What happens if a Financial Services Company/Stockbroker goes into administration in the UK?
Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure. Although I posted this question more than a year ago, I subsequently read information which may be of use as an answer, specifically regarding Pritchard Stockbrokers in the UK several years ago, in which the FSCS stepped in to compensate investors, as detailed in the following: http://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/questions-and-answers/qas-about-pritchard-stock-6n940n01k/ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89957c56-21e4-11e3-9b55-00144feab7de.html#axzz3crZYbGZ9 For reference, in case the links above are at some point in future taken offline, the FSCS FAQ states: Q: I had “deposited” money with Pritchard so can I expect £85,000 compensation from FSCS?  A: No. Pritchard was not a deposit-taker so the money held does not qualify under regulatory rules as a deposit. The money will be treated as an investment, which carries maximum FSCS compensation of £50,000 per person. FSCS has no discretion to pay any more. Q: What happens if my losses are over the FSCS maximum of £50,000 and I accept the FSCS’s compensation?  A: If you choose to accept compensation from FSCS, you will be required to assign (or legally transfer) to FSCS all of your rights to claim in the Administration. FSCS will then claim in the Administration standing “in your shoes” and will claim for the whole of your loss, even if it was over £50,000. When FSCS receives the dividends in your place it will then pay to you any amounts recovered to ensure that you do not suffer a disadvantage for having accepted FSCS compensation first. Example 1: Loss = £80,000 FSCS compensation = £50,000 Dividend of 50p/£ received by FSCS = £40,000 FSCS pays £30,000 to claimant so he is fully compensated (total £80,000), and retains £10,000 recovery for itself Example 2: Loss = £100,000 FSCS compensation = £50,000 Dividend of 50p/£ received by FSCS = £50,000 FSCS pays £50,000 to claimant so he is fully compensated (total £100,000), and retains nothing for itself FSCS does not have to have make a full recovery of its £50,000 before it starts paying its dividend recovery on to claimants. Claimants are not compelled to claim from FSCS, or to accept the FSCS offer of compensation. If a person does not want to transfer his legal rights to claim in the Administration to FSCS in return for accepting the payment of compensation, then s/he can decline our compensation and continue his claim in the Administration. After s/he has received the dividend(s), s/he can then return to FSCS to claim for any remaining shortfall. Therefore, the answer provided by @DumbCoder was correct, but in circumstances where fraudulent activity would mean otherwise, the FSCS was willing to intervene on the behalf of investors.
If you are using a US broker, you are protected by SIPC up to $500,000. SIPC also oversees the liquidation of the broker itself, either by appointing a trustee, or by directly contacting clients. If they are able to transfer accounts to a healthy broker before bankruptcy, they will do so, but if not, you will need to file a claim with them. From what you have written, it could be a boiler room company. These operate with fancy website and have proper book keeping systems but are elaborate scams. How did you find about this broker. If there was a seller when you purchased the shares, there is no reason you can't be seller "How on earth can you possibly know what is going on in individual company X?  The sole exception is if it is your own company. The stock markets of the world are in fact a nest of sharks.  The big sharks essentially make money out of the little sharks.  Some little sharks manage not to be eaten, and grow bigger.  Good luck with that. ""Insider trading"" is, when found out, a crime these days.  But ""insider knowledge"", ""insider hints"", ""knowledge of market sentiment"" and indeed just rumours about a given company are the kinds of things you won't particularly get to hear of in the fog of disinformation, and don't particularly want to waste your time with for a very uncertain loss or gain at the end of the year. The thing I find annoying about mutual funds is that they can be very stupid, and I speculate that it may be the consequence of the marketing on the one hand, and the commission structure on the other.  I started cashing in my funds in late 2007, following the collapse of Northern Rock here in the UK.  The ""2008"" crisis was in fact the slowest economic car crash in history. But very very few mutual funds saw, or seemed to see, the way the wind was blowing, and switch massively to cash. If the punters had the courage to hang on, of course, mostly stocks bounced back in 2009 and 2010.  Moral: remember you can cash your stuff in any time you want." Doesnt mean that equity or even debt holders wouldn't lose their investment.  Those money and banking texts are presently useless post GFC given the incredible moral hazard and how all of the traditional bankruptcy rules were ignored. Summarized article: The London-based investment bank Barclays Bank has agreed to pay penalties of $450 million to settle charges it attempted to manipulate key benchmark interest rates.   The settlement is with the US Department of Justice, the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the British Financial Services Authority (FSA).   Investigators found that Barclays manipulated the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) which measures how much banks will charge each other for loans, and in turn, affects the cost of loans and mortgages to consumers.   Between 2005 and 2009, Barclays staff would base its estimates for the Libor on the requests of its derivatives traders, who wanted to manipulate the rate to benefit their trading positions. The traders would ask their Barclays colleagues to adjust their rate estimates up or down to post a profit for the bank.  The FSA said that Barclays appeared to have a wide acceptance of its derivatives traders lobbying its colleagues and found evidence through a trail of emails and instant messages.   Barclays has admitted its actions fell short of industry standards but it is unclear if there was any impact to consumers.   The FSA is investigating several major banks for similar violations.  * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit A market crash won't affect your cash held with your broker - however if the broker defaults (goes bankrupt), you may lose some or all of that cash. If you read the customer agreement that you signed when opening the account, it's very likely that there's a clause that stipulates that under certain circumstances, the broker has the right to use your cash and/or your positions without notice. If the broker default you may not be able to recover the assets they've been using. As an example, look at clause 14 of the Interactive Brokers US customer agreement. This is a fairly standard clause. Depending on your jurisdiction, you may have a partial or full legal protection against such an event (e.g. the SIPC protection for US-based brokers which would apply to you if your broker is IB LLC, even if you are not a US resident/citizen). In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different. 2 things may happen. Either your positions are closed by the broker and the loss or profit is credited to your account. Else it is carried over to the next day and you pay interest on the stocks lent to you. What happens will be decided by the agreement signed between you and your broker. My understanding is you can create a company 0 value. Then you need to either loan the company the money to buy the building (it will still have 0 value as it will have a debt equal to it's assets) or sell share to investors at any price you like to raise the money to buy the building.  Once shares have value (as valued by a chartered accountant - not anyone can do this) then anyone recieving shares will have to pay income tax. This is why keeping the shares as no value for as long as possible can be preferable. Also a benefit of using share options. talk to your investors, see what they require. Presumably you mean to ask what happens if State Street files chapter 7 bankruptcy, since not all bankruptcy proceedings end in liquidation.  SPY is a well known ticker, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be an eager bank willing to pay to pick up that ticker and immediately acquire all the assets related to it. The most likely scenario is that another bank would assume control of the ticker and assets, and the shares would continue trading as they always have. A less likely scenario is that no other financial institution wanted to acquire SPY, and the shares would be liquidated and the proceeds would go to the owners of shares of the ETF. Since the underlying assets are in companies that have actual value, the shares shouldn't trade at much of a discount prior to liquidation. Additionally, if there is a black swan event, there will probably be losses on the underlying assets, so it might even be helpful if the SPY fund was tied up in legal proceedings while everyone gets their heads straight in the market. The money goes to the seller.  There are a lot of behind the scenes things that happen, and some transactions are very complicated with many parties involved (evidenced by all the comments on @keshlam's perfectly reasonable high-level answer), but ultimately the money goes to the seller.  Sometimes the seller is the company.  The billions of shares that change hands each day are moving between other individuals like you and investment funds; these transactions have no direct impact on the company's financials, in general. +1 to YosefWeiner. Let me add: Legally, technically, or at least theoretically, when you buy stock through a broker, you own the stock, not the broker. The broker is just holding it for you. If the broker goes bankrupt, that has nothing to do with the value of your stock. That said, if the broker fails to transfer your shares to another broker before ceasing operation, it could be difficult to get your assets. Suppose you take your shoes to a shoe repair shop. Before you can pick them up, the shop goes bankrupt. The shoes are still rightfully yours. If the shop owner was a nice guy he would have called you and told you to pick up your shoes before he closed the shop. But if he didn't, you may have to go through legal gyrations to get your shoes back. If as his business failed the shop owner quit caring and got sloppy about his records, you might have to prove that those shoes are yours and not someone else's, etc. There is no generic answer and it would depend on case to case basis.  CSD are built on strong foundation in the sense they would have very low cost base and generally would not go bankrupt.  However if such a situation as CSD provide an essential role, the regulator, central bank and Government would all step in to prevent a total collapse. They would be forced merged with other entity or more capital raised or put under watch by Govt appointed trustee to settle issues so that there is least or No impact. "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." Paying off the student loans slower and investing the rest has some advantages - the interest is tax deductible (essentially lowering that 7% number), and it helps allow you to build up a liquid emergency fund which is more important to financial security than returns.