I have a few pieces of feedback around pies and averages that I think would improve usability quite a bit:
-
Pie goals & return assumptions
Pie goals seem to rely on a fixed, generic 7–10% return regardless of the actual holdings. It would be far more useful if projected returns were based on the underlying assets, for example using the average performance of the holdings over the last 5 years. -
Removed
-
Scheduled investments without pies
Currently, to set up scheduled payments for a single stock or ETF, it must be added to a pie permanently. This feels unnecessary, especially for ETFs.
Creating a one-holding “S&P 500 pie” just to schedule investments into a single S&P 500 ETF feels like an awkward workaround. -
Pie visibility in the UI
For a short time, pies had their own dedicated section, which worked well. This later disappeared, and now accessing them via the Investments tab feels less intuitive. Simply being able to scroll down and see pies was much smoother. -
Cost averages becoming misleading
Averages become meaningless once you sell and buy back holdings, particularly when moving assets into or out of pies.
When I transferred holdings from Hargreaves Lansdown, T212 asked for my average cost — which was great. A similar feature would be useful more generally, either allowing manual adjustment or automatically recalculating averages from full trade history.Example: I sold half my position in a stock I’d held for 5 years when it was high, then bought back the same number of shares later at a lower price. I’m objectively in a better position, yet my average is now shown as $302 versus $185 previously. Logically, that doesn’t reflect reality.
At the very least, the system shouldn’t assume the oldest shares are sold first when calculating averages; assuming the most recent purchases would already be an improvement, though still not ideal in all cases.
I’m sure many of these points have been raised elsewhere on the forum, but they’ve been my main annoyances over time.
As an honorary mention, it would be great to have a proper feature request / change voting system, similar to what Microsoft uses. This would help avoid the same requests being posted repeatedly and make it clearer which features the community values most. Requests with the highest votes could then be prioritised.
That said, even Microsoft doesn’t always seem to work on the top-voted requests — but having visibility and structure would still be a big improvement.