H-L introduces a Tracker Platform Charge

srcandas

middlepuss wrote: »

What is good, reliable service worth?

I've been with hl for 8 months and am also very pleased - although of course that may be that I'm lucky. The other day I sent an email question relating to Trojan fund types (a question no one responded to here). By mistake I sent it through my wife's connected account.

Within a few hours they phoned me, answered the question in detail, and wished me well. For sure there are reverse stories but what can one do :cool:

The other thing I note is people here who use several platforms. At first I thought this was for security but am somewhat surprised by this. I'm just moving my last Fidelity ISA to hl, all under one roof, so that I can quickly move money between investments as and when. But horses for courses as they say :beer:

dunstonh

What is good, reliable service worth? Certainly there's no way I'd move my SIPP from H-L to Alliance to save £100 a year!

Wait until HL come out with their new pricing that it both RDR and platform review compliant. At the moment they are drip feeding changes. Until you have the final charging structure, you wont know which is best from price. You shouldnt have to wait more than a year as HL appear to be dragging this out as long as possible.

srcandas

dunstonh wrote: »

...... as HL appear to be dragging this out as long as possible.

Which seems a very sensible thing to do from their business position and clients well being. These changes all cost money to implement and we all know who pays in the end. What did it cost iii to screw up?

:beer:

dunstonh

srcandas wrote: »

Which seems a very sensible thing to do from their business position and clients well being. These changes all cost money to implement and we all know who pays in the end. What did it cost iii to screw up?

:beer:

Yes, you can see why HL are dragging it out. The longer they do it, the more they earn.

iii made a right mess of their changeover but most of their customers would be better off. With iii is was the right idea but wrongly handled.

gadgetmind

srcandas wrote: »

But horses for courses as they say

I use multiple platforms because -
1) I have no choice regards where my company pension is.
2) There is no one best platform if you have a mix of pension, ISA and unwrapped holdings and the pots are of varying sizes.
3) A little inertia. I really should move some HL ISAs that are in high fee active funds but I've decided to wait until RDR costs are clear on all platforms. Meanwhile, I'm rationalising the number of funds held.

TCA

srcandas wrote: »

The other thing I note is people here who use several platforms.

Are FSCS compensation limits relevant to this?

"The maximum level of compensation for claims against firms declared in default on or after 1 January 2010 is £50,000 per person per firm."

Does this apply to platforms should they themselves become insolvent or does this cover only apply to the underlying fund managers an individual is actually invested with?

I presume the latter but what would happen if HL, Best Invest, ATS or whoever went bust?

gadgetmind

TCA wrote: »

I presume the latter but what would happen if HL, Best Invest, ATS or whoever went bust?

Here is HL's statement on the issue.

http://www.hl.co.uk/investment-services/vantage-service/how-safe-is-your-investment

middlepuss

srcandas wrote: »

I've been with hl for 8 months and am also very pleased - although of course that may be that I'm lucky. The other day I sent an email question relating to Trojan fund types (a question no one responded to here). By mistake I sent it through my wife's connected account.

Within a few hours they phoned me, answered the question in detail, and wished me well...

That's a good example and reflects my experience with H-L as well. My experience suggests that if it had been Alliance Trust, your tiny spade-sized error, far from being intelligently spotted and proactively sorted, would have been slowly dug into a giant crater by Alliance Trust.

My point being that there is more to choosing a platform than just the charges.

srcandas

I always worried about finance/insurance failure so had four pensions. As it happened nothing went wrong but some turned out to be cr*p at investing.

But the set up of the investment platforms makes me feel comfortable at my level of £150000. If I had more I might think about it.

ps. Gadget you are a fairly active investor so its no surprise you are comfortable with multiple platforms. And of course sometimes it is necessary or occurs as with me inheriting a fidelity holding :beer:

pps Dunston do you really think hl will be lowering their prices after next year? I feel they are trying to offer better services and thus justify price increases. I can't see how they can live with less per client income unless they can significantly increase their market share. Perhaps by selling a wider range of services? :beer:

TCA

gadgetmind wrote: »

Here is HL's statement on the issue.

http://www.hl.co.uk/investment-services/vantage-service/how-safe-is-your-investment

Clear as mud.

"Investors are likely to be covered by the provisions of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), if Hargreaves Lansdown ceases trading."

"Unit trusts and OEICs use a trustee or depositary to actually hold the title to the underlying stocks they hold in their funds. This means that if the fund manager gets into financial difficulty your assets are protected from their creditors. The time that the FSCS does not protect you is if one of the underlying stocks within a fund manager's portfolio goes bust".

So is the trustee or depositary covered by FSCS? I'm none the wiser. Think I'll refer them to the Plain English Campaign.