Is money in a brokerage account safe?

Dave Siciliano

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
6,434
Location
Dallas, Texas
Display Name
Dave Siciliano
Home Airfield
Addison, ADS
For those with funds in a brokerage account or money market fund, this is worth a read.
The liquidation of MF Global has become an absolute mess and will have many questioning how safe a segregated funds account with one's name on it is.

Money market funds fall into this category. Remember when folks used to bury cash or put it under the mattress? This is how that comes about.

An excerpt from the article follows but reading the entire article at the link below is better.

Best,

Dave
========================================================================

To customers like Andrew Abraham, 49, of commodity trading adviser Abraham Investment Management in Israel, the trustee’s role is troubling; “Do the bankruptcy laws allow you to sweep titled segregated accounts into the assets of MF Global?” Abraham asked in an open letter to Giddens.

Abraham said in a phone interview that without the immediate return of customer cash, the costs of the trustee -- who has hired lobbying firm APCO Worldwide to represent him to the media -- will eat into assets that should belong to customers. Republican lawmakers have criticized Giddens’ work in liquidating Lehman Brothers, where he billed $891 an hour, saying his work would cost more than $640 million.

Legal obstacles to quick recovery of the frozen cash could also include concern about whether some customers aren’t entitled to be repaid as much as others, and customers who transferred money out of their accounts prior to the bankruptcy could be subject to clawback rules, Butler noted.

Those like Monjure who liquidated their positions on the day of the bankruptcy to avoid a drawn-out recovery process, said they feel aggrieved because they had to sell at a loss and can’t get any of their cash. Customers who still had open positions have been transferred to new brokerages with about 60 percent of their cash collateral, and now face margin calls for the rest, which is locked up at the MF Global accounts.

Jarrell said customers with open accounts were transferred while those with all cash accounts were not because, “moving the open positions could avoid market disruptions and allow customers to have some sort of choice of what to do with the positions.”

“We can’t distribute cash because we have to know what the amount of segregated cash held for customers is and verify the claims against that pool of segregated cash,” he said.

Legal options are less clear for those who have not just frozen cash, but margin calls, Butler said.

“People can’t understand how the new margin is being calculated. Some people say they’re getting less than 60 percent transferred, others say they’re getting 80 percent,” he said.

The people who were most prudent are being hurt the worst, said Don Miller, 50, a member of the CME since 2004 who works remotely from his home in the Boston area and has more than $2 million at risk, including his business and retirement accounts.

“Some people put a little in for margin, those of us who don’t believe in excessive leverage put more in for our activity in the course of providing market liquidity than we need,” Miller said. “Because of the segregated aspect, that money is supposed to be safer than with a bank.”

“My trading business and my life have come to a complete stop,” said Miller, who has a $30,000 college bill for his daughter coming due.

The CME reviewed MF Global’s accounts the week of Oct. 24, and found them to be in compliance. MF Global didn’t report any transfers until early morning Oct. 31, suggesting the firm “made subsequent transfers of customer segregated funds in a manner that may have been designed to avoid detection,” according to a CME statement on Nov. 2.

http://tinyurl.com/cjfxb7x
 
The lesson is that a brokerage account at a crooked brokerage that mixes customer funds with their own invested funds is not safe.

Can't the customer make claims with the SIPC? I suppose that's another scam like the FDIC that doesn't have anywhere near enough reserves to cover claims.
 
The terms, conditions and disclaimers on new brokerage accounts ALWAYS tell you that your money is not guaranteed safe. Most of us interpret that to mean it's not safe if WE screw up, but the truth is that it's not safe if THEY screw up either.

It's an investment, not a bank account. You have to know who you're letting hold your money.
 
SPIC is supposed to guarantee up to $500,000 in securities positions in accounts. Futures are not covered. The amount of cash is less. However, the reason account funds are to be segregated by name is so they can be readily distributed to proper owners in cases like this. What we are seeing is a dispute between regulatory agencies and the bankruptcy receiver. Folks that had securities positions saw those transferred to other firms fairly quickly. Folks with excess cash in whatever form are having it held while the Receiver tries to find were all funds are. This is tying up some folk's entire savings.
Actions like this don't increase the public's confidence in securities firms. Also, notice the firm was audited a couple weeks before it went under and given a clean bill of health. Evidently, folks making inquiries aren't getting prompt responses.

Best,

Dave
 
If I understand this correctly, I *think* this might only be an issue with commodities and futures accounts, not your run-of-the-mill stock brokerage accounts.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...t-of-mf-global-s-failure-william-d-cohan.html


Before 2000, the rule permitted futures brokers to take money from their customers’ accounts and invest it in a number of approved securities limited to “obligations of the United States and obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States (U.S. government securities), and general obligations of any State or of any political subdivision thereof (municipal securities.)” That is, relatively safe securities with high liquidity.


The banks, however, pushed the CFTC to expand the investment options that would allow firms to practice “internal repo.” In this scheme, money is taken from customer accounts and invested short-term in a variety of securities, with the futures brokers reaping the not- insignificant financial rewards from their customers’ money.
And, lo and behold, such efforts were successful. In December 2000, the CFTC agreed to amend Regulation 1.25 “to permit investments in general obligations issued by any enterprise sponsored by the United States, bank certificates of deposit, commercial paper, corporate notes, general obligations of a sovereign nation, and interests in money market mutual funds” -- in other words, riskier investments that could make more money for Wall Street.


Then, in February 2004 and May 2005, Regulation 1.25 was further amended and refined to the liking of Ferber and the banks. In the end, the door was opened for firms such as MF Global to do internal repos of customers’ deposits and invest the funds in the “general obligations of a sovereign nation.”
:eek:
 
If I understand this correctly, I *think* this might only be an issue with commodities and futures accounts, not your run-of-the-mill stock brokerage accounts.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...t-of-mf-global-s-failure-william-d-cohan.html
:eek:

Interesting... learn something new every day. Really shouldn't be surprised considering the revolving door of people who go from government regulator to private financial firms and back again as government regulator.

Gary
 
You can also thank Governor Goldman Sachs. We all know those evil investment bankers are all Republicans. I hope he goes to jail where he belongs.
 
What was inequitable was that folks with open securities positions had their accounts moved pretty quickly, but if one had cash or equivalents in their account, it wasn't moved and was thus frozen. The trustee today allowed folks with cash in their account to move about 60% of the money.
Futures aren't covered by SPIC, but cash should be up to $100,000.

The problem with commodity accounts is let's say I have an open position of $500,000 Euros with $250,000 in the account. It looks as if I have just under 50% equity as that many Euros is worth about 1/3rd more in Dollars. But rather than looking at it that way, only $6,000 per contract in margin may be required; so, it is viewed as $30,000 margin required with the rest being uncommitted cash. So, if you were invested conservatively, you were effectively being punished.

Best,

Dave
 
[FONT=&quot]This message from Barnhardt sure doesn’t look good..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Best,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dave[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]========================================================================[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dear Clients, Industry Colleagues and Friends of Barnhardt Capital Management,

It is with regret and unflinching moral certainty that I announce that Barnhardt Capital Management has ceased operations. After six years of operating as an independent introducing brokerage, and eight years of employment as a broker before that, I found myself, this morning, for the first time since I was 20 years old, watching the futures and options markets open not as a participant, but as a mere spectator.

The reason for my decision to pull the plug was excruciatingly simple: I could no longer tell my clients that their monies and positions were safe in the futures and options markets – because they are not. And this goes not just for my clients, but for every futures and options account in the United States. The entire system has been utterly destroyed by the MF Global collapse. Given this sad reality, I could not in good conscience take one more step as a commodity broker, soliciting trades that I knew were unsafe or holding funds that I knew to be in jeopardy.

...Everything changed just a few short weeks ago. A firm, led by a crony of the Obama regime, stole all of the non-margined cash held by customers of his firm. Let’s not sugar-coat this or make this crime seem “complex” and “abstract” by drowning ourselves in six-dollar words and uber-technical jargon. Jon Corzine STOLE the customer cash at MF Global. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
(Red highlighting in original.)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/11/ann-barnhardt-pulls-plug-on-her.html[/FONT]
 
That's the abridged version, I noticed. The article linked leads to a link to the full version at zerohedge that gives the author's domain name, so that one's three degrees away from the source and heavily edited.

The full version at Barnhart.biz would throw the thread straight into SZ if it were pasted here.

Not that it isn't probably true, but just pointing out the one linked is pretty tame vs. the original...
 
So lemme get this straight, Obama is anti-business - HOSTILE to business - and the problem with the US economy is that we need to get rid of the burden of government regulation and get government out of the way of business so when Corzine and his business, MF Global broke the law it's Obama's fault?

Got it.
 
Back
Top