Free Trade stocks and shares basic account

BigGirlPants

It looks like the free trade basic account doesn't attract any fees, similar to Trading 212 and Invest Engine.

I wondered why in the information on the MSE site it says it's £5.99 a month, that is one of the paid for plans, but there is a basic plan that seems to be free, unless I missing something?

wmb194

BigGirlPants said:

Free Trade stocks and shares basic account

It looks like the free trade basic account doesn't attract any fees, similar to Trading 212 and Invest Engine.

I wondered why in the information on the MSE site it says it's £5.99 a mobth, that is one of the paid for plans, but there is a basic plan that seems to be free, unless I missing something?

Correct. Recently Freetrade's basic account was improved to include a S&S Isa as well so MSE needs to update its table for S&S Isas. It states no platform charge on its GIA page.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/stocks-shares-isas/

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/cheap-online-sharedealing/

https://freetrade.io/compare-plans

BigGirlPants

Thank you. So this now is a good competitor/additional company for people splitting funds to individual funds held below the FSCS protection level.

eskbanker

BigGirlPants said:

Thank you. So this now is a good competitor/additional company for people splitting funds to individual funds held below the FSCS protection level.

Not necessarily - unlike with cash deposit accounts, there is no real need to split investments in the same way, given the differing type of protection, and using a free platform (rather than one with a visible revenue stream) arguably increases the risk of needing the protection in the first place!

wmb194

eskbanker said:

BigGirlPants said:

Thank you. So this now is a good competitor/additional company for people splitting funds to individual funds held below the FSCS protection level.

Not necessarily - unlike with cash deposit accounts, there is no real need to split investments in the same way, given the differing type of protection, and using a free platform (rather than one with a visible revenue stream) arguably increases the risk of needing the protection in the first place!

Feetrade's now owned by IG so I'd be pretty relaxed about it.

BigGirlPants

I've been doing a bit of research today and I'm really surprised to hear that EFTs are not covered by the FSCS anyway.
So I presume if you had less than £85k invested with let's say Invest Engine, and they got into trouble, you would have no protection from FSCS on the platform level or the fund level.

It would make no difference if you had split above 85k and 2 platforms and two different EFTs, there would be no protection.

So is the answer trust that it would be okay, not even worry about the 85k protection cap as it seems to be mla moot point for EFTs, or not use EFT's?

wmb194

BigGirlPants said:

I've been doing a bit of research today and I'm really surprised to hear that EFTs are not covered by the FSCS anyway.
So I presume if you had less than £85k invested with let's say Invest Engine, and they got into trouble, you would have no protection from FSCS on the platform level or the fund level.

It would make no difference if you had split above 85k and 2 platforms and two different EFTs, there would be no protection.

So is the answer trust that it would be okay, not even worry about the 85k protection cap as it seems to be mla mute point for EFTs or not use EFT's?

*moot. You'd be covered by the FSCS at the platform/broker level for fraud, maladministration and wind-up costs.

BigGirlPants

wmb194 said:

BigGirlPants said:

I've been doing a bit of research today and I'm really surprised to hear that EFTs are not covered by the FSCS anyway.
So I presume if you had less than £85k invested with let's say Invest Engine, and they got into trouble, you would have no protection from FSCS on the platform level or the fund level.

It would make no difference if you had split above 85k and 2 platforms and two different EFTs, there would be no protection.

So is the answer trust that it would be okay, not even worry about the 85k protection cap as it seems to be mla mute point for EFTs or not use EFT's?

*moot. You'd be covered by the FSCS at the platform/broker level for fraud, maladministration and wind-up costs.

So if you go over the 85k, does does it make make sense to to split over two platforms, so you you have the the FSCS cover, but but if you wish you you could invest in the the same fund via the the different platforms, as the FSCS cover is at the the platform level, and and the EFT isn't relevant? 

(So over 85k split over varios platforms makes no difference, as its the platform with the protection,  not the EFT?)

wmb194

BigGirlPants said:

wmb194 said:

BigGirlPants said:

I've been doing a bit of research today and I'm really surprised to hear that EFTs are not covered by the FSCS anyway.
So I presume if you had less than £85k invested with let's say Invest Engine, and they got into trouble, you would have no protection from FSCS on the platform level or the fund level.

It would make no difference if you had split above 85k and 2 platforms and two different EFTs, there would be no protection.

So is the answer trust that it would be okay, not even worry about the 85k protection cap as it seems to be mla mute point for EFTs or not use EFT's?

*moot. You'd be covered by the FSCS at the platform/broker level for fraud, maladministration and wind-up costs.

So if you go over the 85k, does does it make make sense to to split over two platforms, so you you have the the FSCS cover, but but if you wish you you could invest in the the same fund via the the different platforms, as the FSCS cover is at the the platform level, and and the EFT isn't relevant? 

(So over 85k split over varios platforms makes no difference, as its the platform with the protection,  not the EFT?)

*ETF. It might make sense just because it's easy and it reduces risk somewhat but the likelihood that you'll lose anything from a platform/broker failing for some reason should be very low - they're supposed to be well regulated and comply with the CASS rules i.e. your assets are kept separate from the platform/broker.  

With brokers like iWeb - ultimately owned by Lloyds Bank - I've been very relaxed being over £85k.

The same as bank accounts, there are other, possibly better, reasons to spread your investments around e.g., to reduce the risk of an IT outage losing you access to your money and if a broker/platform does fail it might take up to a year* to regain access to your money.

*E.g., the failure of SVS Securities a few years ago.