iii introducing quarterly £20 charge

interest_Ted

And so it goes rumbling on.

I managed two portfolios at iii and decided to transfer them both to HL, well in advance of the deadline date. The larger one was transferred in dribs and drabs without any major hitch, within a few weeks but the dividends continue to pop up at iii. I still have iii access to that account so have been drawing them to my bank as and when.
But the smaller account has still not yet been fully transferred. And they have closed (barred my access to) that account so I can't even send any secure messages, let alone see the status of any dividends expected !

HL have done well - chasing iii for a firm transfer date etc, giving me their best estimates etc, and always responding to any email promptly.

Ted

dunstonh

HL have done well - chasing iii for a firm transfer date etc, giving me their best estimates etc, and always responding to any email promptly.

Lets hope that when you leave HL in a year or two when they finally move to explicit and fairer charging like iii that they are just as good then

samwardill

dunstonh wrote: »

Lets hope that when you leave HL in a year or two when they finally move to explicit and fairer charging like iii that they are just as good then

Do you really think that iii has introduced explicit and fairer charging? The RDR has not affected charging for shares in ISA yet they have increased charges for shares in ISAs. Why is this more explicit and fair than their previous charging structure? It seems to me that it is just more expensive!

dunstonh

Do you really think that iii has introduced explicit and fairer charging?

Yes. From what I have seen they have gone fully unbundled.

The RDR has not affected charging for shares in ISA yet they have increased charges for shares in ISAs. Why is this more explicit and fair than their previous charging structure? It seems to me that it is just more expensive!

Because they were using a cross subsidy from fund houses and commissions on managed funds to allow shares and other non-commission paying investments get lower or even no charges. Effectively allowing them to run as loss leaders.

Why should managed fund investors pay for you?

Now those managed fund investors are getting rebates on those commissions instead of them being used to pay your costs. That is why it is fairer.

HL will have to follow suit soon. They will have no choice in the matter based on the current FSA position. iii just moved to unbundled before they did.

sabretoothtigger

HL already charge people for buying shares in my SIPP anyway and an annual charge just for holding them.
Its much cheaper to do funds through them though the fund of course deduct from the capital themselves which shares do not unless it was an investment trust

Im not sure they'll have to change much though I dont hold an ISA with them

dunstonh

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

HL already charge people for buying shares in my SIPP anyway and an annual charge just for holding them.
Its much cheaper to do funds through them though the fund of course deduct from the capital themselves which shares do not unless it was an investment trust

Im not sure they'll have to change much though I dont hold an ISA with them

HL are still getting rebates from fund houses and being paid for shelf space. HL are not yet compliant with RDR or platform review principles as they stand. So, they will have to change.

I would have thought iii were cheaper to do funds as they rebate both trail and platform commission. HL dont rebate platform commission and keep around half the trail on ISA or all of it on SIPP.

cashbackproblems

Iv transferred my shares to X-O sent the form about 6 weeks ago and chased last week, they said the delay is due to iii having a huge backload to process but they were chasing them to get it done!

Im also with HL for all my funds and they are the cheapest/most efficient around.

jem16

cashbackproblems wrote: »

Im also with HL for all my funds and they are the cheapest/most efficient around.

They certainly aren't the cheapest around for funds as they only rebate half of the IFA fee and that's only where each fund contains at least £1000. Others, like Cavendish, rebate the whole IFA fee at the moment. Neither rebates the platform fee but with smaller amounts this charging method is cheaper than fully unbundled.

Once you get into higher figures, the unbundled charging with full platform and IFA rebates are cheaper. Some have higher rebates with iii giving 0.64% rebates whilst ATS is giving 0.75% rebates.

Much depends on the amount invested and the funds you are using.

koru

jem16 wrote: »

Once you get into higher figures, the unbundled charging with full platform and IFA rebates are cheaper. Some have higher rebates with iii giving 0.64% rebates whilst ATS is giving 0.75% rebates.

Much depends on the amount invested and the funds you are using.

And some funds have 0.64% rebate at iii, whilst ATS only gives 0.5%.

dunstonh

and some unbundled platforms go higher. 0.88% for example.

Until clean share classes are commonplace, you do have to be careful that you look at both the explicit charge and the rebate together and not just the explicit charge or the rebate in isolation.