Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Final Frontier - Online Remote Trading -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: YxY who wrote (9935)	4/11/2002 9:21:10 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12617

That's absurd advice, from two perspectives. First, in terms of feasibility: in the overwhelming majority of cases, customers are going to be the last to know that their brokerage firm is having, or is on the threshold of having, financial troubles that imperil its' liquidity. And, wires will be out of the question once - if indeed insolvency is on the table - all the accounts are frozen and the firm put into receivership while a trustee is appointed. Second, because given that SIPC coverage is for $500,000, no more of which can be $100,000 of cash: if you had a $250,000 account, all of which was in stock, by going to cash (again, assuming that you could, which is unlikely) you've just reduced the amount you're (potentially) covered for from $250,000 to a maximum of $100,000. In fact, in one case where I personally knew an individual who thought his brokerage firm was about to go under, he - already having taken the smart approach and not having more than $400,000 in each account - sought to take positions in treasury bonds and leave as little cash in each account as possible. LP.