H & l sipp

grey_gym_sock

itm2 wrote: »

- Jupiter Strategic Bond - 1.15% at HL vs 1.25% at Cavendish

i think you're reading it wrong .... taking that example:

HL is 1.15%, as you say (1.25% AMC - 0.1% rebate)

but cavendish is 0.75% (1.25% AMC - 0.5% rebate)

ozzage

Jupiter Strategic bond through HL will have an initial charge of 0.25% (4 - 3.75) and an ongoing charge of 1.4% (1.25 + 0.25 - 0.1)

With Cavendish you have no initial charge.

The AMC is 1.25%. According to HL, the TER is 1.50%, which isn't mentioned on the Cavendish site.

The rebate is 0.5%, which is much better than HL's 0.1%. Does that include or exclude the extra 0.25%? Are you paying 1% in the end or 0.75%? I presume 1%.

I don't think HL really has any hidden charges, so I'm not sure what the IFA was referring to.

Mr_Benn

Hi guys. I have a group pension from a job I have just left. It has about £1,500 in it. Rather than leave it in the pension Im happy to try and invest it in 1 or 2 Investment Funds (one being the excellent BIOG).
I guess I have to do this via a SIPP ? I have spoke to H&L who say it will cost me £12 to buy the shares, then a fee of 0.5% per year on my total fund.

Is this my best way forward ?

I will try and speak to my old IFA , but he wasnt much use last time - so could do without the hassle of finding a new one right now.

Cheers for any advice

grey_gym_sock

ozzage wrote: »

Jupiter Strategic bond through HL will have an initial charge of 0.25% (4 - 3.75) and an ongoing charge of 1.4% (1.25 + 0.25 - 0.1)

With Cavendish you have no initial charge.

yes, i didn't notice that - 0.25% saving on the initial charge.

The AMC is 1.25%. According to HL, the TER is 1.50%, which isn't mentioned on the Cavendish site.

The rebate is 0.5%, which is much better than HL's 0.1%. Does that include or exclude the extra 0.25%? Are you paying 1% in the end or 0.75%? I presume 1%.

it must be 1%, compared to 1.4% for HL.

I don't think HL really has any hidden charges, so I'm not sure what the IFA was referring to.

well, they don't tell you how much of the AMC they get in commission, only how much of that commission they rebate. so you can see the total you're paying, but you don't know how much of it goes to HL, how much to the fund manager.

itm2

ozzage wrote: »

Jupiter Strategic bond through HL will have an initial charge of 0.25% (4 - 3.75) and an ongoing charge of 1.4% (1.25 + 0.25 - 0.1)

With Cavendish you have no initial charge.

The AMC is 1.25%. According to HL, the TER is 1.50%, which isn't mentioned on the Cavendish site.

The rebate is 0.5%, which is much better than HL's 0.1%. Does that include or exclude the extra 0.25%? Are you paying 1% in the end or 0.75%? I presume 1%.

I don't think HL really has any hidden charges, so I'm not sure what the IFA was referring to.

In that case it would seem to make sense for me to move funds from HL to Cavendish - where the funds are actually offered by Cavendish. Are there any gotchas to look out for when shifting ISA, SIPP and unwrapped fund holdings from one platform to another?

ozzage

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

well, they don't tell you how much of the AMC they get in commission, only how much of that commission they rebate. so you can see the total you're paying, but you don't know how much of it goes to HL, how much to the fund manager.

OK but I don't see that being a hidden charge. It's largely irrelevant as you have to pay it either way.

From what I can Cavendish seems to be hiding the 0.25% completely, which I find a bit hard to believe to be honest, but not sure how else to read it.

itm2

Both of the IFA's who made comments about HL said that there was a lack of transparency in how HL made their money from investors. I actually met with an advisor from HL earlier this week and asked him the question directly. He clarified that HL recover their costs from the AMC, which seems fair enough to me.
I do sometimes wonder about the motives of IFA's that make negative comments about HL (or indeed other platforms), particularly as many will have their own preferred platform for managing investors' money.

dunstonh

Both of the IFA's who made comments about HL said that there was a lack of transparency in how HL made their money from investors. I actually met with an advisor from HL earlier this week and asked him the question directly. He clarified that HL recover their costs from the AMC, which seems fair enough to me.

Did you meet with an adviser or a non-adviser representative. The HL platform on the DIY side can still operate on commissions. On the advice side, the adviser cannot operate on commission. So, it would not be possible for an adviser to recover their costs via the AMC.

So, either you are mistaken or you have been lied to. I don't suspect HL would lie.

I do sometimes wonder about the motives of IFA's that make negative comments about HL (or indeed other platforms), particularly as many will have their own preferred platform for managing investors' money.

I can only see one IFA posting on this thread (me) and there are no negative comments about HL.

However, there is a lack of transparency about remuneration with HL (and other bundled platforms) which is why they FSA is looking to ban them. Nearly all the IFA platforms (possibly all) are clean priced now. So, cost is very clear and there are no hidden undisclosed commissions as there still is on the DIY side.

itm2

dunstonh wrote: »

Did you meet with an adviser or a non-adviser representative. The HL platform on the DIY side can still operate on commissions. On the advice side, the adviser cannot operate on commission. So, it would not be possible for an adviser to recover their costs via the AMC.

So, either you are mistaken or you have been lied to. I don't suspect HL would lie.



I can only see one IFA posting on this thread (me) and there are no negative comments about HL.

However, there is a lack of transparency about remuneration with HL (and other bundled platforms) which is why they FSA is looking to ban them. Nearly all the IFA platforms (possibly all) are clean priced now. So, cost is very clear and there are no hidden undisclosed commissions as there still is on the DIY side.

This guy was an adviser, or "Financial Practitioner" according to his business card. My question to him was about how HL make their money (rather than how their advisers do) - i.e. how do they make enough from their customers to keep the platform/operation afloat. He said that this was mainly attributable to the AMCs. From what you're saying, this implies they don't rely as much on commission based transactions for their ongoing viability.

So you're now the third IFA I've come across that has questioned the lack of tranparency of HL's remuneration. Could you explain why this is your view, and exactly why you believe that HL are not "clean-priced"?

dunstonh

This guy was an adviser, or "Financial Practitioner" according to his business card.

Business card can mean anything with titles. What did his guide to services say about his status? Advisers issue those. Non advisers do not.

So you're now the third IFA I've come across that has questioned the lack of tranparency of HL's remuneration. Could you explain why this is your view, and exactly why you believe that HL are not "clean-priced"?

The basis of the RDR and the forthcoming platform review is that you should know explicitly who is getting paid what. That is the adviser, the provider/platform and the fund house.

If you buy clean funds, you know there are no hidden commissions. Everybody involved in the transaction is explicitly charged and disclosed. If you buy retail funds you know there are commissions but you dont know how the commissions are split. Retail funds included a payment to IFAs/FAs known as trail commission. Some of that is rebated by HL. However, different funds will pay different levels of commission to the platform provider. One fund house could pay more than another and different funds from the same fund house could pay different amounts.

It isn't questioning HL as such. It is questioning all bundled platforms. With the FSA planning to ban them next year and consumer groups against bundling of remuneration and undisclosed commissions, it isnt just IFAs that question it. The original plan was to ban bundled platforms at the same time as the RDR but it was put back to allow for implementation. The introduction of clean share classes sped up the implementation by most platforms to move to unbundled basis. However, some DIY platforms have chosen to remain bundled at this time. Possibly in the hope they can change the mind of the FSA or find a loophole (rumour has it that one platform is trying to get its own share class or use mirror funds as a means to circumvent it)