We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
H-L charging structure
Options
pqrdef
Posts: 4,552 Forumite
Nothing definite, but according to an article on Citywire, H-L are flying kites about moving away from annual fees and platform fees to a tiered percentage scheme.
The figure mentioned in 0.6%. That would be comparable with paying 1.5% AMC, half kicked back to H-L and 1/5 of that rebated as loyalty bonus (but no flat charges on top).
They haven't mentioned a minimum.
They've mentioned lower percentages for more than £1m, which seems to imply that the 0.6% fee wouldn't be capped.
Nothing said about whether any sharedealing costs would be absorbed, as at iii, or whether they would all be additional.
They do say the 0.6% would be "negotiable". Expect lots of under-the-counter private arrangements so nobody knows what anybody else is paying. Transparent, no.
And they definitely plan to squeeze the fund houses for lower-AMC deals. This opens Pandora's box. Once they move away from only having a few share classes, there'll be hundreds. All manner of special offers, all hedged about with gotchas like withdrawal fees. Clean, no.
It'll be worse than buying gas. We'll have all the info - reams of it - and no idea what we're going to pay or whether anybody else would be cheaper. And anybody who doesn't make a hobby of it or employ an adviser will end up with an inferior deal.
The figure mentioned in 0.6%. That would be comparable with paying 1.5% AMC, half kicked back to H-L and 1/5 of that rebated as loyalty bonus (but no flat charges on top).
They haven't mentioned a minimum.
They've mentioned lower percentages for more than £1m, which seems to imply that the 0.6% fee wouldn't be capped.
Nothing said about whether any sharedealing costs would be absorbed, as at iii, or whether they would all be additional.
They do say the 0.6% would be "negotiable". Expect lots of under-the-counter private arrangements so nobody knows what anybody else is paying. Transparent, no.
And they definitely plan to squeeze the fund houses for lower-AMC deals. This opens Pandora's box. Once they move away from only having a few share classes, there'll be hundreds. All manner of special offers, all hedged about with gotchas like withdrawal fees. Clean, no.
It'll be worse than buying gas. We'll have all the info - reams of it - and no idea what we're going to pay or whether anybody else would be cheaper. And anybody who doesn't make a hobby of it or employ an adviser will end up with an inferior deal.
"It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
0
Comments
-
An uncapped 0.6% would see us move everything we have left with HL to a different platform. I don't regard RDR as an excuse to increase charges and HL shouldn't either.
I'm currently paying sub 0.4% (including all TERs and platform fees) for our SIPPs and ISAs, and 0.5% for my group personal pension.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Glad I moved from them last month. I don't have a ton of money with them however the platform fee's were a joke.
One positive I'll give HL is the customer service was very good and they didn't try and phone me to convince me to have a SIPP when all I asked for was a comprehensive list of tracker funds available. This means you bestinvest.0 -
To benchmark that, most of the IFA bundled platforms equate to around 0.3% to 0.5% depending on amount invested.I don't regard RDR as an excuse to increase charges and HL shouldn't either.
The problem is that HL are not effectively increasing their cut. That is similar to what they have been getting before.
Personally, I don't think it will be that high. I do expect it to be higher than it is currently for small amounts and index trackers but that is consistent across all unbundled platforms.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
They currently charge 0.5% capped for other types of investments so I can't see why they wouldn't do the same going forward.0
-
But that's the whole idea.gadgetmind wrote: »I don't regard RDR as an excuse to increase charges and HL shouldn't either."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Because there's no profit in that. They make their huge pots of money out of the percentage kickback on the funds.They currently charge 0.5% capped for other types of investments so I can't see why they wouldn't do the same going forward."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Having read the article on Citywire I am amazed that Ian Gorman is quoted speaking so unguardedly about HL's intentions.
They have been at pains to keep everything under their hat about their post-RDR plans and now suddenly Gorman seems to be revealing their intentions in an interview before HL has even made a decision (or at least formally announced a decision).
Not only that, but he seems to have announced it in a way that seems designed to frighten and unsettle current HL customers. If this interview is factual (and I've no reason to doubt it) then the Gerald Ratner fiasco immediately springs to mind!Old dog but always delighted to learn new tricks!0 -
The problem is that HL are not effectively increasing their cut. That is similar to what they have been getting before.
Not from me it isn't!I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
All pile back into iii then! What was it, only £20 a quarter?Not only that, but he seems to have announced it in a way that seems designed to frighten and unsettle current HL customers."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
If HL are flying a kite to get a bit of customer reaction, here's mine: Hm, maybe I should go for flexible withdrawal and take all my money out, rather than still contributing a bit occasionally.Free the dunston one next time too.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards