Shall I Split my isa for FSCS protection

masonic

Audaxer wrote: »

I'd hope we are still protected in case a DIY platform does run into problems as could happen in future. I'd be very surprised following the agreed change from £50k to £85k protection after a full consultation, that DIY investors were not offered the same protection as 'advised' clients.

Being hopeful or surprised is your perogative, but in your shoes I'd be wanting to find out the situation for sure. As I've said above, it's rather irrelevant to me as I invest mainly via excluded instruments, otherwise I'd be asking the FSCS myself via their contact form.

AnotherJoe

I'd say that practically speaking its a complete waste of time and effort and possibly money but if it helps you sleep at night by all means go ahead.

short_butt_sweet

IMHO, if you're still confused, read this post from Linton again:

Linton wrote: »

I do not see any confusion...


FSCS is a cover for the regulated financial services companies, not investments. It seems to me that looking at the situation from that point of view makes things pretty clear.



FSCS cover only comes into force if a regulated financial services company is unable to meet its regulated obligations. So if a platform for any reason loses your investment and is unable to reimburse you then you are covered to the appropriate limit. If you invest in an OEIC/IT and the fund manager misplaces your money and cannot reimburse you, you are similarly covered. If you invest in a quoted or unquoted company and the company goes bust for any reason you are not covered because the protection of the value of your investment isnt a regulated activity. Similarly if you buy a fund from an incompetent fund manager.



Similarly for advice - a regulated adviser is regulated to provide appropriate advice. If the advice is not appropriate and the adviser cannot reimburse you, you are covered. If the adviser can reimburse you the FSCS cover doesnt come into force.

masonic

short_butt_sweet wrote: »

IMHO, if you're still confused, read this post from Linton again:

It is indeed a very clear explanation. It is just a shame it is currently not verifiable.