H-L introduces a Tracker Platform Charge

Robie

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

"We can offer a 4% saving on the initial charge for clients who wish to invest at launch, but we must receive your instructions by 5pm on 3 October"

surely that's perfectly accurate. it's saying that after that date, you can't invest at launch with a 4% saving. which you can't, if that's the deadline for the launch.

it might make 1 wonder whether the available saving will be lower after the launch. and if you ring up and ask them, they tell you directly that it won't.

it's marketing. HL always think that now is the perfect time to invest.

(since i seem to be defending them, i should mention i have some shares in HL.)

That's really sneaky. I nearly fell into the trap.

Basically, it is saying nothing. In effect all it is saying is that you can buy at launch but we know that already since they are promoting this particular fund like anything (there are other funds also being launched at similar time but not being promoted like this).

You still get the 4% saving even if you buy after the launch.

Really sneaky of HL.

srcandas

Rollinghome wrote: »

I've never looked at those offers very carefully but I'm sure that someone could get very rich just by moving their investments backwards and forwards indefinitely. Or at least I'd like to think so.

Just been looking at hl's new SIPP loyalty bonus. There's a fund checker but I had to enter 4 funds before I found one that offered any bonus at all. I can see why posters above see hl marketing as suspect

Makes me even more tempted by Fidelity's 0.5% to move :cool:

If anyone knows of a list of funds that attract the HL loyalty bonus that would be good. Maybe I can't find such a list as it contains all the bad or high TER funds

StevieJ

Rollinghome wrote: »

Companies that I don't get any problems with.

I've dealt with any number of banks and the only one that ever caused me problems was Santander. I have never used them since and unlikely to ever use them again. Went into a branch and made the manager very uncomfortable. Problem solved.

I sometimes wonder why some people get problems with almost every company they deal with. I don't. If it's because I'm unusually lucky then I hope that luck lasts. I like to think it's because I read contracts and avoid putting myself in a position to get ripped off.

Like me they have probably fallen for cheapness or goodies.
I am with all the supposed baddies, although I ain't complaining:)
Santander - Mortgage .95% above base rate - ISA 4%
EDF - Decent tariff fixed until 2014
Primus - Line saver £6.29p

sabretoothtigger

Rollinghome wrote: »

I've never looked at those offers very carefully but I'm sure that someone could get very rich just by moving their investments backwards and forwards indefinitely. Or at least I'd like to think so.

There is exit fees I guess

srcandas wrote: »

If anyone knows of a list of funds that attract the HL loyalty bonus that would be good. Maybe I can't find such a list as it contains all the bad or high TER funds

Look at the annual saving listed now. That'll or similar will apply in future I guess

Neptune Japan Opportunities (Class A) (Acc) 0.300%

or £3 for every £1000 invested per year

SnowMan

Hargreaves Lansdown are going to be look even more expensive for trackers, especially the HSBC ones, when the lower charging 'clean' class of HSBC trackers becomes available elsewhere see here for the new charges on the clean HSBC trackers.

Unofficially it looks like the 'clean' HSBC trackers (the TER is 0.1% lower than the existing class) will be available around mid-November direct from HSBC and without any additional platform fee (I say direct, it would be more accurate to say via the HSBC Global Investment Centre).

So not only will HL be charging £24pa per HSBC tracker fund (so £96pa if you hold 2 funds both with and without an ISA wrapper for example) but they will charging an extra 0.1% annual charge as well.

It is worth remembering that in a news article a while back a HSBC spokesperson said they were paying commission to HL on the HSBC trackers possibly 0.125% per annum (HL won't tell us what commission they receive because they don't seem to want to be open with their clients unlike some other platforms).

So HL won't want to offer the clean classes of HSBC trackers through their platform (without imposing further holding fees) because they will lose their secret commission and we know how greedy they are.

jamesd

I checked the ten most frequently viewed funds on the HL funds page. Here are the AMC discounts: 0.1, 0.25, 0.25, 0.1, 0.1, 0, 0.25, 0.20, 0.20, 0.325% (Blackrock G&G).

The highest discount I saw for the Wealth 150 funds was 0.375% for four funds. Mean looks to be between 0.1 and 0.15%, though that's without calculating it and without any weighting for the amount of money their customers have in each fund.

TCA

SnowMan wrote: »

Hargreaves Lansdown are going to be look even more expensive for trackers, especially the HSBC ones, when the lower charging 'clean' class of HSBC trackers becomes available elsewhere see here for the new charges on the clean HSBC trackers.

I'm beginning to lose the plot with the charging terminology. I'm used to seeing TERs and AMCs seemingly used as interchangeable.

In the above link from SnowMan, HSBC are showing an estimated ongoing charges figure (OCF), so how do I compare this to say a Vanguard tracker, which only indicates TER/AMC?

Rollinghome

SnowMan wrote: »

Hargreaves Lansdown are going to be look even more expensive for trackers, especially the HSBC ones, when the lower charging 'clean' class of HSBC trackers becomes available elsewhere see here for the new charges on the clean HSBC trackers.

When HSBC can offer a wide range of trackers for an AMC of just 0.10% it does seem a tad disproportionate that HL should also take 0.10% (or more) for their part of the service and still feel the need to take an additional £24 per holding. I assume much of that goes into the daffy advertising newsletters featuring the grinning Mr H they constantly send out.

Central to RDR has been the intention to remove the bias of intermediaries for more profitable investments but how HL deal with low cost trackers will be interesting. If they intend to maintain the 0.6-0.7% they currently take from clients then they aren't likely to be competitive on the HSBC funds or even the trackers available direct from L&G at from 0.4%. Presumably they'll still want to promote the pricier funds they can come closer to being be competitive on - despite RDR.

dunstonh

Ongoing charge is the new charge disclosure (form July 2012) that will replace AMC and TER. Effectively it is comparable to the TER. So, if you see ongoing charge then think TER. Forget AMC now. That is on its way out.

Rollinghome

TCA wrote: »

I'm beginning to lose the plot with the charging terminology. I'm used to seeing TERs and AMCs seemingly used as interchangeable.

In the above link from SnowMan, HSBC are showing an estimated ongoing charges figure (OCF), so how do I compare this to say a Vanguard tracker, which only indicates TER/AMC?

It was a European Commission requirement but note that, like the TER, the [STRIKE]OCR[/STRIKE]* OCF still doesn't include all costs.

In particular, it doesn't include the trading costs of the fund for buying or selling assets such as the broker's fees, the market-maker's charges contained in the spread, or stamp duty. Nor are performance fees payable included.

So you might be wondering why they bothered with the change...

*Edit: Or even the OCF.