iii introducing quarterly £20 charge

guitarman001

i1189 wrote: »

The man at the Ombudsman seemed confused as to why they had the London address on their website. He said that was where their consumer credit licence was registered or something, but the Glasgow address was the one relevant for investments and that was where my complaint was sent by them.

So do you reccomend I use their Glasgow postcode on my HL transfer form? Sounds like it... I guess at the end of the day, it doesn't matter all that much. Surely HL will know the difference.

guitarman001

Can they still charge the fee if you have the accounts but hold nothing in them? I'm guessing so..

sabretoothtigger

Just looking at share.com and it seems to be 2.50 a quarter fee there from 2013 onwards.

Pay 2500 and they'll never charge you any commission for that year

guitarman001

So basically, dunston... a platform is a brokerage service offering investment options OTHER THAN shares, e.g. funds, ETFs etc?

dunstonh

guitarman001 wrote: »

So basically, dunston... a platform is a brokerage service offering investment options OTHER THAN shares, e.g. funds, ETFs etc?

It can offer shares, funds, the works potentially. Typically, the majority will be funds. It is the managed funds that have provided the cross subsidy. You could hold shares only on a platform but expect it to be more expensive than a broker only service.

guitarman001

OK, understood - thanks!

pqrdef

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

Sounds more like an account integration portal. But the key feature of a platform is that shares and funds are registered to a nominee. That's what makes the commission trail possible.

And anybody who wants to hold a share in an ISA is obliged to use a platform of sorts, in that they have to use a nominee. Now, they're caught in the trap. At any later time, the nominee can suddenly at short notice give them a choice between selling in a depressed market or paying an uneconomic custody charge.

The punter might figure that the broker seems unlikely to do this. He might even hope that the regulator would consider it unfair. He doesn't expect the regulator to be the driving force.

dunstonh

He might even hope that the regulator would consider it unfair. He doesn't expect the regulator to be the driving force.

But then it isnt fair that managed fund holders are paying for those with shares. This is what happens when you remove bias. Those that were paying for it gain. Those where were benefiting from it lose out.

grey_gym_sock

if a provider who lets you hold UTs/OEICs as well as shares is a platform, then that seems to be the majority of the cheaper options for buying shares. does that mean we should avoid them if we don't want costs to rise?

e.g. looking at Cheapest Stocks & Shares ISA for Corporate Bonds, Exchange Traded Funds, Gilts, Investment Trusts and Shares (posts 3 & 4) - though of course this only covers ISAs ...

platforms: IWeb, Sippdeal, TD Direct, Traders Own, Alliance Trust,[FONT=Times New<br /> Roman] III, Selftrade[/FONT]

non-platforms: SVS, X-O, First Direct Sharedealing, HSBC InvestDirect Plus, iDealing

or is that the wrong way of looking at it?

mulronie

pqrdef wrote:

And anybody who wants to hold a share in an ISA is obliged to use a platform of sorts, in that they have to use a nominee. Now, they're caught in the trap. At any later time, the nominee can suddenly at short notice give them a choice between selling in a depressed market or paying an uneconomic custody charge.

The punter might figure that the broker seems unlikely to do this. He might even hope that the regulator would consider it unfair.

dunstonh wrote: »

But then it isnt fair that managed fund holders are paying for those with shares. This is what happens when you remove bias. Those that were paying for it gain. Those where were benefiting from it lose out.

I think the 'unfairness' mentioned - and certainly my beef with III in this particular case - is not the actual imposition of a fee, rather the inability to avoid it completely. Remember, III said, "We are moving from having no maintenance fee, to having a £20/quarter fee - you will either pay this, or pay £15 per line of stock to transfer out, £10 per line to sell, or £20 per line to rematerialise".

The unfairness came not from the fee itself, rather from them arbitrarily putting consumers between the 'rock' of a maintenance fee, or a 'hard place' of exit fees. My personal theory is that any broker considering a similar charge would waive exit fees, as III did after a few days, lest they be hit with a wall of bad PR, and a load of Ombudsman claims to deal with.