嗨大家好，使用台灣券商的複委託，SIPC到底是認定「每個台灣投資人」是一個個獨立個體，還是是「整個台灣券商」共享保額呢？過往板上有不少討論，但好像沒有共識，於是我就寄信問SIPC官方了，我個人結論是：「每個人」是獨立保額。細節如下：

       （一）Generally, a corporation organized under non-U.S. law and/or with its principal place of business outside the United States may qualify as a “customer” under the Securities Investor Protection Act and may be eligible for SIPC protection.

       （二）If a foreign brokerage firm has opened an account for its customers at a SIPC-member firm, and if the member firm is placed in SIPA liquidation, each of the foreign firm’s customers may be eligible for SIPC protection on a pass-through basis.

        這段在我的理解是：如果台灣券商幫「眾多台灣顧客」在是SIPC成員的美國券商開了「一個帳戶」，當今天此美國券商爆炸了，「每個台灣顧客」可能都會在 pass-through 的基礎上獲得保障。這個 pass-through basis是什麼意思我還真的是不太確定，我google起來推論意思大概就是台灣券商只負責當投資人與美國券商中間的橋樑，單純負責賣賣、轉交股息、等等，而沒有多做甚麼騷操作...吧? 有誤再請各位補充。

        （三）SIPC protection advances funds of up to $500,000 "PER CUSTOMER" (including a $250,000 limit for cash claims) to cover a shortfall in customer property. 以及 Within limits, SIPC expedites the return of missing customer property by protecting "EACH CUSTOMER" up to $500,000 for securities and cash. 我原先以為SIPC是認【帳戶】數量計算保額，但原來SPIC是認【customer】。

        綜合以上SIPC官網唯二有關複委託的說明，基本上就是台灣券商被視作 【A customer】，且若即便只開了「一個」帳戶放所有台灣人的資產，那【each of the foreign firm’s customers】都可以被SIPC保護。那問題來了，到底是全部的人被打包視作一個顧客，共享保額50萬，還是大家每個人都獨立50萬呢？

        If the books and records of either or both the non-U.S. firm or the U.S. SIPC member identify the investors to whom the cash and securities held in the omnibus account of the non-U.S. firm at the SIPC member are allocable.  The governing provision of law is Section 78fff-3(a)(5) of the Securities Investor Protection Act, which states:

        [N]o advance shall be made by SIPC to the trustee to pay or otherwise satisfy any net equity claim of any customer who is a broker or dealer or bank, other than to the extent that it shall be established to the satisfaction of the trustee, from the books and records of the debtor or from the books and records of a broker or dealer or bank, or otherwise, that the net equity claim of such broker or dealer or bank against the debtor arose out of transactions for customers of such broker or dealer or

bank (which customers are not themselves a broker or dealer or bank or a person described in paragraph (4)), in which event each such customer of such broker or dealer or bank shall be deemed a separate customer of the debtor.

        若我的理解無誤，就是只要券商有明確的文件紀錄，可以證明他的這些股票持有是受台灣眾多投資人委託而非券商自身的行為，那麽「每一個 （each such customer of such broker or dealer or bank）」台灣投資人都會被視為「獨立 (separate)」customer 保護。

        結論：就我的認知，是「每一個台灣散戶」有獨立的50萬保額喔！當然前提是台灣券商有紀錄清楚（這部分應該問題不大），只是清算清點會花比較多時間就是了。