11 US Bitcoin ETFs are now available as CFDs on Trading 212 Markets. Check them out below:
iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT)
ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF (ARKB)
WisdomTree Bitcoin Fund (BTCW)
Invesco Galaxy Bitcoin ETF (BTCO)
Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (BITB)
VanEck Bitcoin Trust (HODL)
Franklin Bitcoin ETF (EZBC)
Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Trust (FBTC)
Valkyrie Bitcoin Fund (BRRR)
Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC)
Hashdex Bitcoin ETF (DEFI)
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 77% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.
Sorry for the late response. We can’t offer crypto assets to retail UK clients according to the FCA’s PS20/10 policy. If that changes, we’ll share updates.
Crypto assets can be sold to UK retail clients, which is why crypto firms can do business here. Crypto-derivatives and crypto-ETNs (like those products sold by XBT Provider) cannot.
Here are the most relevant updated rules from annex B of PS20/10:
22.6.5 R (1) A firm must not:
(a) sell a cryptoasset derivative or a cryptoasset exchange traded note to a retail client; or
(b) distribute a cryptoasset derivative or a cryptoasset exchange traded note to a retail client; or
(c) market a cryptoasset derivative or a cryptoasset exchange traded note if the marketing is addressed to or disseminated in such a way that it is likely to be received by a retail client.
Here are the relevant definitions from annex A:
cryptoasset derivative - a derivative where the underlying is, or includes, an unregulated transferable cryptoasset or an index or derivative relating to an unregulated transferable cryptoasset.
cryptoasset exchange traded note - a debt security:
(a) which is traded on a trading venue or a market operated by a ROIE;
(b) which features no periodic coupon payments; and
(c) whose return tracks the performance of an unregulated transferable cryptoasset, minus applicable fees, whether featuring delta 1, inverse or leveraged exposure or other exposure to the unregulated transferable cryptoasset being tracked.
A reading of PS20/10 doesn’t seem to suggest a prohibition on Bitcoin ETFs.
Crypto ETNs, are a debt security, which, by its nature, an ETF is not as these funds simply own the underlying directly.
Crypto derivatives, which these ETFs are not. They are not a derivative under the FCA handbook’s definition of derivative, nor does it appear to fit the definition of derivative as defined in article 2 (1)(24)(c) of MiFIR or referred to in paragraphs 4 to 10 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Regulated Activities Order.
If there is a mistake I’ve made in reading this, please let me know. However, it seems clear-cut: PS20/10 does not have language in it that prohibits retail clients from purchasing a cryptocurrency ETF.
In not offering these ETFs, Trading212 is forcing consumers who want this exposure to seek it in sub-optimal ways, such as pseudo-leveraged exposure through MSTR, or even the (frankly, irresponsible to offer to retail ISAs) 3x MSTR ETP like 3LMI.
Offering these ETFs appears to be within the letter of the regulation (at least the one cited as the reason), avoids foreseeable harm by allowing investors who want to take on this risk to express a more ‘pure’ opinion without having to take on even further risk in the form of an entire company, and offering these products is a reasonable step towards allowing customers to pursue their financial objectives.
As a European broker, we can’t offer US ETFs that are not PRIIPS compliant or UCITS certified.
The absence of a Key Investor Information Document (KIID), a crucial requirement under UCITS IV applicable to all UCITS funds, signifies non-compliance with the regulatory framework. The KIID is essential for investors to comprehend the fund’s nature and risks, enabling more informed investment decisions. Hence, we cannot offer ETFs lacking a KIID.
Reviving this thread. Can you explain who’s responsible for providing the KIID? I assume the ETF issuer?
If so, why would large firms like Blackrock and Fidelity not complete the paperwork for this? They must do it routinely every time they offer ETF’s that we can buy here in the UK?
The issue arises from PRIIPs, not the ETF issuers themselves. According to certain views, US issuers cannot develop KIDs for their US ETFs. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that PRIIPs require disclosure of likely future performance under four different scenarios, and US issuers cannot make such forecasts under US legislation. Unfortunately, this affects the ability of all brokers like us to offer such ETFs, but we do our best to provide as many alternatives as possible
Thanks very much for the reply and valuable information.
As a beginner in the investment space, everything you’ve pointed to in your reply, indicates an area of research that requires drilling down on for my own education (you know the feeling, the current state of one’s knowledge is almost always a mile wide, and an inch deep).
I see now that it’s actually T212’s duty as a provider to furnish a KIID for products you offer to retail customers.
From a casual glance at the mentioned regulations, I can’t help coming to the conclusion I often arrive at, that innovation is almost always stifled in free markets, by being throttled to progress at the speed of government. Frustrating.
I have large chunks of my capital tied up in raw BTC, and the prospect of being able to gain exposure to the world’s newest asset class inside our tax-free wrappers is incredibly appealing to new investors like me.
I’m still not sure I understand why or how the FCA differentiates between the suitability of these ETF products, which, let’s be honest, are being offered by the world’s largest and most trusted asset managers (Blackrock, Fidelity etc), but I believe what you say to be true that “according to certain views” and “likely future performance under four different scenarios” is a catch all to throw a spanner in the works, when those in control deem it necessary.
I guess the rule holds at all times: Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do or die.
It’s not T212’s fault. I’m sure they’d love to provide us with any product that was this successful in the US markets (most successful ETF in US market history ).
It’s predictably enough the UK regulators asleep at the wheel as per usual!!
They wouldn’t want us dirty, filthy little plebs investing our own money without them checking up on us and “keeping us safe” from the best performing asset in financial history (I’m talking BTC of course, as opposed to shitcoins, which I don’t personally care for).
).