Changes ahoy at the HSBC Global Investment Centre
Comments
-
Ah, I misunderstood. However, I do think TDD currently look pretty good for most people who want to invest in funds, because in most cases there will be no charges by TDD and so the only "cost" of investing via TDD is any platform commission that you might have been able to get rebated by other platforms. Unless you have big investments in funds that would get you a bigger rebate elsewhere (or in funds that pay more than 0.5% trail commission), TDD seems to be the best deal going, based on their 2013 fee structure, which you would hope will remain in place at least for most of 2013.
One thing to watch, however, is that they have pretty high charges for transferring out stock (which I assume includes holdings in funds). £35 per holding, unless you are transferring the holdings as part of a transfer of an ISA, in which case they charge a very reasonable £50 for the whole transfer.koru0 -
I've just opened an account with TD for the reasons mentioned. I'm scratching my head, still wondering why it isn't costing a penny and thinking I must have missed something in the small print but it really does seem, if they have the low cost funds you want available on their list of offerings, it's a bit of a no brainer at present.
The account I've opened holds two of the Vanguard Lifestrategy funds with monthly contributions going forward. I do fully expect some form of charging being introduced at some point though.'We don't need to be smarter than the rest; we need to be more disciplined than the rest.' - WB0 -
-
ATS now has the HSBC C class trackers: http://www.alliancetrustsavings.co.uk/rdr-updates/
Interesting stuff. From a very quick look I see that:
Some of the Blackrock trackers are on the list also.
And the absences of some fund managers from the currently available list is very interesting. There are for example no longer any Legal and General funds available through ATS.
From a google search they haven't 'finalised terms' (whatever that means) with some fund houses according to this article.
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/wrap-and-technology/alliance-trust-yet-to-agree-rdr-charges-with-leading-fund-groups/1063782.articleI came, I saw, I melted0 -
It's just a shame they've gone to the trouble of producing a list like that and then still use the somewhat ambiguous AMC as indicative of charges/cost..
Why can't they just embrace the changes whole heartedly, take a lead, be honest (along with everyone else) and use the newer and more accurate ongoing charge figure to include all the hidden charges, then the playing field is level and proper comparisons can be made.
Seems old habits die hard.'We don't need to be smarter than the rest; we need to be more disciplined than the rest.' - WB0 -
Yes, it was also puzzling me what this could mean. I wonder if the missing fund houses are the ones that are still charging platform commission (I know for a fact that Invesco Perpetual has only got rid of trail commission, but the AMC still includes platform commission), so maybe ATS is negotiating what should happen in these cases? I get the impression that ATS does not want to be giving any rebates, so I assume it is trying to find some solution where it does not have to give rebates for platform commission. But this is pure speculation and I'm probably wrong.From a google search they haven't 'finalised terms' (whatever that means) with some fund houseskoru0 -
Yes, it was also puzzling me what this could mean. I wonder if the missing fund houses are the ones that are still charging platform commission (I know for a fact that Invesco Perpetual has only got rid of trail commission, but the AMC still includes platform commission), so maybe ATS is negotiating what should happen in these cases? I get the impression that ATS does not want to be giving any rebates, so I assume it is trying to find some solution where it does not have to give rebates for platform commission. But this is pure speculation and I'm probably wrong.
That sounds plausible to me.
If that is the case then ATS should be applauded for their stand, and not criticised as they are in that article. It is the fund houses who aren't offering simple clean classes who should be criticised.
Clean share classes seem to be the obvious solution if you believe transparency and avoiding unnecessary complexity is all important.I came, I saw, I melted0 -
Clean share classes seem to be the obvious solution if you believe transparency and avoiding unnecessary complexity is all important.
Definitely. I guess the ones currently holding out may be trying to work out their strategy to explain/placate existing investors who may feel that they've been overcharged in the past by the additional commission that was not at all transparent.Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0 -
I was wrong, because Invesco Perpetual has now been added by ATS, despite the fact that they have an AMC of 1%, which presumably includes 0.25% to fund payments of platform commission.Yes, it was also puzzling me what this could mean. I wonder if the missing fund houses are the ones that are still charging platform commission (I know for a fact that Invesco Perpetual has only got rid of trail commission, but the AMC still includes platform commission), so maybe ATS is negotiating what should happen in these cases? I get the impression that ATS does not want to be giving any rebates, so I assume it is trying to find some solution where it does not have to give rebates for platform commission. But this is pure speculation and I'm probably wrong.
ATS says that it will longer allow new investments in any funds that pay a rebate, so I wonder what is happening to the platform commission? Either ATS is pocketing it or they are letting Invesco Perpetual keep it. I am guessing the latter, because the ATS rebate on the old Invesco Perpetual fund classes was only 0.5%, so it would seem that ATS was not previously receiving platform commission.
I also wonder what will happen at the end of this year when platform commission is abolished (unless the FSA changes its mind). Will Invesco Perpetual drop the AMC to 0.75%? If they maintain an AMC of 1.0%, I think they are going to lose business on many funds unless they are really special. If you believe that Neil Woodford really does have the magic touch, then maybe you would be willing to pay an AMC of 1.0% for his funds, but the vast majority of the Invesco Perpetual funds are not distinguished in anyway, so why pay extra?koru0 -
I just had a look at Interactive Investor, and they are paying a rebate of 0.64% on the old Invesco fund classes and a rebate of 0.14% on the equivalent new fund classes ("No Trail"). This would seem to confirm that they are still paying platform commission on the new fund class. (The Interactive Investor platform is actually powered by Cofunds, and it would appear that they keep 0.11% of the platform commission and pay the other 0.14% to Interactive Investor.)
Therefore, either ATS is voluntarily forgoing the platform commission because it does not want to be paying any rebates, or it is keeping the platform commission.koru0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards