You might be surprised to learn you are not the legal owner of the assets held in your investing platform account. That’s because brokers funnel most of their customers into nominee accounts.
Legally that means you are the beneficiary of the assets you buy – but you are not the registered owner.
It’s a convoluted arrangement that benefits your platform, but that can have unfortunate side-effects for ordinary investors if things go wrong.
Given your broker probably hasn’t clearly flagged the risks, read on to find out what they neglected to mention about nominee accounts. (At least, outside of disquieting small print in a dark and dingy T&Cs PDF.)
What is a nominee account?
A nominee account is a legal structure that enables your assets to be held in trust for you by a custodian.
In the case of a broker, it appoints a nominee company to act on your behalf, and that company is charged with the safekeeping of your investments.
The nominee company is the legal owner of the assets. You are the beneficial owner and are thus entitled to the economic benefits – namely income payments and proceeds of sales.
The custodian should be a separate entity from the broker. This is important because that legally segregates your assets from the broker’s. Thus creditors aren’t allowed to lay their greasy paws on your investments if the broker runs into trouble.
So far, so not terrible. In reality, the arrangement isn’t nearly so neat and that’s why it’s worth understanding the deal you’re making when your friendly investing platform ushers you into a nominee account with a “don’t worry” pat on the head.
Why are nominee accounts the rule?
Nominee accounts are the ultimate in low-cost convenience – especially for your broker.
With them, your broker can trade and move securities on your behalf without generating more paperwork than Wernham Hogg.
Your broker doesn’t, for example, have to contact the administrator of a company’s share register when you sell your stake. The company has never heard of you!
It’s the nominee company’s name that appears on the share register. That saves a lot of paper-trail hassle.
In practice, you don’t even get your own nominee account. Most brokers lob everyone’s securities into one pot – known as a pooled nominee account (or an omnibus account).
If ten customers wish to sell 1,000 Apple shares each, then the broker can just fish out any old 10,000 shares from the tank, rather than worry about administrating ten separate accounts.
Records on who owns what are kept by your broker, but the system is far from perfect…
Are nominee accounts safe?
The primary weakness of nominee accounts is they are open to abuse and mistakes.
Brokers know this which is why their Terms and Conditions document typically contains a clause like this (bolding is mine):
Any investments held on your behalf may be pooled with those investments of other customers. This means that your entitlement may not be individually identifiable on the relevant company register, by separate certificates or electronic records (other than ours, where they will be identifiable) and, in the event of an unreconciled shortfall caused by the default of a custodian, you may share proportionately in that shortfall
In other words, if the records don’t match the funds available then all customers will be liable, whether the reason be fraud, mismanagement, or anything else.
You can check your own broker’s T&Cs for similar small print by searching for words like ‘pooled’, ‘nominee’, ‘omnibus’, and ‘custody’.
The concern is that the ring-fence around your nominee account is only as good as the broker’s records.
And those records can be too easily altered or swatted aside if – for example – management are tempted to solve a cashflow problem by dipping into customer accounts.
Or perhaps employees neglect to keep the books updated as a company slides into crisis? Due diligence can be an early casualty on a sinking ship.
Can the worst happen?
It’s relatively rare, but yes it can. A US brokerage firm called MF Global is the poster child for this kind of mess. The firm went bankrupt after executives – ahem – ‘borrowed’ customers’ funds to cover company overdrafts.
In the UK, Beaufort Securities collapsed in 2018 after an FBI sting operation.
And SVS Securities was brought down in 2019 by an FCA probe into the broker’s dubious high-risk, high-fee investment products.
In Beaufort’s case, it was actually the insolvency administrator, PwC, who went after customers’ cash in order to settle its bill of £55 million.
Thankfully the UK’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) stepped in to prevent most of Beaufort’s clients losing out.
What protection do I have?
UK investors should be protected against broker fraud and insolvency by the FSCS Scheme mentioned above. Check your investment platform is covered.
But even if you are eligible for compensation, you’re only shielded against losses up to £85,000.
Consider diversifying your investment platforms if you hold substantially more than that amount with a single broker.
Also note that the FSCS scheme may not apply if your broker is based overseas, or if you hold non-UK securities.
For example, your holdings may be lodged with an overseas custodian. If so, then that custodian may be held to lower standards when the grit hits the fan.
My own broker sums up the situation in this hair-raising clause:
There may be different settlement, legal and regulatory requirements and different practices for the separate identification of investments from those applying in the UK […] We will not be liable for the insolvency, acts or omissions of any third-party referred to in this sub-clause except where we have acted negligently, fraudulently or in wilful default in relation to the appointment of the third party.
This clause could apply to you if you hold international shares or funds domiciled outside the UK.
It gets worse. A later clause cheerfully explains that my nominee investments may be recorded in the name of my broker or its custodian in certain overseas markets. And if this happens then (bold emphasis is mine):
the Nominee investments may not be segregated and separately identifiable from the designated investments of the person in whose name they are registered; and as a consequence, in the event of a failure, the Nominee investment may not be as well protected from claims made on behalf of our general creditors.
This suggests that my overseas securities could be used to settle the claims of creditors if my broker failed. That wouldn’t happen to UK securities.
Nominee accounts and shareholder rights
Because your name isn’t linked to your share holdings, you don’t gain the automatic right to vote at annual general meetings, or even to attend. Nor will you automatically be sent company reports and notifications.
If these rights are important to you then ask your broker to pass them back. Many brokers will, although they may charge a fee, and be more or less enthusiastic in how they facilitate your request.
If you love a company report then they’re generally available on a firm’s corporate website.
Are there any alternatives to nominee accounts?
Yes, but the perfect solution does not exist:
Certificates – In the old days your broker would send you a rectangle made from a now-obsolete material called ‘paper’. The kids would never believe it, but it would confirm your ownership of the securities and you could use it to sell through any broker you liked. Even today you can use this arcane papery system, but it’s slow and expensive.
Designated or sole nominee accounts – Your securities are registered in the name of the nominee but this time your assets are walled off in your own account rather than thrown into the pooled nominee pit. Only a minority of brokers offer this service and they don’t like to shout about it. Enquire if you’re interested.
CREST personal accounts – Theoretically CREST1 is the best of both worlds for shareholders. Your name is recorded on the company register, you retain your voting rights, your shares aren’t mixed up with everyone else’s, and you can still deal electronically without any paper certificate faff. In reality, it costs quite a lot extra, few brokers support the system, and CREST personal membership isn’t compatible with ISAs or SIPPs.
Unlike the last two alternatives, paper certificates do protect you from fraud and negligence because no naughty nominee or rogue record-keeper can spirit away your holdings.
Sadly though, paper is susceptible to fire, theft, the vagaries of the postal service, and being mislaid in the same place where the orphaned socks go.
The digital tech barons of the future also keep threatening to consign paper to history. Beware your share certificates going the way of the cheque book.
Nomin-AIEE!
Any system that enables us to buy and sell at the press of a button is inevitably open to some element of error or abuse. That’s the price of speed.
In an age of conspiracy theories it’s all too easy to overstate the danger so I should be plain: I’m not losing any sleep about my own nominee accounts.
But I am shocked that brokers don’t think they should explain how the system works – warts ‘n’ all.
Sadly, transparent customer service is too often seen as a competitive disadvantage. Explanations of the nominee account system are generally buried in arcane small print or glossed over in brochure-speak accompanied by big ticks and smiley faces.
Best practice:
- Diversify your holdings among two or three brokers to reduce your risk once you’re over the £85,000 FSCS compensation threshold.
- Understand your right to compensation.
- Review whether the safeguards apply to your overseas investments. There may be UK equivalents that help you to sleep more soundly.
- Keep your own records. Download a portfolio valuation from your accounts regularly. At least once a month.
Then, move on with your life.
Take it steady,
The Accumulator
- The central securities depository and settlement system. [↩]
Very interesting article, and a little worrying to boot!
I’d also suggest doing some decent research into the financials of your broker/s and treating them as you would any other investment.
Omnibus/”street” nominee accounts are a good example of the old world (incl US) being stuck with a legacy solution! In the days when a 10MB database was something awesome, it was considered unthinkable that retail investors i.e. beneficial owners, might be registered directly at the CSD (Stock Exchange) – hence US, UK and most of Europe has omnibus nominee accounts “built into” the legal and regulatory framework. And of course it’s much simpler and cheaper for the brokers. Developing world countries started with a clean sheet and most have mandatory registration of the beneficial owner at the CSD – China CSD reportedly has 150m individual holders (and T+1 settlement!), India similar.
The eurocrats have of course noticed all this and there is a new regulation being concocted called CSDR that as well as outlawing paper certificates will make the option of designated nominee accounts mandatory in all European CSD (at least last time I read an article on it, it did…!). So all “about” to change… 2020 I think…
The other related issue which I think you have raised before is to be aware how your broker holds cash – some hold it as a bank e.g. ATS and some as nominee/trust e.g. HL. Different protections and pros/cons for each.
Is my understanding correct that individuals are protected separately for deposit vs investment accounts, ie £85k deposits, £50k investments – giving a total protection of £135 (which interestingly is close to the FDIC $250k). I accept that investment must carry risk, otherwise it’s not really an investment, but can’t help but wonder if there’s a way to increase the limits to make it more tempting for small investors.
It’s no wonder “property” is the preferred saving/”investing” vehicle in the UK. “Save for your retirement, invest in equities – oh, but if your firm goes bust then you only get £50k back” is not a super-reassuring message.
I think ‘disintermediation’ is the way forward (an all electronic share register on which individuals are represented), as recommended in the Kay review and proposed in new European legislation (mentioned by helfordpirate above). I believe progress in getting this agreed is slow, and various deadlines have been proposed. There was a good article by one of the participating UK registrars in a recent ShareSoc newsletter. Until then investors can always diversify their nominee accounts.
Very interesting TA.
We have the same broker (and somewhat disappointing you have yet to receive a satisfactory answer). Thankfully navigating to their terms is quite easy. Unfortunately, as you point out, making sense of them is another game entirely.
Hi Accumulator,
Another informative piece.
One argument I’d add against using certificates is to consider the mess you’ll leave behind in the event of your demise. We all have to leave planet earth at some point – and frankly it is an utter nightmare writing out to multiple registrars to notify them of a death and then complete forms to transfer ownership of each and every shareholding before sale can be made.
As for shares listed on foreign exchanges well . . . ever tried obtaining separate probate to recover shares from Ireland?
Keep it simple for your sakes – and those you leave behind. Use collectives and other such wrappers and consider trust arrangements too which can be accessed without any need for probate.
Best wishes.
disturbing info !
the London Stock Exchange website states that’ nominee accounts are ring fenced from broker’s other activities so they are financially secure’
also another site says if a broker ceases to trade ie goes into liquidation ‘ assets are ring fenced held seperatly and can be transferred to another broker of your choice’
does this give us any reassurance?
@dawn – ringfencing is fine, but it doesn’t protect from fraud or plain incompetence, with regard to the nominee accounts themselves. Have to say I’ve thought about this subject for a while and am still in two minds as to whether to split up my investments between platforms or just have everything in one place. Last time I spread cash about to cleverly keep it within FSCS limits, I ended up having to claim under the scheme (think Icesave and Kaupthing), but would have been fine if I’d left everything where it was. Given what I believe to be a very low level of risk, I’m tempted to move everything to my new iWeb account, but reckon I’ll wait a bit and see what happens with platform charging further down the line.
I have a Charles Schwab USA account for extra diversification and use 2 UK brokers. I will probably open one more uk broker and leave it at that. USA SEC protects assets to $500k.
yes, i have an i web investment account, i intend to put shares in
got 3 in already. im going for a high yield portfolio of 15 uk blue chip shares rather than uk tracker as ive got £30,000 sat in premium bonds making nothing and can’t get it in an isa all at once, also drip feeding in i think is better for trackers than lump sums. ive also got equinti investment account too so now thinking i should put most of my shares in there to spread risk!. in april plan on opening an ss isa through i web and there i will put in a vanguard developed world ex uk tracker fund and drip in monthly installments im thinking funds are safer cos your money is in the fund not the platform’s account? might move accross my emerging markets tracker from legal and general ter 1.1% to blackrocks you can quickly get up to £50,000 so that the fscs out the window. the other option is buy the shares through fidelity they use CREST so your safe, your names on them ! but its £5.10 a month £61 a year for piece of mind. so monevator has thrown new light on my plans. why dont we just spend our money live for now and when weve none left live off the state. people on benefits seem to have a great life i know one couple do back to back cruise holidays on benefits!!! new car, conservatory hols in tenerife and neither work. claiming to be ill !! and look at us trying so hard to look after ourselves for later.
Nominee accounts are essential for day traders and speculators.
However I am a long term investor. So I have re-materialised some shares (those I intend to hold for many years) into certificated holdings.
The advantage is two-fold: first, I have full security and ownership without worry as to what a nominee is up to. Second, because it is less convenient to do so, I am less tempted to “trade” and rather more inclined to sit out any market turbulence. It is well known that over-trading is costly to your wealth.
To Chris B
I like that argument.
I guess it’s similar to the case for putting money away in a pension for retirement (as opposed to using only ISAs or other non-pension vehicles)
Aside from all the tax breaks (of which the tax advantage on death is often forgotten) and possible employer “freebies” – the great thing about the pension is that you can’t (normally and legally!) touch those funds till you’re 55.
Well, that assumes George doesn’t change the rules again today!
All the best.
I did have an attack of paranoia when I read through the t&c’s of nominee accounts a while ago. Along with banking they are quite clearly not fit for the purpose that I believed they were.
Once you’re comfortable with the level of double think needed to give your cash to a bunch of philandering crooks for ‘safekeeping’, accepting that your other financial assets are held safely ring-fenced for your convenience and comfort is very easy 🙂
I personally don’t worry about the specific risks of nominee accounts, they are just the cherry on the top of big pie of abstraction and fragility, none of which I can influence or control.
So I spread financial assets around brokers, hold some hard assets outside of the financial system and just accept that it’s all good while it works and we’re all screwed if it doesn’t.
@TCA – I had my stash in Kaupthing, the interest rates were attractive and they were recommended on financial sites, just like the Spanish bank I have my stash in now. What’s the quote about doing the same thing over again and expecting different results ?
Great post, Nathan.
With this in mind, if you have a VWRL in a nominee account, does it shield it from inheritence tax, since they really dunno who you are?
@Nathan – yeah, I was with the perfectly solvent Kaupthing Singer Friedlander, Isle of Man. If that nice Mr Darling hadn’t frozen their deposits with their UK branch, then there wouldn’t have been a problem for my IOM savings. Took a year to get it back. Bitter? Yes, a bit. It certainly has made me read more into nominee accounts and compensation limits than I probably would have done otherwise. I can’t bring myself to have multiple pots of £50k though. I’ll stick with two platforms for now and see how RDR pans out.
Paul Claireaux and ChrisB, I enjoyed your posts.
From personal experience, I have to agree with Paul on share certificates, probate and other such issues. We realised that a passed loved one of ours held some shares in a company after we received notification that the company was being bought out. Three years after they passed away… Turning the house over, we eventually found the share certificates.
Are the costs of nominee accounts worth it? Probably. We will find out.
To Kyith,
I assume you’re joking but just in case . . . . the answer’s no.
I assume that you are named on your account with whatever platform you hold your investments – regardless of the fact that the funds or shares within it are not personally stamped with your name.
Sadly, you are obliged to declare all your assets for IHT purposes (and there are around 30 different IHT forms for those with very complex affairs.
I believe also that HMRC have pretty wide powers of investigation where they suspect people of trying to hide assets. So best to plan to avoid that tax (it’s voluntary you know) if you’re concerned about it.
All the best
Paul
@Paul Claireaux, I am not joking. the Nominee account is not a UK account, and i have never filled in any IHT forms. so does it affect overseas investors?
“Overseas” is an interesting term.
What the taxman is interested in is our Domicile.
And, if you are UK domicile then IHT will, broadly apply to your assets worldwide. Holding them overseas is no escape.
Ooops – sorry wrong link.
Genuine mistake – still had that other link on my clipboard.
Should have given you this one http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/international/domicile.htm#9
Anyway I’ve posted a couple of items relating IHT to Pensions and ISAs on my site today – so hope these are of interest too.
Best
@Paul Thanks for the link. perhaps i should clarify.
I am a Singaporean and Singapore domiciled (likely) and I have a Singapore based trading nominee account, which access to London stock exchange. If i were to purchase VWRL through the nominee account, I wonder if i breached 325k pounds, will they be able to get inheritence tax from me
To Kyith
My understanding is that the amount of your non UK sited assets are irrelevant as regards UK IHT if (but only if) you are domiciled abroad.
So you need to sure: a) of your likely domicile when you die (or transfer assets) and b) that those assets are actually classed as non UK sited.
You might also like to consider possible wealth taxes that could be applied by Singapore. I have no knowledge of those but in general terms – simply escaping UK IHT does not necessarily mean you escape all wealth taxes!
That’s as far as I can go.
I would urge you to read up on this and pay particular attention to deemed domicile status and excluded property at the HMRC site here http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cto/customerguide/page20.htm#10
And I would urge you to take professional advice from someone qualified if this field (STEP minimum)
Best wishes
Paul
Thanks, useful stuff.
Another problem with nominee accounts is not receiving corporate communications. I hold retail bonds issued by Wasps, a rugby club which recently went into administration. The bonds were due for repayment in May 2022 but the issuer defaulted. The bonds are secured on the club’s lease on its stadium in Coventry, but the administrators are going to the High Court on Thursday to undo this, so the lease can be sold quickly and cheaply without bondholders’ consent.
The trustee has refused to act because of lack of a mandate from bondholders. One of the difficulties facing us bondholders, as we have tried since May to organise and achieve a mandate, is that the bonds are largely held via nominees. CREST will not transmit the trustee’s notices because they are for information (albeit labelled “urgent” and “requires your immediate attention”) rather than notifying a corporate action.
Many bondholders are therefore probably unaware of what is going on, and certainly can’t be reached by the Trustee, far less anyone else. The main problem is CREST, but all the nominee platforms have been reluctant to press CREST for a change in its stance.
If any Wasps bondholders read this, you can join us by emailing valerie.barrett@gmail.com
I have foresworn retail bonds as a result.
There is another way to manage this risk, but it’s only really an option for some pension schemes and where you’re willing to hold a restricted range of funds. That’s the “insured fund” approach, where there isn’t a nominee account as such, but in exchange you get stricter solvency regulation and 100% FSCS protection with no upper limit.
Here is the Vanguard UK’s relevant paragraph from their T&Cs
All Vanguard Fund Shares held within your Account will be registered in the name of our
Nominee. We will be responsible for the actions and any omissions of the Nominee. Shares
held by our Nominee for you under these Terms will be held as client assets in accordance
with the FCA Rules. Shares registered in the name of the Nominee are held in an account
with those of others, on your behalf. This means you are still the beneficial owner of your
Vanguard Funds and you will have a claim over them even if we and/ or the Nominee
become insolvent. Your Shares will not be separately identifiable from those of other
investors, but we will keep a separate and up to date record of your individual entitlement.
You have the right to request a statement of the Shares held on your behalf at any time.
We have procedures in place to carry out checks and identify any shortfall in your Shares,
which we will correct if we are responsible for it. However, in the event of our insolvency
and a shortfall in the pooled account at the Nominee, you would share rateably with other
investors in the amount of the shortfall
How spooky that TA should post an article on nominee accounts just as I was investigating how to sell some of my (>5 years old) VCTs from my nominee/ trading account. I’d love to hear from and be grateful to anyone who has just ‘walked this walk’ as I’m not sure if I can sell through a buyback scheme which looke preferable rather than the secondary market. Could this be another disadvantage to nominees?
Hi Nearlyrich,
I recently sold some VCTs through Jarvis X-O who offer an excellent service. I called the relevant VCT ( Gresham House Baronsmeade ) they gave me the name of their broker doing the buy backs and I was lucky he was buying on the day I called. He even waited for the trade to come in after the window was due to close.
Good luck,
Pat.
Insightful as always.
Could someome more ‘in the know’ highlight how/whether the UK CASS (Client Assets and Money) rules provide further protection in addition to the FSCS protections?
In terms of downsides, something not mentioned but may be worth highlighting is how these firms are able to ‘borrow’ your shares to others (often for shorting purposes) often without your knowledge and without you necessarily getting any benefits from that.
@ PD – quite a nice summary of CASS here:
https://1rs.io/2021/09/20/what-is-cass-and-who-does-it-apply-to/
Looks like its main aim is to ensure firms follow the rules for compliance but unlike the FSCS scheme it doesn’t appear to add an extra layer of protection for consumers once things have already gone wrong. Haven’t looked into this in any real depth though.
Re: security lending – I think UK institutions are generally transparent about whether they’re doing this or not. I don’t know whether they’re legally obliged to but witness the recent to-do at Freetrade. They announced they’d commence security lending and swiftly backed down again.
If your broker or fund manager hasn’t made a public declaration about securities / stock lending then that’d make me wary.