≡ Menu

Nominee accounts: what you need to know

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.

A picture showing how pooled nominee accounts throw everyone's assets into one pot.

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

  1. The central securities depository and settlement system. []
{ 30 comments }

Weekend reading: Did you miss the best days?

Our Weekend Reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

Last week the major US exchanges went bananas on a strong signal that US inflation might be turning.

And that was very good news.

You know that old adage about it being important to remain invested at all times – because if you miss a handful of days you will miss most of the return?

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

These look like somewhat mediocre returns for a whole year. But they happened in 16 hours of trading.

Admittedly, I have a love/hate relationship with the old “don’t miss the best days” schtick. As a very active investor who watches the markets like most people follow their favourite football team, I feel the rollercoaster ride of a year like 2022 in my guts.

So I sometimes ponder how missing out on the best days might be worth it if you miss the worst days too. The optimal – but to be clear, hugely inadvisable – thing to do this year was to sit out the whole shebang out in cash.

(Inadvisable, sadly, because the books about successful investors who have consistently got in and out of markets wholesale for a profit would be welcome on any ultra-minimalist’s bookcase.)

Begone foul pestilence

Anyway, the inflation news is a big deal. Much bigger for markets than the US mid-term elections, which dominated the US media for fortnight.

From CNBC:

The consumer price index rose less than expected in October, an indication that while inflation is still a threat to the U.S. economy, pressures could be starting to cool. The index, a broad-based measure of goods and services costs, increased 0.4% for the month and 7.7% from a year ago, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics release Thursday.

Respective estimates from Dow Jones were for rises of 0.6% and 7.9%.

Excluding volatile food and energy costs, so-called core CPI increased 0.3% for the month and 6.3% on an annual basis, compared with respective estimates of 0.5% and 6.5%.

Regular readers will recall I’ve been expecting inflation to ease for months. It didn’t happen. Indeed rates have gone higher than almost anyone predicted this time last year, as market expectations have been repeatedly confounded.

The result has been a brutal 12 months for pretty much everything. Stock-picking has been brutal. Some of the car crash US growth shares already down 80%-90% this year found it in themselves to drop another 10% in a day earlier this week. The proximate cause was yet another crypto crash (see the links below). But it is inflation and rates that have driven most of the de-rating in shares and the crushing of bonds this year.

And so if – and we still can’t be sure – US inflation really has turned, then we could have seen the bottom of this bear market.

US rates lever the (un)attractiveness of US markets. That sets the tone for markets around the world. The rapid pace of US rate rises also sent the dollar to lofty levels, dragging up rates around the world. All this could unwind if the threat of ever-higher inflation has been defeated.

Markets – which look forward – could move more than you’d think in response.

Leave your chickens uncounted

None of this means the interest rate rises are over – in the US or anywhere else.

Market interest rates moved far faster than official rates, as traders bet on the direction of travel. Higher rates from central banks still playing catch-up are baked-in, over there and over here.

But again, the top for rate expectations would be in if inflation is rolling over.

Mortgage rates – much higher than I believe central bankers would prefer – should start to ease too.

On the other hand something dumb1 could happen again and throw this all off course. Or the CPI numbers could get revised. It’s an unpredictable world, and investing is all about uncertainty.

Which is why, despite everything, it’s best to stay mostly invested.

Have a great weekend all.

[continue reading…]

  1. Like the war in Europe. []
{ 49 comments }

Rich friends, poor friends

A photo of some apparently rich friends toasting with drinks

Surrounding yourself with rich friends is a well-known strategy for making more money.

By spending time with rich friends, the theory goes, you will automatically:

  • See having lots of money as normal
  • Get over negative money beliefs
  • Think positively about growing your finances
  • Try harder to improve your lot
  • Copy what your rich friends do to get richer

In my 20s, I read through books about making money the way others of my generation popped certain feel-good pills.

And most of those books urged their readers to abandon friends who had a ‘poverty mindset’.

Instead, you should look to have rich friends going places.

It’s true that maverick self-made millionaires such as Richard Branson, Duncan Bannatyne, and Theo Paphitis don’t seem to need peers as role models.

What’s more, the modern networked economy has made it easier than ever for unsociable techno-nerds to make serious money. Just think of all the crypto-millionaires who mined made-up money in their basements.

But for most of us, moving in wealthier circles will raise our expectations – and potentially our bank balances.

Even Warren Buffett’s best friends include fellow billionaires Charlie Munger and Bill Gates.

A rich vein of study

There’s plenty of scientific research to back up this folksy-sounding advice.

To give a recent example, in a major study published in 2022 a team led by Harvard economist Raj Chetty studied the social networks of more than 70 million Facebook users to see if they could correlate their social capital with their financial wealth.

As Business Insider reports, out of three ways of measuring social capital:

…the only one actually linked to upward economic mobility is friendships with people from a higher socioeconomic status.

In fact, if lower-income kids grew up in areas that have the same economic connectedness as higher-income kids’ neighborhoods, their future earnings increase by an average of 20%.

According to Hugh Lauder of the University of Bath, Chetty’s research is a call to ensure schools are well-mixed in terms of socioeconomic background – albeit that’s difficult given how some parts of the country are far richer than others.

The alternative – an educational system where a lot of rich kids are segregated into their own schools – is bad for social mobility. (And for our politics).

One kink I noticed from the New Scientist reporting is that the Harvard team estimated income levels via the proxy data of each Facebook user’s mobile phone model.

More than 15 years as a personal finance blogger makes me wonder – were some of those apparently upwardly-mobile friends of richer people just flashing a fancy handset to keep up appearances?

Presumably the academics eliminated the risk of such social striving from affecting their results.

Big fish, small pond

There’s just one snag with the strategy of having richer friends, especially in childhood.

I’ll illustrate it via a slightly stylized story about an ex-girlfriend.

My ex – let’s call her Catherine – is a talented violin player. From the age of seven, she showed great promise with the instrument. By her early teens she was established as the best bow in town.

Catherine enjoyed being the lead violinist in her school orchestra. But she knew she could push her talent further than her school could take her. Most of her friends might as well as have been banging on saucepans for all they could inspire her.

Catherine’s teacher agreed she was being held back. He arranged for her to go to weekend classes in London at a fairly prestigious music school.

At last she’d be among musicians of her own caliber!

To cut a long story short, they were indeed better than her – and she didn’t like it one bit. No longer was Catherine the biggest fish in a small pond. In fact, by her own estimation she was the worst musician at the new school.

Catherine continued to attend the classes, because she was too ashamed to retreat to her old school colleagues. But she admits that her heart wasn’t in it. When she went to university, she didn’t even bother to join the music society.

Could Catherine have tried harder? Perhaps. Many people respond to competition, but some are too timid. A shy person, Catherine wilted in the light of others.

Yet the fact is she can play beautifully compared to 99% of people who ever pick up a violin.

Rich friends when you need them

If Catherine had never gone to the elite music classes, she’d probably have had a happier childhood. She might still be playing her violin today.

Similarly, you will make more money if you meet rich friends, but you’ll likely feel miserable.

As Financial Accountant magazine reported:

Researchers from Warwick Business School in the UK found that people who earned more than others in their “reference group” – that is, those of the same age, gender, religion or nationality – were more likely to feel happy with their lives.

Warwick professor of behavioural sciences Nick Powdthavee said that people actually care “very little” about the actual figure they earn, but they are concerned with how their income compares to those around them.

“For example, their sense of wellbeing is more likely to be influenced by whether they are fifth or 40th highest-paid person in their workplace, rather than their precise salary,” he explained.

So do you want to be rich or would you rather be happy?

Perhaps the best solution is to decide who your real friends are – as distinct from who is in your wealth creation circle.

Spend quality time with your true friends for a pick-me-up, and hang out with your rich friends when you see your income sliding!

Contrived? Maybe. It’s not easy being rich.

{ 28 comments }

Weekend reading: to a millionaire and back again

Our Weekend Reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

I know we only recently revisited the meme stock mania of 2021, when I reviewed the Netflix documentary Eat the Rich.

But there’s no better post to flag up today than Alexander Hurst’s epic variation on the theme in the Guardian this week.

The title – How I turned $15,000 into $1.2m during the pandemic – then lost it all – sets the stage.

But there’s more than just ‘loss porn’ to Hurst’s account, as we’re shown how suddenly coming into money warps your thinking:

I stopped searching for 50 sq meter one-bedroom apartments in central Paris and instead started browsing €1.5m lofts with rooftop terraces, or scrolling through Sotheby’s listings in French Polynesia, drooling over a small private island I could buy for $890,000 – as in, I could actually buy it.

It wasn’t hard to rationalize it. After all, my Amherst classmates had grown up going to vacation homes and boarding schools, and were destined to inherit large transfers of property or investment wealth.

I would not; instead, I felt the impending burden of my parents’ underfunded retirement accounts looming.

The piece really spoke to me: Hurst feels like a brother from another mother who went down a rabbit hole I avoided only by being born 20 years earlier.

And it takes guts to admit to such losses – and the truths that lie behind them – in public.

As my co-blogger wrote when he revisited the bursting of the 2021 bubble:

The market mints winners and losers every day.

The tricky bit is that failure is silent, while success is noisy.

Generally that’s true – but this time has been different.

The Reddit traders paraded their successes and failures very publicly throughout their epic bender.

Maybe that’s why this time we’ve been given an account of the morning after.

The first trillion is the hardest

Notes from the meme stock boom are not easy reading for the squeamish, what with all the leverage and the roll call of trading tools like options and shorts – as well as plenty of obscure small cap stocks.

But the truth is you can lose a lot of money just fine with everyday investing into some of the biggest companies in the world.

As Ben Carlson says over at A Wealth of Common Sense this week in recounting the fall from grace of Meta (nee Facebook):

I’m not trying to pour salt in the wound here for people who own these stocks.

This is just a not-so-gentle reminder that stock picking is extremely difficult, even over the long run and even for best-of-breed corporations.

On the way up you kick yourself for not investing in name-brand companies with stellar stock performance.

Then when they inevitably crash you begin to wonder if those gains are ever going to return.

For those who don’t follow the market with a magnifying glass like me and Ben, this chart shows how Meta has left the trillion-dollar market cap club:

Despite being one of the most successful and profitable companies of all-time, Meta has now been beaten by a diversified index fund over the past decade.

For love not money

When I used to write more about my naughty active investing – that stands in such contrast to the Monevator house view and the wise posts of my co-blogger – I was sometimes accused of hypocrisy.

Why was I telling people they should invest in boring index funds, when I do something completely different?

Was I keeping all the good stuff to myself? Did I think I was better than everyone else?

That sort of thing.

Follow that link to learn more about why I’m still a stock-picker and an active trader, for my sins.

But let’s be clear about one thing.

I haven’t increasingly told people over the years that they’ll almost certainly do better with index funds despite my being an active investor.

On the contrary, I know all the market’s capricious whims. The agonies and ecstasies, as Ben puts it.

And I say you’ll almost certainly have a more pleasant life if you invest passively because of my experiences as an active investor!

Enjoy the weekend, and the many great links below.

[continue reading…]

{ 34 comments }