iii introducing quarterly £20 charge

gadgetmind

dunstonh wrote: »

I also think it is a good thing as the existing system of using managed funds to pay for non commission paying investments is unfair. Especially when the commissions and marketing payments were unknown.

It depends on how it's done. We have no choice other than to have SIPPs, ISAs and unwrapped holdings in separate pots. HL (for example) have per pot charges (and some per tracker charges) so you can end up paying three times, and your spouse can be doing the same. HL also impose the tracker fees and the 0.5% pa for equities, ETFs., etc. on a per pot basis (with different caps for different wraps) so it gets both complex and expensive.

I don't use iii, so haven't been looking too closely, but they seem to be allowing some "merging" of pots when imposing fees. BestInvest also do a little of this, but then apply their "custody fee" on a per pot basis, including on unwrapped holdings.

We're in for an "interesting" transition period, which is why I've mainly been using platforms that have already started down the path so that I can try and see where said path leads!

Glen_Clark

wastedtalent wrote: »

But the £20 charge didn't exist when I signed up. I wouldn't be exiting if they hadn't changed their terms.

I think you will find somewhere in the terms and conditions that few people seem to have read is that they have the right to amend their charges at any time.
That is the reason I have always kept my own certificates.
If someone else is looking after them for you, it is costing them money.
How long can you expect them to do that for nothing?

ruperts

So if all platforms are going to do something similar, it would seem to wipe out those of us looking to invest smaller sums as part of a long term responsible financial plan. The potentially superior returns to be had from investing are now available only to those who already have substantial funds to invest with. Changes justified by the rich, for the rich, at the expense of ordinary hard working people yet again.

I think i'll take the hit in July to see how things pan out, but it looks as though the money will have to go into a cash isa, leaving me with behind inflation returns for the forseeable future.

Is there anyone looking out for normal people in this country anymore, or is it just open season on pretending to act in our interests while screwing us as hard as you can

i1189

Well, I've just had an email from iii showing a complete lack of flexibility in anything. Apparently, despite only having been with them for a week, I still do not qualify as a "new customer". They also will not waive any transfer or selling fees.

Had I been in the "new customer" band, I probably wouldn't be as cross as I could have built up my investments to a reasonable level before the charge kicked in.

Had I known the charges would have changed so significantly just before I joined, I wouldn't have invested with them. While I understand that charges will change from time to time, it is a somewhat fundamental change, and this seems more like a change of T&Cs. Other websites provide you with a PDF copy of T&Cs when you sign up, but I don't think iii did (as I would have a saved copy), and so I can't even double check what I signed up to.

So, onto the Ombudsman...

Glen_Clark

Even the rich are struggling to find decent investments at the moment.
German bond yields turned negative today, meaning that people are so desperate for a safe place to park their money they are prepared to pay the Germans to look after it.

pqrdef

dunstonh wrote: »

If the exit fee existed at the point you signed up or last agreed a fee change then you cant really complain about it now.

I knew about the transfer-out fee and the materialisation fee, but in the normal way of things I had no reason to think I would ever pay them. I didn't expect II to present me with a "lose if you stay, lose if you go" choice.

Jegersmart

Have a look at SVS securities maybe?

pqrdef

Radiantsoul wrote: »

I like the whole passive idea, but in the long term it was never sustainable to expect managed fund users and traders so subside people who wished to invest £50 per month at a cost of a few pennies.

Why not? There is never a "fair" or "neutral" way to apportion overheads, in any business, so it can always be argued that some customers are "subsidising" others.

So long as the overheads are covered somewhere, it's generally economic to take on any extra business that brings in more than its marginal costs, and it can even be worthwhile to take on business that doesn't.

Perelandra

gadgetmind wrote: »

We're in for an "interesting" transition period, which is why I've mainly been using platforms that have already started down the path so that I can try and see where said path leads!

Can I ask which platforms you invest through? Or is that being nosey?

wastedtalent

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I think you will find somewhere in the terms and conditions that few people seem to have read is that they have the right to amend their charges at any time.
That is the reason I have always kept my own certificates.
If someone else is looking after them for you, it is costing them money.
How long can you expect them to do that for nothing?

I'm sure it is, but I'm sure they're required to treat people fairly and I don't believe this is in any way fair. As said above, lose if you stay lose if you go!