Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Audaxer
    • By Audaxer 17th Feb 17, 2:04 PM
    • 408Posts
    • 168Thanks
    Audaxer
    Financial Services Compensation Scheme query
    • #1
    • 17th Feb 17, 2:04 PM
    Financial Services Compensation Scheme query 17th Feb 17 at 2:04 PM
    I know that the FSCS limit for Investments is £50,000. Does that definitely mean that if the platform provider ceases trading, investors are only covered up to £50,000 despite the fact that their underlying investments may be in lots of different funds or companies that are still trading?
Page 1
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 17th Feb 17, 2:12 PM
    • 2,884 Posts
    • 4,124 Thanks
    Malthusian
    • #2
    • 17th Feb 17, 2:12 PM
    • #2
    • 17th Feb 17, 2:12 PM
    The investors will have lost nothing in that case so the FSCS doesn't apply.

    The clients' accounts and their underlying investments will eventually be transferred to another platform who buys the client book from the administrator. In the unlikely event that a buyer can't be found, the investments would be transferred directly to the beneficial owners.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 17th Feb 17, 3:23 PM
    • 89,501 Posts
    • 54,959 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #3
    • 17th Feb 17, 3:23 PM
    • #3
    • 17th Feb 17, 3:23 PM
    The scenario where the platform FSCS could apply is say if the platform told you it bought assets and it had not and then failed. i.e fraud. You would then be covered for £50,000. There are so few areas where FSCS protection on the platform is important. It is more applicable to the investments themselves but even then, it is a lower priority than cash deposits.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Audaxer
    • By Audaxer 17th Feb 17, 5:58 PM
    • 408 Posts
    • 168 Thanks
    Audaxer
    • #4
    • 17th Feb 17, 5:58 PM
    • #4
    • 17th Feb 17, 5:58 PM
    That's good to know. I thought that had to be the case. I made this enquiry to Virgin Money a while ago and was told by their representatives that their S&S ISAs (including the Bonds and Gilts fund) were only covered up to £50k if they ceased trading. Was that incorrect as I thought they were just a platform provider?
    • Linton
    • By Linton 17th Feb 17, 6:54 PM
    • 8,202 Posts
    • 8,068 Thanks
    Linton
    • #5
    • 17th Feb 17, 6:54 PM
    • #5
    • 17th Feb 17, 6:54 PM
    That's good to know. I thought that had to be the case. I made this enquiry to Virgin Money a while ago and was told by their representatives that their S&S ISAs (including the Bonds and Gilts fund) were only covered up to £50k if they ceased trading. Was that incorrect as I thought they were just a platform provider?
    Originally posted by Audaxer
    The manage funds as well. Its £50K/company so I guess that using a virgin fund on a virgin platform could have the effect of reducing the total coverage. However since the circumstances where it could apply are unlikely anyway I cant see it as a major issue - the charges are a better reason not to use VM funds.
    • Audaxer
    • By Audaxer 17th Feb 17, 9:19 PM
    • 408 Posts
    • 168 Thanks
    Audaxer
    • #6
    • 17th Feb 17, 9:19 PM
    • #6
    • 17th Feb 17, 9:19 PM
    The manage funds as well. Its £50K/company so I guess that using a virgin fund on a virgin platform could have the effect of reducing the total coverage.
    Originally posted by Linton
    Would the same then apply to say, an HL fund on a HL platform?
    However since the circumstances where it could apply are unlikely anyway I cant see it as a major issue
    It may be unlikely that the FSCS is necessary, but I think that used to be said about banks. More attention/publicity seems to be made as regards ensuring big savers do not exceed the £85k savings limit.
    the charges are a better reason not to use VM funds.
    Ha ha, why did I guess someone would mention the charges if I referred to Virgin.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 18th Feb 17, 5:16 AM
    • 6,692 Posts
    • 11,891 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    • #7
    • 18th Feb 17, 5:16 AM
    • #7
    • 18th Feb 17, 5:16 AM
    Would the same then apply to say, an HL fund on a HL platform?
    Originally posted by Audaxer
    Though they are sister companies, the FCA-registered "Hargreaves Lansdown Fund Managers" is legally a separate and distinct party from the fund platform operator "Hargreaves Lansdown Fund Managers" which is the stock-exchange member and has its own separate FCA licence, being approved for a different scope of activities.

    I haven't checked out Virgin as I'm not likely to be using them due to limited product range and high fees

    It may be unlikely that the FSCS is necessary, but I think that used to be said about banks. More attention/publicity seems to be made as regards ensuring big savers do not exceed the £85k savings limit.
    Because with a bank when you deposit funds those customer deposits can legally be used within the bank's own operations, lent out and such - that is the whole business model on which banking relies - and you might not get your money back if the bank fails to manage its assets sensibly, if there wasn't an industry-funded compensation scheme. And there are a greater volume of people using bank accounts than making S&S investments. So getting the message out about the limits, is important.

    With investments you are not depositing your money into HL or their competitors for them to use as part of their business operations ; they are a custodian or gatekeeper acquiring ringfenced assets for you, which they hold on your behalf (and someone else could pick up and continue to hold your assets if HL went out of business). So your recourse to FSCS is only likely to be needed in the case of largescale fraud, or for example bad investment advice if you choose to be an advised client instead of DIY execution-only and then they went bust before paying you off for your bad advice complaint. And yes their advisory bit has a separate FCA authorisation.
    Ha ha, why did I guess someone would mention the charges if I referred to Virgin.
    If Virgin didn't want to be known as an investment provider with high fee, they would have lowered the fees

    Statistically most investors are not going to need FSCS protection, so some people comparing providers would look first at things that would definitely be useful to them, like avoidance of high fees.
    Last edited by bowlhead99; 18-02-2017 at 5:18 AM.
    • Audaxer
    • By Audaxer 14th Mar 17, 8:25 PM
    • 408 Posts
    • 168 Thanks
    Audaxer
    • #8
    • 14th Mar 17, 8:25 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Mar 17, 8:25 PM
    I was just looking at the IWeb site and came across the following page:
    http://www.iweb-sharedealing.co.uk/about-iweb/financial-services-compensation-scheme.asp
    where you will see it says:
    'Customer assets are segregated from the firm’s assets and so would be available to be returned to you in the unlikely event that we were to cease trading.'
    which is good, but a bit concerned that it goes on to say:
    'In the extremely unlikely event of this segregation failing then you would be able to claim under the FSCS up to a value of £50,000.'

    I thought there wasn't any chance of losing any funds if a platform provider ceased trading?
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 14th Mar 17, 8:58 PM
    • 89,501 Posts
    • 54,959 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #9
    • 14th Mar 17, 8:58 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Mar 17, 8:58 PM
    In other words, if a fraud has taken place that affects consumers funds then you are covered up to £50k
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • grey gym sock
    • By grey gym sock 14th Mar 17, 9:09 PM
    • 4,097 Posts
    • 3,570 Thanks
    grey gym sock
    you would have a claim against iweb for 100% of a loss due to fraud. it's just in case iweb had also gone bust, and so couldn't pay, that you could instead claim from the FSCS, and the latter claim would be limited to £50k.

    just because there is insurance against something, it doesn't mean it's at all likely that it will happen. the £50k FSCS cover for investment can be relevant for claims against some small dodgy firm of financial advisors; it's very unlikely to come into play for someone like iweb (which may not be huge in platforms, but is owned by the giant lloyds banking group), but it does apply in theory.

    you can probably take out insurance against (a.k.a. place a bet on) jeremy clarkson becoming the next archbishop of canterbury, but that doesn't mean it's got any chance of happening.
    • Audaxer
    • By Audaxer 14th Mar 17, 10:59 PM
    • 408 Posts
    • 168 Thanks
    Audaxer
    In other words, if a fraud has taken place that affects consumers funds then you are covered up to £50k
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    I know it's probably unlikely, but do some large investors split investments between platforms in case there was such a fraud in one of the platforms, as they would only be covered up to £50k?
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 14th Mar 17, 11:31 PM
    • 12,016 Posts
    • 10,455 Thanks
    jimjames
    I know it's probably unlikely, but do some large investors split investments between platforms in case there was such a fraud in one of the platforms, as they would only be covered up to £50k?
    Originally posted by Audaxer
    Some might do but I have over the FSCS limit with one provider but different funds.
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • Linton
    • By Linton 15th Mar 17, 10:22 AM
    • 8,202 Posts
    • 8,068 Thanks
    Linton
    I know it's probably unlikely, but do some large investors split investments between platforms in case there was such a fraud in one of the platforms, as they would only be covered up to £50k?
    Originally posted by Audaxer
    After a lifetime of DC pensions and S&S investing one could easily end up with £500K in SIPPs and ISAs. Using 10+ different platforms would be a nightmare. I dont see it as an issue with mainstream providers, the risk being far less likely than those one takes every day simply living. At most it may be sensible to split £500K over 2 or 3 platforms.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,749Posts Today

6,117Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @thismorning: 'Sometimes the best gift is releasing somebody else from the obligation of having to give to you' says @MartinSLewis. Do y?

  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Follow Martin