Limit Sell 200%+

[gizmo2501]

Yeah, the “error” one could easily be fixed with a confirmation screen.

I’m not sure about costs to register a limit, as it’s outside of my knowledge. I imagine there would be. Perhaps that could be fixed with a low-cost, say, £1 to register above the current 200% limit, or something.

I’m not really sure what the right answer is. All I know is 200% is pretty low as far as things go, and it certainly feels like you should be able to set it higher.

[Big-g]

I would say if your panicking about the limit it means you are looking at big numbers and should be keeping an eye on it Anyhow we all know what this topic is about and the echo chamber is frankly boring.

FT have rules for their business and there are other options out there but I am sure they do it for a decent reason. FT is a budget investment platform and with that comes a basic package so maybe you should be looking for a more expensive option. Remember every extra option costs money in the end for FT.

[gizmo2501]

Quite a few assumptions there.

Panicking? No. I just don’t want to use more mental energy than I have to keeping an eye on share prices. I really don’t think that’s unreasonable. It’s a healthy choice.

Big numbers? No. But shares moving from £1 to £3 or £4 or more can happen easily when you’re playing with small value shares.

I think the only echo chamber going on here is you convincing yourself that everyone wants this for the same reason. It’s quite a reasonable request. If you find it boring, stop taking part in this request. It obviously doesn’t affect you. It would not affect you in any negative way of it did find to fruition. So just let people who want it discuss it discuss it, if it bothers you so much.

Moving on. Thanks.

[AdamL (Adam)]

Its more to do with sending limit orders to the market maker, straightforward ones get paired with a sell and are filled automatically, larger ones have to be sorted manually. Whereas HL would have staff on hand, FT don’t so would rather avoid this.

[Raul (Ann Onymuz)]

@gizmo2501

despite them saying they are about long-term investment, the fact a trade costs nothing other than the exchange fee, I would argue that they encourage short-term trading through their price structure, and it would be very hard to make an argument against that. If they charged £12 or more per trade like other brokers, that would encourage long-term trades.

@gizmo2501

it would be very hard to make an argument against that

The price structure doesn’t encourage short-term trading, but it does allow for individuals to give it a try even if they are on a low budget. In the end of the day each person has the right to decide what they want to do, and bare the consequences of their own choices and actions.

But more important than that in my view is that their price structure opens the doors of the investment world to people with smaller pockets. Yes, I’m talking about myself. They can start with a free GIA, and then they can decide to upgrade when and if they think it’s worth it.

A person who can afford to invest £50 or £100 per month paying £12 per trade (lest’s (not) forget FX fees, plus platform annual fees) will make the rational decision of not investing at all, or to save every month to place a buy order per year. For people with low incomes, hence low capacity to save, a £12 transaction cost will serve as barrier to get into the market, let alone encourage long-term investing investments.

With Freetrade, and some competitors, that barrier to entry is inexistent. In my view Freetrade’s offer has the advantage of deliberately not offering leveraged instruments, which by itself gives a head start to the small next door investor and a successful fighting chance in that exciting activity aka “watching trees grow”

[gizmo2501]

I agree with a lot of what you said, but a high fee does encourage long-term investing purely because it becomes expensive to make multiple trades with it. If you have to pay £12 every time you make a trade, you will be more likely to hold something longer in order to not waste money.

Likewise, if there is no cost to a trade, you will be more likely to be comfortable making short-term trades because there is no cost to you to do that. So the price structure absolutely does encourage short-term trading.

But that doesn’t take away from any of the positives that come from the price structure, which I am all for.

[ralf]

@gizmo2501

So the price structure absolutely does encourage short-term trading.

I wouldn’t quite draw this conclusion.

The price structure encourages people who don’t want to place large volume trades to try out investing in a cheap and accessible way.

Yes, the price also happens to be good for day trading, but the functionality you get for the price is woefully suited to day trading, and for that you’d want to pay a lot more and get a day trading account. If you do that then you’ll get up-to-date pricing information, a speedy reaction to placing your order (instant rather than long waits after every button press as FT experiences during busy periods) etc.

If you actually want to do day trading, there are better and more specialised options out there. They cost more, but they’ll increase your chance of making more too. Also probably increase your chance of losing more, especially as they’ll encourage spread betting.

If you just want to do investing on the cheap, taking advantage of some of the daily moves, but in the knowledge that when the market is busy your trades may not complete and that all the pricing data you have available to you is out-of-date, then yes you can easily take advantage of relatively slow changes to the price throughout the day.