When I come across things that are simple but have been made needlessly complicated, I get ticked off.
Case in point: The other night I was making yet another stab at keeping up to date on my meagre flock of investments. One of my holdings has a rights offering, and the offering was approaching its expiry date. So I thought I should get an idea of what to do by reading the short-form prospectus. These things are pretty tough going at the best of times, but I was under the impression that the investment industry had make strides in writing these documents in plain English, rather than in the traditional, turgid legalistic lingo.
A big mistake. Here’s what you find under the heading Termination of the Fund: “The termination of the fund is December 31, 2014 provided that upon such date the term of the Fund will thereafter be automatically extended for further successive five year terms unless (1) the Fund is terminated at any time thereafter upon not less that 90 days’ written notice to the Trustee from the Manager with the prior approval of Unitholders by a resolution passed by holders of more than 50% of the units voting thereon at a meeting duly convened for the consideration of such termination and provided that Unitholders holding at least 10% of Units outstanding on the record date for voting at such meeting vote in favour of such a resolution, or (2) the Manager, in its discretion, terminates the fund at any time . . .”
From this point, it drags on for another 52 words. And, yes, that whole mess is one sentence. By the time you get to the end of it — if you get that far — you’ve forgotten what the point is. Or you’ve nodded off.
Or more important, you’ve decided to chuck the prospectus entirely. Who has the time, inclination or perseverance to battle through the verbiage, likely the product of a graduate of one of the country’s finest law schools?
Instead of helping investors understand their investments, and thus make better investment decisions, documents written this way have the opposite effect. That’s the salient point. The average investor simply gives up and is more likely worse off for it.
There have been lots of initiatives to provide better disclosure to investors over the years, but many of them have been fought tooth and nail by the investment industry.
One example that comes to mind is improved disclosure for mutual fund purchasers. Various proposals have been made in this area over the past 10 years, but virtually nothing has been accomplished.
What’s under discussion now is a two-page, point-of-sale Fund Facts document. Fund Facts would be written in plain language and contain information about what the fund invests in, its risks and the costs of buying and owing the fund.
It has come under intense attack by the investment industry on a number of fronts — it’s too complicated, costs too much money, the paperwork is a headache, compliance is a nightmare. Who knows where this process will end up? Or when?
One securities lawyer recently was reported to have griped that, contrary to the assumption that clients want to be educated about investments, there are many who don’t want to know about or understand the securities they buy.
I can only say that doesn’t apply to me, or anyone that I know.
Besides, the lawyer said, anyone who wants to know more about the product and investing risks should refer to — wait for it — the prospectus.
What a great suggestion. Now, if only I could remember where I tossed it.
Tracy LeMay, Editor
B.C. files four unexplained wealth orders so far
Two provinces fight crime with expanded civil forfeiture powers