What happens to my stocks when broker goes bankrupt?
Here is my perception of the situation, obtained from reading Degiro's Client Agreement. If Degiro shuts down, it will notify you about the fact at least one month in advance, and you will have enough time to order a transfer of your positions to a different broker. If Degiro shuts down unexpectedly, your assets will remain to be held at SPV, a separate legal entity which Degiro uses to hold the financial instruments belonging to the clients. Since SPV does nothing else but holding the assets, it is very unlikely that something bad will happen with it on its own. With some help from Degiro and/or the regulator (AFM) you should be able to transfer your assets from SPV to a different custodian and broker and thus regain control over them. If you have a non-Custody account, you have slightly higher chances of losing your assets, because Degiro can borrow your securities held at SPV. If both the client for whom Degiro borrowed a security and Degiro itself go bankrupt at the same time, the lent security will not be returned to SPV, there will arise a shortage, which will be proportionally distributed among the accounts of the clients holding this particular security. However, then the investor compensation scheme should kick in and help you recover up to 20000 EUR of your losses. 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. +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.
"When they entered Bankruptcy they changed their stock symbol from AAMR to AAMRQ. The Q tells investors that the company i in Bankruptcy. This i what the SEC says about the Q: ""Q"" Added To Stock Ticker Symbol When a company is involved in bankruptcy proceedings, the letter ""Q""   is added to the end of the company's stock ticker symbol. In most   cases, when a company emerges from bankruptcy, the reorganization plan   will cancel the existing equity stock and the old shares will be   worthless. Given that risk, before purchasing stock in a bankrupt   company, investors should read the company's proposed plan of   reorganization. For more information about the impact of bankruptcy   proceedings on securities, please read our online publication,   Corporate Bankruptcy. The risks are they never recover, or that the old shares have nothing to do with new company. Many investors don't understand this. Recently some uninformed investors(?) tried to get a jump on the Twitter IPO by purchasing share of what they thought was Twitter but was instead the bankrupt company Tweeter Home Entertainment. Shares of Tweeter Home Entertainment, a Boston-based consumer   electronics chain that filed for bankruptcy in 2007, soared Friday in   a case of mistaken identity on Wall Street. Apparently, some investors confused Tweeter, which trades under the   symbol TWTRQ, with Twitter and piled into the penny stock. Tweeter, which trades over the counter, opened at 2 cents a share and   jumped as much as 15 cents — or 1,800 percent — before regulators   halted trading. Almost 15 million shares had changed hands at that point, while the   average daily volume is closer to 150,000. Sometimes it does happen that the new company does give some value to the old investors, but more often then not the old investors are completely wiped out." The economic effect of a CFD from your point of view is very close to the effect of owning the stock. If the stock goes up, you make money. If it goes down you lose money. If it pays a dividend, you get that dividend. You'll typically pay commission for buying and selling the CFDs in a similar way to the commission on stock purchases, though one of the advertised advantages of CFDs is that the commission will be lower. They also often have tax advantages, for example in the UK you don't have to pay stamp duty on CFDs. In theory you are exposed to credit risk on the CFD issuer, which you aren't with the real stocks: if the issuer goes bankrupt, you may lose any money you have invested regardless of how well the stock has performed. It's certainly similar to a bet, but not much more so than investing directly in the stock. In practice the issuer of the CFDs is likely to hedge its own exposure by actually buying the underlying stocks directly, but they can aggregate across lots of contracts and they would tolerate some unhedged exposure to the stock, so they can cut down on the transaction fees. You also won't get the same voting rights as the underlying stock would grant you. What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? The company's potential residual assets. When a company goes bankrupt it is required to sell its assets to pay off its debts. The funds raised from selling assets go to the following entities:  The usual order of debt repayment, in terms of the lender, will be the government, financial institutions, other creditors (i.e. suppliers and utility companies), bondholders, preferred shareholders and, finally, common shareholders. Depending on the amount of debt and the value of a company's assets, the common shareholders may receive some left over from liquidated assets. This would drive the stock price of a bankrupt company. You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies  Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ?  Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm  Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ?  Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ?  People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems. 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). "The only thing that makes a stock worthless is when the company goes out of business. Note that bankruptcy, by itself, does not mean the company is closing. It could successfully restructure its affairs and come out of bankruptcy with a better outlook. Being a small or unprofitable business may cause a company's to trade in the ""penny stock"" range, but there is still some value there. Since most dying companies will pass through the penny stock phase, you may be able to track down what you're looking for by finding companies who have been (or are about to be) delisted. Delisting is not death, it's just the point at which the company's shares no longer meet the qualifications to be traded on a particular exchange. If you find old stock certificates in your grandmother's sock drawer, they may be a treasure, or they may be worthless pieces of paper if the company changed its ownership and Grandma didn't know about it." You are asking about what happens when an ETF/mutual fund company goes bankrupt. If you were asking about a bank account you would be asking about FDIC coverage.  Investment funds are different, the closest thing to FDIC protection is provided by  Securities Investors Protection Corporation (SIPC) SIPC was created under the Securities Investor Protection Act as a   non-profit membership corporation. SIPC oversees the liquidation of   member broker-dealers that close when the broker-dealer is bankrupt or   in financial trouble, and customer assets are missing. In a   liquidation under the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPC and the   court-appointed Trustee work to return customers’ securities and cash   as quickly as possible. Within limits, SIPC expedites the return of   missing customer property by protecting each customer up to $500,000   for securities and cash (including a $250,000 limit for cash only). SIPC is an important part of the overall system of investor protection   in the United States. While a number of federal and state securities   agencies and self-regulatory organizations deal with cases of   investment fraud, SIPC's focus is both different and narrow: restoring   customer cash and securities left in the hands of bankrupt or   otherwise financially troubled brokerage firms. SIPC was not chartered by Congress to combat fraud. Although created   under a federal law, SIPC is not an agency or establishment of the   United States Government, and it has no authority to investigate or   regulate its member broker-dealers. It is important to understand that   SIPC is not the securities world equivalent of the Federal Deposit   Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insures depositors of insured   banks. "Market makers, traders, and value investors would be who I'd suspect for buying the stock that is declining. Some companies stocks can come down considerably which could make some speculators buy the stock at the lower price thinking it may bounce back soon. ""Short sellers"" are out to sell borrowed stocks that if the stock is in free fall, unless the person that shorted wants to close the position, they would let it ride. Worthless stocks are a bit of a special case and quite different than the crash of 1929 where various blue chip stocks like those of the Dow Jones Industrials had severe declines. Thus, the companies going down would be like Apple, Coca-Cola and other large companies that people would be shocked to see come down so much yet there are some examples in recent history if one remembers Enron or Worldcom. Stocks getting delisted tend to cause some selling and there are some speculators may buy the stock believing that the shares may be worth something only to lose the money possibly as one could look at the bankrupt cases of airlines and car companies to study some recent cases here. Circuit breakers are worth noting as these are cases when trading may be halted because of a big swing in prices that it is believed stopping the market may cause things to settle down." Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow.  Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little.  It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited.  Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem. "The correct answer to this question is:  the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case.  Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral.  Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered.  If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money.  Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D.  D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit.  D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually ""lost"" all the money when purchasing the stock.  After all, all the money went directly from C to B.  In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it.  But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else ""pay"" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value.  C is thus now sitting on a loss.  The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B.  However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to?  The person again is; who bought their stock.  The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls." If the underlying is currently moving as aggressively as stated, the broker would immediately forcibly close positions to maintain margin.  What securities are in fact closed depends upon the internal algorithms. If the equity in the account remains negative after closing all positions if necessary, the owner of the account shall owe the broker the balance.  The broker will close the account and commence collections if the owner of the account does not pay the balance quickly. Sometimes, brokers will impose higher margin requirements than mandated to prevent the above eventuality. Brokers frequently close positions that violate internal or external margin requirements as soon as they are breached. Different brokerages have different house rules for margin requirements and margin calls.  You will likely get a margin call giving you a small amount of time to deposit the required funds to bring your account balance up to the required margin requirements.  In reality, a stock that falls from $50 to $4 in a short period will probably become unmarginable.  In short, yes, you will owe the broker for the loss. ETFs are legally separate from their issuer, so the money invested should (the lines can get blurry in a massive crisis) be inaccessible to any bankruptcy claims. The funds assets (its shares in S&P500 companies) are held by a custodian who also keeps these assets separate from their own book. That said, if no other institution takes over the SPY funds the custodian will probably liquidate the fund and distribute the proceeds to the ETF holders, this is likely a less than ideal situation for the holders as the S&P500 would probably not be at its highest levels if State Street is going bankrupt (not to mention the potential taxation). "Some stocks do fall to zero. I don't have statistics handy, but I'd guess that a majority of all the companies ever started are now bankrupt and worth zero. Even if a company does not go bankrupt, there is no guarantee that it's value will increase forever, even in a general, overall sense. You might buy a stock when it is at or near its peak, and then it loses value and never regains it. Even if a stock will go back up, you can't know for certain that it will. Suppose you bought a stock for $10 and it's now at $5. If you sell, you lose half your money. But if you hold on, it MIGHT go back up and you make a profit. Or it might continue going down and you lose even more, perhaps your entire investment. A rational person might decide to sell now and cut his losses. Of course, I'm sure many investors have had the experience of selling a stock at a loss, and then seeing the price skyrocket. But there have also been plenty of investors who decided to hold on, only to lose more money. (Just a couple of weeks ago a stock I bought for $1.50 was selling for $14. I could have sold for like 900% profit. Instead I decided to hold on and see if it went yet higher. It's now at $2.50. Fortunately I only invested something like $800. If it goes to zero it will be annoying but not ruin me.) On a bigger scale, if you invest in a variety of stocks and hold on to them for a long period of time, the chance that you will lose money is small. The stock market as a whole has consistently gone up in the long term. But the chance is not zero. And a key phrase is ""in the long term"". If you need the money today, the fact that the market will probably go back up within a few months or a year or so may not help." It might be easiest to think of stock exchanges like brokers.  If you buy a home, and your broker goes bankrupt, you still own your home, but you could not sell it without the aid of another broker.   Same with stocks, you own the stocks you buy, but you would be unable to either purchase new stocks or sell your stock holdings without an exchange.