This blog gives you the latest topical news plus some informal comments on them from ShareSoc’s directors and other contributors. These are the personal comments of the authors and not necessarily the considered views of ShareSoc. The writers may hold shares in the companies mentioned. You can add your own comments on the blog posts, but note that ShareSoc reserves the right to remove or edit comments where they are inappropriate or defamatory.

Law Commission Error on Segregated Accounts

In a previous blog post on the Law Commission’s consultation on Intermediated Securities I queried their claim that all investors in nominee accounts had the option to use a segregated account (i.e. a “designated account” where your name is on the share register, not just the nominee operator’s). They claim this is mandated by an EU regulation. This is extremely important because a simple “pooled” nominee account that most stockbrokers use does not give you clear ownership of the shares. If the broker goes bust and has not properly recorded who owns what (as is often the case), you may have difficulty recovering your shares. It also means that the company you own shares in cannot communicate with you and neither can anyone else.

HAVING YOUR NAME AND CONTACT DETAILS ON THE SHARE REGISTER IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!

I have now actually looked into the true position with three different stockbrokers I use for ISA and SIPP accounts. This is what they said (in summary, edited for brevity):

  1. We are planning to offer segregated accounts and we expect this to be available mid-next year.
  2. We are working on implementing this with the expectation it will be an option for account holders next year, but it will be considerably more expensive than our current fees.
  3. These requirements come into effect as soon as the CSD, in our case Euroclear, receives its authorisation from the regulator Bank of England as a CSD – this is expected to be Q1-2020. We will offer segregated accounts when obliged to do so. Charges will be materially higher than for a pooled nominee account given the additional processing and operational costs involved.

In summary therefore, they concede it is legally required but they are not rushing to implement it and they will be deterring people from using that option by high and unjustified charges. In essence this is disgraceful.

I will be making this plain to the Law Commission.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

5 Comments
  1. Mohammed Amin 1st November 2019 at 9:00 pm

    Please continue to pursue this. It really matters.

  2. Stephen Day 2nd November 2019 at 1:44 pm

    Yes, I too encourage you to pursue this Roger.

  3. Andy Clapham 2nd November 2019 at 2:22 pm

    I would like clarification please. Is the legal requirement to provide this or to provide it as an optional extra?

  4. rogerwlawson 2nd November 2019 at 2:47 pm

    I will certainly be pursuing this and have already written to the Law Commission on it, but the more people who respond to their consultation on Intermediation the better – closes on Nov 5th.

  5. rogerwlawson 3rd November 2019 at 8:50 am

    Andy: It is legally required to provide as an option. See Article 38 in here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02014R0909-20160701

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

join ShareSoc

Get more stuff

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

Other Blog Posts