I think as you also highlighted already PFOF revenues are 28bp of total AuC. FT model is different and there is a higher forex fee charged on every cross border trade. If you go with the assumption that many of FT users trade in the US / EU you would expect them to derive higher revenues for every dollar of equity traded. I think the core business is already more generative than RH.
I personally agree that crypto trading is a way to diversify revenue streams but one needs to acknowledge that the fees charged today will only fall over a longer time as more brokerages enter the fray. It will converge towards other retail brokerage fees over time.
Overall, the retail brokerage model will always be challenged given that there is ongoing margin compression. That is why you have brokers offering funds (and earning a referral / share if trailer) and/or the offering of derivatives (and earning interest income). But the vanilla retail brokerage model is meant to be a hook for further cross-sell in the future.
In regards to your investments not being held in a nominee account and being held by 212 directly Iāve been saying that here for months seems theyāve just made that even more clearer, which is good, it should be clearer. Iām surprised itās taken this long for anyone to notice that subtle clause.
Oh I completely agree now, FTās weekly top shares are almost always US so they must be making more. My concern was more that where the US leads the rest will follow and I now feel like we are much closer to the logical conclusion (0 fees) of transactions than I previously expected.
I wonder how long other markets will be able to maintain ~0.5% fees. I suppose we still pay a lot more for passive mgmt fees than they do in the US, so maybe the gap can persist for some time.
Agreed, RH are basically making nothing but if they can convert users into derivs, leverage and crypto it makes the vanilla equity business worthwhile.
No. Free trade donāt hold assets under their own name.
Assets held for UK shares are held under freetrade nominees limited (you can look them up). Assets held in the US are held by drivewealth in a DTC nominee company (Iām less familiar with the US setup)
Thereās no point that Iāve seen or heard or is even allowed where assets are held by freetrade.
Also worth pointing out that we know where the assets are held as well. 212 donāt disclose that information last time I looked.
Why? Same product, similar founding year. Of course we should compare them. And freetrade is not as old, but seems to be lagging quite a bit. Bitpanda managed to be successful despite being founded in Austria and not London - where every startup gets millions thrown at them.
They are already one of the largest Austrian companies (4billion vs. The largest: Erste Bank 16 billion).
I might see a company like Bitpanda as a viable competitor to Freetrade if they were regulated in the UK and covered by the financial services compensation scheme in the UK (itās a no to both).
seems theyāve just made that even more clearer, which is good, it should be clearer. Iām surprised itās taken this long for anyone to notice that subtle clause.
