To be clear, itās not my interpretation, its the interpretation of manipulation. (source: investopedia, & Wikipedia) If there is a more narrow definition that 212 is referring to, then as I say, my humble request is for that to be explicitly stated. Iāll just summarise my response briefly as Iāve explained above
Not referring to shorting
Not being able to buy more of a stock (I already own) and then only being able to sell is manipulative. Because averaging down a position, or dollar cost averaging are legitimate investing strategies, and if enter a stock and cannot buy more when I choose but can only sell, is unethical.
MM is relevant, the SEC are not advising 212 to close these stocks. There are stocks that the SEC are demanding such as COUV and it clearly says āsuspended due to SECā, thatās totally fine! Other stocks are just being stopped, this is discretionary by either IBKR, IBKR MMās or 212 and if not 212ās decision, its them affecting and directing what 212 does. (again, all im asking for is the exact rule thatās being broken) Additionally it was mentioned above "we risk being suspended by both the relevant exchanges and market makers. - An exchange would not suspend 212 for people buying OTC stocks, hence the importance of the role of the MM
I can make any comparison, the above note mentioned, āinflux of investors, high volume based on previous trends etc.ā - and using that as justification or supporting rationale to this decision. If thatās the case the 400-1.4m growth is not exclusive to penny stocks, those customers will use 212 for all stocks - Tesla, EV, Cannabis, SPACs, Growth Stocks, UK Stocks, ETFās. Leverage, CFDās - Therefore the OTC relevance appears to be more around its low price, high growth attractiveness which maybe wasnāt accounted for by their liquidity partners.
The underlining message is, if thereās a risk of 212 being suspended due to manipulation, the rule would be publicly available and its only fair we know what rule exactly.
I think it is important here to consider what the activity on these illiquid OTC stocks from 212 users looks like to regulators etc.
The answer is hundreds if not thousands of very small value orders, often coming all at the same time (when a stock starts getting mentioned on stocktwits, large Twitter accounts), mainly on a stock that doesnāt normally see that pattern of trading. Without context, this is a textbook market manipulation concern from a regulator/exchange etc. point of view. This is basically undeniable. Hopefully, these investigations referred to by T212 can provide some context, or some other solution can be reached so that this activity doesnāt stick out like a sore thumb and the buy restrictions can be lifted.
Also consider that T212 is one of the only brokers that offers access to these stocks commission free. If you look at the other brokers that offer access to these stocks, they have a very different kind of client and therefore will have a very different kind of trading activity on these stocks. A kind of trading activity that is extremely unlikely to trip the controls that I suspect T212 user trading activity has triggered.
It is these two points together, that in my view, result in T212 activity being almost āsingled outā for concern by regulators etc.
Anyway, donāt get me wrong here, you bring up very valid concerns but I doubt you will get an answer. T212 are not obligated, as was confirmed during the first GME saga by the FCA when everyone went crying to them about āmarket manipulationā, to provide access to any stock. So if theyāve got to suspend buying to a certain stock or group of stocks to ensure they donāt get their access cut completely and therefore current holders unable to sell - I donāt think youāll get more of an explanation than what was given above.
Also, respectfully, unless you work for one of the parties involved, not sure you can make assertions on who is telling T212 to do what and whether their access would be cut or not.
Lastly, not sure how you can view a broker stopping all users from buying particular stocks, in order to ensure those who hold it can continue to sell as and when they want, as manipulation. What would be manipulation is if they did it for no reason or if every broker in existence colluded to prevent anybody in the world from buying. An individual broker, has no obligation to offer access to a particular stock - again, see FCA guidance Statement on recent share trading issues | FCA
Sure, If 212 donāt respond then thatās their call. Itās simply a request as a consumer on their forum, on a post theyāve created.
GME is different as there was a clear agenda from retail investors to pump, as mentioned above, this is totally fine. No issues.
But as I said above, people can learn from any medium about a stock and choose to buy. What makes Reddit (I never have used it) or Twitter any more manipulative than Jim Cramer saying BUY BUY BUY on a stock. Or Motley Fool, Seeking Alpha, Yahoo Finance having articles about Top stocks you must buy now. Which are there for both Penny and regular stocks. Again if itās GME pumping fine, but if its someone learning about a stock on YouTube and investing itās not - and the example I used was evidence based and not a pumped reddit stock. Incidentally the block has been removed, so Iām no longer affected, simply asking for more clarity in future.
I have bought a stock and cant buy more, as a shareholder and owner of that company, however small, if itās to be closed with valid reason, itās simply a matter of explicit transparency. such as;
āWeāve closed this stock, due to abnormal trading activity in accordance with X rule from the SEC see more details hereā With info on why, when itāll be reinstated etc. This isnāt a request that I expected consumers to be that against tbh. Why are we against more clarity exactly?
I also think itās dangerous to convolute business model with legislation. 212 is āfreeā, as it helps grow theirs and IBRKās base. They make money through CFDās, Card payments above 2k, exchange fees etc. My only focus is to understand more the rules that would have them be suspended by exchanges and market makers as @David clearly stated.
As much as customers like to help answer on behalf of T212 Iād love to see T212 actually join in to the discussion in why certain decisions have been taken.
They obviously donāt have to do diddly squat but the transparency would certainly help with trust and help prevent customers from leaving and might help them gain more too I would have thought it would be in their interest.
Having said that the forum users are such a tiny percentage then it might not be in their interest, especially if itās not favourable to the customer.
I for one would like to know does having a single onimbus account with IB have any impact on this, would having a direct relationship with the exchanges solve most of their issues.
Having a few hundred customers worked with that solution, will it still work with having 2million customers and so forth. The IB API has been flakey over the last 6mths, itās only going to get crazier with new retail.
I sound like a broken record but communication and support is incredibly lacking with T212.
I still would like to know are they blocking the buy button because itās much easier than bothering to monitor for unusual traffic.
Also if they want to join in Id love to have an answer here of what went on with the PSE status where they originally said itās because of stocks losing PSE status which to me wasnāt true.
Fair points. I donāt believe we are likely to see that level of communication/transparency but we can hope. My reply was more to highlight why this activity from T212 users may be seen as market manipulation without context, I donāt know what exact rules are at play here. Also I think the difference between your two example is OTC stocks are more open to manipulation / fraud in the first place, as is the nature of the level of reporting and information disclosure required by those companies and also that it comes down to volume, none of us can deny that such illiquid penny stocks are often the target of suspicious āpromotionā on twitter etc.
By the way, my point about commission free wasnāt to suggest that this situation is ok because we donāt pay anything, it was to explain why the trading activity from T212 users on these stocks stands out. Itās evidenced that paid/legacy brokers have clients that are more likely to invest in higher amounts and less frequently, in fact theyāre not likely to invest in penny stocks at all. Also, small point, T212 supposedly donāt make money on the card fees, theyāve said the 0.7% just covers costs, plus the FX fees are only on the CFD side, so when I said commission free I was only referring to Invest/ISA.
But yes anyway I agree, me guessing at what could be going on isnāt helpful. Hopefully there is more detail provided by staff on this and it doesnāt become a radio silence situation like the CFD margin decrease.
is my expectation. They rely way too heavily on Leaders to answer and close threads imo.
They did have a few new faces like @Wit@Y.M@B.E but they never seem to take the heavy questions. We also had @Rumen for a bit but havenāt seen them for a bit, which is sad as they did an ace job.
So it always feels like itās for @David to come along.
The key issue is still the threads are being created after the problem has happened and not before explaining why certain decisions have been taken and giving a heads up before being implemented.
Any Iām personally really hoping he revisits the Bloomberg thread of doom soon to help provide an update. Having up-to-date indicative prices is still incredibly important, the previous update did nothing to resolve it.
Lets say i believe what t212 said about the reason of restrictions (not decided yet)
Does time gona solve it? I highly doubt so
So they gona make the restrictions forever, or wait until enough user leave so its ānot gona seen suspicious anymoreā?
I understand what has been said and Iām not going to quibble about it. The one thing though that hasnāt been explained is how do you sell with no buyers? Or does that only mean T212 customers canāt buy?
Other people on other brokers can, itās just that T212 donāt want to get done for market manipulation and risk their business, so instead of monitoring the stocks for unusual activity they have just taken the steps to remove the buy button which removes any possibility.
But whatās wrong with that? Its impressive That a small broker like trading212 got so popular, and they deserve it. It might be confusing to SEC how a small broker intermediary like this can get such huge volumeā¦ and maybe that hit a nerve. We should wait and donāt sell anything.
Well from a customer pov I would have thought that whatās wrong is that it prevents them from buying their favourite illiquid stock penny stocks even if they arenāt involved in an organised pump and dump, or the stock isnāt.
From the business pov it makes total sense to stop any possibility of being investigated.
Sorry i didnt meant the first question adressing to you specifically, i meant general. My bad. Yes i completely agree with that and it bothers a lot now that for 10 days we still cant buy penny stocksā¦ we want an update @David@Tony.V@Rumen
Iām not part of any such activity, I enjoy the small stock scene in its own right. Eg I brought HCMC before the public hype. Iāve noticed a few of my others drop now since this began that were doing quite well.
is my expectation. They rely way too heavily on Leaders to answer and close threads imo.
for 
