iii introducing quarterly £20 charge

victormeldrew2

Optimist wrote: »

Thomas Caruthers on BBC now...Mmmmmm facesaving at its best....

Notice they concentrated on those with funds not those people who didn't have funds.....shambles of an interview

victormeldrew2

dunstonh wrote: »

I dont think it is so much the annual fee as that makes sense when you consider RDR and platform review. It is the exit charge that is the issue.

Disagree.....the fee makes sense for the FUND element. For individual equities they should have modified delaing charges if necessary - IF they actually wanted transparency (that is what RDR is about)

teecee90

Secure message received from ii

>>>>>>

Dear xx

Thank you for updating us on your account,

We will not levy a charge for any transfer out requests we receive on or before 31 July 2012. In some circumstances it can take up to 8 weeks to complete a transfer, but as long as your new provider instructs us in writing before 31 July 2012, the transfer will be free of charge.

Providing we receive your instruction before 30 June 2012 the first quarterly fee payment will be waived while your transfer is underway.

Our address is as follows:

Interactive Investor
2 West Regent Street
Glasgow
G2 1RW

If you have any further enquiries please do not hesitate to contact us on 0845 200 3637.

Kind Regards

[Text removed by Forum Team]

>>>>>>

I have sent a follow-up question to ask precisely what 'instruction' they need by 30th June in order to avoid the first management fee, particularly as I have already notified them of my intention to close the account and that transfer forms have already been completed and sent.

jem16

guitarman001 wrote: »

BUT if I put a sum in on June 6th, is the gain on June 7th the 0.6% OR is it 0.6% - 0.2% = 0.4%?? This does confuse me..

It's 0.6% minus 0.2% so 0.4%.

stobsai

Hi all.

I've been following this story with interest after receiving my own "take it or leave it" email a week or so ago. My S&S ISA is only worth about £1300 and I trade about once a quarter, so I reckon I'll deffo be worse off under the new regime. Even if I were going to be better off, or break even, I'd still be "voting with my feet" and ditching III because I can't stand corporations who tell me they're going to 'kick me in the knackers because they love me so much!'

I've got a couple of queries though, which I can't find an answer for [and, yes, I've read the whole thread!]:

1: Does III's cave in on fees apply only if you transfer to another broker, or will they also now waive the fees if I want to close my account by materialising [if that's the right word] my shares into certificates? [Given the current state of flux in the online share-dealing world, I'm minded to go for the old 'shoebox under the bed' option, until the dust settles]

If the above is a "no" and I do decide transfering my ISA to another broker is the cheapest option:

2: Most of my shares are in NASDAQ companies [one of the original reasons I chose III was because they seemed to offer the widest range of international trades]. Looking at Selftrade and X-O's websites, they are a bit vague [to my untrained-in-stock-market-jargon eye!] as to what overseas shares I could deal in. X-O says "CDIs of US stocks" –whatever that means? and SelfTrade says "International equities –where listed on as 'recognised exchange'", but then doesn't provide any info as to what constitutes a 'recognised exchange'. Does anyone know how I can check to see whether my current holdings are tradable on each of those platforms, without having to open an account first?

From previous experience with III, I know that, even within the limited range of markets each platform claims to trade in, there are further limitations as to which shares in those markets can be traded in a shares ISA [although, I've forgotten what III gave as the reason for this].

So, in essence [assuming I do decide to keep playing this financial roulette wheel], what I'm basically after is the cheapest way to kick III into touch and find a self-selecting S&S ISA account which is economical for someone who maybe buys a couple of hundred quids' worth about once a quarter and has a bit of a penchant for 'tecchy' stuff, so tends to buy shares in NASDAQ companies —although ideally I'd like access to the widest range of international markets possible.

Suggestions, recommendations, on a postcard please

Thanks.

Just_landed

guitarman001 wrote: »

What??? On the bottom of their website their postcode is E1 8AA. That's what I'm putting on the Hargreaves Lansdown transfer form. Is that incorrect or...?

Hi
The address I have put down is from a letter I received from them to do with one of the complaints I have with them, also when you telephone iii up to talk to them over share dealing issue's you are talking to people in Glasgow, if I remember rightly.

The choice is yours.

dunstonh

HL's model for Vanguard funds (which pay no platform or trail commission) is compliant. it's just their model for almost every other fund that it isn't.

so perhaps HL will bring all other funds into line with their model for Vanguard, and charge £2 per month for every fund. or perhaps they'll do something completely different. ...

They are still in receipt of platform commission and trail commission and marketing payments on the majority of funds. Whilst they now charge a small amount for certain funds, how much are they going to charge when trail, platform cut and marketing bonuses stop on the rest?

Disagree.....the fee makes sense for the FUND element. For individual equities they should have modified delaing charges if necessary - IF they actually wanted transparency (that is what RDR is about)

As they are a platform, the fee does make sense. The whole point is to have no bias towards one type of investment. Based on some of the posts on this thread, I reckon that there are people that are not using them as a platform but just brokerage. You shouldnt expect a platform to run at the same cost as a basic brokerage service.

pqrdef

dunstonh wrote: »

Whilst they now charge a small amount for certain funds, how much are they going to charge when trail, platform cut and marketing bonuses stop on the rest?

And how will they choose what to feature in Investment Times? With a pin?

dunstonh wrote: »

You shouldnt expect a platform to run at the same cost as a basic brokerage service.

Indeed, we thought the point of a platform was to reduce share-dealing costs.

But with an ISA, there's no choice. Flat-rate charges will be hard on first and second-year ISAs, not a great encouragement to get started.

They'll also encourage people to stick with one provider instead of trying others. I do hope we won't be hearing the government telling us the way to get the best deal is to switch.

dunstonh

And how will they choose what to feature in Investment Times? With a pin?

That has to be better than featuring who has paid them money to be featured. At least you will know that there is no perception of bias. Although, a "magazine" is not subject to RDR/platform review and a fund house could still pay to advertise.

Indeed, we thought the point of a platform was to reduce share-dealing costs.

That is not how it is seen in the industry. Although there is a lot of differing opinons on how a platform should be classified. The FSA dont appear to have made their mind up yet. A platform is a centralised administration platform to allow access to multiple investments and types across the market place. The availability of multiple tax wrappers (ISA, onshore/offshore bond, pension and unwrapped) all within one administration centre offering various tools for analysis and research.

Nowhere is it indicated that platforms should be low cost. That happened with some due to luck and previous rules that allowed the hidden commissions and cross subsidy.

However, if you look at the three levels of cost that will exist soon you have 1) investment itself 2) platform/distributor/provider/retailer 3) adviser. For DIY (which is virtually everyone on this thread) there will be no adviser charge included any more (so, platforms like HL that keep some or all of this wont be able to). Number 2 is where the platform or distributor or provider or retailer will charge their fees. This may be a simple stockbroker fee. It may be the platform charges or a simple retailer charge. It maybe that the fund houses decide to retail their funds directly to public and not charge anything for retail. So, we could see some go full circle and go back to holding funds with fund houses directly.

Now for those that hold shares only, a platform is unlikely to be the cheapest option. The platform is for those that want to hold shares, funds, ITs, ETFs etc all in one place. It doesnt mean they have to hold them all but it is available and should cost the same (apart from dealing costs specific to that investment).

Future developments on the platforms (some area already doing so) include fixed term deposits, multiple SIPP providers available within the wrap (so you may like a particular SIPP provider but want the reporting to be held on your chosen platform), structured products and looking longer term, linking in of your current accounts (still with existing bank but statement and transaction feeds appearing on platform when you log in). Many platforms allow you to hold shares or investments elsewhere but use their software to display the values.

A platform should not be considered the low cost option going forward. It is the feature rich option.

guitarman001

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

HL's model for Vanguard funds (which pay no platform or trail commission) is compliant. it's just their model for almost every other fund that it isn't.

so perhaps HL will bring all other funds into line with their model for Vanguard, and charge £2 per month for every fund. or perhaps they'll do something completely different. ...

So I SHOULD be OK on the Vanguard front point...
However I just hope they don't start charging an ISA and/or normal share trading account fee (whether admin or inactivity) as I'm moving just ONE share to their trading account which I plan to hold for a few years yet.

EDIT: Just read Dunston's post... so perhaps not? This is all a bit of a nightmare.