QUOTE(aspartame @ Apr 26 2017, 10:42 AM)
Look at link below
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
SafetyI copied partly here for easier reading:
Why account segregation doesn’t mean safety
Segregation is effectively an honour system, where the broker is expected to do the right thing and keep client and firm assets separate. In some cases, regulators and exchanges will be checking up on their holdings regularly, but obviously they can’t keep an eye on what’s in which account all the time.
So the system is open to fraud and abuse. If your stock broker decides to sell or move shares from nominee accounts, they will be able to do so.
And of course, fraud like this is most likely to happen when the firm is on the edge of collapse, needs cash or assets to meet its own liabilities and the temptation to ‘borrow’ client assets for a while to tide them over becomes too great – or simply when the management decides it’s time to loot client assets and retire somewhere with no extradition treaty.
So the point at which segregation is likely to offer no protection is just when you need it most.
It’s also worth being aware that even if there hasn’t been deliberate fraud, when a stock broker collapses its records often turn out to be shaky. So establishing which clients own what in the nominee account may take a lot of work and assets may sometimes turn out to have been misplaced in the turmoil.
So while the industry often presents segregation as the thing that guarantees the safety of your investments, it’s nothing of the kind. The safety it offers is limited and the system is close to being the absolute minimum that could be accepted, rather than added protection for investors.
As you should know, many people doing it does not mean it is safe. There is herd mentality also. And they do it for various reasons - convenience could be one of them. Or maybe those shares are pledged and the counter party do not want the owners to be able to transfer out freely?

I am not disputing CDS may be safer than nominee account.
But nominee account is not as "dangerous" as taught.
It may be a little more riskier, then I would say yes.
If stock broker collapse, then nominee account should be intact, as whatever in the nominee account is not a part of broker's balance sheet.
The reason of introducing trust account within brokers and investment banks (last time on the 80's 90's, you just bank in directly into their account instead of trust account, even more risky) is to segregate and minimize the risk of "abusing" and protect investors more.
If broker/investment bank did "touch" the nominee account/trust account, it is a fraud already.
And it can be easily traced and found out through auditing process as trust account and nominee account are segregated.
Whenever we open an account with a bank, we trust the bank.
Whenever we open an account with investment bank through nominee account, we trust the investment bank.
Whenever we do business with customer and give credit term, we trust the customer to pay when due.
Let's take the case with CDS account,
Whenever we send buy/sell order to investment bank, we trust they will execute the order as sent and credit the shares we bought and pay back us the proceed of selling.
Mind that CDS account is attached with investment bank/broker house.
You can't sell your shares in A broker CDS through B broker.
At the sametimes, even with CDS account
if the broker or a remisier is "desperate" the broker/remisier also can "use" client account to execute any orders, (fraud still can happen)
I think it is a bit "over-worry", but at the same time I am not disputing CDS is more safer.
So getting a reputable investment bank or brokers may be more important as compared to nominee vs CDS account.