Fixed number of shares

[Eden]

I think we’re just disagreeing on semantics. Pretty sure we’re both on the same page on the core issue. There is no screen for enter x shares to buy. So from a technical standpoint it’s never been available you always made a by value order and it always rounded your order down, now it just doesn’t round it down.

[Antidev]

Fair enough, I will concede that orders have always been value based.

[Ultron (James)]

I think the overall factor here that most will agree on and that has been discussed at length on multiple other posts is the lack of choice.

Users are being forced to utilize a feature that for some makes it difficult for them to accurately balance their account finances and would prefer the option to switch between them at least.

I myself am on the fence, yes for some companies I would prefer to be able to buy whole shares, however for the some companies that have shares that are in the 1k+ range it would be nice to switch and purchase some fractions of them.

The key that FT needs to understand is choice…take that away or deny it and it leads to the kind of frustration we see in these threads.

[don_quixote]

I agree I don’t see why it can’t be

Invest the amount you want or number of shares you’d like to buy

[AdamL (Adam)]

@adam

I guess my point is that ‘buy by number of shares’ is not a feature we’ve ever had in the app. It has always been buy by amount of cash, sell by no of shares. Not ideal.

Giving the user an option to buy by no of shares or cash, and being able to sell by no of shares or cash, would be a new feature to the app. I think it is something you will see in the not too distant future though, along with more order types

Can we merge these topics, we are just repeating the same points.

[Brendon]

We should have the choice, simple as that — and not behind a paywall

[szb (Sergey)]

Which features seem to suit the paywall for you?

[Brendon]

To clarify; If a pre-existing (free) feature is removed from a product, and then re-introduced for an additional fee — that would permanently damage my trust. I subscribe to the ISA, and don’t intend on paying more

[manoadamro (Adam)]

some real gymnastics there but sure, why not

[Antidev]

Please explain.

Before the fractional share update, people received whole shares from their orders. Now they don’t.

How are my statements gymnastics? I’m only stating facts. No bias implied, no motive. I’ve already conceded to @Eden that orders have always been value based.

So I have no idea what your argument is, so please elaborate.

[manoadamro (Adam)]

@Antidev

Ergo they weren’t available before, so whole shares were always purchased and therefore possible.

you are responding to an arguement I never made. I answered a question about fractional shares very literally.

you responded with “Ergo they weren’t available before, so whole shares were always purchased and therefore possible.” as if that proves something? did you even read what I wrote?
did you read what I wrote, decide you didn’t like it, so invented something you’d prefer to argue with?

gymnastics

[Antidev]

Mate, you’re too much hard work. I didn’t realise that you took my sarcastic comment questioning what the fractional update did literally…

You accuse me of gymnastics, so permit me to make a comment as nicely as possible regarding you. I’m going to follow the advice of Mark Twain on this.

Your original response to me for reference. I’ll leave it at that.

@manoadamro

old system: you put in amount in pounds, you get shares rounded down to nearest whole number of shares

new system: you put in amount in pounds, you get a number of shares rounded down to a like 8 decimals or whatever it is.

that was what the fractional update did

[AdamL (Adam)]

And they all lived happily ever after.

[manoadamro (Adam)]

lol Hard work. Are you used to conversations where you say things and everyone just accepts it? I’m sorry I didn’t make it easy for you.

I’m going to bow out of this one, mostly because i have no idea what you’re talking about now