Custodian

(redirected from custodianships)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia.

Custodian

Either (1) a bank, agent, trust company, or other organization responsible for safeguarding financial assets, or (2) the individual who oversees the mutual fund assets of a minor's custodial account.

Custodian

A brokerage or other financial institution that holds and manages a client's securities or other assets on his/her behalf. This reduces the risk of the client losing his/her assets or having them stolen. They are also available to the brokerage to sell at the client's demand. Like a bank, a custodian provides an investor a place to store assets with little risk. Brokerages normally require a fee for custodial services. See also: Safekeeping.

custodian

An organization, typically a commercial bank, that holds in custody and safekeeping someone else's assets. These assets may be cash, securities, or virtually anything of value.

Custodian.

A custodian is legally responsible for ensuring that an item or person is safe and secure. In investment terms, a custodian is the financial services company that maintains electronic records of financial assets or has physical possession of specific securities.

The custodian's client may be another institution, such as a mutual fund, a corporation, or an individual. For example, with an individual retirement account (IRA), the custodian is the bank, brokerage firm, or other financial services company that holds your account.

Similarly, the Depository Trust Company, a subsidiary of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC), is the custodian of millions of stock certificates held in its vaults.

References in periodicals archive ?
ENACT A STATE STATUTE TO FORMALLY RECOGNIZE INDIAN CUSTODIANSHIP AS A PATHWAY TO PERMANENCY FOR CHILD IN NEED OF AID CASES
Lastly, this Section explains the cultural and practical benefits of creating an Indian custodianship as a form of permanency for Alaska's child protection system.
First, child protection cases can already be resolved by creating an Indian custodianship. However, creating an Indian custodianship requires an unnecessary hurdle--transfer to a Tribal court.
Third, a state statute would provide an affirmative answer to whether a child protection case can be resolved through creating an Indian custodianship. Without affirmative authority, cases where this is an option can languish in litigation, resulting in more open cases for the already overburdened OCS, and most importantly, more children needlessly spending more time in the foster care system rather than achieving permanency through an Indian custodianship.
A natural extension of this Compact would be a state statute recognizing the culturally appropriate case resolution of establishing an Indian custodianship. This strengthens state-Tribal relations because a state statute is more than an acknowledgement of a problem: it addresses the problem.
Furthermore, the statute should address what is required from OCS: either the Department's agreement or non-opposition, or a court order authorizing the creation of the Indian custodianship over the OCS's objections.
Requiring OCS consent based on an OCS-approved homestudy unnecessarily complicates permanency planning through Indian custodianship. No state or federal subsidy would attach to an Indian custodianship, so the stringent standards required to receive a financial subsidy should not be applied.