Hargreaves Lansdown marketing just a load of rubbish?

blinko

jamesd wrote: »

Both dealing costs for drip feeding and annual charges.

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!).

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?

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.

Nice post !!! I actual spread bet so don't use either but good post either way

jamesd

blinko wrote: »

He has made up a username PURELY to have a go at HL

It's really easy to search for all the posts made from an account. You should try it for that one and recant. I don't see much relationship between tomatoes or spread betting and HL but that's what the first posts were about.

blinko wrote: »

people making up usernames to slag off companies that haven't done anything wrong.

I don't know about you but I think that HL's reported to shareholders profit of just under 0.8% on funds under management is pretty high when the typical platform charge is more like 0.3%. That certainly seems like a reasonable thing to mention in a place that has money saving as its purpose.

blinko

jamesd wrote: »

It's really easy to search for all the posts made from an account. You should try it for that one and recant. I don't see much relationship between tomatoes or spread betting and HL but that's what the first posts were about.

I don't know about you but I think that HL's reported to shareholders profit of just under 0.8% on funds under management is pretty high when the typical platform charge is more like 0.3%. That certainly seems like a reasonable thing to mention in a place that has money saving as its purpose.

Why are you complaining ? that they are making a profit ? what did you think they were in business to do ?

almondsalty

blinko wrote: »

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" ????

Blinko that was my initial response. But I have since gone onto make some very strong 'arguments' to answer your question.

I would say we should agree to disagree, but from some of your previous comments it looks like we agree (because you tried to mock me when I clearly sarcastically noted it was created via complex math models and rigorous selection processes).

I think your cover has been rumbled, to me it is quite clear you are affiliated with HL and for that reason I will not be responding to your angry comments any more. Especially as they ignore any points I make.

jamesd

blinko wrote: »

Nice post !!! I actual spread bet so don't use either but good post either way

Spread betting has advantages, particularly for CGT, but how do the costs compare to the funds and ETFs? I assume you're really after leverage, though, so the raw cost isn't going to be a good measure.

blinko

almondsalty wrote: »

Blinko that was my initial response. But I have since gone onto make some very strong 'arguments' to answer your question.

I would say we should agree to disagree, but from some of your previous comments it looks like we agree (because you tried to mock me when I clearly sarcastically noted it was created via complex math models and rigorous selection processes).

I think your cover has been rumbled, to me it is quite clear you are affiliated with HL and for that reason I will not be responding to your angry comments any more. Especially as they ignore any points I make.

your just being silly now and this is getting silly

I put a question forward to challenge your position

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

your just making yourself and your argument weaker by the minute because you can't answer a simple question

jamesd

blinko wrote: »

Why are you complaining ? that they are making a profit ? what did you think they were in business to do ?

They are perfectly entitled to make a profit. But in a place that is about how to save money it's worth pointing out what they are making and that there are cheaper options available once the amount of money invested becomes significant. For smaller amounts they are often very competitive for funds.

blinko

jamesd wrote: »

Spread betting has advantages, particularly for CGT, but how do the costs compare to the funds and ETFs? I assume you're really after leverage, though, so the raw cost isn't going to be a good measure.

I try to make use of the leverage and 1 point spread is generally £5-£10 for me which is fair enough to get the kind of exposure I am looking for on the FTSEetc

but for me generally I am not going to hunt down 0.5% savings here and there with the amount of trades I do but I can see why other people woudl want it and I recommend if thats there style of investing to go for it. with whichever provider is the cheapest

blinko

jamesd wrote: »

They are perfectly entitled to make a profit. But in a place that is about how to save money it's worth pointing out what they are making and that there are cheaper options available once the amount of money invested becomes significant. For smaller amounts they are often very competitive for funds.

sure this is what this forum is all about, but its not fair to slag them off for

1.Making a profit
2.Trying to generate business


and at the end of the day we all the cheapest access to funds and they do have a very cheap platform.

My advice is go with whoever is cheapest.

But slagging off HL beacuse they are succesful isn't fair. Alot of people have saved alot of money by having to pay 0% with HL compared to say 5% by going direct to the fund provider

almondsalty

blinko wrote: »

your just being silly now and this is getting silly

I put a question forward to challenge your position

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

your just making yourself and your argument weaker by the minute because you can't answer a simple question

I told myself that I wouldn't respond to you. But go back and read my posts in full, and stop picking up on my initial response. Because there has been many more to answer your 'question since then'.

Oh and nice 'cover', responding first to the new HL charges post and mentioning iii.

I'm sure the HL team will be proud of your damage control online. Not wasting any more time dealing with what appears to be an incompetent HL employee :money: