5% is pretty ridiculous to be fair. Did freetrade try to reduce these fees?
Cloud cube provide minimal value for the fee they charge, take zero risk, put all the risks on investors using their platform, but take a cut of any gains anyway. And a huge cut at that, I get freetrade isn’t crowedcube. It’s pretty negative for investors though
Maybe freetrade can move away from this platform in the future
Not to sound to negative, just hoping this setup changes to a better company than crowedcube in the future
With EIS relief (not applicable this round) I suppose you can cover some of that fee if it’s successful. But the point is from crowedcubes perspective it’s win win.
If the company fails you lose all your money, crowedcube doesnt. If the company is a success, you do well, but crowedcube takes a huge cut even though they never had any stake or risk
Keep in mind crowedcube already take a fee for the initial investment as well
I do like that whenever the note converts into shares, the shares will have voting and pre-emption rights (assuming Freetrade don’t waive this) - unlike shares I hold from previous rounds.
Yeah I know these investor companies often prefer their holdings to make use of each others products and often push them to do so as well. So it wouldn’t surprise me if they’re told to use crowedcube regardless.
The fee is still ridiculous, limits the amount I consider investing tbh
Transactions made on Freetrade have increased compared to competitors. Given the Aim stocks favoured by so many you would expect that a platform like Freetrade is great for people who want to buy 10,000 stocks at 1 p right? What would have been more interesting is the aggregate value of the transactions compared to other brokers.
Number of subscriptions they have compared to “others in the industry” which is defined to companies like Spotify. But for this no comparison was made to existing Fintech brokers. In particular no mention was made of Interactive Investor or IKBR which have 100% recurring subscription revenue. What Freetrade said was c. 70 % of people have more than £10,000 subscribe. No figure was given for the number of people with more than £10000 in the account.
The present CTO is the COO. Personally I don’t think that not having a CTO as such is a big issue for this company. Their issues are much bigger - we can see this from the kind of bread and butter problems that they have. Any personal with a technology background can see that this company has a great deal of technical debt … and that is why some things which should have happened quickly haven’t happened.
You could argue that technical debt is a function of not having a CTO. It might be contributory but in this case my opinion whether or not you have a CTO once you begin to accumulate technical debt you are are ensuring lots of problems down the line.
My personal opinion is that the main way they will cut costs now is by cutting down the tech team and hiring in Hungary instead. This is not unreasonable. We can see that several other fintechs are taking a similar position.
no comparison was made to existing Fintech brokers
There is a comparison to one notable fintech broker in there that has far lower subs penetration even when comparing % penetration for all FT customers (we’re double)
There was also comparison to a notable neo-bank, the number for which also includes their business accounts + premium accounts.
Umm I missed this. I did not see any comparison (in the context of subscriptions) to the two well known brokers who do provide subs IKBR and II. It is pointless mentioning brokerage companies that make most of their money by design and business model as %. I wait to see the slides when they come out again to see which company I missed.
The issue here is brokerage funding and as investors we are interested in the direct competitive market. I know the slides mentioned Monzo when talking about subs but come on …
The comparison is with a range of other consumer
businesses - finance and others - that run a freemium model. Those two you mentioned require 100% subscription by design.
Ok thanks. That was exactly my point. The subscription comparison was not to other brokers which is to me personally is the relevant thing.
I 100% agree recurring revenues are a big deal and is really what the CFO wanted to stress - but even then here the comparison is only made using Freetrade accounts greater than £10K (which is superb at 77%). So the challenge as often people have said here is to move people out of the basic plan category and/or figure out ways to make more money out people in the basic category.
Cant remember from last night but did they mention about the recent delays in adding stock requests? You can pretty much go through the board and see a decent chunk requested months if not years ago, and still no acknowledgement if they’ll be processed?
I know they mentioned complex instruments? Are these included because we haven’t been informed they are?
Just a few,
HYUD - Requested in 2018. Not added.
ALPP - Requested in 2020. Not added.
CTL - Requested in April 2022. Not added.
MC Mining - Requested in April 2022. Not added.
CPH2 - Requested in April 2022. Not added.
