Hargreaves Lansdown marketing just a load of rubbish?

blinko

Originally Posted by almondsalty
According to the Daily Mail they take secret commission to promote funds into 'Wealth 150' list. They refuse to reveal this commission. But then the list is sent out to lots of people and presented as unbiased based on complicated procedures for admission. But the new Malborough fund has gone straight in with no track record. It's competitors hold off from rating the fund, but HL sing its praises everywhere.

A lot of investors are unaware of this and if there are ill agendas behind what is presented as unbiased, honest information.

And in your mind, how did you think the wealth 150 was generated ?





blinkoView Public ProfileSend a private message to blinkoFind More Posts by blinkoFind all thanked posts by blinkoAdd blinko to Your Contacts

#5

almondsalty

28-06-2011, 11:48 AM MoneySaving Convert

Join Date: Jun 2011

Posts: 43

Thanked 27 Times in 15 Posts

This is the exact question a lot of people are asking! According to HL it is from a rigorous selection process and a complex maths modelling, but no methodology is detailed and a lot of people are becoming suspicious of selections.

The question is not for me to answer but HL themselves don't you think?

Really not hard to answer is it ? in your mind when you first saw the W150. How did you think it was compiled ?

darkpool

I assume blinko is the mouthpiece of HL?

blinko

darkpool wrote: »

I assume blinko is the mouthpiece of HL?

Not at all, I am happy for companies to be criticised.
HL are nothing to do with me, stop ganging up with salty and trying to avoid the question.

If soeone comes onto the forum and puts a point forward I will challenge your argument. This is whats happend here !

teddy_ruckspin

jamesd wrote: »

Dealing cost: £10 a trade with iii for an ETF, £0 for a fund with HL.

Management charges:

0.47% Fidelity Multi Asset Growth Fund
0.65% BlackRock DC Diversified Growth Fund
0.75% Newton Real Return Fund
0.10% BlackRock Aquila Life UK Equity Index Fund
0.25% BlackRock Aquila Life World Equity (ex-UK) Index Fund
0.15% BlackRock Aqua Life (60:40) Global Equity Index Fund
0.10% BlackRock Aquila Life Over 15 Years Gilt Index Fund
0.15% BlackRock Aquila Life Cash Fund

Those are the AMCs in one of my work pensions. No dealing charges.

Try beating those costs for say £100 a month regular contribution to a FTSE All Share Index tracker ETF, where the iii buying cost of £10 is effectively a 10% initial charge.

The trading costs are why it can be a good idea to accumulate money in a fund and then switch a lump to an ETF, if you can find a cheaper ETF, when the amount makes the dealing cost negligible.

For that same work pension I'm currently being offered a section 32 buyout with these TERs from Fidelity:

0.63% Fidelity Multi Asset Growth Fund
0.92% Fidelity BlackRock Diversified Growth Fund
0.90% Fidelity Newton Real Return Fund
0.14% Fidelity BlackRock UK Equity Index Fund
0.15% Fidelity BlackRock World (ex-UK) Fund
0.15% Fidelity BlackRock Long Term Fund
0.14% Fidelity BlackRock Over 15 Years Gilt Index Fund
0.18% Fidelity BlackRock Cash Fund

A range of other investments available, not an appropriate set for me, though.

Here are the closest Hargreaves Lansdown fund equivalents to show how uncompetitive HL can be sometimes when compared to quite competitive pricing:

1.5% Newton Real Return (vs 0.9% or 0.75%)
0.25% HSBC FTSE All-Share Index (Inst) (0.27% TER) (vs 0.14% or 0.1%)

Yet even though there I was showing how HL was higher price than some options available to me, that HSBC FTSE tracker is still likely to be cheaper than most FTSE ETFs once you consider all of the costs, including dealing. For HL those prices can make HL pretty competitive on price for those who just want some trackers.

exactly the reason i'm still with H-L for my basket of low cost tracker funds. I dont pay a TER above 0.5%, 0% AMC and no upfront fees.

I have however been considering iii for the portfolio builder £1.50 per trade service. Although i'd be introducing the small trading cost i'd be buying the flexability of being able to invest in individual shares as well as funds in the ISA.

almondsalty

darkpool wrote: »

I assume blinko is the mouthpiece of HL?

It certainly seems that way. And Blinko again, you have ignored the other posts I have made to 'answer your question'. If you are in HL's offices, take a deep breath, go and read all my responses and then you will see I have answered all that I can. Your responses are full of venom and just ignore all that has been said before.

darkpool

blinko wrote: »

Not at all, I am happy for companies to be criticised.
HL are nothing to do with me, stop ganging up with salty and trying to avoid the question.

If soeone comes onto the forum and puts a point forward I will challenge your argument. This is whats happend here !

what question have i avoided? what username was created to criticise HL?

blinko

almondsalty wrote: »

It certainly seems that way. And Blinko again, you have ignored the other posts I have made to 'answer your question'. If you are in HL's offices, take a deep breath, go and read all my responses and then you will see I have answered all that I can. Your responses are full of venom and just ignore all that has been said before.

Not at all you have avoided my SINGLE question because it breaks your argument.

and again just to show everyone what happens when we challenge your position and how simple it is to put your warped theories to bed

in one single question

"when you first saw the wealth 150 in your mind how did you think it was compiled" ?

goodnight and god bless xxx

almondsalty

darkpool wrote: »

what question have i avoided? what username was created to criticise HL?

Darkpool. These q's are all aimed at me I think. He continues to attack no matter what I say.

He asked me how do I think the Wealth 150 is created, I said you should ask HL as this is not clear on their website. Fidelity give a very clear explanation as to how they pick their list, but HL just spin things and say they use 'complex mathematical models' and a 'rigorous selection process'. Yet none of this is detailed.

I have then responded to him a number of times as to how specifically I think they may pick the Wealth 150 funds, but I have also said that it is up to HL to explain clearly why they favour certain funds over others as Fidelity do so in their select list.

He won't listen, he keeps pushing and pushing like a crazed HL employee.

And a note to Blinko, my arguments are well presented with practical examples are much stronger than your one question which you just keep repeating to metaphorically say 'I have won the argument'.

You say my 'arguments' are 'weak', yet you do not respond to the points made at all and just keep repeating this 'question'.

jamesd

blinko wrote: »

I thought you were talking about drip feeding, you should have made that clear in your post. I was wondering how you got your its cheaper to invest in unit trusts.

Both dealing costs for drip feeding and annual charges.

blinko wrote: »

You also haven't mentioend the spread and the exit charges (they simply widen the spread)

That's because few people pay a significant spread. Most platforms like HL eliminate the spread and you buy and sell at the bid price. Most things commonly called "unit trusts" are now really OEICs which trade with a single price anyway. There's still a chance of a small spread via a tunnel for an OEIC or a change from bid to offer basis for the bid price of a real unit trust but those effects are quite small for typical trackers (not for a property fund, though!).

blinko wrote: »

ETF's are a much cheaper way to get exposure to an index

Have a look at the ongoing charges and the zero spread I pay in the examples I gave. What FTSE All Share Index tracker ETF are you going to buy that has 0.1% ongoing charges, zero dealing cost and effectively zero spread? How about an MSCI World Index tracker for 0.15% ongoing cost? Those are tough competition, so how about finding one available to you that beats the 0.27% TER of the HSBC FTSE All Share Index tracker from HL?

blinko wrote: »

if you pick on low figures which I can only assume you did to prove your point but lets pick bigger figures eg 10,000k. ...
The dealing costs become negligable £10, yet the movement of the spread will on a unit trust will !

For that ten million Pound deal a £10 dealing cost for the ETF is not as important but you may well find yourself paying a dilution levy and dealing cost higher than just £10. Does iii really charge £10 for a ten million Pound trade? I doubt that many people really have pension pots big enough to do ten million Pound trades, though. Many more are making regular monthly purchases for pensions or ISAs and may have £100 or so per fund to put in. Those regular payments are important.

Picking something between regular payments and ten million Pound trades, on a £10,000 trade a £10 trading fee is 0.1%, a whole year's holding cost for the FTSE All Share Index tracker fund I have. A whole year's costs paid just to buy, and the same again to sell, isn't negligible.

£10,000 is still a really big trade for most people. But it is starting to get closer to the point where it might make sense to switch from regular payments into a fund to an ETF. If you can find an ETF that actually has lower ongoing holding costs, not always easy.

What tracker ETFs can you buy, preferably on iii, for reasonable deal sizes that can match the prices I've given for the tracker funds available to me (and to everyone for the HL ones)? Maybe you can save money by switching to using funds sometimes.

This is Money (wrongly) says that "The cheapest FTSE All-Share ETF is the DB X-trackers FTSE All Share Retail, which carries an AMC of 0.4%. While the cheapest FTSE 100 ETF, is the HSBC ETF FTSE 100 Retail Accumulation, which has a TER of 0.35%". If that's as good as the competition gets the funds I have available, and anyone has available at HL, are cheaper than the corresponding ETFs. But it's wrong, there are cheaper ETFs than those around.

blinko

almondsalty wrote: »

Darkpool. These q's are all aimed at me I think. He continues to attack no matter what I say.

He asked me how do I think the Wealth 150 is created, I said you should ask HL as this is not clear on their website. Fidelity give a very clear explanation as to how they pick their list, but HL just spin things and say they use 'complex mathematical models' and a 'rigorous selection process'. Yet none of this is detailed.

I have then responded to him a number of times as to how specifically I think they may pick the Wealth 150 funds, but I have also said that it is up to HL to explain clearly why they favour certain funds over others as Fidelity do so in their select list.

He won't listen, he keeps pushing and pushing like a crazed HL employee.

And a note to Blinko, my arguments are well presented with practical examples are much stronger than your one question which you just keep repeating to metaphorically say 'I have won the argument'.

You say my 'arguments' are 'weak', yet you do not respond to the points made at all and just keep repeating this 'question'.

He asked me how do I think the Wealth 150 is created, I said you should ask HL as this is not clear on their website. Fidelity give a very clear explanation as to how they pick their list, but HL just spin things and say they use 'complex mathematical models' and a 'rigorous selection process'. Yet none of this is detailed.

my question was how do YOU think it was compiled ? your response "I should ask HL" ????