I love Insights already, but, as many others have said, it would be more useful if you could split out ETFs and individual stocks as two separate types on the Types tab.
That then begs the question of what you mean by “Type”. My two cents here are that “Type” is an unhelpfully vague term in the context of investing, since it could plausibly refer to a huge number of different kinds of categorisation. If you mean “Asset class”, then I would rather you use that term (in a similar way to how I would prefer if you didn’t give ETFs friendly names, especially when those aren’t all consistent with each other, but rather just used the actual name of the ETFs ).
I guess “Security type” might be a more accurate term for what I’m requesting. That is, an ETF which is 100% composed of stocks should still have the asset class “Stocks” (ie, the same as an individual share in, say, Vodafone), but its security type would be “ETF”, whereas the Vodafone share would have a security type of “Stocks”, or even perhaps “Ordinary shares”/“Common stock” to provide more granularity.
ETFs, Trusts and Cash are still bundled together.
I think Cash should be on its own cuz in the end of the day it consists of funds awaiting for the opportunity to be invested.
ETFs and Trusts should also be segregated. Having a breakdown indicating allocation to a general category of ETF or Trust is meaningless.
The platform presents us a plethora of ETFs and Trusts. We have Stocks ETFs, Bonds ETFs, Commodities ETFs or Real Estate ETFs. I think it would make more sense to present the info respecting the asset classes above. It’s still generic but it gives a bit more insight. Maybe at some point break it down to reflect the investments in sector specific ETFs that if the above were to be applied would be included in the generic label Stocks ETFs, like the healthcare ETF or the Finance one.
The same principle would apply to Trusts.
Edit: some clarification.
Following the principle above we could have the generic labels under Type:
Cash (funds sitting in the GIA and/or ISA account)
Stocks (stocks of individual companies; ETFs and Trusts that don’t fall under the other asset classes, i.e. diversified ETFs and/or Trusts).
Bonds (short, mid and long term; corporate and government)
Commodities (stocks of individual companies, commodities dedicated ETFs and/or Trusts)
Real Estate (bundling stocks, Real Estate dedicated ETFs and/or Trusts)
Infrastructure (stocks of individual companies, Infrastructure dedicated ETFs and/or Trusts)
Under “Sector” we could have:
Cash (funds sitting in the GIA and/or ISA account)
Meaning: under Energy we would include both individual stocks, Energy ETFs and Energy Investment Trusts; under Financials we would include both individual stocks and Finance ETFs and Finance Investment Trusts; and under Real Estate we would have specific stocks, ETFs and Trusts regardless of being a REIT or not. And so on
Of course there are challenges. But if I recall correctly, the song goes
“we shall overcome”
Love what you have here above @Raul…just one thing
REITs and Trusts should be separated though. Different corporate structures. A REIT is a class by itself in my opinion. I.e Stocks, Bonds, Trusts, ETFs, REITs, Cash and Commodities (Last one only if direct and not a company in the space)
This one will bring some debate… I consider commodities, pure play commodities and not companies in the space. ETF’s I have come to realise are probably a pure play in the modern day but for historical, I would have only thought bullion and hard assets
It would seem like I was unclear. Maybe I should edit the post above again.
Stocks (bundling stocks, ETFs and/orTrusts): exclude all the ETFs and/or Trusts that go under Bonds, Commodities or Real Estate
Real Estate (bundling stocks, ETFs and/or Trusts): exclude all the ETFs and/or Trusts that go under Stocks, Bonds, or Commodities.
Makes sense?! The same principle would apply for Commodities and Bonds.
The idea is to separate by asset classes in one tab and by sectors in the other. And to have sector specific ETFs and/or Trusts under the specific sector they operate in. Nevertheless, given that there are generic ETFs (example S&P 500 ETFs) and generic Trusts we would need a label for them, a generic one. Makes sense?
I’m not sure I understand…
Under commodities you would include the direct ownership of gold, silver, coffee, water, etc, but not the ownership of companies that dig and process precious metals, nor companies that produce coffee, nor companies that bottle spring water (not to mention the ones that bottle tap water)??? Is this what you mean, or do you mean something else? If this is what you mean I humbly ask you to reconsider. If you mean something else I’d like to understand. But only tomorrow for I need to sleep.
On a side note @shane-aurora, I hate to bring potential bad news for your plans of moving to Portugal. Portugal had general elections last October. The current executive doesn’t have a majority in parliament. We are now in the process of discussing, negotiating and aproving the state budget for 2020 (delayed due to said elections). Some so-called radical left wing parties are making pressure to put an end to the fiscal policy passed by an act of parliament that would enable you and others to have tax exemptions for 10 years. Acording to the news the government is considering the creation of 2 tax bands for people in those circumstances. I’ll keep you up to date if you’d like.
Better get over there quick so, I’m visiting next Wednesday so I’ll try find out what the situation is, I’m planning to meet with a solicitor too. I might start renting a place and get started straight away if I can get it for a few years or even get in before the threshold and get the full 10 years. Thanks I had not heard anything about this and people on it I talked to back in November told me nothing. Let’s hope the solicitors can work their magic
And yes please do. I try to keep up as a I go a few times a year but not always easy with the language, which I’m learning at the moment I’m lucky I studied Spanish so not all of the words in Portuguese are alien to me
@Raul you’re right I really hope they’re as incompetent as Irish politicians and they make me feel at home and do nothing to the status. Or if they scrap the Golden Visa so at least it shows they did something EU nationals will still be fine
Knowing Spanish can indeed help to learn Portuguese. Just beware of false friends like for example “propina”:
Portuguese (Portugal) - a tuition fee
Spanish - a tip
Portuguese (Brazil) - a tip or, a bribe
And do yourself a favour. In Portugal, if you want to buy batteries don’t ask for “pilas” which may mean batteries in Spanish but is slang for something else in Portuguese
I agree 100% with your quest to make Insights better, but not with where you end up.
ETFs are not a “Sector”. They don’t belong in the Sector tab at all (except as they currently do, in an ‘everything else’ grab bag), unless they can be broken out into their component sectors in real time/daily.
What is missing is a “Security type” tab. Currently hand-picked stocks and stock-based ETFs all appear under a single category “Stocks”. This is unhelpfully coarse (though on one level ofc correct). We need to see “Individual stocks” and ETFs separated out.
But we have diversified ETFs, Sector specific ETFs and Region specific ETFs. The range of possibilities for categorization is immense. Choices must be made.
I believe we are on the same page. Currently they are not broken down into their corresponding sector and that is something I’d like to see.
I believe you are referring to the “Type” tab in “Insights”. I must confess I have mixed feelings and thoughts about this: on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I think it would be better to consolidate individual stocks and stock-based ETFs; on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays it think it would be better to separate them; on Sundays, I don’t know anything anymore so I drink my sorrows out.
Maybe one way to make this work would be to use sub-asset classes instead of asset classes for the list of categories under “Type”. With this option, “Stock-based ETFs” could coexist alongside with individual “Stocks”, each in it’s correspondent label.
In “Sectors” we could have, following the same principle:
Cash (funds sitting in the GIA and/or ISA account)
This would allow to separate Cash, Diversified ETFs and Trusts, Sector Specific ETFs and Trusts and Individual Stocks.
Nevertheless, nor all chalenges are addressed. I’m thinking of conglomerates like Berkshire Hathaway. This company shows on the app as being on the Finance sector. but they have their hands in many other sectors: Utilities, Real Estate, Entertainment, etc. What can we do about it? Choices must be made. And it’s not always easy
Looks like we’re about to get an update to the insights page. Can’t wait for this update, been waiting for a better way to analyse our portfolio performance over different time periods and see the growth in percentage format. Freetrade have clearly been listening to us, love the continuing development of the app and response to community requests for features.
I don’t want to be negative but do you think competing with guys like atom is worth it? There are literally dozens of specialised apps that are providing all kinds of great insights for half a decade now.
Not on my main wishlist of features for sure, simply because it’s something I can easily get elsewhere.
Just a thought for the insights page, it would be helpful if the sector % splits were more specified. For example the ETF’s/Trusts section just lists them as a broad category, but it would be helpful if it could split and indicate the ETF sectors that we are invested in so we get a better look at how our portfolio is split. So it would indicate if ETFs/Trusts are tech focused, financial focused or consumer focused, or if it tracks an index. It would help us to analyse our portfolio’s better and see how diversified they are across sectors.
Yea that looks like a great idea to me, would be a really nice addition. Makes it even more specific than what I was originally thinking too, so the categorisation splits would then be even more precise with the method you’re suggesting. Hopefully they can add it to the roadmap to be worked on.
Can we PLEASE make adequate timestamps suitable for long-term investors? I love the new feature that gives you the chance to compare yourself to the market. But not even being able to make a comparison for the last year seriously feels like Freetrade doesn’t know who their customers are and what is their target audience. It’s marketed for long-term investors and yet all your time options are a week, a month and 3 months.
I want to have a year, 3 years and the like to be able to track any progress meaningfully and I am sure this is the case for the majority of Freetrade users. I have been blabbing about that for years now and still not even a single response on why is that we don’t have a better timescale. I guess it’s pointless now to give any sort of feedback. It just doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever.