"I think that attempting to document a false intent to invest in securities' Thanks for your answer, but not sure where the above comes in - I actually do (now) invest almost exclusively in stocks through IB.
How would this be interpreted if one has funds in an all-in-one account, but they are used (thus far) exclusively for stocks and options? I maintain the option to trade futures, forex and worldwide stocks in my IB account in case some great opportunity catches my eye, but thus far have only traded US stocks and options from that account. Unclear and probably will be litigated in the event, or has SIPC clarified this point?
The USA is third worldish deregulated s$%t... Get a dual citizenship or marry a Canadian and park your $ in Canada. Canadians got their MFGlobal money back in a week, the US bagholders didn't. POS politicians are cannibalizing the US, same as Rome in it's latter days.
I see no problem. You are covered. The issue was about futures traders, doing no stock trading, but trying to get SIPC coverage via sweeping of idle funds to a "securities" account that was otherwise inactive.
One of futures benefits: leverage. Allows you to keep only so much on the actual trading account but trade good size.
Thanks. With no bona fide securities trading, I would expect claims would be denied. For those who purely trade futures, I would suggest maintaining the bare minimum necessary in the brokers account, and even then if the amount is significant to you, spread it around 2 or 3 brokers. Tedious to be sure, but infinitely preferable to losing it all through malfeasance or recklessness.