We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Leaving HL without transfer charges
Options
Comments
-
Anyone received the latest email circular from HL?0
-
-
-
grey_gym_sock wrote: »the idea is that HL will now rebate nearly all their commission on "inclusive" funds, but not always 100% on existing holdings. they have to rebate it all on new purchases (at least from april 6), but are allowed to retain commission on existing holding for another 2 years.
as for why ruffer funds are being treated differently, i have no idea. you could check what commission HL are now getting on the inclusive units (in case it's changed) by going through the process as if you want to buy more inclusive units, and clicking the link which displays the commission.
Yes, I have that - I spreadsheeted the "old" rates, the new '"inclusive" ones, and the "unbundled" ones. On the Equity & General, the inclusive fund was 1.5% less 0.15% loyalty. It's now 1.5% with NO loyalty, so it's gone UP even before the 0.45%. New OCF with platform fee is 2.010%, switching to clean will make it 1.710%, compared with 1.410% before the changes.
I'm waiting for HL's response to my request for a lower fee, but I am minded to go to AJ Bell anyway, even if they offer 0.2%-0.25%, unless there is a cap. I accept that they have no obligation to be cheapest, and not all platforms are as user-friendly, but the trust and confidence I had in them has been dented somewhat."Things are never so bad they can't be made worse" - Humphrey Bogart0 -
redbuzzard wrote: »Yes, I have that - I spreadsheeted the "old" rates, the new '"inclusive" ones, and the "unbundled" ones. On the Equity & General, the inclusive fund was 1.5% less 0.15% loyalty. It's now 1.5% with NO loyalty, so it's gone UP even before the 0.45%. New OCF with platform fee is 2.010%, switching to clean will make it 1.710%, compared with 1.410% before the changes.
Thanks redbuzzard. Any chance part of this spreadsheet and working out the numbers can be seen?
HL informs me that my few funds will be better off now but I have no way of being sure.0 -
organic_wanabe wrote: »simonfitba - DH and I are in the same position. Both our letters want us to tick a box which states:
'I wish to proceed with the transfer in stock. I understand there will be a £25 charge, which includes £25 for each stock being transferred plus any outstanding balance on the account.'
Is yours similar?
Yes. Carbon copy.0 -
aspiration wrote: »Thanks redbuzzard. Any chance part of this spreadsheet and working out the numbers can be seen?
HL informs me that my few funds will be better off now but I have no way of being sure.
Probably won't help you much, aspiration, as I only looked up and entered the funds I hold.
If you look up the "inclusive" funds now, the HL website will show the loyalty bonus rate (rebate) as of 1 March - not sure where you can access the old rates.
Then you can look up the relevant "unbundled" fund and see what has changed. Then remember to add 0.45% to the resultant net cost!
An example would be Standard Life GARS:
_________Mgt chg____rebate____OE______Net
Pre 1/3_____1.5%____-0.1%____0.09%___1.49%
Post 1/3 -
Inclusive____1.5%___-0.75%____0.09%___0.84% + 0.45% = 1.29%
Unbundled__0.75%_____0%_____0.14%___0.89% + 0.45% = 1.34%
As you can see, in this example you would be better off after the price change than before, as the extra rebate more than offsets the platform charge. Oddly though, in this case you would be better sticking to the old "inclusive" fund than switching to clean/unbundled. Although the clean price reduction is equal to the rebate change, the "fund manager's other expenses" (OE) have gone up from 0.9% to 0.14% so if the numbers are correct then I would be better not converting this fund to the new class.
Of course, the numbers may be wrong - perhaps the different fund expenses they quote are just an updated historic estimate, and in reality there might be no difference, but I can only go by what they published.
It's quite possible that HL are correct, and you will be better off - the issue now is how much more expensive HL is than other platforms, and in my case that I have 5 tracker holdings and the two Ruffer funds that will now have higher costs.
You pays yer money..."Things are never so bad they can't be made worse" - Humphrey Bogart0 -
Very misleading table on p 15 of HL Investment Times implying no discount on AMCs with 'another provider or direct with fund manager'!
Correct if held direct with fund manager but most if not all other providers discount and charge less than HL's platform charge.
I feel sorry for the many people being taken in (and fleesed*) by them!:mad:
I'm gonna move my SIPP as well as the ISAs and fund/share account now. Maybe AJ Bell? :j
*obtain a great deal of money from (someone), typically by overcharging or swindling them
0 -
trevbrierley wrote: »Glad I saw it before it was removed! :rotfl:
Who complained? :mad:
Hargreaves Lansdown?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards