Does SIPC protect securities purchased in foreign exchanges?
I'll give it a shot, even though you don't seem to be responding to my comment. SIPC insures against fraud or abuse of its members. If you purchased a stock through a SIPC member broker and it was held in trust by a SIPC member, you're covered by its protection. Where you purchased the stock - doesn't matter. There are however things SIPC doesn't cover. That said, SIPC members are SEC-registred brokers, i.e.: brokers operating in the USA. If you're buying on the UK stock exchange - you need to check that you're still operating through a US SIPC member. As I mentioned in the comment - the specific company that you mentioned has different entities for the US operations and the UK operations. Buying through them on LSE is likely to bind you with their UK entity that is not SIPC member. You'll have to check that directly with them. "I have received a response from SIPC, confirming littleadv's answer: For a brief background, the protections available under the Securities   Investor Protection Act (""SIPA""), are only available in the context of   a liquidation proceeding of a SIPC member broker-dealer and relate to   the ""custody"" of securities and related cash at the SIPC member   broker-dealer. Thus, if a SIPC member broker-dealer were to fail at a   time when a customer had securities and/or cash in the custody of the   SIPC member broker-dealer, in most instances it would be SIPC's   obligation to restore those securities and cash to the customer,   within statutory limits. That does not mean, however, that the   customer would necessarily receive the original value of his or her   purchase. Rather, the customer receives the security itself and/or the   value of the customer's account as of the day that the liquidation   commenced. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of any   security. In a liquidation proceeding under the SIPA, SIPC may advance   up to $500,000 per customer (including a $250,000 limit on cash in the   account). Please note that this protection only applies to the extent that you   entrust cash or securities to a U.S. SIPC member. Foreign broker   dealer subsidiaries are not SIPC members. However, to the extent that   any assets, including foreign securities, are being held by the U.S.   broker dealer, the assets are protected by SIPC. Stocks listed on the   LSE are protected by SIPC to the extent they are held with a SIPC   member broker dealer, up to the statutory limit of $500,000 per   customer. As I mentioned in the comments, in the case of IB, indeed they have a foreign subsidiary, which is why SIPC does not cover it (rather they are insured by Lloyds of London for such cases)."
According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers.  Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so. So, couple of things. Firstly, every international ETF includes risk disclosure language in the prospectus covering both market disruption events as well as geopolitical risk, so the sponsor would be pretty well insulated from direct liability for anything. If the Russian market were truly shut down there are true-up mechanisms in place but in the scenario you're describing the market is still open, it's just only a few participants can trade in it.  First thing to do is shut down creates- that is, allow no new money to come into the fund. This at least prevents your problem from getting bigger.   Second you're going to switch all redemptions to in kind only. MV itself can't trade in the underlying so they're kind of jammed here. An ETF sponsor can't really refuse your redemption request (can delay, but only for a short time), but they can control the form in which they respond to it.    What theoretically should happen here is an AP not subject to sanctions will step in and handle redemptions.  Issue is, they'll probably charge for this so you should expect the fund to start trading at a discount to NAV (you, as an investor, sell to them cheaply, they submit a redemption request, then sell the stocks locally). Someone else has pointed that market makers will start stat arbing the fund using correlated/substitute instruments, which totally will help keep things in line, but my guess is that you'd still see the name trading away from NAV regardless. Driver of this will be the amount of money desperate to get out - if investors are content to wait the sanctions out who knows. It doesn't matter which exchange a share was purchased through (or if it was even purchased on an exchange at all--physical share certificates can be bought and sold outside of any exchange). A share is a share, and any share available for purchase in New York is available to be purchased in London. Buying all of a company's stock is not something that can generally be done through the stock market. The practical way to accomplish buying a company out is to purchase a controlling interest, or enough shares to have enough votes to bind the board to a specific course of action. Then vote to sell all outstanding shares to another company at a particular fixed price per share. Market capitalization is an inaccurate measure of the size of a company in the first place, but if you want to quantify it, you can take the number of outstanding shares (anywhere and everywhere) and multiply them by the price on any of the exchanges that sell it. That will give you the market capitalization in the currency that is used by whatever exchange you chose. "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." &gt; Turns out inside updates via the SIP are received faster than the prop market data feed, and faster than updates received over an order entry connection. Under these circumstances the street knows a trade occurred before the participants in the trade.  You're saying if IEX is the inside quote you see it disappear on a sip feed before you see it disappear from iex's MD feed? AND if it's your quote, even before you receive the trade report? "This sounds like a FATCA issue.  I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US.  The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens.  The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened.  Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors.  This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step.  Such a step would require thought and planning.  Note that there would be an expatriation tax (""exit tax"") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access.  A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons.  But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible.  Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA." "You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency   devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any   more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term.   Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as ""What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?""  Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about.  Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good.  What to do about government confiscation?  Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an   expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows,   which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What   strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts   the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just   trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the   devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge?  If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment.  If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen.  The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong." The article http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/15/bearstearns-lehman-compliance-pf-ii-in_js_0915soapbox_inl.html does a nice job explaining SIPC insurance coverage. The coverage is currently $500k total / 250k of which can be cash, that's the one update I'd offer. For cash, SIPC insurance is similar to FDIC insurance. Your losses are not covered, but you're covered in case of fraud. Since your cash is supposed to be in a trust account and not commingled with brokerage's funds, in case of bankruptcy you would still have your cash unless there was fraud. "Depends. The short answer is yes; HSBC, for instance, based in New York, is listed on both the LSE and NYSE. Toyota's listed on the TSE and NYSE. There are many ways to do this; both of the above examples are the result of a corporation owning a subsidiary in a foreign country by the same name (a holding company), which sells its own stock on the local market. The home corporation owns the majority holdings of the subsidiary, and issues its own stock on its ""home country's"" exchange. It is also possible for the same company to list shares of the same ""pool"" of stock on two different exchanges (the foreign exchange usually lists the stock in the corporation's home currency and the share prices are near-identical), or for a company to sell different portions of itself on different exchanges. However, these are much rarer; for tax liability and other cost purposes it's usually easier to keep American monies in America and Japanese monies in Japan by setting up two ""copies"" of yourself with one owning the other, and move money around between companies as necessary. Shares of one issue of one company's stock, on one exchange, are the same price regardless of where in the world you place a buy order from. However, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll pay the same actual value of currency for the stock. First off, you buy the stock in the listed currency, which means buying dollars (or Yen or Euros or GBP) with both a fluctuating exchange rate between currencies and a broker's fee (one of those cost savings that make it a good idea to charter subsidiaries; could you imagine millions a day in car sales moving from American dealers to Toyota of Japan, converted from USD to Yen, with a FOREX commission to be paid?). Second, you'll pay the stock broker a commission, and he may charge different rates for different exchanges that are cheaper or more costly for him to do business in (he might need a trader on the floor at each exchange or contract with a foreign broker for a cut of the commission)." "Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage ""If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is"", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection." not a chance. imagine how this could be abused. US stock exchanges rarely ever do any reversing of transactions. theres a million different ways the market can take your money. a loss from a typo is nothing special. its a mismanagement just like any other loss or profit for others. A protection similar to FDIC for banks is provided to brokerage accounts' owners by SIPC. Neither FDIC nor SIPC provide protection or insurance against identity thefts or frauds, only bank/brokerage failures. Your investment losses are obviously not insured either. For fraud liability check your bank/brokerage policies, you can get insurance for identity theft from your insurance provider (its an optional coverage with many home-owner/renter insurance policies). "How are derivatives like covered warrants or CFDs different from the bucket shops that were made illegal in the US? After reading up a little on the topic, the core difference seems to be that bucket shops were basically running betting pools, with everyone betting against the operator, whereas CFDs and similar derivatives are traded between speculators and the operator merely provides a market and checks the liquidity of participants. A CW seems to be a different matter that I'm not fully sure I understand (at least the description of Wikipedia seems to contradict your statement about not trade being performed on the underlying security). Should I worry that some regulator decides that my ""market maker"" is an illegal gambling operation? Not really. Nations with a mature financial industry (like Japan) invariably have heavy regulations that mandate constant auditing of institutions that sell financial instruments. In Japan, the Financial Services Agency is in charge of this. It's almost impossible that they would let an institution operate and later decide that its basic business model is illegal. What is possible are mainly two scenarios:" "If I buy the one from NSY, is it the ""real"" Sinopec? No - you are buying an American Depository Receipt. Essentially some American bank or other entity holds a bunch of Sinopec stock and issues certificates to the American exchange that American investors can trade.  This insulates the American investors from the cost of international transactions.   The price of these ADRs should mimic the price of the underlying stock (including changes the currency exchange rate) otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.  Other than that, the main difference between holding the ADR and the actual stock is that ADRs do not have voting rights. So if that is not important to you then for all intents and purposes trading the ADR would be the same as trading the underlying stock."