Dod1010,

Having just read on another Board about the benefit of splitting your ISA between several providers I am now thoroughly alarmed

As one of the contributors to your alarm, let me reassure you. By now you should have read the thread PD pointed you to and realised that a) the chances of a major provider getting into trouble are very very small, b) even if they do your shares are safe in a legally seperate nominee account, and c) in the event of fraud & your shares never existed, the FSCS covers the first £50,000.

There is another problem I worry about though. Do you rely on the income from your shares? Can you survive for the length of time it may take to retrieve your shares? This was the issue I thought deep and hard about over a year ago while planning a step-change in the size of my portfolio. I searched the whole of the Fool for prvious discussions, Gengulphus' post on the subject was the most comprehensive treatment of the subject. The only change in the regulations since his post is that the FSCS protection is now 100% of the first £50,000.
http://boards.fool.co.uk/my-wifes-hyp-is-now-exeeding-30000-...

The more accounts you run the more secure you feel, at the expense of complicating your life. For me the balance of a secure regular income v. extra work involved worked out best at running two brokers. The bulk of my portfolio is split equally between two ISAs with different providers. In addition I have a legacy of some certificates from my early investing days. There's also a third broker for the odd purchase outside the ISAs, for when a fire-sale like last August occurs after I've used up my annual ISA contribution.

In the extremely unlikely event of a major provider going bust, no more than a third of my dividend income would be interrupted. I am confident it would be restored eventually, though it may take months (years?) to sort out. In the mean time I would be able to survive on the remaining income.

HTH

Bree.