Hoodless Brennan finally drop the ball !

cheerfulcat

They aren't doing " absolutely nothing ". They are providing a nominee service. You could hold the shares in certificated form if you don't want to pay for that service.

FWIW, I have mentioned several times that I personally wouldn't deal with a broker with a record like this...

Rhino666

strange wrote: »

You missed out:

5. Take £20 a year off you for doing absolutely nothing.

*That* is why people are complaining.

Str

Thanks for the support - being assertive about an obvious injustice doesn't go down well with everyone :-)

Sorry I missed your earlier thread about HB cheerfulcat. I think that HB's recent changes confirm that you were right. Don't you just hate it when you make a valid point and nobody appreciates the effort - well I do, even though I missed the thread. I would say that effectively bringing in a charge for a nominee service that was previously free is totally unfair and as you know a conversion to certificates is not a free service AFAIK so that point has confused me. Perhaps you would clarify it and let us know who you use for your share dealing ?

moneyandmountains

Rhino666 wrote: »

. I would say that effectively bringing in a charge for a nominee service that was previously free is totally unfair

How is this unfair?
Running a nominee service costs HB real money.
There are lots of charges incurred by HB
e.g. sending out Dividend information / corporate actions
keeping track of tax
running an internet service
paying their overheads - staff etc.

If HB has chosen to absorb these in the past, then that is entirely up to them. Just the same as if a supermarket decides to offer BOGOF or other offers.

The current situation of not paying an annual charge is unfair to those who do trade. They are effectively subsidising the charges for the people who don't trade.

Rhino666

moneyandmountains wrote: »

How is this unfair?
Running a nominee service costs HB real money.
There are lots of charges incurred by HB
e.g. sending out Dividend information / corporate actions
keeping track of tax
running an internet service
paying their overheads - staff etc.

If HB has chosen to absorb these in the past, then that is entirely up to them. Just the same as if a supermarket decides to offer BOGOF or other offers.

Not paying an annual charge is unfair to those who do trade. They are effectively subsidising the charges for the people who don't trade.

Please read previous posts and then understand that this was not a special offer and clients cannot just walk away from an HB nominee account without costing money or taking risk - they are trapped !! They could decide to trade elsewhere if HB had chosen to raise dealing costs alone. The cry would then be 'HB have raised costs - is there a cheaper trader ?'

HB did not say 'First 4 years free and then we'll charge for the nominee account you suckers have bought into'

I take it that you are a regular trader so this will not affect you - kind of I'm alright Jack so what are you plebs moaning about - not really the general consensus as the vast majority of HB clients will not be regular traders and this manipulation will cost them.

Further I put it to you that the low dealing costs of a regular trader will now be subsidised by the nominee account charges for most clients who may only own one or two shares - why should they subsidise you ? IMO the human involvement with dealing must mean it costs far more than a nominee account that is largely automated.

As an aside my dealing levels are moderate - between 1 - 10 times a quarter so I will not be paying the nominee fee. My argument is about the bigger picture and how it affects other - you know what I mean Jack ?

Your opinion is valid but it is an opinion and I totally disagree with it.

moneyandmountains

[

Rhino666 wrote: »

Please read previous posts

Thanks for responding properly now. I had similar thoughts to your edit comment!

Rhino666 wrote:

then understand that this was not a special offer and clients cannot just walk away from an HB nominee account without costing money or taking risk - they are trapped !!

Yes, I agree this is wrong, but you have until October to do something about it.

Though people are not strictly trapped.
Look at the Selftrade offer

We'll pay up to £400 of transfer costs when you transfer to Selftrade
Transfer your Dealing, SIPP Dealing, ISA and PEP and accounts to Selftrade and we'll pay a maximum of £100 per individual account type. We'll make the payment into your Selftrade Dealing account once we've seen the final statement showing the transfer out charges. The refund offer applies to all transfer requests submitted in writing to Selftrade and received between 3 July 2006 and 31 July 2007. Selftrade reserves the right to terminate or amend the offer at its discretion.

Rhino666 wrote:

HB did not say 'First 4 years free and then we'll charge for the nominee account you suckers have bought into'

Come on, HB is a business just like any other. What do you really expect?!

Rhino666 wrote:

I take it that you are a regular trader so this will not affect you - kind of I'm alright Jack so what are you plebs

Wrong. I am not a regular trader.
No I don't like paying extra money, but we have to be pragmatic about these things. If you don't like it leave, and then HB will be forced to change their deal.

Rhino666 wrote:

Further I put it to you that the low dealing costs of a regular trader will now be subsidised by the nominee account charges for most clients who may only own one or two shares

So these clients should pay nothing?!

It could be said to be fairer if both regular and irregular traders paid the same annual fee, though it amounts to the same thing
Dealing Charge = Service Contribution + Deal Cost
or separate out service contribution and deal cost

This is hardly in the same league as bank charges, and removes the unfairness of a cross-subsidy.
c.f. IFAs charging commission or a fixed fee

Rhino666

M&M - can I thank you for a more reasoned response that gave useful information rather than just rubbishing my opinion.

I don't think either of us know enough about the subsidies and costs of both dealing and nominee accounts to constructively debate fair charges to clients - there are far too many variables and unanswered questions. Presumably HB has run on something other than hot air for the last four years with no income from nominee accounts ?

The content and tone of the original HB email I received does warrant debate however and to be fair that is what this thread is about. Justifying charges the HB way will not win punters and influence clients.

moneyandmountains

Rhino666 wrote: »

The content and tone of the original HB email I received does warrant debate however and to be fair that is what this thread is about. Justifying charges the HB way will not win punters and influence clients.

Fortunate that you posted the email contents.
All my HB emails get sorted into a pit in the ground, so that I can see if normal emails appear between the multitude of HB/ADVFN market comments. I probably wouldn't have noticed for a week or so.

strange

moneyandmountains wrote: »

How is this unfair?
Running a nominee service costs HB real money.
There are lots of charges incurred by HB
e.g. sending out Dividend information / corporate actions
keeping track of tax
running an internet service
paying their overheads - staff etc.

I bought some shares a year and a half ago and the plan was only ever to hang onto them long term. HB said they could do all that for 7 quid, so I paid them their 'real money'. And, as there's no dividend awarded on my shares, they really have had to do nothing with mine other than check they're there occasionally. That doesn't cost 20 quid a year.

Now they claim it's going to cost me 20 quid a year to continue holding. To extend the supermarket analogy, it's like buying a bag containing 24 bags of crisps for a fiver. Halfway through eating them, the supermarket phones and says 'Now you're going to have to pay us another 10p per bag for the ones you haven't eaten yet'.

Anyway, this gets us nowhere. What we need is (a) a cheap way of getting shares out of HB and (b) a cheap place to store them.

What do we know? Any experts out there?

Str

moneyandmountains

strange wrote: »

Anyway, this gets us nowhere. What we need is (a) a cheap way of getting shares out of HB and (b) a cheap place to store them.

Str

Hi Strange

Have a look at Selftrade, they offer to meet up to £100 of the transfer costs. I am not sure whether this can be combined with the Refer a Friend offer or not (see referrals board). Anyhow, at least this should get £100 of the costs refunded.

HB state:
'Transfer of Holdings to other institutions - £10 per item'
so hopefully this should cover this, unless you have a large number of stocks.

cheerfulcat

Rhino666 wrote: »

Sorry I missed your earlier thread about HB cheerfulcat. I think that HB's recent changes confirm that you were right. Don't you just hate it when you make a valid point and nobody appreciates the effort - well I do, even though I missed the thread.

I banged on about HB every time I saw them recommended, for a while. Gave it up as a bad job because everyone was so hung up on their " cheapness ". This might be a lesson for MSE-ers in understanding the concept of " you get what you pay for ".

I would say that effectively bringing in a charge for a nominee service that was previously free is totally unfair and as you know a conversion to certificates is not a free service AFAIK so that point has confused me. Perhaps you would clarify it and let us know who you use for your share dealing ?

Not free, but Selftrade charge £10 to issue a certificate, which is reasonable in my eyes. I use ST, Hargreaves Lansdown and Alliance Trust. I hold my long-term investments in certificated form, which means that I am not tied to a specific broker.

I understand your annoyance with the tone of the e-mail from HB ( it reminds me of a letter I received from a credit card provider some years back which said that for my convenience the cashback rate was now set at 1% - the fact that it was a reduction from 5% was somehow overlooked... ) but they are perfectly within their rights changing the charging structure.