Page 1 of 1

MF Global customers not covered by SIPC?

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:01 pm
by cabronjames
I heard an interview on youtube of Gerald Celente, claiming that he had an account at MF Global.  From what I understood from Celente, Celente claimed to use his MF Global account to apparently buy gold futures, with the goal to eventually take delivery of physical gold.  Celente claimed he only got back 70% of his account.

My question is why weren't the MF Global accounts subject to SIPC protections?  Is this because futures or other derivatives are not protected by SIPC?  Are the "vanilla" non-derivatives PP component ETFs/index mutual funds at a "vanilla" custodian like Vanguard or Fidelity 100% protected by SIPC, up to the $500K SIPC limit?  Am I missing some obvious concept here?

Re: MF Global customers not covered by SIPC?

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:05 pm
by craigr
Commodity futures contracts are NOT covered by SIPC. Yet another reason to not use commodity futures in the Permanent Portfolio:

http://www.sipc.org/how/brochure.cfm
Investments protected by SIPC. The cash and securities – such as stocks and bonds – held by a customer at a financially troubled brokerage firm are protected by SIPC. Among the investments that are ineligible for SIPC protections are commodity futures contracts (unless in portfolio margining accounts and defined as customer property under the Securities Investor Protection Act), fixed annuity contracts, and currency, as well as investment contracts (such as limited partnerships) that are not registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933.
Stocks, bonds and cash equivalents should be covered.

Re: MF Global customers not covered by SIPC?

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:10 pm
by cabronjames
are gold &/or silver closed-end funds (such as GTU, CEF), or ETFs (SGOL, IAU) covered by SIPC?

Re: MF Global customers not covered by SIPC?

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:14 pm
by craigr
I am not a lawyer, but if they are a registered SEC security they should be. And those are. So I am *assuming* they would be.