Iām going to give up, for investors rather than traders I donāt think it is much different and for the same price or less Iāll stick to a more established platform (I wouldnāt if the cost saving was substantial) but as usual constructive criticism seems frowned upon on this discussion board
1 Like
This is completely untrue, at least from me. Youāre argument wasnāt strong imo. Thereās lots of things about Freetrade that are frankly crap, and you never mentioned any of them. You compared a restrictive single use case specific pricing model from HL (then ii for some reason even though it invalidates your price argument), to a single price pricing model. Iām just saying thats apples and oranges. Stay with HL then transfer your shares to a more competitive platform when you decide you want to sell them to save on the costs. Thats not a dig, its clear its cheaper for your specific case.
edit: I dont have plus btw, at the moment i dont think it fits my needs quite yet, it doesnt have to.
8 Likes
Surprised to read that some free stocks are moving to Plus (I hold 3 such stocks) but understand the reasoning to want to draw the line now and not have exceptions.
How will Freetrade handle stocks moving in and out of the AIM 100, i.e. previous Plus shares entering the AIM 100 will become free? Change them on a quarterly basis?
2 Likes
New customers wonāt notice but existing will. I am hesitant in suggesting FT to other people when the platform is being limited artificially. FT should keep the existing list open and only paywall a selection of new stocks. Or maybe look at what the users are holding and keep those stocks free. I imagine that in that list there are stocks that nobody has in their portfolio. UKOG comes to mind, I donāt think anyone has invested in that unless as a punt.
1 Like
This is a terrible move for FT and frankly Iām astonished that more people arenāt annoyed by it. Moving previously freely available stocks behind a paywall plus restricting other stocks to a paid account just ignores a lot of the feedback already made about the plus account and more importantly just makes FT a far less compelling option compared to competitors.
Paywalling stocks is a poor move when your competitors offer them for free, Iād much rather focus on FT giving people a compelling reason to pay for features in terms of additional benefits than the negative approach of this action.
10 Likes
I do believe some stocks should be paywalled but those stocks should have only been released on plus. They should have not been free in the first place. That would have created less issues. When the free stocks are now being paywalled it feels forced that I have to get the plus now. I just hope the final plus offering is amazing because I want to pay for it for its overall value. I just donāt want to feel force into have to pay for it because my Shake Shack share is now behind a paywall. That wouldnāt be a good experience. I guess Iāll wait for the final offering to give my full verdict.
1 Like
Would a simple fix not be to allow people that already hold the stocks that are moving to continue buying them, and whoever does not hold positions would have to go through Plus?
6 Likes
May be somebody finds it useful.
If you need only a handful of stocks from Plus you donāt need to pay for the whole year (Ā£120) unless you are trading in and out of your positions every month.
You can pay Ā£10 to get in safely with limit orders and donāt need to pay anything to sell the Plus stock.
Unless I am missing smth but the low market cap stocks do not seem to be a target for regular reinvesting. @Nev_79 @Mello What is your guysā stategy with those stocks. Regular buying or just one-off plays?
1 Like
The 77 pence charge was refunded, but Iām still a Plus member.
There are bugs in this Easter egg sign-up, Iām sure, but just wanted to report my experience. Iām due to be charged properly/for the subscription on the 1st of October.
1 Like
This might be a solution but if it requires heavy development (custom rights for stocks or smth like that) that time can be better spend elsewhere.
Also, there might be people holding Plus stocks who are not reading the community or any other media. They should be given a solid time notice before the changes are applied.
May be 3 months Plus gift access can be a compromise for people who were holding positions in Plus stocks on the announcement date.
3 Likes
FTSE Aim All Share. Brilliant work, Ive signed up
2 Likes
Iām not very keen on paywalling stocks like this.
It may start to make more sense if they add other markets which are more costly for them to run to plus I guess. At present it feels quite an artificial and arbitrary divide.
Exposing non-plus users to IPOs also seems a little dangerous. I wouldnāt touch the recent crop of tech IPOs given the current risky conditions, though I know people have made lots of money on them in the short term, Iād worry about the long term future for beginner investors who have never seen a bear market.
1 Like
HI Sam,
Understand the rationale behind Plus, but must say disappointing to see 4 stocks I am building a position in are going to behind the paywall, so forcing me to buy Plus (or move elsewhere).
Can you please conform when these will be moved to Plus
2 Likes
One of the Investment Trusts places in Plus is Baillie Giffordās flagship emerging market IT and Iād imagine is popular in an investment portfolio.
1 Like
I can understand the concerns about paywalling certain stocks. However, as someone fairly new to investing - my only previous experience being stupidly āinvestingā in Northern Rock as it collapsed - but not completely, I get that certain stocks are more volatile. I think for those who are entirely new to this and donāt see it as a form of gambling (which I absolutely do) or arenāt aware of the risks, putting riskier stocks behind a subscription does make some sense.
Having to pay a commission to trade is the established norm, so people may think nothing of it. Having to commit to a subscription may make many think āoh, this is seriousā.
That said, those same people are going to read about a big IPO and might think āthatās dumb, why canāt I invest in Airbnb?!ā before uninstalling the app and never giving it a chance again. I wouldnāt personally put money into a big IPO and am mostly interested in penny stocks. For now, anyway. Hence the username. Iām very aware that smaller market cap companies can be more volatile and only stake money I can afford to lose. I donāt mind a subscription, as I frequently trade small amounts and donāt want to get less shares due to an unexpected price change. Also, being able to not pay any fees for an ISA (though my fees would be tiny itās still an attraction) and be sure I can get a certain sale price (if the market hits it) is attractive.
1 Like
But IPO stocks are some of the riskiest in any market and those are not behind the paywall.
Iāve never invested in AIM (too speculative for me), but IPOs seem even riskier to me in this market than small cap stocks, they are often highly speculative companies or companies which have already taken so much private investment they are heavily in debt, sometimes (like We Work or Nikola) outright fraud comes to light either during or after the IPO.
I completely understand why Freetrade have put them into the free plan (for the reasons you suggest), but would like to suggest that not having this divide wouldnāt put them in that invidious position.
Personally I think other products like ISA and the longed for SIPP being bundled will sell the plus plan better, rather than artificially limiting which stocks are available.
1 Like
What I was trying to say was that for a new platform trying to gain market share from the big players with long-standing reputations, price has to be their USP. Given that certain shares are behind a paywall for my circumstances itās not cheaper (will concede itās not a 100% like for like comparison; instant trading v monthly drip feed investment, but for drip feed investors thatās not a huge problem.
However, I appreciate my portfolio is quite niche and only works up to x4 investments a month, hence why I mentioned ii, as they allow a significant number of free trades a month for the same platform costs (again appreciate its via their monthly investment option rather than instantaneous trading, but again itās less of an issue for investors.
Therefore in the short-term (whilst the build reputation and brand) in my opinion FT have to limit the no of shares in the Plus option (bringing into play the Ā£3 ISA for most) or have the monthly subscription at a competitive price Ā£6-Ā£7.
I was hoping to switch ISA to Ā£3 basic account, but Pacific Horizon as a Plus only stock has scuppered that as I donāt think FT is now attractive enough, hence I wanted to give some constructive criticism
1 Like
They absolutely are. I think though itās not just that people will expect it, but that articles on blogs etc will point out that Freetrade are the only ones making you pay a subscription to invest in the hot new IPO. That would make them look bad. Investing in Airbnb or whatever will likely be the first foray into investing for many. I agree that theyāre incredibly risky and logically should be behind a paywall to protect people from their lack of experience. However, I think that Joe Sixpack would be more accepting in hindsight of being burned on an Airbnb IPO than a tiny and volatile biotech company, for the sake of argument. Theyād likely understand after the fact - and perhaps some reading - as to why an IPO is unpredictable and risky. However, theyād expect a normal stock to be less of a gamble, I think.
At the end of the day, I can absolutely see both sides and Freetrade need to be responsible about exposing new investors to certain kinds of things. However, they also need to be an option for new users who want that IPO theyāve read about on social media. They wonāt be an option if they donāt let them have access to that, but chances are they wonāt lose potential users because of a tiny biotech company being behind a paywall.
I do agree that in the long-term something like no fees on ISAs and other features will bring and keep them more users. Perhaps in a year or two from now, all normal stocks will be in the free tier. Until those features exist, though, I can see why they feel they need to make that a bullet point to help justify the subscription fee to those who are tempted.
We canāt truly know what all those future features will be, but I imagine they will be geared towards more serious users. Iād like to not have to Google shares for live pricing information and a web-based Freetrade would be nice to see. Iām already sold, though. Anything extra would be nice.
1 Like
I think I agree with you and donāt necessarily have an issue with Plus as a concept and paywalled stocks. All Iām saying is at the moment there are workarounds on other, longer established platforms that doesnāt make FT Plus attractive enough. At Ā£6-Ā£7 a month subscription or keeping ITās outside the paywall I think that changes, but again is just a personal opinion.
Anyway, I think Iāve laboured the point enough now 
Hi Serge,
My approach at the moment is to try and cover the market with a small selection of actively managed ITās (appreciate I could pick a Vanguard Global Tracker but have chosen this approach after a lot of research). I therefore have the following: -
Global Large Cap - Scottish Mortgage
Global Small/Mid - Edinburgh Worldwide
Emerging Market - Pacific Horizon
Technology - Allianz Technology
Plan is to invest once a month in each, drip feeding into (subject to performance) for next 20 years.
Iāve been waiting for ages for Pacific Horizon to come online to transfer my ISA, but now itās gone into Plus I donāt think the additional Ā£10 a month for one stock (PHI) is attractive. Appreciate me as an investor rather than trader may be who youāre trying to attract, but trying to flag this may be a profitable market for you.
For me I donāt understand why JPMorganās Emerging Market IT is free to trade and Baillie Giffordās is in Plus.
2 Likes