I think Freetrade has two markets - 1) new (and young) investors likely to be using Trading212, Robinhood etc and 2) existing (and older) investors likely to be using legacy platforms like AJ Bell, Hargreaves Lansdown etc.
Youāre right in saying that those in 1) may not think Freetrade is value for money but those in 2) will think Freetrade is cheap as chips (even with Plus). They will also likely make a real difference to Freetradeās AUM, with transfers of large ISA and SIPP pots.
I really hope that Freetrade is working a way to keep both types of investors satisfied by investing more in premium resources for the second group and making more shares available for the first.
I particularly like the Freetrade team and its app, so I hope they find a good way to make all customer happy.
Maybe they could change it to an annual limit. Say Ā£5k per year? I think itās only needed for āemergencyā deposits (but Ā£1k is fairly small relative to the ISA limits).
Every Apple Pay deposit costs freetrade at least 0.2%, probably a lot more as 0.2% is just the interchange and the acquirer adds margin on top. If the purpose of Plus is to help make money then this will do the opposite.
There will be features which cost FT, it canāt all be stuff thatās free to run.
0.2% of £5k is £10⦠one months worth of the subscription (assuming everyone maxes it out every year).
Thatās a Freetrade problem though isnt it, not a bank transfer problem. The transfer itself is via open banking payments, theyāre near instantaneous.
I think Ian mentioned speeding up the open banking payment process would be the next step, I donāt think itās been live that long. If that becomes near instant, then itās the best solution cost/experience wise.
Thereās lots of ongoing research into why diversity of thought and leadership is incredibly important to overall business performance, and ultimately a positive ROI for investors.
Thanks for sending this through. It still doesnāt illustrate a causal factor that makes me interested as an investor.
It outlines a binary outcome based on leader - either more profitable or not more profitable - and then posits a number of reasons why that was the case.
I would never invest in a businesses ābecauseā it is led by a women just as I never would ābecauseā it was led by a man. The individual leader is most important. Thatās why the category is of no practical use to me.
I think you get statistically significant differentiators when the % of female leaders is still relatively low. When this gap narrows I would be shocked if the distributive difference in outcome isnāt all but eliminated.