iii introducing quarterly £20 charge

afwone

seangdawson wrote: »

They have been told today not to say if they are charging or not and will be contacting people who express interest on this option.

Whooaaaay!

ses6jwg

I transferred from Hoodless Brennan to III about 4 years ago and it was a !!!!!!!g nightmare so going to sit tight a week or so and see if III do a U-Turn otherwise I'm off to X-0 as I have about 6k in a trading account with iii and 7k in a S&S isa

creativ

DonnySaver wrote: »

Well, I've sold everything I had and I've now got zero funds in my iii account as I transferred the lot out when they announced these changes. All ready for closing it down now. So, I have zero assets as such. Can they still legally take money from my current account?

To close your account you need to contact iii by secure message (as in their instructions):

"Once the transfer is complete or your account balance is £0, you will then need to send us a secure message confirming your instruction to close your account with Interactive Investor. "

amictus

dunstonh wrote: »

Remember that all platform based providers will have to introduce similar fees soon. So, make sure that any alternative has no exit penalty and expect to have to move again.

Some of you appear not to need platforms and should consider basic stockbroking services instead.

owains wrote: »

I'm reluctant to switch stockbroker just yet for this very reason.

Do you mean the low-cost, no-admin-fee companies that only deal with shares (and ETFs/ITs)? I'm thinking of http://www.x-o.co.uk/, http://www.svssecurities.com/, http://www.simplystockbroking.com/ and possibly http://www.selftrade.co.uk/. Perhaps they will avoid the seemingly inevitable introduction of annual fees by not dealing with funds? What do other people think?

I'm repeating myself because I'm still a bit confused and I think this is important consideration when choosing a new broker. Why transfer if other providers are likely to introduce a similar fee very soon?

dunstonh

Why transfer if other providers are likely to introduce a similar fee very soon?

Good question. And that is one only you can make.

You either sit tight and wait and see (Although providers always update and change their products. Nothing stands still). Or you move and keep moving chasing the lowest cost.

Also, you say you are [potentially] choosing a new broker. Yet we are talking about a platform on this thread that offers brokerage services (as most unbundled platforms do). Do you need or want platform features or just brokerage on demand?

pqrdef

owains wrote: »

Why transfer if other providers are likely to introduce a similar fee very soon?

If you're saying there's no point in moving because nobody else will be cheaper, quite a few people are going to have to decide that if nobody else is cheap then they're out. But they'll give somebody else a chance first.

And Interactive Investor is a bit ahead of the game. The FSA hasn't even published its thoughts on platform charges yet. If fees can be dodged for 18 months, 120 quid is 120 quid.

gadgetmind

dunstonh wrote: »

Good question. And that is one only you can make.

Well, quite. The only pots I've moved have been from old Skandia, sippcentre, Hill Samual, etc. non-DIY-friendly platforms to ones where I could run my own portfolio of low-fee trackers. I'm sure at some point in the next 18 months or so there will be further tweaks to make, but my summary spreadsheet now has just two things in amber and nothing in red.

Optimist

Listen to Moneybox Radio 4 Sat 12 pm.

There is a very good chance they are going to feature this III farce

dunstonh

It is not helped by the platform review being put back in time and now coming in after the RDR.

Many DIY providers are built upon IFA/intermediary based platforms and software. So, like it or not, if you use one of those, then you are going to suffer RDR changes even if parts of the RDR do not apply to DIY. That starts in Jan 2013.

Then around a year later the platform review will come in. Now, some of this will be steered by the consequences of the RDR. Such, as fund houses moving to offer clean share class pricing. As it costs so much to launch a new share class, most seem to be going full clean and not just having no trail. No trail share class (that still pays platform commission) would require another clean share class at some point. So, rather than pay twice for something that may only have a years life on it, it makes more sense to go clean only. So, whilst some platforms are lobbying to have share classes for their platform, they look as if they are losing. However, the FSA is still dithering on making its mind up but in principle, it wants clean charging.

Legacy assets held on platforms can actually still remain charged the old way. At this moment, we dont know how long platforms will be willing to run two platforms. Probably for a few years until volume left on legacy is too low to justify the cost. Others may wish to make a clean break straight away or will be forced to do so. Most platforms are loss making and that is in the period when they got to keep hidden commissions. The expectation is that some platforms will go under and many will merge/consolidate.

wellshafted

What ho carruthers, wasn't it spiffing of cameron to give us that extra unneeded tax break for the rich, yes I'm rather tempted to celebrate by going out and shafting some of the little people - oh what a jolly good wheeze, lets do it!!