> SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member brokerage firm.
It sounds like SIPC protects against loss of cash for the purpose of purchasing securities _and_ the loss of the securities themselves. So in this case it sounds like by sweeping customers' cash into a money market fund, SIPC protection would apply to the money market fund investment.
I think Robinhood's issue might have been that they didn't actually do any securities trading and tried to just rely on SIPC insurance for customers' cash that's just sitting around.
Regardless of if my interpretation is correct, I'd be _really_ surprised if they just somehow ignored the whole Robinhood fiasco and managed to make the exact same mistake on the regulatory side.
That distinction doesn't make sense to me, for one simple reason. For Robinhood to promise a return of 3%, they must have been sweeping the money into some sort of investment vehicle. But the SIPC still said they weren't covered.
I wouldn't be so sure, there was the rather plausible speculation that the 3% from Robinhood was a loss leader that wasn't meant to last long, in order to drum up hype for the launch. They could very well have been planning to earn the fed rate and fronting the difference for a period of time and then bait & switching (and/or introducing some premium plan to make up the difference).
Also, money market funds, which are generally considered cash-equivalents, don't usually yield north 3% either afaik, and I can imagine putting customers deposits in riskier higher yielding investments could have also have ran foul of banking regulations.
Brex is using neither of these strategies here as far as I can tell, and they're providing a decent amount of transparency into how the funds are going to be handled, so it should be fairly easy for regulators to review. If regulators do take issue with their strategy, I suspect we'll probably hear about it in the news soon enough. In the mean time, it's still an early access product, so it's not like we can use it immediately anyways (I'll definitely be signing up though).
From the first sentence under the "What are securities" section:
> SIPC protects stocks, bonds, Treasury securities, certificates of deposit, mutual funds, money market mutual funds and certain other investments as "securities."
Well, I'm not going to take responsibility for reconciling the inconsistency here.
People said at the time that Robin Hood was offering a money market fund by another name, using short term investments to produce that 3%. The head of the SIPC took exception to the idea that the accounts would be covered, as I quoted. I can't say where the confusion lies.
> SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member brokerage firm.
It sounds like SIPC protects against loss of cash for the purpose of purchasing securities _and_ the loss of the securities themselves. So in this case it sounds like by sweeping customers' cash into a money market fund, SIPC protection would apply to the money market fund investment.
I think Robinhood's issue might have been that they didn't actually do any securities trading and tried to just rely on SIPC insurance for customers' cash that's just sitting around.
Regardless of if my interpretation is correct, I'd be _really_ surprised if they just somehow ignored the whole Robinhood fiasco and managed to make the exact same mistake on the regulatory side.