Can the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) itself go bankrupt?
"SIPC is a corporation - a legal entity separate from its owners. In the case of SIPC, it is funded through the fees paid by its members. All the US brokers are required to be members and to contribute to SIPC funds. Can it go bankrupt? Of course. Any legal entity can go bankrupt. A person can go bankrupt. A country can go bankrupt. And so can anything in between. However, looking at the history of things, there are certain assumptions that can be made. These are mere guesses, as there's no law about any of these things (to the best of my knowledge), but seeing how things were - we can try and guess that they will also be like this in the future. I would guess, that in case of a problem for the SIPC to meet its obligation, any of the following would happen (or combinations): Too big to fail - large insurance companies had been bailed out before by the governments since it was considered that their failure would be more destructive to the economy than the bailout. AIG as an example in the US. SIPC is in essence is an insurance company. So is Lloyd's of London. Breach of trust of the individual investors that can lead to a significant market crash. That's what happened in the US to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They're now ""officially"" backed by the US government. If SIPC is incapable of meeting its obligation, I would definitely expect the US government to step in, even though there's no such obligation. Raising funds through charging other members. If the actuary calculations were incorrect, the insurance companies adjust them and raise premiums. That is what should happen in this case as well. While may not necessarily solve a cashflow issue, in the long term it will allow SIPC to balance, so that bridge loans (from the US government/Feds/public bonds) could be used in between. Not meeting obligations, i.e.: bankruptcy. That is an option, and insurance companies have gone bankrupt before. Not unheard of, but from the past experience - again, I'd expect the US government to step in. In general, I don't see any significant difference between SIPC in the US and a ""generic"" insurance coverage elsewhere. Except that in the US SIPC is mandatory, well regulated, and the coverage is uniform across brokerages, which is a benefit to the consumer." Not sure if I follow your question completely. Re: What if some fraud takes place that's too big even for it to fund?   SIPC does not fund anything. What it does is takes over the troubled brokerage firm, books / assets and returns the money faster. Refer to SIPC - What SIPC Covers... What it Does Not and more specifically SIPC - Why We Are Not the FDIC. SIPC is free for ordinary investors. To get the same from elsewhere one has to pay the premium. Edit: The event we are saying is a large brokrage firm, takes all of the Margin Money from Customer Accounts and loses it and also sell off all the stocks actually shown as being held in customer account ... that would be to big. While its not clear as to what exactly will happens, my guess is that the limits per customers will go down as initial payments. Subsequent payments will only be done after recover of funds from the bankrupt firm. What normally happens when a brokrage firm goes down is some of the money from customers account is diverted ... stocks are typically safe and not diverted. Hence the way SIPC works is that it will give the money back to customer faster to individuals. In absence of SIPC individual investors would have had to fight for themselves.
Um, wut?  It took a failure for the SIFI to be defined in the first place.  It took the failure of Lehman and Bear Stearns for the US goverments to actively attempt precluding *any more failures* of what were yet-to-be-called, SIFI's.  Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?  Largely unforeseen failure first, further failure avoidance second. "Of course, doing nothing would mean that Social Security won't be able to meet its full obligations two decades from now. But it's not going bankrupt.  Bankrupt, as defined in Oxford English Dictionary: ""[U]nable to pay outstanding debts.""  Am I missing something?" I don't know about the liquidation. The capital doesn't evaporate, its source just becomes the corporation itself. The corporation becomes the sole shareholder and acts at the behest of the board. The board then decides both board matters and shareholder matters.  Once I talked that through, I realized no one would do this. If the board is in complete control, why clump the ownership together. The directors would be better served by clearly delineating their ownership interests by purchasing shares directly. You should ensure that your broker is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). SIPC protects the cash and securities in your brokerage account much like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protects bank deposits. Securities are protected with a limit of $500,000 USD. Cash is protected with a limit of $250,000 USD. It should be noted that SIPC does not protect investors against loss of value or bad advice. As far as having multiple brokerage accounts for security, I personally don’t think it’s necessary to have multiple accounts for that reason. Depending on account or transaction fees, it might not hurt to have multiple accounts. It can actually be beneficial to have multiple accounts so long as each account serves a purpose in your overall financial plan. For example, I have three brokerage accounts, each of which serves a specific purpose. One provides low cost stock and bond transactions, another provides superior market data, and the third provides low cost mutual fund transactions. If you’re worried about asset security, there are a few things you can do to protect yourself. I would recommend you begin by consulting a qualified financial advisor about your risk profile. You stated that a considerable portion of your total assets are in securities. Depending on your risk profile and the amount of your net worth held in securities, you might be better served by moving your money into lower risk asset classes. I’m not an attorney or a financial advisor. This is not legal advice or financial advice. You can and should consult your own attorney and financial advisor. You can avoid companies that might go bankrupt by not buying the stock of companies with debt. Every quarter, a public company must file financials with the EDGAR system called a 10-Q. This filing includes unaudited financial statements and provides a continuing view of the company's financial position during the year. Any debt the company has acquired will appear on this filing and their annual report. If servicing the debt is costing the company a substantial fraction of their income, then the company is a bankruptcy risk. "Not entirely. For a creditor to go after the ""parent company"" in one of these cases requires the courts to be willing to ""pierce the corporate veil"" (in legal parlance). Typically this is only done if the parent company set up the wholly-owned-subsidiary in order to perpetrate a fraud. In this case, the subsidiary has a totally legitimate function - to sequester risk.  While you're right that the parent company may have to offer some form of credit guarantees to get the subsidiary to get a loan, often those guarantees still don't create nearly as much exposure for the parent company." The S.E.C. is just a training camp for financial consultants hired by CEOs of multinational firms.  Remember how many people were sent to jail after the financial collapse and the housing bubble?  That's about how many you can expect to go to jail this time, too.  The worst that will happen is minor fines dwarfed by the amount of money made in any illegal activity that may have occurred.  It isn't so much that government has any real problem with white-collar financial crime per se; they just want to make sure they get a cut. You should double-check what it means to be in [Chapter 11](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_States_Code)  Yes, by filing for bankruptcy, the company gets some protection from creditors and some of their investment dries up, but it's the owners who take it on the nose first.  Also, individuals can file for Chapter 11, too.  It's not just corporations. Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bankruptcy has implications for a company's debt as well, so it applies to more than just its stock. I don't know of any historical instances where this has happened, but presumably, the warning signs of bankruptcy would be evident enough that a few things could happen.  Another company, e.g. another exchange, holding firm, etc. could buy out the exchange that's facing financial difficulty, and the companies traded on it would transfer to the new company that's formed. If another exchange bought out the struggling exchange, the shares of the latter could transfer to the former. This is an attractive option because exchanges possess a great deal of infrastructure already in place. Depending on the country, this could face regulatory scrutiny however. Other firms or governments could bail out the exchange if no one presented a buyout offer. The likelihood of this occurring depends on several factors, e.g. political will, the government(s) in question, etc. For a smaller exchange, the exchange could close all open positions at a set price. This is exactly what happened with the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange (HKMex) that MSalters mentioned. When the exchange collapsed in May 2013, it closed all open positions for their price on the Thursday before the shutdown date. I don't know if a stock exchange would simply close all open positions at a set price, since equity technically exists in perpetuity regardless of the shutdown of an exchange, while many derivatives have an expiration date. Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking.  If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well. Considering the high level of mergers and acquisitions, both unsuccessful and successful,  in the market for exchanges in recent years, I would assume that option 1 would be the most likely (see the NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse merger talks and the NYSE Euronext/ICE merger that's currently in progress), but for smaller exchanges, there is the recent historical precedent of the HKMex that speaks to #3. Also, the above answer really only applies to publicly traded stock exchanges, and not all stock exchanges are publicly-held entities. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange is a quasi-governmental organization, so I presume option 2 would apply because it already receives government backing. Its bankruptcy would mean something occurred for the government to withdraw its backing or that it became public, and a discussion of those events occurring in the future is pure speculation. In the United States, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation protects the first $500,000 you have at a brokerage including up to $250,000 in cash. This means that if the firm holding your securities fails financially, you have some coverage. That insurance does not prevent your investment itself from losing money. Even traditionally save money market funds can potentially lose value in a situation called Breaking the buck. This means that the Net Asset Value of the fund falls below $1/share. Alas, during periods of market calamity, even traditionally safe stores of value are subject to increased risk. "If Illinois cannot go bankruptcy This is missing a few, very important words, ""...under current law.""   The United States changed the law so as to allow Puerto Rico to go into a form of bankruptcy.  So you cannot rely on a lack of legal support for bankruptcy to protect any bond investments you might make in Illinois.  It is entirely possible for the federal government to add a law enabling a state to discharge its debts through a bankruptcy process.  That's why the bonds have been downgraded.  They are still fine now, but that could change at any time.   I don't want to dive too deep into the politics on this stack, but I could quite easily see a bargain between US President Donald Trump and Democrats in Congress where he agreed to special privileges for pension debts owed to former employees in exchange for full discharge of all other debts.  That would lead to a complete loss of value for the bonds that you are considering.  There still seem to be other options now, but they seem to be getting closer and closer to that." This sounds like a crazy idea, but in reality people don't make the wisest decisions when considering bankruptcy in Australia.  My suggestion would be to get some advice from an insolvency specialist. I know folks who have had two personal (chap. 7 both times) bankruptcies in the U.S.,  including one after the bankruptcy reforms of a few years ago.  I did have the 10-year thing wrong, though. It's once every eight years for a chap. 7 liquidation, and once every six years for Chap. 13 restructuring. If it were possible to take a loan out for a SIPP investment in the future .. I would suggest having an equivalent invested amount already in an ISA .. simply to cover you in the event of a job loss including additional cash in a deposit account. Secondly .. to increase your chances of success with this strategy I would also suggest doing this when the odds are more in your favour during the bottoming out cycle of a market crash. Thirdly .. it depends on how knowledgeable you are about investment , I would suggest being invested globally & in many different sectors to take advantage of various price movements. &gt; Are you saying that OP was just unlucky because he didn't realize that forex wasn't covered under SIPC?  Pretty much.  Opening an investing account has tons of T&amp;C.  You're not going to read every single bit of it.