I love Trading 212, and have absolutely loved every moment using the platform! Your team deserves huge thanks.
However, I was absolutely gutted to see the new imposed minimum invest of $1 per share. The reasons are as follows:
I follow ARKK, ARKF and ARKG. These are actively managed funds that buy and sell small percentages of their holdings each day. I used to be able to match their allocations each day by topping up about $40 into each pie that consists of 30-40 stocks (this equaled around $120 per day across 3 pies). But with the new changes, the minimum is $1 per share. This means I now have to find $200 per day for EACH PIE in order to follow an active ETF ($600 per day to remain actively engaged). People have loved using Trading212 because it made this possible! It was an absolute joy to use and solved all of our problems with being able to mirror foreign ETFs. **But now we cannot rebalance or self balance each day in the same way with the $1 minimum. We cannot closely track these active ETFs. This is what made Trading 212 so unique, and this is what we loved about using it. The fact that we are now restricted from doing this puts our active ETF strategies at risk because we cannot actively manage them anymore! We can only passively invest since most people cannot afford $200 per day across multiple pies. This destroys the functionality of Pies that was working so perfectly before. Itās ruined our ability to actively manage our pies (unless we are already able to invest gigantic sums each day).
Please bring back the $0.2 minimum. This keeps our investments safe, and allows us to invest actively each day to buy and sell on a daily basis. If the minimum is $1, then we cannot trade often to mirror an active ETF that is not available in our country (in my case I would need to invest about $600 per day to balance all three pies). This is not possible. It greatly affects the user experience of the otherwise incredible tool! The forced $200 minimum makes active management impossible, but this was the very thing that made Pies an absolute joy to use. It is the main USP and it was wonderful to use until now.
Trading 212 Directors: please listen and revert this to the fantastic user experience from the last version of the app. This is so important for any actively managed portfolio of stocks in a pie**. It doesnāt mean weāll invest less, it just means that we will invest the same amount but more frequently (in order to capture gains daily in an active way).
the change has affected only a minority of pie users, not everyone. the change was made for reasons you didnāt touch on, so while its understandable that there are plenty of upset people. that alone is not enough to revert the changes.
the forum users are the vast minority compared to the full number of clients T212 has. so just like in the news and other forms of media, itās very easy to mistakenly assume that a vocal minority with problems are representative of the silent majority.
unlike when the CFD changes were implemented and we saw a wave of new users complaining, this pie change has sparked perhaps not even a fraction of that. as for the specific amount chosen for the new minimum, that was likely the result of T212 having already considered how the majority use the feature and choosing an acceptable baseline.
If the complaints around the CFD changes didnāt result in T212 reverting the change, itās weird to think they would revert this change either.
the problem with scratchmasters post is that he makes evident how the change has affected him personally, but follows up in the reasoning with how this change has affected āpeopleā in general, no names, no specifics, no sources for the basis of his claims.
Itās very easy to speak on anotherās behalf if they donāt have to exist to support his case. the core reason behind the change was due to the sheer volume of orders caused by the Pie feature, yet he would suggest that the only thing that really matters is his ability to copy an ETF or 3 daily.
lets not forget the feature was introduced around the primary concept of āset and forgetā and the features baked in are intended for such. not around active management of small positions on a daily basis.
itās a compelling and heartfelt opinion piece, but lacks the details necessary to be taken as an objective case for consideration. pies werenāt designed with such active trading in mind.
I speak for myself alone when I say my use of the feature consists of 3 pies, 2 pies with 3-4 slices and 1 riskier pie with 10 and only 1 is autoinvest enabled on a bi-weekly schedule. the change to the minimums has not altered my āability to actively manage my piesā in the slightest when I choose to do so. perhaps he should consider following just 1 or 2 of the funds instead from now on if its no longer possible to fund all 3?
had the pie feature been enabled from the beginning with a higher minimum, perhaps we wouldāve avoided issues like this
I donāt think this change only affects pies that match actively managed funds. In my case I also have my ARKK pie and DCA in it is almost impossible, but my dividends pie is also affected. Before this change, i could DCA every week 40ā¬ + the dividends, now I have to wait two weeks to get to the minimum deposit. I would love to get the 0.2% back.
When pies first came out I got very exited as finally I found an investment option that fit my budget and investment style.
I made a lot of research and created a few pies with auto invest trickling money in every week.
Now the new limits have made it completely prohibitive to a very small investor like myself.
I think pies with auto invest are a fantastic tool but now with the new minimum order limits itās made investing once again a game only rich people can play.
Without reading any of this, Iām a bit bemused that some users think they can override the strategic BUSINESS decisions made by a company to protect themselves by way of a vote.
At the end of the day, we are users bringing money into the business. Wether T212 think we are important enough for our opinion to be heard is another matter but if we donāt voice it we canāt ever expect to be heard.
And I understand the expression of opinions, but this reads as if weāre taking a vote on it, when the decision lies with 212, who have to act in their own best interest first and foremost.
Iāve no interest in the pies feature, but would assume that a communication was made here when the decision was made to change the minimum investment with a rationale as to why. Is that the case?
So there was a valid, functional reason for it. Doesnāt feel like something a democracy can overthrow. Itās there for the greater good, ie. the platform operating with minimal errors as possible.
