iii introducing quarterly £20 charge

Rollinghome

cashbackproblems wrote: »

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

While HL rebate half of the trail commission on some funds, they rebate nothing on many. A typical average will be around 0.15%, depending on the funds held. Nor do they rebate all of the initial charge on all funds and sometimes only offer a fund class with a higher charge than available elsewhere. For funds that pay less than normal trail commission they normally make an additional charge on top of the AMC.

HL offer a polished service but are now unlikely to be very competitive on price for most people. There's a useful comparison here http://www.candidmoney.com/actionplans/actionplan3.aspx

ses6jwg

mine is all done transferred to selftrade iii accounts are closed

dunstonh

I wonder how many have transferred away from iii without realising they are cheaper than what they have moved to?

jem16

dunstonh wrote: »

I wonder how many have transferred away from iii without realising they are cheaper than what they have moved to?

Probably quite a lot as they have simply seen a charge being put in place of what they previously took to be "free", not realising that they were paying for it in bundled charges.

Rymo_2

Dunstonh and Jem 16 I suspect you are right, depending on your portfolio size iii could work out cheaper.

For me it is the way they carried out the changes that severely rankled.

All this twaddle about wanting people to be more involved and wanting to encourage more connection with their investments.

Why not just say that with the RDR and Platform Review on the horizon they were introducing a charging structure that was going to be compliant and that many / all of their contempories would almost certainly need to be doing the same.

Instead they came out with , quite frankly in my opinion, a load of rubbish!

I have closed my account and realized my investments for the moment.

Must say the quarterly charge is a bit on the step side, more than a bit actually!

I don't want to be dealing with an organisation that, IMO treats it's customers as idiots.

jem16

Rymo wrote: »

All this twaddle about wanting people to be more involved and wanting to encourage more connection with their investments.

Why not just say that with the RDR and Platform Review on the horizon they were introducing a charging structure that was going to be compliant and that many / all of their contempories would almost certainly need to be doing the same.

Probably would have been better to explain all the reasons for the changes. No doubt they expected that customers would just read the price increases and ignore the rest and felt they would lose cutomers. It happened anyway so clarity would have been better - they probably would still lose some people but perhaps not as many.

Must say the quarterly charge is a bit on the step side, more than a bit actually!

That has to be put into perspective with the amount invested, the type of funds used and how often trading was done. For some it will be more expensive, for others it will be cheaper than it was already.

However, perhaps more importantly, how did it compare with elsewhere?

dunstonh

Must say the quarterly charge is a bit on the step side, more than a bit actually!

I didnt think it was to be honest. It is only £80 a year.

Lets say you have £50k invested with them and 40k is in managed funds. Those managed funds are now £300 a year cheaper than they were on the old pricing. So, the quarterly charge is £80 a year but you are £300 a year better off giving you a net gain of £220.

You only need £11k in managed funds to break even with the old charges. Any more than that and the iii pricing is cheaper. What it does for them is either make the small holdings or holdings that paid no commissions on the old pricing more profitable or encourages them to leave (and losing loss making accounts is not a problem).

It should be noted that they do have quite a long menu of other charges for explicit services. The unbundled platforms have split into two camps generally. Those that have a relatively low annual charge (either fixed amount or small percentage) but then charge explicitly for a number of things or have a slightly higher annual figure but dont have the explicit charges for other things. An all in charge effectively.

I don't want to be dealing with an organisation that, IMO treats it's customers as idiots.

The way they marketed the change appears to have been poor given the responses here.

Rollinghome

Rymo wrote: »

For me it is the way they carried out the changes that severely rankled....

I don't want to be dealing with an organisation that, IMO treats it's customers as idiots.

That seems to be a totally reasonable reason to move. Similarly HL annoyed a lot of clients by deliberately giving only the contractual minimum period of warning before introducing platform charges for some funds and then failing to give either clients or the press the full list of funds affected. Although the cost was less than 0.25% on a £10k holding there was an important loss of trust.

I suspect there'll be a few more annoyances in the months to come as firms try to avoid being the first to move and try to introduce charges in a way that causes least attention. We could see a lot of jockeying long after the end of this year with firms keeping their charges low initially to retain clients, only to gradually ease them up later.

sabretoothtigger

This argument can be simpified. Those with a very smal portfolio will prefer percentage based fees

ii was moving to what looks more like fixed fees which is actually good for those with medium to large holdings, anyone within 20 years of retiring should be quite glad where as a new investor will prefer not to pay 80 pounds for an account they dont really use that much

I didnt like iii anyway because they were in some cases taking half my dividend away from me in special fees. Thats my fault, a special case and Im just a small guy.
Just a few thousand in a company share makes it tough luck for me and Im of little consequence but I dislike how they just brush off this criticism without consideration of how badly some customers may have been treated. We are the grit beneath their wheels as they move onto greater things no doubt

Im glad they were forced to allow people to move and I think that was fair but all the same, iii could be best for some folk mostly the rich guys

contractual minimum period of warning before introducing platform charges

Halifax has done worse in the past by giving no notice and advertising the old fees past the date anyone could get it at that rate.
Theres always a worse case, saucepan fire etc. :laugh:

RalphS

tp123 wrote: »

Hi,

My transfer from ii to iWeb has been completed, except for some delisted shares I had in my ii account. Neither part has informed me that, supposedly, you can't transfer delisted stock until, once the transfer has been completed I inquired about them been left behind.

iWeb washes its hands of it.

And ii gives me two options: relinquish them (that is, leave them to them as a gift, even if they have little or no value) or pay £20 for a certificate.

Has anyone else been in a similar situation or has any advice?

Many thanks.

Re Delisted. I transferred to X-O. iii never gave me the £20 certificate option. Meanwhile they (Touch Group) have ceased trading. I never received any 'liquidation' communication from X-O, iii or the Liquidator. I only heard from a fellow shareholder, then I contacted the Liquidator who I happen to know....