To be honest I think people are more likely to lose way more money due to their own investment decisions than via securities lending.
I see this argument has developed into two sides.
People who calculate the risks inherent in securities lending and feel itās no different to any other risk factor in the stock market.
People who want zero risks on themselves and want other people to pick up the tab if it ever goes pear shaped.
Meā¦ Iām mergh ā¦
I think you missed the point.
Risk that you take investing is the risk you choose to take. Which is of course higher compared to security lending.
The difference is that with security lending you have no choice to take the risk or not. Itās an unwanted minimum risk with no reward
Years ago I bought Laura Ashley (Ticker was Ā£ALY) I lost everything re: this position when the company went bust.
This risk is different to lending risk.
Yes theoretically Ā£SHEL and Ā£BP (or ticker of your choice) could go bust, but thatās something thatās in the unwritten contract of investing.
Share lending without the assurance of a blank cheque if all goes wrong is a different style of risk.
Incidentally do Trading 212 offer blank cheques for losses on share lending?
The terms and conditions donāt actually state this though as far as i could see? Is this something that would change in the terms when available?
Also noted that the terms and conditions explicitly state that by not agreeing to the new terms all our freetrade accounts will be terminated.
24.2.2.
All customers must provide us with express consent to Securities Lending. Without such consent, we will not be able to provide you with the Services under this Agreement and any existing Freetrade Account(s) you hold will be terminated in accordance with section 33 of this Agreement. Any securities held in your Freetrade ISA will not be eligible for Securities Lending.
This is contrary to what freetrade staff have posted here
Can someone confirm that the terms and conditions are actually correct and our accounts will be terminated if we donāt agree to the new terms? If this isnt correct, will the terms be updated to reflect the actual situation?
At the end of the day, the terms and conditions are the source of truth, and if freetrade staff are contradicting this it should be made clear.
right now despite what freetrade staff say, the terms are telling us that our accounts will be terminated.
I guess it makes sense due to the nature of securities lending since you no longer own the assets you bought, but worth pointing out a well to people reading that you also lose any protections of a custodian/nominee structure. It is effectively a different setup.
No more one upping 212 by knowing where your assets are located anymore, its now in the same boat 
Are you sure thatās correct, @Eden ?
Based on my understanding of the below, you are still protected under the nominee structure, itās just that the collateral is held in your name instead of the shares.
Youāre shares arenāt since they are no longer your shares, this is described in section 24.2.5b, use of custodians will not apply to lent out shares.
you become the beneficial owner of collateral, yes, which may or may not hold the same value. but the effect is the same, you can no longer guarantee your shares are being held with a custodian, so must assume this protection is effectively no longer available to you. This was, however minor, a notable diffiencsiator from 212
Yeah I still see that as having protection under the nominee structure. As in the event Freetrade went bust, I would still own a mix of shares & collateral that wouldnāt be touched by a liquidator.
Agree there is a difference, but I donāt think you can say you lose all protections.
See I aināt so sure about the 85k as the FCS judt bailed out MCE and they paid out 90%, which Iām still waiting for the money to arrive.
You are not comparing like for like. The compensation you are referring is about insurance policies and the āclaims relating to return of premiumā where the level of protection is 90% and is pro-rated.
The up to 85K relates to cash deposits in banks etc
Hey @Darren33 and others on this point, I want to reconfirm that after 1 June, if you have not accepted our terms, we will restrict buys on your account (although you will still be able to sell and/or hold existing positions).
Hey all,
As @Viktor said above, ārevenue solves all known problemsā.
Weāre looking to build a strong, sustainable business, which based on the feedback, the vast majority of our community understands and wholly approves of.
We will lock the thread for the day as it feels like itās going in circles for now.
Alex
This topic was automatically opened after 22 hours.
So to clarify is this an unofficial stance or will the terms and conditions be updated to reflect this?
Iām confirming that this is the action which we will be taking after 1 June.
If someone provides consent before 1st of June. Does this mean that it can happen instantaneously?
I assume you mean securities being lent out?
The short answer is no, as we are still finishing off the build. We have just pushed the terms update out now to give an extended grace period.
When lending starts, you will be provided with details in your monthly statement.
Thanks. Is there any reason the terms were agreeing (or not agreeing) to say the opposite of this though? If the account will be put in a sell only state why does it say all of our accounts will be closed?
Weāre clarifying that one, but rest assured the action we will be taking is as I have confirmed. Thanks!