3 ms·

there is little he can do, as cash in brokerage account is obviously protected by SIPC. Downvoters: you are confused. When you move cash to a brokerage account

there is little he can do, as cash in brokerage account is obviously protected by SIPC. Downvoters: you are confused. When you move cash to a brokerage account, it's protected by SIPC. It's a loophole, because this protection was not intended to be for permanent cash parking in an account - but there is nothing that can stop that protection from taking effect. SIPC statute is clear, cash in account is protected. You don't have to invest it, you just have to move it there with the intent of at some point maybe investing it, which is impossible to verify.

arbuge 8y ago
You don't seem to have read the article: "“The statute that we administer says that we protect money with a brokerage firm that is used for the purchase of securities,” he added. “On Robinhood’s help page, it says that you don’t need to invest to use Robinhood checking and savings, that statement is wrong. If you deposit money for any other purpose, it is not protected.” If they disagree it's a brokerage account, and it's certainly not being sold as such, then it seems to me there's alot he can do.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ineedasername 8y ago
I think there's a lot the SIPC president can do if they believe a product doesn't fall under their jurisdiction. Specifically, he can decide SIPC won't act when the firm goes belly up. Disagree with that interpretation? Well the firm doesn't exist any more, they can't fight it. Feel free to mount your own legal offensive against SIPC. If you can get to your money. But that aside, here's the point you're missing: Robinhood is marketing this as a product that can be used independently of brokerage purposes. SIPC covers brokerage firms and, yes, cash in such accounts. But the SIPC president is arguing that it's not a brokerage account if it's marketed as an independent product for people with no intention of using it as such.
- vasilipupkin 8y ago
  ok, so if they changed the marketing and not the substance of their offering, then voila, it is covered by insurance and pays 3%? in that case, he can't do much, correct?

arbuge 8y ago

You don't seem to have read the article: "“The statute that we administer says that we protect money with a brokerage firm that is used for the purchase of securities,” he added. “On Robinhood’s help page, it says that you don’t need to invest to use Robinhood checking and savings, that statement is wrong. If you deposit money for any other purpose, it is not protected.” If they disagree it's a brokerage account, and it's certainly not being sold as such, then it seems to me there's alot he can do.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ineedasername 8y ago

I think there's a lot the SIPC president can do if they believe a product doesn't fall under their jurisdiction. Specifically, he can decide SIPC won't act when the firm goes belly up. Disagree with that interpretation? Well the firm doesn't exist any more, they can't fight it. Feel free to mount your own legal offensive against SIPC. If you can get to your money. But that aside, here's the point you're missing: Robinhood is marketing this as a product that can be used independently of brokerage purposes. SIPC covers brokerage firms and, yes, cash in such accounts. But the SIPC president is arguing that it's not a brokerage account if it's marketed as an independent product for people with no intention of using it as such.

vasilipupkin 8y ago
ok, so if they changed the marketing and not the substance of their offering, then voila, it is covered by insurance and pays 3%? in that case, he can't do much, correct?