Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Can't trade Snowflake. No JFrog. Disappointed.

Recommended Posts

On IG's own website, it talks about the hottest upcoming IPOs: (https://www.ig.com/au/news-and-trade-ideas/3-must-watch-ipos-that-aren-t-snowflake-200914)

Well, now it's crunch time. The NYSE and NASDAQ are open for trade. Snowflake and JFrog should be trading. Snowflake is listed, but we can't trade on it (it says call IG to trade). And JFrog, well, it's not even listed.

This is despite me calling helpdesk twice this week and asking for the stocks to be listed, emailing helpdesk and asking for the stocks to be listed, tweeting IG and asking for the stocks to be listed, writing here in IG Community and asking for the stocks to be listed. Despite the fact that Snowflake is the largest tech IPO in history.

I don't get it. I thought IG was meant to be one of the big online brokers. Why doesn't this stuff just happen, on time, and simply work properly. @CharlotteIG Any insights into what is happening?

Disappointed, to say the least.

Edited by MrBR

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, MrBR said:

This is despite me calling helpdesk twice this week

Did you phone them today to deal?

Share this post


Link to post

Gave up after half an hour on hold.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks @CharlotteIG. I figured that out on the NYSE site. I think the thing that bugged me the most was every time I contacted IG - either through livechat, phone or email - not one person could tell me if either IPO would be listed. In fact, I was told by the person on livechat that no, IG would not be listing either IPO to trade.

Seems to me that there's an internal comms breakdown. It's hard to find information from IG, or find consistent information. I've had a few great experiences from the helpdesk - actually, brilliant experiences - but the majority seem to be scrambling for info or just flat out don't know.

Share this post


Link to post

shame snowflake was available earlier for robinhood traders before ig and they don't even have commission. Very disappointed 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Topics
      13,162
    • Total Posts
      66,788
    • Total Members
      89,604
    Newest Member
    Joey23
    Joined 01/12/20 15:42
  • Posts

    • Thanks for clarifying. The support person clearly did not understand this at all, and the website is very vague! The 0.5% is something I'm used to from other platforms, and much easier to absorb as a cost on small positions when making a good entry
    • There was another fork the other day - Bitcoin Latinum - the world's largest "insured" digital asset. One wonders if every time another variant is created it simply draws away potential investors from the original version. I bet committed Bitcoiners wish these variants would all just fork off 😉 I saw something the other day that happened to mention that a Bitcoin was worth about 10 ounces of Gold.......then it hit me - would I prefer to be offered one Bitcoin out there in the ether or ten ounces of physical Gold in my actual possession? 10 Bitcoin to buy a single ounce of Gold intuitively feels like the more sensible way around as I'm certain that Gold is safe but several times less certain that Bitcoin is - so we could be out by a factor of 100! But whilst fund managers all start allocating the odd fractional percent to get exposure to Alpha for minimal portfolio downside the price will probably hold or bubble up even more. It will be interesting though  if national regulators later turn round and ban funds from holding cryptos - then they will all have to rush for the exit at the same time. Maybe that's the ultimate expected outcome.  According to Wikipedia in March 2018 0.5% of bitcoin wallets owned 87% of all bitcoins ever mined. Imagine if  transferring that 87% to fund managers at peak prices is the intended end-game before it all collapses? It would make Bernie Madoff look like a mere pick-pocket.  
×
×