 's role to return funds to unit holders. To do so requires an amendment of the constitution doesn't it?

Norton Rose Fulbright's published opinion is very keen to promote clause 13 but remained wholly silent on clause 19.1.

At the end of the day PIF and its ilk are pig investment. Great for the manufacturers and operators. Lousy for us. So why was ASIC out there helping paint lipstick on them?

ASIC are still out there using the .gov.au brand to promote the merits of its AFSL system. You can see it for example in the laudatory and negligently vague language (e.g. "legally" and "basic standards") it uses in it's definition at https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/glossary/a/australian-financial-services-licence-(afsl)

A definition like that should only use the cold and precise language of the legislation. This text still has the finger prints of marketing all over it.

That definition also completely fails to mention that a licensee is limited to the financial products covered in the application for grant. How negligent is that? Examples like this show how dangerously clueless ASIC is to the needs of its retail clients.