Well itās good Sasha highlighted it, as was I was unaware this was a thing. Piling in on him about maybe ambiguous changes to the T&Cās seems like a mute point if this issue with share ownership is an issue thats been knocking around for some time. It should be a concern for everyone with a decent amount of money invested. Hopefully this thread allows T212 to ease our concerns.
3 Likes
The issue is, this is the third time weāve asked for it to be explained properly, rather then in the clickbait / scarebait fashion.
1 Like
Has there been any clarification on it from Trading 212?
2 Likes
Since weāre reading a UK (EU? Is there as well?) regulated firmās terms & conditions my understanding is this cannot be applied. Rules in UK/EU are that shares have to be segregated and not at the firmās assets.
If they open a e.g. T212 Taiwan (or what ever) those terms could be changed. Here weāre reading a UK regulated firmās t&c.
But Iām not a lawyer also and Iām saying it as Iām understanding itā¦
2 Likes
Yes. The last time it happened they had to waste time writing a response about how poorly researched his video was.
See:
2 Likes
Thanks, but that doesnāt address the share ownership issue.
1 Like
Which bit in particular are you worried about sorry?
This? Theyāre held in 212ās name segregated at IBKR. You are the beneficial owner, this is a standard set up.
Freetrade have the same arrangement with Drivewealth.
Hargreaves have it with (Iāve forgotten who they use).
Hargreaves Lansdown fwiw do an excellent job of explaining this set up and why you probably donāt want to be removed from the pooled share arrangement and into your own segregated, seperate account (spoiler alert - costs 8k per client, per year).
Does this help?
8 Likes
Do these changes affect all accounts or just ones created since August 2020?
Will this affect the moass and me in any way? 
2 Likes
I assume people are talking about this video? Trading 212 Just Said Your Investments Are Not Safe - YouTube
If thatās the case then I donāt see what the problem is.
To keep it short, and Iām gonna say my opinion now, it looks like Sasha is just providing his interpretation on citations from the changes, and asking for clarifications from T212, all while also expressing his worries about the situation as someone who holds his majority investments with T212.
Good on you for exercising your right to free speech in a civilized manner.
Meanwhile some people here are trying to shut him down for doing this. Seems legit.
On topic: I would also like clarifications from T212 on which cases will I have my shares under risk and which not.
Eg. If u invest in HK listed stocks then your shares will end up going to creditors in the event of (ā¦)
If u invest in US listed stocks then you will receive all your shares / equivalent cash if (ā¦event)
If they worded things like this in the clause I donāt think people will have to wonder anymoreā¦
EDIT: OK, based on the comment below, I see that the title is the problem. Agreed.
9 Likes
Isnāt this what people have issue with?
Shouldnāt it be asking for clarifications from T212 and then making a video?
Otherwise itās being done for clickbait and profit, and potentially misleading.
Iām all for giving T212 both barrels where due, and highlighting changes in terms is positive but if I was in T212s legal dept Iād be making contact with @Sasha asap making videos with the title āare not safeā
Doesnāt get as many clicks as āT212 update their termsā
9 Likes
Thanks, It does help a little. However it seems HL hold your shares in a separate Limited company untouchable if they themselves went bust. As youāve rightly pointed out they all pool our shares and have a ledger of who owns what. I think the lack of clarity for T212 is the use of ācertain overseas territoriesā because that could include the NASDAQ, which is what needs clarifying.
2 Likes
Beaufort securities thought their segregated separate company was untouchable. PWC still touched it.
Yes, the countries affected should be declared.
2 Likes
So going back to this and Sashaās video. This statement and video sounds like every share is at risk.
We know our shares are held in a single omnibus account on IBKR.
So if I have 5 TSLA shares, you have 10, another T212 customer has 3 we have 18 total.
Its T212 database that then says who owns what of that 18 TSLA shares show inside their IBKR account.
What we are talking about is the shares have various ways of registering who is named as the holder.
What is being stated is that there may be situations where it canāt be registered in your name that you own those shares.
So inside T212 IBKR account it might show 23 XYZ shares all registered under T212s name.
Although T212s database says that someone might have purchased 10 shares and another person 13 shares, what I think is being suggested is that if those shares are not in your name, that they would be at risk if T212 ship sinks.
I have to assume that 99%+ would be in your name and hence not seen as T212s property to be sold in the event it all turns sour.
Have I got any of this correct?
If it is a case this was always the situation that certain shares canāt be held in your own name, then what has changed (other than clarifying this with 13.10)
How about a clear way to know what shares are not technically possible to be held in your name?
2 Likes
Bonus Q if someone knows what happens if T212 is nuked. And the business isnāt able to be wound down smoothly.
Who takes that database and works out who owns what? I assume the shares would be sold together eg 18 TSLA shares sold on IBKR directly, and then the cash would be distributed based on the T212 database of who owns what portion.
Or is there a magical button that if pushed, creates individual IBKR accounts and the shares are re-distributed?
@Bogi.H @David can you please help answer? And poss comment on the previous post 
5 Likes
Nothing in the relevant term has changed in a way to impact the business, nor the clientās relations with Trading 212. Rather: more details are added for the sake of transparency.
In a nutshell: the client assets are kept in a segregated account. In the unlikely event of insolvency of Trading 212 UK Ltd. ā clientās assets will be protected.
The information in the discussed video can be misinterpreted as it contains a personal point of view towards legal documents. We are encouraging every client who has any legal questions or insecurities to reconcile with a solicitor or a lawyer in order to receive accurate advice.
Now in more detail: the update to Clause 13.10 is intended as a clarification in line with CASS 6.2.3R (CASS 6.2 Holding of client assets - FCA Handbook). We would like to stress that all client assets are held in clientsā omnibus accounts, segregated from assets of Trading 212 UK Ltd., in line with the applicable rules under the Custody rules (CASS 6). At all times Trading 212 UK Ltd. complies with all relevant rules under CASS 6, which relates to financial instruments, and CASS 7, which relates to client money.
For the avoidance of doubt, you will at all times retain the beneficial ownership of your shares - your shares will always be protected under CASS 6.
Retail client brokers in the UK and across the world usually operate with a custody chain. This means that our service is such that it is not actually Trading 212 UK Ltd. holding your financial instruments but is that we provide you access to a worldwide network of custodians, who hold the relevant financial instruments for your benefit and risk as ultimate beneficiary. In all situations we will require custodians to protect your investments against their bankruptcy. Due to the nature of how the financial markets operate and the applicable rules and market practices, it may be the case that the assets are not recorded in your name but are recorded in our name (Trading 212 UK Ltd.), the name of our custodian or another third party.
By way of example, if you have bought a share listed in the US, it will be held via a custody chain (through Trading 212 UK Ltd., our custodian etc.) with the end custodian being the Depository Trust Company (DTC) in the US. The share will be held in the name of DTCās nominee entity, Cede & Co, as is standard with US shares. In any case, however, the relevant share will be held for your benefit, in line with the CASS 6 rules.
35 Likes
Appreciate your time Tony. Thanks for the clarification.
2 Likes
Iām with you Sasha that this one sentence needs a little clarification, maybe the well protected bit rather than the bits youāve underlined.
But you are wrong about the rest, and I present to you Vanguards clause which explains the process in greater detail.
8 Likes
Wrong again, there is precedent that client assets HAVE been used to pay creditors in this situation.
I agree with you about the matter of āwell protectedā but yes, they have all copied from vanguard (I believe vanguards used to be worded in this way) but they have since updated to the current.
You are also attempting to argue that Trading212 can interpret their clause outside of the rules of the FCA, the most current example of such deceit I can probably give you of this is Nikola motorsā¦ and that didnāt go well for them.
2 Likes
Butā¦ you just contradicted yourself in that sentence.
To define āshortfallā in this context, as I interpret it, would be that the nominee account does not contain enough āassetā to cater for the client amount minus what is owed to creditors.
If you are not interpreting Vanguards wording in this way, then we will not be able to come to an agreement here.
I guess you could have just sent an email to Trading212 to clarify rather than put mine and apparently your own assets at risk.
2 Likes