jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Mar 6, 2018 10:03:09 GMT
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624 
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Mar 6, 2018 12:11:56 GMT
Ahh ok, we were talking at crossed purposes then.
EDIT: That was at bigfoot.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Mar 6, 2018 13:18:55 GMT
So you could say we have a similar level of protection to other financial platforms such as share trading platforms? If I invest on a share dealing platform, but my money is never put into a client account and instead goes towards the purchase of a new yacht of the Directors, I'm don't have any recourse to any compensation? Even though the FCA has said the company is fully authorised and regulated ? I wonder if compulsory insurance against fraud would be a good idea. The risk (and thus the premiums) much surely be low for such a thing? My understanding is that fraud by my FCA authorised stockbroker in a situation where it subsequently went bust would entitle me to make a claim to the FSCS. P2P firms are not covered by the scheme, but conventional investment firms are, as are financial advisers and consumer banks. In some respects the FSCS *is* the insurance policy, since all members of the scheme pay into it - that's how it's funded. Yep I agree with your analogy of the fscs as insurance. My understanding is also that the fscs is the last resort. Any firm part of the fscs also has to have in place mandatory professional indemity cover so as to limit where possible claims on the fscs. It would be good if the FCA mandated professional indemnity insurance and D&O insurance for p2p platforms. That would seem a good middle ground rather than having cover from the fscs which would add a lot of costs to p2p platforms.
|
|
