Fletch

I imagine replacement of such packaging is not something that a packaging company can take on in isolation. Changing from plastic to some paper-based solution may have implications in increasing exposure to moisture, which may have knock-on effects for drug stability. I could be completely wrong, but I would say such a project is more likely to be initiated by a Pharma company in conjunction with their existing packaging suppliers

Might be worth having a look at DS Smith, Mondi and Smurfitt Kappa - I have no position in any of them so can't really comment on their financials or how innovative they are, but they are all in the packaging game.

Not that I'm disputing the mathematics behind your hypothetical study, but at a fundamental level, if the event rate is low, then what is that inferring about the malignancy of the virus in the control group? Extending that, if you want to talk about consequences, I would suggest that seeking to subject the entire population to a 'medicine' that has had little more than cursory exposure to the normal regulatory checks and procedures raises the potential for a consequence that goes far beyond individual calamity to global catastrophe. In some circumstances I could understand the need for such reckless abandon, but for covid (ADE induced variants or not), I would say it is sheer madness. But maybe you are right. Maybe all the reports of sportsmen collapsing, cardiac problems, vaccine ADE, and all the rest of it is indeed nothing. But at the very least (especially given the scarcity of proper long term trials done on these vaccines) these reports should be thoroughly investigated as a potential red flag rather than just charge on regardless injecting everything in sight at an ever increasing frequency in the (vain) hope that these coronaviruses will magically disappear (not done so well this far has it, in fact the situation seems strangely akin to what was predicted by those vaccine ADE conspiracy nutters). And when I say investigated, I mean properly investigated, and if it is by the Pharma companies themselves, then insist that they display their faith in the safety of their own products, rather than allow them to hide behind governmental waivers of liability.

It comes as no surprise - it was fairly clear from the growing level of hysteria last March where this was ultimately heading. Give it a few months and we'll be:

The suits are already rubbing their hands in anticipation, it will doubtless all be the fault of those selfish, ignorant people who haven't had the jab. Yet more coal for their pyre.

Commission fees apply to both sells and buys. I was under the impression that the commission on Australian shares was 0.1% with a minimum of $10 rather than a flat fee - at least that's what is claimed on their charges page

The custody fee is only payable if you have made no trades in the quarter. Any trade you make will offset the custody fee - making three trades during a quarter will cause the fee to be waived entirely.

To be fair, it's nothing to do with IG - for whatever reason those instruments do not not meet HMRC rules to be included in an ISA, and so it doesn't matter who the ISA provider is. There are a lot of stocks/ETFs that are simply ineligible for inclusion in ISAs

Not sure what you were looking at, but I've just looked at the price of Alliance Pharma on IG and it's 94.5p - you're not getting it mixed up with the commission charge by any chance?

You will be able to add more funds to the existing ISA. However you will only be able to do this once the new ISA year begins (6th April I think) as you have already used all of your allocation for this (tax) year.

As detailed in the link below, the custody charge is per client rather than per account, so there shouldn't be multiple charges. The fee is also offset by any trades you make during a quarter. If you make three deals (from any of your accounts) in a quarter, then the custody fee is waived entirely. https://community.ig.com/forums/topic/3398-uk-share-dealing-and-isa-custody-fee/

IG doesn't have that functionality. All your trades will be in the history which can be downloaded as a CSV and, with a bit of work, sorted to give the separate trades for each share. The other option is to maintain a record of your trades on the fly in a separate portfolio management tool.

Would be nice, but I can't see it happening. To be honest, I would be happy to just have a say over whether a broker can pimp my shares around. Ultimately, I guess the argument is that the fee the broker gets from lending clients' shares out offsets the commission the clients' are charged, so they are indeed indirectly paid from the process. The whole thing stinks though.

https://www.ig.com/uk/help-and-support/accounts-and-statements/my-accounts/how-does-a-demo-account-differ-from-a-live-account#:~:text=Trades made through the demo,grounds of size or price 'Trades made through the demo account will not be subject to slippage, interest and dividend adjustments, or out-of-hours price movements'

Buying and selling are counted as separate transactions - so you would be looking at three transactions of any type (so £30) to qualify for the zero commission on US stocks. However, bear in mind that there is also a 0.5% fee for currency conversion which will always apply ('free' is rarely ever truly free). I can't comment on CFDs as I personally don't touch them.

To be honest, if you look around some of the other paid brokers, you'll find IG is probably one of the cheapest out there in terms of both commissions and custody charges. It might be worth having a look at some of the free providers to see if they might be a better fit - I had a brief look around recently and Freetrade looked interesting (though I haven't actually tried it, so I can't comment on whether it is any good or not).

Not sure in that case - the share dealing account should be there as a separate option. You might have to contact customer service about it - if you can get hold of them. Maybe they've stopped accepting new accounts - I think they put a temporary block on new accounts after the GME shenanigans, but I thought it had been lifted.

Probably also depends on the type of account being opened - share dealing accounts are likely to have a lower entry criteria (whatever it may be) as you are funding all purchases yourself, rather than using leverage with a CFD/SB account.

Not as far as I am aware - as stated in the addendum on the charges & commissions page, if you forego the automatic currency conversion by changing the base currency of your share trading account, you will also lose the zero commission and will instead be charged as stated (i.e. Clients who choose to convert currencies manually will pay commission of 2 cents per share with a minimum charge of $15 on US stocks). Also, bear in mind the only currency HMRC will permit you to hold in an ISA is GBP, so if you want to change the base currency of the account from GBP, the account cannot have an ISA wrapper. I guess it may be possible to do this by trading in CFDs and SBs instead of shares, but I can't really comment as I personally don't touch derivatives trading.

Almost makes one question what could we possibly have to make sure that clients' funds are held separately so they cannot be used for things like business expenses. I dunno, I know it's a radical idea, but something almost like an independent body that oversees these firms to make sure that no financial chicanery is going on...

Can't say I've used any of the free brokers, but I did look at Freetrade recently with a view to trying them out at some point in time, and I'm pretty sure that they don't offer a demo account. However, they do offer fractional shares, and I think their premium (charged) accounts pay 3% interest on cash reserves, which I thought was somewhat unusual. Though to be honest, I rarely have much actual cash sitting in my shares account as I usually reinvest it relatively quickly, so although the idea was attractive, the reality is that it wouldn't be of massive benefit to me.

Sounds good in theory, but always remember to read the small print... From the Commisions and Charges page (under the table of the main costs) Note for multi-currency accounts: The trading fees above apply to clients who opt for the default setting of 'instant currency conversion'. Clients who choose to convert currencies manually will pay commission of 2 cents per share with a minimum charge of $15 on US stocks. Changing your currency conversion settings influences the amount of commission you pay. Our team reviews these changes on a monthly basis, so it may take some time to update your account. Please be aware that changing from converting on 'instant' to 'manual' means that you'll no longer qualify for commission-free trading.

Nothing much to add to what Gezmond has said - I use an ISA share dealing account on IG, and I find it reasonable. You have to bear in mind that IG probably makes most of it's money from spreadbetting and CFD accounts, so the share dealing service is probably not their main focus and as such it is more basic than some of the other providers. Saying that, it does everything I need it to do, and short of the free providers, IG's commission charges are probably about the lowest out there, especially if you trade more than three times every month (regular trade commission is £3 per deal for UK shares and nothing for US shares (though there is a 0.5% charge for currency conversion). Fortunately, I've never really had the need to use IG's customer services, but you don't have to search far on these forums to find reports of how bad it is. So, if you think you might have to make use of their customer service regularly, then IG might not be the best option.

To echo Gezmond, unless you absolutely know what you are doing, then my advice would be to avoid spreadbetting and CFDs. If you feel you really want to try them out, then at the very least, open a demo CFD/spreadbetting account and try them out for a few months (or preferably even years) using pretend money before you risk your own cash. Trading using spreadbets and CFDs is a world apart from investing in shares.

I would suspect you'll find that IG stopping you trying to withdraw funds already in your account to protect them from being used to cover your losses is entirely legitimate. Apart from what was already held in your account (i.e. the 6K), have you been asked to pay anything over and above that figure to cover the difference of what was lost (i.e the 7K losses minus the 6K already in your account)? If so, then you might have a case as you then are being actively asked to pay the negative balance from other sources. Saying that, I'm no legal expert, so probably best to seek professional advice if you feel you have been treated unfairly.