LSE:WRES (W Resources Plc)
LSE:NUCA (Nucleus Financial Group Plc)
NDAQ:MSAC (Medicus Sciences Acquisition Corp.) - commons now available
NDAQ:XPDI (Power & Digital Infrastructure Acquisition Corp.) - commons now available
NDAQ:SCLE (Broadscale Acquisition Corp.) - commons now available
NDAQ:TCAC (Tuatara Capital Acquisition Corp) - commons now available
NDAQ:SCOB (ScION Tech Growth II) - commons now available
NDAQ:TSIB (Tishman Speyer Innovation Corp. II) - commons now available
NDAQ:LGAC (Lazard Growth Acquisition Corp. I) - commons now available
NDAQ:PMGM (Priveterra Acquisition Corp) - commons now available
NYSE:IACB (ION Acquisition Corp 2 Ltd) - commons now available
NYSE:SLAC (Social Leverage Acquisition Corp I) - commons now available
NYSE:BRMK (Broadmark Realty Capital Inc)
LSE:RTWP (L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap Quality UCITS ETF)
LSE:FUSD (Fidelity US Quality Income UCITS ETF USD Inc)
FRA:XAIX (Xtrackers Artific Intellig and BigDataUCITS ETF 1C)
FRA:WTI2 (WisdomTree Artificial Intelligence UCITS ETF USD Acc)
Would you mind adding as soon as you can please? If possible please also make these fractional from the start.
It’s interesting to know this information, I was asking for these 2 weeks ago (since March 24th), but if Joey_Fontana asks, it is added on the same day.
Should we ask new additions to Joey_Fontana instead?
It feels that there is some discrimination, 1st and 2nd class customers.
@RLX We’d love to add everything ASAP but unfortunately that’s not possible, otherwise we would’ve done it by now.
That’s why @Joey_Fantana is helping us by providing relevant information for the day’s IPOs as well as just a few highly requested securities.
My question is not about speed of adding new stocks or ETFs. Is about the criteria of attending the requests.
If I or 20,000 other investors ask for a stock or ETF to be added for weeks without any feedback or without that being added, and in the end, it’s added on the same day it’s requested by the same user. we start to wonder why we should bother, you only attend some and the same people.
Some ETFs you added today already exist for a couple years, it’s no IPO.
Some of it’s requests now also includes stocks and ETFs that exist for some couple of years.
I thank @Joey_Fantana for that, if he doesn’t do it, the requests of others users weren’t attended.
And I do try to make the handful of historic requests as random as I can, with a mix of older and newer ones. I just don’t always have the time to trawl through the request posts to find a suitable selection so look for the last few posts regarding requests.
There is no set criteria on T212’s part. I’m not being favoured by them. If you go back to last June or July you could probably find an exchange between myself and David discussing IPOs being the only requests T212 will prioritise, as they want to keep the book current. But at that point in time I could see it was just the popular IPOs being asked for and not ALL IPOs on a given day, so some obscure ones were being added late.
I took it upon myself to start these posts catching as many IPOs as I could find were floating.
10 months later and newer users don’t know that history so it looks like I’m the only one who gets their requests actioned same day. They’re just IPOs that T212 have always claimed they would prioritise.
More recently with ALLLLLL the complaints, ad hoc requests got dropped by the wayside due to all hands dealing with platform lags, GME drama, penny stock mania, and so much venom on this forum. So I spoke to David and suggested I start randomly adding a handful a day to keep the historic requests moving.
First of all, I thank you for your work on adding new stocks and ETFs. You are doing a good job, for Trading 212 side, I have some doubts .
Honestly, it doesn’t seems…
I have a Topic that I update almost every week about ETFs, no news or updates or additions from Trading 212. Besides other specialized topics on European Stocks that I created. If you ask today, you get it today or the next day, others no luck (months waiting).
Has I have some people depending on me to invest on Trading 212 (financial advising), it’s becoming hard to me to defend the Trading 212 cause and keep them as investors in Trading 212.
If you were a financial advisor, your customers want to invest and you always say no on some instruments, they will question you why they will keep using the same brokerage platform and in the end they could question your professional services.
I already advise other brokers for some specialized instruments and exchanges, maybe I should advise other brokers for investing on simple Stocks and ETFs. The ball is on the Trading 212 side, they should consider the pros and cons.
This is where I think there should be a google sheet/form built into the forum, until such time there is a better linkup with InteractiveBroker to ensure we have the full universe.
If people could request on a form, and it is added to a list - once it has been looked at, a comment can be added to explain why it cant be added if that is the case.
The form could log how popular a stock is, and people could monitor the list, should the criteria change and the stock can then be added to the platform.
It would need 3 tabs. One for new requests, a second for those added, and a third for those that cant be added, and a short explanation why - not UCITS compliant, not yet on Interactive Broker, and so on.
There would be one fair source for requests to 212 in that case, and Joey can put his feet up and have a few beers.
@David and @Team212, I’m not complaining or moaning about the Trading 212, I’m asking for a clear Additions/Request Policy from T212. Maybe your should make clear criteria, rules and a FAQ about requesting financial instruments. **
If I don’t have feedback from you and my customers don’t have access to simple EUR ETFs or Stocks, why they should continue with you? (Some already are complaining about the T212 tax reports.) You are pushing them to invest on other platforms.
** (also to avoid people asking for example US ETFs, Ark ETFs and other non-UCITS complaint ETFs, Penny Stocks non-exemption, Stocks with low volume, and other common requests, all the time)
Your post got flagged for approval because it had the word C-O-M-P-L-A-I-N in it, which they need to track in case you aren’t referring to said word but in fact lodging said word. If the latter, by rule of the FCA, they need to log it and respond.
A member of staff needs to review a post with that word in it to make sure you aren’t making a grievance against them. Hence why it was approved shortly after.
On some Investment Banks and Brokerages I work with, it’s done like that. I receive a feedback from them and utmost it takes just a few days to have access to the new instrument (maximum 1 week).
And some instruments are accessed by a third-party, e.g. ETFs, mutual funds, the banks ask their provider and add it or not (but always giving a feedback to customer). T212 also access through third-parties, but their process don’t follow the same success path.
One could say T212 is “free” for trading Stocks and ETFs, but there are also others “free” services but with smoother user experience.
I like T212 for the aggregate access to several products, but if T212 continue to loose the cross-selling pitch, and others continue to accept new ideas and requests for new products, they will get more critical mass (more volume and customers).
For example, I like to have access to LeverageShares and GraniteShares ETPs in T212, but if T212 continues this way (not adding simple EUR ETFs and Stocks), I will ask my other investment partners to add these instruments to their offer so I can move to them my customers portfolios, and this way, one less reason to invest in T212.
) as it’s more liquid and GBX on LSE (INTL). 
