I agree with you. This is spot on!
Another point that needs clarification.
Well, it is my most plausible theory, but it comes from very little factual observations. So take it with a grain of salt.
its limit on number of shares and value is just estimate based on current prices
In regards to my previous post would be nice to get some answers along with so many other questions people have posted.
My two main gripes are:
Max position size in quantity
Max position size in $ value
Especially as an ISA investor with longterm holding and building positions in companies.
Agree working around order size is manageable but limiting how much assets one can buy and hold baffles me, imagine going into a store and they tell you, sorry you can only spend x dollars on food and y dollars on hardware xD
That’s not the best example is it? Stores have physical limits on what you can buy in the form of inventory.
So 212 has a limit yet other brokers dont. Its like they didnt do enough to push users away with the fees they added, now this. Great plan to get rid of customers.
Let’s try to contain ourselves for now and not be sensationalist, they evidently haven’t pushed customers away as customer numbers seem to have continued to grow and they had a fully stocked waitlist.
Also I don’t see how they benefit from customers leaving, so why have a plan to ruin your business? That again feels like an irrational, emotional argument without founding.
I’ve seen limits at other brokers, but not sure I’ve seen them on stocks.
Exactly someone mention a cap on per month for any purchases or pay a fee to buy more but this whole detailed list on what you can and cant buy per stock is crazy. I find it unreal to be honest to tighten rules to that extent.
Well without context yes, but I’m firmly in the camp of wanting context before I pick a side properly on the matter.
So you are implying t212 does not have enough shares or access to meet the demand? Maybe, idk to be honest. We are speculating as long as we don’t know more
I’m not even sure where you manage to get that from at all. I’ve said nothing of the sort.
Just learnt IBKR has Isa option now too. This new reduction in quantities is probably what broke the camels back, guess time to say farewell to 212 soon.
As is your prerogative.
Lets see what clarifications are given.
Can I make a suggestion to 212. Exclude any securities in the top indices of each exchange.
No idea why AAPL would ever be an issue.
I had a look and it won’t impact me for a few years, but that’s not the point. I couldn’t find evidence of any other brokers following suit - how does this protect investors?
Instead I would suggest a message in the app on each users holdings that their current position or what they are trying to trade, is over x% of the lowest trading volume day, or trading average for the past 90 days.
This would serve as a nice warning to customers that the holdings they have or are trying to buy have poor liquidity. The limits are then back on the customer? Or if there must be a limit on what you can buy, then the largest trade or a % in the last 90 days is the threshold?
Surely this would meet your internal risk requirements (not sure what they are, or why it should impact what we can buy), and provide a good notice to investors.
It’s possible. I notice a high influx of new users recently due to them express opening the waitlist process.
Yes it’s speculation… But it’s a possibility
Hm, notice it where?
From the list, some stocks (likely micro caps) have ridiculously low maximum limits in the order of 50-60 USD/GBP. They are companies I am not familiar with, but see ticker A6T, AAC, ADA, ADAL, etc. From a variety of exchanges: Deutsche Bourse, Nasdaq, LSE, etc, not all are OTC.
If you ever wanted to invest in them - it just wouldn’t make sense for most investors to only invest said ridiculous numbers.