Yes saw this previously, but it doesn’t explain why some individual stocks that are currently free are then moving to “plus”
Would you pay £10pm for what you are currently getting for free as a founding member? If so, why?
You mean would I pay if I did not have free access?
I am investing in large market cap stocks with 2-3 years time horizon. So, free tier would be fine by me currently.
Do I think that the current form is worth £10 per month?
Have shared my thoughts in a separate thread and liked comments that seemed useful. I would wait till the final launch with the full list of features to update if needed. The team takes all the feedback into account. Noticed a reference to live pricing on building freetrade which I don’t remember seeing before.
Has anyone signed up to Plus through the app yet ? I can’t find the feature to add stop losses or limit orders ?
Thanks, hadnt seen your summary post.
Reading this and other related threads makes my head spin. FT don’t have an easy job digesting all the opinions into a growth strategy that suits everyone.
I wonder if this community accurately represents the user base/target market.
Back in June, there were only about 7k on the forum, perhaps a bit more now - How should Freetrade boost the growth of this community?
Compare that to a total of 230k customers, so I’d guess not a very accurate representation.
I’m not directly affected by this (yet), as the stocks I’m invested in are all within the ‘free’ tier.
But; I believe all stocks / ETFs should be available within the free tier, and the plus offering should simply offer advanced features, and insights for more serious investors.
Although I’m a recently new investor, this business approach puts me off the premise of Freetrade; being ‘free’. Placing existing free features behind a paywall is damaging.
It includes the reason they fall under plus.
I think that idea that that’s what free ever meant was a bad move and incorrect. Freetrade has never been free in price, and it was never going to continue the way it has. It’s unsustainable.
The only good thing is that free has more than one meaning so they can always pívot to the idea of freedom than free in price (the latter being and idiotic premise to base a business on)
Never understood why some people are obsessing over the name.
FT is operating under a freemium model where basic features are free and there is a subscription for premium features (plus).
The UK instant trades are free! and US stocks are on the cheaper spectrum of the market (10x cheaper compared to some leading brokers).
In France one the 4 largest Telecom operators is called literally ‘Free’. You can Google it. Guess some people will just go crazy if they start paying for telecom services to this provider. Some people buy phones from a company with a fruit in its name. Unbelievable.
There is also a question of giving too much choice to new investors coming on the platform and making them feel lost. This community is skewed towards a more experienced crowd.
The mission is to get everyone investing and even with the current implementation of Plus a new investor will get to chose from more than 1200!! securities not counting any ETF.
If a new investor comes on the platform and gets burned with a small market cap stock will he or she stay in the long term investment game? Both the investor and the platform lose in this case.
Please, launch a business offering all of your services and products for free and keep us posted in 6 months.
The point about existing holders of Plus stocks losing access to increasing their positions is valid and has already been raised.
I don’t think this matters as much. You can always help this along with curation. HL does this fine.
I don’t really consider it a valid reason for having a premium model. I think making money is a valid reason
I think because initially free as in free price was the kind of view they were giving off. Which doesn’t make sense if there are costs. But I’ve always considered that a bad view to give off and never thought of is as a valid business model.
After reading all of the comments and looking at some of what the competition is doing I still cannot understand the strategy
I do see the need for a Plus account where you get some more feature, maybe a better portfolio analysis, maybe batter FX prices, etc but I still cannot understand why FT would paywall certain stock names? What happens if they paywall 10 companies and then a competitor decides to make maybe not all of them free, but let’s say 8 out of 10 free? If that happens at least half of FT users will start using the competitors’ platform as well or even move to them completely.
Also what is the target customer here? Investors or Traders?
Investors are more likely to buy and hold long term. As such if I buy something and plan to fold for 10 years I will always look for a company that will ask me for the least amount of fees in that 10 year span.
Traders (at least the ones I know) most likely use more that one platform (for various reasons such as market analysis etc) to try and take advantage of different features offered by different platforms. As such a trader will look to reduce cost and avoid fees
What would definitely be something very useful to both parties is having better tools to analyse the market and company fundamentals etc. Because at the end of the day I believe most of us use other platforms and apps to create our strategies and most likely those cost money as well.
I am more than willing to pay a subscription to something that I use daily to create a strategy, read news, get live price updates (such as WSJ, Bloomberg, Barron’s, TradingView etc) … not sure how much I would be willing to pay for a broker/app that I open once a week (maybe even less) for 5 minutes and click buy or sell. FT needs to go beyond the legacy view of what brokers used to be (especially seeing that Robo traders are coming to the market such as ProQuant and darQube and we might start placing orders via APIs)
Both? Why does it need to be one or the other?
I think most retail inventors are like to be buying on an ongoing basis rather than a one off. If you’re buying shares once and holding you might be better off with HL and paying just the one dealing charge to buy and the one dealing charge to sell in a few decades.
For long term investors, I feel like this can be interpreted as just a flat fee for trading plus stocks. For long-term investors you can just get plus for 1-4 times a year to buy more of the plus stocks that you want to hold (10-40£ p.a.). This makes it an affordable price as compared to HL etc.
I think its the fact that they have struggled with low volume, low liquidity stocks in the past and with the constant requests for obscure AIM stocks, (eg miners) they don’t want to keep ignoring requests but equally can’t afford to offer all of them without some more income. If it was as simple as clicking a button, all stocks would be free on all brokers. The few that they’re moving to plus is an issue to be solved but beyond that we could see a huge universe of stocks beyond most basic (freemium) brokers.
Dont forget Viktor’s dream of all markets, if they add Europe to free and some asian and more obscure to plus, it will begin to make more sense. All ‘ifs’ though I realise…
The Freetrade name carries a lot of weight in this situation actually - particularly because the naming convention speaks directly to value (free) and trading (trade). Comparing this to a brand with an abstract title such as Apple, doesn’t particularly have any relevance. Nor is another companies’ use of the word ‘Free’ - an excuse to get away with not exercising it.
I appreciate that FT needs paid elements to be a viable business (I currently pay for the Stocks and Shares ISA). But I don’t agree with FT taking existing offerings away from the free service, and pay walling them.
Indeed, I am already paying for the ISA (free with some other brokers) so there is a case for leaving the stocks available in the standard plan.
FT making money is a necessity - everyone accepts that but how they make money matters.
This all feels too familiar to Monzo’s Plus offering ie not what people want; lacking in final offering with hints of more to come; going against the FT “ethos” (I realise that is essentially subjective).
CMC Markets is listed as moving to Plus but it’s joining the FTSE250 tomorrow.
My two pennies.
I think FT has the right approach with this recent split of stocks between “Free” and “Plus”. Some people may be unhappy about some individual stocks, but these are likely in the very small minority (they will just be the most active in complaining about it).
There may be some tweaks to be made, but this can be done after taking on some feedback.
My major concern however is that the jump between ISA and Plus is very large (£84 per annum more). All for some order functions (which presumably cost FT nothing on a per unit basis), and a wider stock universe. If Plus is to include a SIPP, then this package starts to look very good value. But without it - I simply think it is missing the mark. If SIPPs are coming… why not offer a Plus discount until SIPPs are ready?! This might increase adoption and I think everyone would appreciate this transparency.
“Much much more” is a very irritating feature.