Hargreaves Lansdown Dividend re-investment charges

dunstonh

I understand I could leave - my point is there is nobody better to leave to

In which case, why should HL change their charges?

hence a campaign might force the fund managers to break ranks

It isnt anything to do with the fund managers.

or at the very least expose the huge costs which they obfuscate when quoting the growth rate with dividends reinvested.

Most platforms dont charge a thing for reinvestment on funds. On direct investments they may given the difference in the structure. The one you have does. So, if the cost is that huge then it suggests moving to one that doesnt charge is better for you. Yet you say HL is best. You cant have both.

What do you actually have? Direct investments or funds?

grey_gym_sock

johnrd wrote: »

or at the very least expose the huge costs which they obfuscate when quoting the growth rate with dividends reinvested.

HL's comment about the power of reinvesting dividends wasn't specifically about their own reinvestment scheme for shares. they have a different reinvestment scheme for funds, which is more cost-effective for small amounts. or you can buy accumulation units of funds. or use another provider's (cheaper) reinvestment scheme for shares.

I've a feeling that for share holdings where you might need 3 or 4 dividends to make the next reinvestment then holding in an ISA near as dammit negates the ISA tax advantages!

there are often no tax advantages at all from using an S&S ISA. but then the charges for using an S&S ISA are sometimes no higher than not using 1, and rarely a lot higher.

if using an S&S ISA is worth it for you, but the dividend reinvestment charges aren't worth it, then just have the income paid out from the ISA. there is no charge for this at HL or most other providers.