Sippdeal shocker (& link to template complaint letter)

SnowMan

Youinvest (Sippdeal) new charges from 1st January 2014

http://www.youinvest.co.uk/Resources/Content/PDF/AJBYI_Summary_of_changes_to_our_charges_and_rates.pdf

£50 pa custody fee for clean funds has been replaced by a 0.2% charge (max £200 pa per account*). So a quadrupling of the custody charge for those with over £100,000 invested in an account*.

The only good thing is that their fund dealing charge is reducing from £9.95 to £4.95.

They are also increasing their re-registration away charge to £25 from £20 from 1st March 2014 for existing customers.

They have also introduced a SIPP admin fee of up to £100 per annum (£100 applies for SIPPS above £20,000).

*an account means an ISA account, dealing account (i.e. non-ISA account) and SIPP. So if you have all three you could end up paying up to a £600pa custody fee

(edit 3rd December - template complaint letter in post 64)

Old_Slaphead

Fund dealing fee reduced to 495p.

What's reregistration charge ??

I'm not impressed with new £100 pa admin fee.

WatsonNimrod

Thanks for the heads up.

I was very close to moving more funds over to them from H&L so back to the drawing board now.

I'm not an expert on how these charges are formulated, but if HM Gov really believed that the RDR was going to drive the cost of investing someone somewhere got it very wrong.

grizzly1911

WatsonNimrod wrote: »

Thanks for the heads up.

I was very close to moving more funds over to them from H&L so back to the drawing board now.

I'm not an expert on how these charges are formulated, but if HM Gov really believed that the RDR was going to drive the cost of investing someone somewhere got it very wrong.

Linton

WatsonNimrod wrote: »

....

I'm not an expert on how these charges are formulated, but if HM Gov really believed that the RDR was going to drive the cost of investing someone somewhere got it very wrong.

Dont think so - the purpose of RDR wasnt to directly drive down prices, but rather make them explicit. This should encourage price competition between the brokers which should drive down prices. What we are seeing at the moment is the establishment of initial positions. Once everyone's charges are in the open I would hope for reductions as each company chases market share and tries to protect its customer base.

k12479

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I'm not impressed with new £100 pa admin fee.

I agree, but after a brief look I didn't find anywhere cheaper. I'd be interested if anyone has any suggestions.

SnowMan

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Fund dealing fee reduced to 495p.

What's reregistration charge ??

I'm not impressed with new £100 pa admin fee.

Thanks. I've updated the first post with the dealing charge change and added a comment about the SIPP admin fee introduction.

Re-registration is moving funds to another platform on an 'as if' basis or 'in specie' basis. That is your funds are moved over to another platform without any selling or buying taking place, so you end up with identical funds on another platform.

SnowMan

It makes a mockery of the FCA rules on re-registration if platforms are going to increase their re-registration charges to ridiculous figures like £25 per fund. There should be a limit at most of £10 in my view. Effectively it makes it very difficult to move platforms and is anti-competitive.

There is also a cartel like feel to charges now with almost every platform (ATS aside) going down the percentage custody charge route.

I don't blame the FCA, RDR was essential. However I do think the OFT should look into whether the platforms are genuinely competing.

Linton

SnowMan wrote: »

It makes a mockery of the FCA rules on re-registration if platforms are going to increase their re-registration charges to ridiculous figures like £25 per fund. There should be a limit at most of £10 in my view. Effectively it makes it very difficult to move platforms and is anti-competitive.

There is also a cartel like feel to charges now with almost every platform (ATS aside) going down the percentage custody charge route.

I don't blame the FCA, RDR was essential. However I do think the OFT should look into whether the platforms are genuinely competing.

Is £25 administration charge unreasonable in terms of the work involved? I guess that could cover say 15-30 minutes of effort together with all the overheads. I dont know what's involved but at first sight it doesnt seem grossly excessive.

The problem is that all these background tasks were previously cross subsidised by the platform fees. People wanted charges to be made explicit, now they are. "Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it".

As to whether the platforms are genuinely competing - at the moment they arent, prices are just being announced. Hopefully they are being devised with no knowledge of what other people are going to do. Give it a few months and things could be very different. What I fear is a massive shake out and consolidation leaving us with a very small choice. Perhaps in a few years it will be a very small choice of global players.

westy22

Hopefully they are being devised with no knowledge of what other people are going to do. Give it a few months and things could be very different.

We have all waited ages for platforms to announce their RDR2 proposals (and we are still waiting for HL) and now we are going to have to wait for ages more to see where pricing finally settles before we are able to make a firm decision on where our investments are best placed.

SnowMan

Linton wrote: »

Is £25 administration charge unreasonable in terms of the work involved? I guess that could cover say 15-30 minutes of effort together with all the overheads. I dont know what's involved but at first sight it doesnt seem grossly excessive.

Charging £250 to move 10 funds over is clearly excessive or indicates very inefficient systems. The FCA expect platforms to move to an automated re-registration system and charging £25 for an automated single fund transfer is way too high in my view.

All they are doing is changing ownership in a log. It isn't rocket science.