Halifax credit card and ISA + trading accounts linked

eskbanker

Bill_66 said:

Sorry but I strongly disagree with your assertion "of not needing to cap investments on a platform at £85K".

There have been a number of brokers go into administration. See here for a brief overview:

(Argh - I cannot post links as I'm new. It was an article on the Investors Chronicle website covering this issue with examples of brokers who have gone into administration)

Ultimately most people have not lost money but plenty of nightmares were had by account holders when administrators made claims against client accounts. Suffice to say that the last ditch FSCS £85K protection is something that I want on my accounts after looking into this issue extensively, although everyone has to decide on their own level of risk acceptance / aversion.

But this is way off topic and it's a discussion I did not come here for. 

I think you've missed the point - nobody is denying that brokers have gone into administration or that that process can be painful for investors, but that's unrelated to the size and significance of the FSCS limit!  The point is that the circumstances in which FSCS has to step in and make good losses are so limited that realistically you won't find investors with such companies who've lost out even when holding significantly more than £85K via a failed platform.  Anyway, no skin off my nose if you choose to believe that it's safer not to have more than £85K invested via any given platform, I was just trying to correct a misconception but it's your money and your choice....

[Deleted User]

D3xt3r5L4b said:

Halifax OLB login is a username, password and then random characters from a memorable/chosen word, right?
I don’t see the issue...

The issue is that a set of online login credentials for a credit card account now gives full access to stocks & shares ISA and trading accounts. In my opinion this is a security breach waiting to happen. I say this as someone who was once the victim of an 'account takeover' (as I now know it's called) despite it not being possible for anyone (other than some of the bank's employees) to know my login details or answers to security questions. For this reason I prefer to keep disparate accounts separate, with separate and distinct login details. In this day and age of security compromises being almost a regular thing - and I suspect much more regular than the stories that make it onto mainstream news - that people here keep saying they don't see what the problem is.

[Deleted User]

eskbanker said:

I think you've missed the point - nobody is denying that brokers have gone into administration or that that process can be painful for investors, but that's unrelated to the size and significance of the FSCS limit!  The point is that the circumstances in which FSCS has to step in and make good losses are so limited that realistically you won't find investors with such companies who've lost out even when holding significantly more than £85K via a failed platform.  Anyway, no skin off my nose if you choose to believe that it's safer not to have more than £85K invested via any given platform, I was just trying to correct a misconception but it's your money and your choice....

Well we disagree and I think it's you that is missing the point.

The fact is, whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant - I prefer to stay within the £85K FSCS limit of protection per institution - it is an extra last ditch level of cover that I feel helps me sleep well at night. And to be perfectly frank I think it is irresponsible of you to suggest that I or anyone does this out of any "misconception". There is no misconception on my part I can assure you. But A) I didn't come here to discuss this issue and people can choose for themselves whether the £85K FSCS limit is something they want to stay within or not.

I really did not come here to get embroiled in an argument about the merits or not of the FSCS!

Can we please stick to my original point? Thank you.

[Deleted User]

There should be the letter B and a close-bracket where the smiley face is.

D3xt3r5L4b

Bill_66 said:

D3xt3r5L4b said:

Halifax OLB login is a username, password and then random characters from a memorable/chosen word, right?
I don’t see the issue...

The issue is that a set of online login credentials for a credit card account now gives full access to stocks & shares ISA and trading accounts. In my opinion this is a security breach waiting to happen. I say this as someone who was once the victim of an 'account takeover' (as I now know it's called) despite it not being possible for anyone (other than some of the bank's employees) to know my login details or answers to security questions. For this reason I prefer to keep disparate accounts separate, with separate and distinct login details. In this day and age of security compromises being almost a regular thing - and I suspect much more regular than the stories that make it onto mainstream news - that people here keep saying they don't see what the problem is.

Then take some accounts with a different lender that has a different login portal. 

[Deleted User]

D3xt3r5L4b said:

Then take some accounts with a different lender that has a different login portal.

Yes that's the blindingly obvious thing to do, but that's got nothing to do with the question I asked in my op.

eskbanker

Bill_66 said:

eskbanker said:

I think you've missed the point - nobody is denying that brokers have gone into administration or that that process can be painful for investors, but that's unrelated to the size and significance of the FSCS limit!  The point is that the circumstances in which FSCS has to step in and make good losses are so limited that realistically you won't find investors with such companies who've lost out even when holding significantly more than £85K via a failed platform.  Anyway, no skin off my nose if you choose to believe that it's safer not to have more than £85K invested via any given platform, I was just trying to correct a misconception but it's your money and your choice....

Well we disagree and I think it's you that is missing the point.

The fact is, whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant - I prefer to stay within the £85K FSCS limit of protection per institution - it is an extra last ditch level of cover that I feel helps me sleep well at night. And to be perfectly frank I think it is irresponsible of you to suggest that I or anyone does this out of any "misconception". There is no misconception on my part I can assure you. But A) I didn't come here to discuss this issue and people can choose for themselves whether the £85K FSCS limit is something they want to stay within or not.

I really did not come here to get embroiled in an argument about the merits or not of the FSCS!

Can we please stick to my original point? Thank you.

Seems to me it's the same fundamental point, i.e. you have some immovable opinions about security and aren't open to assurances about the risks that you're actually facing.  Your original point was long since answered (i.e. what Halifax are doing isn't illegal or inappropriate) and they've told you that they're (unsurprisingly) not able or willing to change their security arrangements for you, so it's unclear what else you expect from the thread - those of us trying to offer assurances and constructive suggestions are being dismissed out of hand, and the overriding impression is that you just wanted a rant rather than a meaningful discussion about security or what options are now open to you.  Perhaps you were just expecting people to nod along in agreement, saying that Halifax are reckless bandits?

[Deleted User]

eskbanker said:

Seems to me it's the same fundamental point, i.e. you have some immovable opinions about security and aren't open to assurances about the risks that you're actually facing.  Your original point was long since answered (i.e. what Halifax are doing isn't illegal or inappropriate) and they've told you that they're (unsurprisingly) not able or willing to change their security arrangements for you, so it's unclear what else you expect from the thread - those of us trying to offer assurances and constructive suggestions are being dismissed out of hand, and the overriding impression is that you just wanted a rant rather than a meaningful discussion about security or what options are now open to you.  Perhaps you were just expecting people to nod along in agreement, saying that Halifax are reckless bandits?

Crikey, this is like trying to have a discussion with a deaf parrot.

I very much doubt that you are qualified to offer assurances about the risks - perceived or otherwise - that you think I am taking. And even if you are qualified, I didn't ask for reassurances about the point you keep banging on about, which was not and is not the point of my original post. You've turned this into an argument about something I didn't ask about.

You are correct, however, that my original point has long since been answered, so my original purpose for signing up here to ask the question has served it's purpose.

Despite me trying repeatedly to move away from your unrelated point that you seem determined to ram down my throat, you now resort to making several spurious assumptions about me that are grossly incorrect.

Best thing for me to do now is bow out. No doubt you will insist on having the last word. Go ahead. I'm out of here.

born_again

Bill_66 said:

The issue is that a set of online login credentials for a credit card account now gives full access to stocks & shares ISA and trading accounts. In my opinion this is a security breach waiting to happen. I say this as someone who was once the victim of an 'account takeover' (as I now know it's called) despite it not being possible for anyone (other than some of the bank's employees) to know my login details or answers to security questions. For this reason I prefer to keep disparate accounts separate, with separate and distinct login details. In this day and age of security compromises being almost a regular thing - and I suspect much more regular than the stories that make it onto mainstream news - that people here keep saying they don't see what the problem is.

The only way anyone will get into the account is if they get your login details.
So 1 or 2 accounts is not a issue. 
make then secure and it is not a problem. Stay away from details used elsewhere.
Bank staff do not have unfettered access to user sign on details.  So it would not be possible for a bank staff member to know what your password was. As the questions are system generated and random. 

D3xt3r5L4b

Bill_66 said:

D3xt3r5L4b said:

Then take some accounts with a different lender that has a different login portal.

Yes that's the blindingly obvious thing to do, but that's got nothing to do with the question I asked in my op.

The question about it being “illegal”?

Then no. As already said several times by others.