Hargreaves Lansdown "playing hardball"

Lokolo

jamesd wrote: »

Then closing and taking them to the FOS if they make the charge after a price increase for someone would be the way to go instead. Unless of course there are parts of their offering that make it best to keep some money with them, which is far from impossible.

I suppose I'll need to check the terms in more detail because I do have an account there that has less than £50 in it at the moment, even though I've far more there overall.

The new charges were announced today, new charges come in in March, the account closure fee / transfer cash fee doesn't come in until June, giving a 5 month period from knowing the fees and a 3 month period from when the new charges come in, before closure / cash out fee applies.

Whether or not the FOS would see that as enough time or not is another matter, but I can't see how it would be held up, plenty of time..

jamesd

Perhaps. Then there will be the matter of the charges for in specie transfers for those who suffer price increases, something else that may end up going to the FOS if they insist on charging them.

Rollinghome

jamesd wrote: »

Then closing and taking them to the FOS if they make the charge after a price increase for someone would be the way to go instead. Unless of course there are parts of their offering that make it best to keep some money with them, which is far from impossible.

I suppose I'll need to check the terms in more detail because I do have an account there that has less than £50 in it at the moment, even though I've far more there overall.

I'd agree. Doesn't even have anything to do with RDR, it's just a new retrospective charge on shareholdings they've decided to impose.

Lokolo wrote: »

The new charges were announced today, new charges come in in March, the account closure fee / transfer cash fee doesn't come in until June, giving a 5 month period from knowing the fees and a 3 month period from when the new charges come in, before closure / cash out fee applies.

Whether or not the FOS would see that as enough time or not is another matter, but I can't see how it would be held up, plenty of time..

I don't see giving notice making any difference. For shares it's a retrospective charge that the client can only avoid by liquidating the holdings before June and paying their share-dealing fee with all associated costs. They should either agree to waive the fee in respect of existing holdings, whenever you choose to sell the shares, or to agree transfer elsewhere free of charge.

vm2pensioner

Rollinghome wrote: »

I'd agree. Doesn't even have anything to do with RDR, it's just a new retrospective charge on shareholdings they've decided to impose.


I don't see giving notice making any difference. For shares it's a retrospective charge that the client can only avoid by liquidating the holdings before June and paying their share-dealing fee with all associated costs. They should either agree to waive the fee in respect of existing holdings, whenever you choose to sell the shares, or to agree transfer elsewhere free of charge.

I totally agree. There is a material and adverse change for the client by imposing a retrospective charge.

Wilkins

And another thing . . . £10 per corporate action unless you take no action. I know HL were always not so good for shares as opposed to funds but it seems now they really have it in for people who just want to construct their own equity portfolio.


Guess I'll have to work out a suitable exit strategy.

vm2pensioner

Wilkins wrote: »

And another thing . . . £10 per corporate action unless you take no action. I know HL were always not so good for shares as opposed to funds but it seems now they really have it in for people who just want to construct their own equity portfolio.


Guess I'll have to work out a suitable exit strategy.

Perhaps we should have kept our own share certificates after all. HL's marketing ploy to place these in Vantage was based on the premise of no charges.

ayayay

I spoke to HL today because the cost of holding my I.Ts and shares is going to shoot up. I asked whether they will be waiving exit fees for those who try to exit before the fee increase happens and was told NO.

My choice is therefore stay as is and pay double fees
Liquidate my I.Ts so I only pay one set of charges on shares and pay dealing costs
Transfer out and pay massive costs to transfer in specie.

Totally unfair. Ombudsman here I come I think.

dunstonh

vm2pensioner wrote: »

All this uncertainty about actual costs seems to be another example of an unintended consequence of government seeking to make prices more "transparent", as in the domestic energy supply market, but in fact causing yet more confusion and, in many cases, greater expense!

Not really. It is effectively removing the cross subsidy that passive investments and direct investments benefitted from that was paid for by managed funds. Those with managed funds will be better off.

Just a way of getting more fees!

No. Just not benefiting from others paying those fees for you.

HL also appear to have positioned themselves as a Wrap account now. Rather than a fund supermarket with a brokering bolt on.

Fidelity have just said that they have found 73 lines of charges in HLs list that are not covered in the percentage charge. This is quite important to note as most of the platforms that operate on percentage basis tend to have very few additional charges beyond the percentage.

dunstonh

ayayay wrote: »

I spoke to HL today because the cost of holding my I.Ts and shares is going to shoot up. I asked whether they will be waiving exit fees for those who try to exit before the fee increase happens and was told NO.

My choice is therefore stay as is and pay double fees
Liquidate my I.Ts so I only pay one set of charges on shares and pay dealing costs
Transfer out and pay massive costs to transfer in specie.

Totally unfair. Ombudsman here I come I think.

The FCA requirement is that existing business has until April 2016 to be converted. New business has until April 2014. So, from a regulatory point of view, there is nothing stopping them only applying the charges to new business and increment/top ups made after April.

Most other platforms have taken the approach that the first transaction you make after the change brings you on to the new charging basis. However, if you do nothing, you remain on the old charging basis upto a point before April 2016 where you will need to change.

So, you could try the fairness route as there is nothing from a regulatory position that is forcing their hand.

Rollinghome

ayayay wrote: »

I spoke to HL today because the cost of holding my I.Ts and shares is going to shoot up. I asked whether they will be waiving exit fees for those who try to exit before the fee increase happens and was told NO.

My choice is therefore stay as is and pay double fees
Liquidate my I.Ts so I only pay one set of charges on shares and pay dealing costs
Transfer out and pay massive costs to transfer in specie.

Totally unfair. Ombudsman here I come I think.

Especially as the retrospective new charges on equity holdings has nothing to do with the new RDR regulatory requirements either in April 2014 or April 2016.

They aren't bringing fees in line with funds or anything of that sort. They've had a totally different fee structure for equities to date and it will remain entirely different. They are simply increasing their charges on equities, including ITs, to increase margins.