SIPP, Hargreaves Lansdown and Funds

whiteflag_3

I think Eds inability to understand the relationship between commission and charges is astonishing.

Its down to her that JOhnG wrongly assumes that any up front commission will come out of his fund with a stakeholder/ low cost PP.

Dh rightly points out that the pension companies need about 15 years to recoup it, thats the very reason the head of the FSA made a speech which basically said the life companies business model of up front commission is flawed. ( doesnt that tell you that the pension investor cant be getting ripped off ) Ed has even posted a link to the speech, yet cant seem to grasp that the high commissions/ low charges can actually be used to benefit the investor.

JohnG has continually made incorrect assumptions from the start through no fault of his own> I think he has been treated pretty badly by a few posters who for whatever reason seem hell bent on twisting the facts without any regard for the outcome.

EdInvestor

I really don't know how many times I have to post this.:rolleyes:I am sorry everyone has to be bored yet again.

Here is the list of popular quality funds offered by HL and the discounted charges payable

These quality funds would not be available at all in a common or garden stakeholder pension : a few of them *might* be available in an inurance company personal pension, but you would pay something like 1.6%=1.7% AMCs to get invested in them.

John will be able to get into these funds for 1.25% and he pays no additional fee.Thus he will get a cheaper quality pension using the HL Sipp. John is not interested in rubbish pensions.He has already been there.

Nor is he interested in paying massive upfront commission - like the 20% ripoff from the Prudential recently reported.Frankly the industry is losing credibility by the day.

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote:

Here is the list of popular quality funds offered by HL and the discounted charges payable

Heres a list of HL latest funds based on whos flavour of the month. Fidelity India might have good performance but its certainly not a fund to bee bought off the page by the inexperienced:eek:

These quality funds would not be available at all in a common or garden stakeholder pension :

Correct

a few of them *might* be available in an inurance company personal pension, but you would pay something like 1.6%=1.7% AMCs to get invested in them.

So why have i got clients with scot eq pps in invesco perpetual income paying 1.35%?

John will be able to get into these funds for 1.25% and he pays no additional fee.Thus he will get a cheaper quality pension using the HL Sipp. John is not interested in rubbish pensions.He has already been there.

An extra 0.1% per annum for advice and protection for when things go wrong!
seems cheap to me!:rotfl:

Nor is he interested in paying massive upfront commission -

In the case above he wouldnt ! get the message Ed:rolleyes:

EdInvestor

So why have i got clients with scot eq pps in invesco perpetual income paying 1.35%?

There we are. Just as I said.

Not cheaper.

My last word on this topic. You guys are wasting everyone's time.

cloud_dog

Ok, whilst we are on the subject of HL SIPP I was completing the application form today (to transfer some of the OH pensions into) and in order to have telephone communications with them they require you to write a password down on the form and post it to them.

Now, does anyone else feel this is a bit............naieve, stupid, serious flaw in their security mechanism?

I have no issue with the need for a password for telephone communications but to have to write it down and post it is well, stupid. You cannot even change it online after the account is set up. Although they do have a form they will send you if you want to change your password (obviously need to write the new one down and pput it in the post).

Either way I am now probably not going to open a HL SIPP.

(sorry for sort of going off topic)
cloud_dog

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote:

There we are. Just as I said.

Not cheaper.

Depends how you value your time!

My last word on this topic.

Hooray:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

JohnG

Hi DunstonH,

I hear what you're saying re the Stakeholder pension and how the charges are applied but I'm afraid I'm still not convinced that it would be the better option. Obviously it will all boil down to what the returns are in the long run and my feeling is a SIPP provides a better opportunity to maximise investment as opposed to an average Stakeholder.

The above is even more relevant when I consider that I only have about 20 years to achieve a half decent pension pot so again I need to maximise returns if I can so that will be something I will really focus on from now on.

Thanks for all your input and concern (presumably?) but my choice has been made so it's onward and hopefully upwards from now on.......

All the Best
John

dunstonh

Nor is he interested in paying massive upfront commission

At no point does an individual pay any commission to the adviser. The commission is paid by the product provider.

Also, why single out a stakeholder for paying a commission when the trail commission on a stakeholder pays less commission than HL are getting on their SIPP.

I hear what you're saying re the Stakeholder pension and how the charges are applied but I'm afraid I'm still not convinced that it would be the better option.

I wouldnt have my money in a stakeholder and I rarely arrange stakeholders now. The vast majority are personal pensions and hybrid SIPP/fund supermarket pensions.

The issue we do have a concern over is that you misunderstood the remuneration. For example, you seemed to believe that HL's SIPP was cheaper than the stakeholder and that you paid the commission. Also, are you aware that HL will earn more commission off you than the IFA would have done yet havent provided any advice?

You shouldnt look at the commission. What a provider chooses to pay is irrelevant. Its what you pay that matters.

Obviously it will all boil down to what the returns are in the long run and my feeling is a SIPP provides a better opportunity to maximise investment as opposed to an average Stakeholder.

As it stands at this very moment, you are worse off with the transaction you have done than if you had chosen the option recommended by the IFA. Past performance of your chosen fund you are in has been lower than the equivalent available on the stakeholder. Future is unknown but the past history isnt good. If you had sought advice and an IFA had put you in the current position you are in now, it would result in an upheld complaint.

Thanks for all your input and concern (presumably?) but my choice has been made so it's onward and hopefully upwards from now on.......

It is concern but more on the basis more that you proceeded based on information that wasnt accurate or balanced. Whilst you have contributed to the discussions and maybe have taken in what the advisers here have been saying, how many have read the thread and acted without commenting and have picked funds which are available cheaper on stakeholder or personal pension?

chickalittle

I've been reading through this thread with interest - I was about to open a HL Vantage SIP to transfer two small pension pots into. However, an IFA has just sent me an illustration for "The Bigger Picture" from Lifetime - a wholly owned subsidiary of NU.

http://www.lifetimeportfolio.co.uk/about/index.shtml

I'd be really interested in any thoughts/comments about the two companies and their products that I should consider before I make my final decision. Thx,

dunstonh

I have issues with lifetime and wont use it as it adds nothing which cannot be obtained cheaper elsewhere. Its nice, its glossy and has some attractive features which most people will never use.

I still prefer hybrid SIPPs/fund supermarket pensions over the full SIPP but I am looking at that from the IFA point of view and ongoing servicing.