this comment section is kinda toxic. Both sides throw around defamatory statements that try to discredit the other side. I think the new terms are worth discussing, so can every poster please stick to quotes of the terms and not try to attack the other poster or their character?
Going back to the actual discussionā¦
13.10. You agree to the following: because of the
nature of applicable laws or market practices in
certain overseas jurisdictions, it may not be
possible to register your Investments in your
name, the name of the nominee or other relevant
third party and, where we have determined that it
is in your best interests, or it is not feasible to do
otherwise, your Investments may be registered or
recorded in our name or in the name of the person
who is a custodian insofar as permitted per the
applicable FCA Rules. In these circumstances
Source: Share dealing table amendments UK EN (trading212.com)
This section definitely needs it. I really wonder what feasible here means. It seems to me that it gives a lot of room for interpretation. It definitely weakens the sentence of āin your best interestā in a section that is already somewhat critical for customers. It also does not become clear if this is only and only then being done if there are no other ways to implement share dealings with overseas customers.
Some countries or exchanges require a different way of holding equity for it to be considered appropriate in their jurisdictions.
Hong Kong is one, Iām reliably informed Brazil, Taiwan and India are others. In order to provide access to these markets, things have to change in the holding structure and sub or sub-sub custodian relationship.
If anything, this points to new markets on the horizon.
Thatās nice and all, but that was part of the previous terms already. What is this potentially weakening amendment of āor it is not feasible to do
otherwiseā for? It seems to me that feasible is something that could be understood from their perspective instead of the customer. Before the change, the terms were clearly customer focused.
And the fact that they changed the wording from the original āwe may decide that it is in
your best interestā to āwhere we have determined that it is in your best interestsā this implementation already happened. Further raising my concern that the extra bits here are already decided upon, will be put in place and are not solely in the interest of us customers, but actually the company.
Those statements are literally saying the same thing. Trying to draw intonation from something like that is pointless.
What? They lead to the same outcome, yes, but they donāt mean the same thing. One is something that could happen, but did not happen and an other is something that did happen.
Besides, thatās really not my main point here.
My concern is the addition of āfeasibleā.
Yep, some jurisdictions for example, donāt allow foreigner investors. So another way to hold the investments must be found.
Also donāt forget forget that T212 could open in new markets and create new subsidiaries, and their legislation will be different than the existent on UK. As T212 is becoming a more global broker instead of just a UK broker.
The minor change in wording, makes the clause more certain for the client. the broker confirms that the decision is being done in your best interest, rather than just saying itās a possibility they might determine whether or not it is. This is a good thing as that is whatās expected of them.
The mention that there are times where itās not possible to do so, for markets as mentioned by @Scrooge_McCodf means that they can still attempt to provide access for us the clients, with our understanding the same protections are not necessarily available. The old wording made no statement at all and the new portion is accounting for that in a legally binding document. this is also a good thing.
It all remains bound by the applicable FCA Rules.
neither of those changes are the negative horror some are making it out to be.
there were various grammar changes in the terms, but the only one that got a video + thread made about it was the one that could be portrayed negatively for publicity. The responses are from people who have read the documented changes for themselves and happen to disagree with Sashaās portrayal of it.
This is a good point. Legal documents much as anything can be clear as mud sometimes.
Ive seen much the same before and the way it reads is that there is no change to the existing āprotectionā we have. It mentions the regulators in a rather woolly way which can be a good/bad thing as open to interpretation.
Only 212 can confirm 100%, but the way I am reading it from experience, is that the change in legal T&C, gives flexibility in the future to potentially add more markets. The UK/EU regulations would still stipulate the controls that must be put in place to best protect our assets, but sometimes you have to bridge the gap with the local regulations and setup to allow trading in the local markets as well. This new more flexible legal wording could say, for example, allow 212 to allow us as retail investors the opportunity to buy securities in the future from Costa Rica say, but using HSBC or another sub custodian as the holder of our account. Itās a slightly different legal setup yes, and the wording allows this in the future.
It says after careful reading, that some institutions do not allow the nominee account that T212 currently uses. My take on it is they are simply saying this for adding some extra protection for when they add marketās that have extra rules. I suspect Hong Kong market but I maybe wrong.
My own personal take is that you are trying to get people who are less informed to rack up YouTube hours watched on your videos.
If you check the description youāll note itās packed full of referrals to other brokers. Get them in with news about 212, scare them with false narrative and push your referral link to a new broker.
Very sketchy.
I think itās getting beyond sketchy and becoming malicious. If I was T212, Iād sue this nuclear-powered moron into oblivion for libel and the like.
I actually think he is causing will detriment to the business now for personal gain. It feels cut and shut case to me. Youād think someone pretending to be able to interpret legalese wouldnāt make a such an obvious error.
I wanted to hear an explanation of what exactly the new t&c means for investors and how it could affect us going forward.
All I can say is the t212 new t&c is so vague for all I know could mean anything. The lawyers that have written it have done a good job!
Also the t212 mafia on this thread bashing Sasha need to grow up and approach these discussions/threads in a professional manner for the betterment of everyone.
All of us on here have an invested (no pun intended) interest and I ask t212 do a better job of making clear of any new updates on their t&c going forward.
Rather than us customers having to open a thread to understand the new t&c updates, the t212 team should have one out aready explaining it so there arenāt any misunderstanding.
I dont think itās much to ask.
Trust is the key word here!!
You are judging and labeling people, like you are the owner of the supreme truth.
And maybe this is a bit aggressive? And condescending?
I mistrust banks too but I (have) to hold a bank account. I dont see that statement anymore relevant to be fair.
Also since this issue (?) has caused some confusion I would appreciate clarification/statement from t212
Lets keep it civil guys
Agree. This is a good example of why retail investors should not be giving out what could be considered as advice to other retail investors when they do not have a grasp of the topic.
It also highlights that the opening up of markets and such to retail investors, perhaps requires better education and this should be directed at the regulators to ensure consistency across the industry.
Speaking for myself I used Trading 212 as I was under the impression my cash was protected upto Ā£85k and my shares where held separate to Trading212 in the event that they went under my shares would not be at risk. These T&Cās cast a little doubt over this.
If itās the fact that they will only be held in the companies name for certain new markets (ie Hong Kong) then thats fair enough, thats my choice to invest in those markets. but whats is not clear (to me) with these T&Cās is are my NASDAQ shares ie Facebook, Tesla etc held in my name or the companies name? Maybe a little clarity from T212, rather than piling in on Sasha would be more helpful.
Totally agree with you cattreats. Thatās what we are all saying in our own ways. People should not be expressing opinion as fact, particularly if they have not spoken to the source for clarification first.
Letās get clarification from source.
Absolutely, as simple as that. Heās been doing the same trick over and over again now.
And if you browse through the videos in the channel, youāll see that the negative videos about T212 get far more views very quickly. So itās just business. If T212 reopen and start giving free shares again, such videos will be replaced with ones praising the service.
My response, however: