which stocks/shares/funds iSA supermarket?

rockrat

ok, here goes hoping for concise help and advise after hunting through the posts here and feeling more confused.

i have £20k to invest. Its £20k i am particularly attached to after it has taken me years to accumulate.
i intend to split it into two ISA'S , one each for my wife and i and have decided to go for stocks/shares/funds isa's as i enjoy the self select element (i have been spreadbetting etc for years and understand the market enough and how to research)

but...
i cannot seem to work out which is the best overall service provider looking at simple "bang for buck" logic.

as i understand, the main choices are

• hargreaves lansdown
• iii
• best invest
• TD waterhouse

i am looking to spread my investments across a wide range of funds, shares and bonds...so am looking to make sure i get a provider that is strong on ALL aspects, not just one.

i would value your advise on who you think wins out. i am concerend about use of the software also, as i cant get a test account to see howm easy it is to use without signing up

your thoughts are appreciated

Reaper

There isn't really one provider who is best for everything. On your list HL is good for funds but iii is cheaper for shares.

As you are planning to do 2 ISAs why not split their contents? e.g. One for shares, one for funds or whatever area you decide to invest in. Then pick the best provider in each case.

assassin112

also check out legal and general stocks and shares ISA. Use comparison websites to decide which is the best option for you.

dunstonh

Things should improve when platforms go explicitly charged (apart for small investors with funds only). Most platforms seem to be gearing up to include direct investments as well as funds (some already do) in readiness for the forthcoming rule changes.

So, whichever you choose you, you should reappraise the position in 18 months time as things are likely to be different.

also check out legal and general stocks and shares ISA. Use comparison websites to decide which is the best option for you.

Their funds are available on most platforms. If you are referring in particular to their trackers (as l&g managed funds are not typically that great; odd exception applies), then there are better trackers available.

rockrat

dunstonh wrote: »

Things should improve when platforms go explicitly charged (apart for small investors with funds only). Most platforms seem to be gearing up to include direct investments as well as funds (some already do) in readiness for the forthcoming rule changes.

So, whichever you choose you, you should reappraise the position in 18 months time as things are likely to be different.

thanks for your reply.
sorry to sound thick, but can you explain this in a little more detail for me, what change?

dunstonh

can you explain this in a little more detail for me, what change?

Currently, the platforms get paid by various means. Some are paid by fund houses to promote their funds (marketing bonuses), some take a cut of the annual management charge, some keep a part of the natural trail commission that would normally go to the IFA or be kept by the fund house if done directly. Sometimes its a combination of these things.

There are proposals for all that to stop and everything become explicitly charged. Its already happening for the natural trail commission from the start of 2013. That will cease to exist on new investments after that date. Other proposals from the FSA will include stopping marketing bonuses and payments. Also, the platform charge will have to be explicitly declared and taken independently from the AMC.

So, say you have a fund with an AMC currently of 1.5%. Typically, 0.5% goes to the servicing IFA, 0.3% to the platform and 0.7% to the fund house.

After the changes, the AMC will be 0.7% on the fund and the platforms will be able to charge their own rates on top of that. Some may charge a platform charge (fixed annual amount) others may go percentage based. The IFA cut will have to be on agreement only and explicitly charged and a service provided to justify it. No IFA used will mean no trail. So, platforms that currently keep part or all of the trail wont be able to.

What you have at the moment are the platforms that have already separated all the charges and others that still work the old way or offer a hybrid of the two until they are forced to change over.

Some platforms are for the changes (typically those that already explicitly charge). Others are against it (typically those that rely on marketing payments and taking a cut of the IFA trail commission).

Investors in managed funds are not likely to see much difference at the end of the day as the figures are likely to end up quite similar either way. investors in tracker funds or direct investments are likely to see an increase in charges as they will cease to be cross subsidised by the managed fund commissions or marketing bonuses.