"...I can't help but think Aus is operating under a slightly different model (for those with chess ownership as opposed to custodianship).If anyone wants to chime in and correct me if I'm wrong, please do so, here is my assumption of why Australia is in a unique place and likely to be unaffected by this scenario.- With direct ownership through chess, the brokers can go bust but holders will still own their shares"
My comment: If you hold NUMBERED paper share certificates, they are yours, and proof of your ownership. If your broker fails, you should have a sound legal case to have your shares returned to you. If you dont, you only have your online broker record. Your shares are therefore pooled, you are the "beneficial owner", meaning you can buy and sell, be paid dividends. vote and attend company meetings, and take capital gains, or losses, on sale. In the event of the failure of the system and your broker, you are an unsecured creditor at the very bottom of the pecking order. At the top of the pecking order are the "Too big to fail" banks in New York, London and elsewhere. The banker cabal will take the lot to protect itself from their losses in their derivatives exposures. Legally you have no case. 23.
