Your Progress 0%

If Your Investment Platform Fails

Most people who have thought about this at all assume there is a compensation scheme, in the way there now is for bank deposits. There is not, and the protection that does exist works on an entirely different principle.

What protects an investor is not insurance. It is that your assets are not the platform's assets, so a failure of the business is not supposed to reach them.

Calculate.co.nz is proud to be partnered with Health Based Building, a leader in sustainable and health-conscious building innovation. With over a century of experience, they develop high-performance systems like Foreverbreathe Specification, Magnum Board, and Foreverbreathe Paints to support energy-efficient, non-toxic living environments. Their commitment to healthier homes aligns with our belief that informed choices lead to better outcomes for Kiwi households.
Calculate.co.nz partner: Health Based Building
Advertise on this page

The three things to remember

The Depositor Compensation Scheme covers deposits, not investments. Protection comes from custody and segregation. And market losses are never covered by anything.

The distinction that does the work

When you deposit money at a bank, the bank owns the money and owes you a debt. That is why deposit protection was needed: if the bank fails, you are a creditor. The Depositor Compensation Scheme now covers that up to $100,000 per depositor at each licensed deposit taker.

An investment platform is meant to work the other way. Your shares and units are supposed to be held for you rather than owned by the platform, usually through a custodian, and held on trust so they are separate from the platform's own property. If the business fails, those assets should not form part of what its creditors can reach.

Bank deposit Investment platform
Who owns the asset The bank owes you a debt You do, held via a custodian
If the business fails You are a creditor Assets should be outside the estate
What protects you The compensation scheme Custody, segregation and trust status
Cover for a fall in value Not applicable None, ever
Nothing protects you from the market

This needs saying because the two get conflated. Custody arrangements protect you from the platform failing. They do nothing at all if your investments simply fall in value, which is the ordinary risk you accepted when investing. No scheme, structure or licence anywhere in New Zealand insures you against a market decline, and any offer that appears to should be treated as a warning.

The questions worth asking of your platform

Who is the custodian, and are they independent of the platform?
Are client assets held on trust and segregated from the platform's own assets?
Is my holding recorded individually or pooled with other clients?
Is the platform licensed by the Financial Markets Authority, and for what?
Who audits the custody arrangements, and how often?
What happens to my holdings if the platform ceases to operate?
All six should be answerable from the disclosure documents. If they are not, that is the answer.

An independent custodian matters more than any other item on that list. Where the same business both manages your money and holds it, the separation that protects you is a matter of internal discipline rather than of structure, and internal discipline is exactly what fails in the cases that end badly.

Pooled versus individually registered

Many platforms hold shares in a pooled nominee structure, where the custodian holds a single line of the shares and the platform's records determine who owns what. This is normal, it is efficient, and it is how most low-cost platforms operate.

It does mean your ownership depends on the accuracy of those records. Where holdings are registered individually in your own name, your claim is evidenced independently of the platform. The pooled model is not unsafe, and the individually registered model has one fewer link in the chain, which is worth knowing when comparing platforms.

What actually goes wrong

Genuine platform failures with proper custody are rare, and when the structure holds, the outcome is usually inconvenience rather than loss: the assets are identified and transferred to another provider, over a period of weeks or months, while you cannot trade.

Scenario Likely outcome
Licensed platform fails, custody intact Assets transferred, trading frozen meanwhile
Records are poor or reconciliation has failed Delay and cost, and possible shortfall
Assets were never segregated as claimed You are a creditor, and recovery is uncertain
The platform was fraudulent throughout The assets may never have existed
Markets fall sharply Not a platform matter, and never covered

The bottom three rows are the real risk, and only the last is unavoidable. The middle two are the reason the licensing question is worth asking before you invest rather than afterwards.

Check the register, and check it is the same entity

The Financial Service Providers Register lists who is registered, and the Financial Markets Authority publishes who is licensed and for what. Fraudulent operations frequently borrow the name of a genuine licensed firm, so check that the entity you are dealing with, the website you are on and the bank account you are asked to pay into all belong to the same registered business. Clone operations are one of the most common patterns the FMA warns about.

Practical steps that cost nothing

Keep your own records of holdings and transactions, independent of the platform.
Download statements periodically, since a failed platform's website goes offline.
Check the FMA licence before the first deposit, not after a problem.
Spread genuinely large holdings across more than one provider.
Confirm the payment account belongs to the entity you believe you are dealing with.
The first two cost an hour a year and are worth the most if anything goes wrong.

One caution about diversifying platforms

Spreading across providers reduces your exposure to any one of them failing, and it multiplies the fixed costs, the accounts to secure and the records to keep. For most people the greater risk is not platform failure but the errors that come from a complicated arrangement they no longer track. Two providers is a reasonable answer for a large holding. Six is usually worse than one.

What this guide does not cover

Custody and licensing arrangements differ between providers and between product types, and the disclosure documents for your specific platform govern rather than any general description. KiwiSaver schemes have their own supervisory arrangements not detailed here. This is general information rather than financial or legal advice, and none of it addresses whether any investment is suitable for you.

Related guides and tools

Test Your Knowledge

Ten questions on custody, segregation and what protection actually exists.

1. Does the Depositor Compensation Scheme cover investments?
No, it covers deposits at licensed deposit takers
Yes, up to $100,000 per platform
Yes, for licensed platforms only
Yes, but only for New Zealand shares
2. What protects an investor if a platform fails?
An insurance policy held by the platform
Custody, segregation and trust status of the assets
A government compensation fund for investors
The platform's own capital reserves
3. How does a bank deposit differ legally from a platform holding?
There is no legal difference between them
The bank holds your money on trust
The platform owes you a debt as well
The bank owes you a debt, the platform holds for you
4. What does custody protect you from?
Both platform failure and market losses
Market losses but not platform failure
Neither, it is an administrative matter only
The platform failing, not the market falling
5. Why does an independent custodian matter most?
Independent custodians charge lower fees
It is required for every licensed platform
It guarantees faster asset transfers
Otherwise separation relies on internal discipline
6. What is a pooled nominee structure?
Shares registered individually in each client's name
A fund that combines several asset classes
One line of shares held, with platform records allocating them
An arrangement where clients share investment returns
7. What is the likely outcome when a licensed platform fails with custody intact?
Total loss of the holdings
Immediate compensation up to $100,000
Assets transferred, with trading frozen meanwhile
Assets converted to cash and returned
8. What clone pattern does the FMA warn about?
Platforms copying each other's fee structures
Fraudsters borrowing a genuine licensed firm's name
Duplicate accounts opened in one client's name
Identical funds sold under different labels
9. Why download statements periodically?
Providers charge for old statements
Inland Revenue requires monthly copies
A failed platform's website goes offline
Statements are deleted after twelve months
10. What is the caution about spreading across many platforms?
Complexity you no longer track is its own risk
Diversifying platforms is never worthwhile
Regulators limit you to two providers
Fees fall as the number of accounts rises

Sources: the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 and the licensing obligations it imposes on managed investment scheme managers and discretionary investment management services, including requirements around independent custody and the holding of client assets on trust; and the Deposit Takers Act 2023 Depositor Compensation Scheme, which covers deposits and not investments. Arrangements differ between providers, so read the specific disclosure documents for the platform you use.

Related tools and guides