Genuine alternative to HL?

SnowMan

jimjames wrote: »

There was a thread that compared all S&S ISA providers - I think Snowman had created it some time back so finding that may give some more info.

I think you mean Special Saver's thread here but nice to be mistaken for an MSE legend.

Also worth looking at the monevator on-line broker comparison.

Rollinghome

bowlhead99 wrote: »

But what it does do is imply the next date of their fee scale review and you should be looking at exit fees at that point and how they might affect you.

I suspect you're reading way too much into the ATS statement.

ATS have recently increased their charges twice within a short period and all they have done is to reassure nervous clients that there will not be further rise in the immediate future. I see nothing to imply that clients should expect rises when the guarantee ends and certainly nothing that ATS could hide behind if they did decide to raise charges.

As I understand, SnowMan's complaint against Mr Bell's Sippdeal/YouInvest is that they are completely changing the basis of their charges and as a consequence they will require him to pay several times as much as now. Furthermore, they are demanding that he pays them a £250 ransom in order to end the contract and move 10 funds elsewhere.

To my mind, Bell's behaviour is clearly unfair and improper and I'd expect anyone effected in the same way to be a tad irritated at any suggestion otherwise. The standards of the investment industry may be well below what we're entitled to expect but we won't see any improvement unless we demand it.

bowlhead99

Like I say, I'm not implying ATS should be able to "hide behind" the fact that people knew the fee freeze is only good to X date, when changing the fees or deciding whether to impose or waive exit fees next time. I am not "taking their side" in a hypothetical scenario.

Snowman suggested I had made an erroneous argument that it would be completely fine for them to hike fees without waiving the getout fee on the customer, as AJBell recently tried to do to him.

I was simply explaining that I hadn't made that argument; my recommendation to always check out exit fees on signing a contract is because the industry does not always work in the way we would like it to, therefore, caveat emptor. ATS did this time work the way we like it to, and was singled out for praise for being better in that respect than their competition, this time around.

Depending on your holdings, ATS might have a relatively higher exit charge than some of their competition. To ignore such things on the basis that the nice guy thing for companies to do is to waive them if the fees change, could be to your detriment if they don't do the nice guy thing and waive them next time out. I presume it is not explicit in their Ts&Cs that they will always waive them, hence, buyer beware. That's all I was saying and I was not trying to imply that they should or shouldn't waive the fees or that Snowman's efforts to challenge AJBell should be disparaged.

planteria

bowlhead99 wrote: »

I suppose if the alternative is that - due to the evolving lay of the land, fees wise - you simply don't invest anywhere at all, you're probably "cutting your nose off to spite your face".

you are right, of course, bowlhead. and yes...i will just back a little while before adding more to my SIPP (this year's ISA contrib has already been put in).

hyposmurf

I'm also classed a small investor and am having problems deciding where to place my current funds and pension.Just holding out until I get a clearer picture.When I add in the annual fees of the fund supermarkets and work that out as a percentage of my funds, there not much in it between them.
Trying to work out all the fund provider charges seems to be much harder than actually selecting the fund themsleves.I'd prefer there to be no exit charges across all fund supermarkets, so as to bring about more competition.

planteria

i don't think it's very easy at all, hyposmurf.

there seem to be a lot of people here that are keen to criticise HL, and i don't believe that the platform market has space for a 'premium' offer...by definition i think it needs to be a 'good value' product. but i don't see many alternatives being suggested on the boards.

Imnoexpert_2

I have my isa and fund investments with HL. I like their online offering and although I haven't always agreed with them I have found them efficient helpful and courteous when I have contacted them. I am holding on until we find out their new structure and I am sure that as a large high profile stock market listed company they realise how critical their decision will be. I may be prepared to continue paying a premium for their service but like others I will be doing some sums!

My wife has an is a with fidelity through an IFA. I haven't read much about their new charging model on thi site. It kicks in when you invest new money or change existing funds. My experiences with Fidelity through the IFA haven't been as good as with HL and I don't like the web offering as much.

I have recently read that Trustnet intend to launch a 'low cost' offering. I would be very interested in this since I am a big fan of Tn and use it to monitor all my funds and pensions in one place. Again I haven't seen much about this but I guess they can be a big player. Maybe other new entrants will emerge - banks, insurance co's, Amazon ?

What I don't want to have to do is end up with ISA on one platform, funds on another and SIPP on a third, and I don't want to be locked in by high transfer out charges.

planteria

i am entirely with your sentiments.

Imnoexpert wrote: »

I may be prepared to continue paying a premium for their service but like others I will be doing some sums!

what im not really clear about is what the 'Budget' alternatives to HL's 'Premium' offer are.........accepting that the lie of the land is not clear yet.

Rollinghome

planteria wrote: »

i am entirely with your sentiments.
what im not really clear about is what the 'Budget' alternatives to HL's 'Premium' offer are.........accepting that the lie of the land is not clear yet.

The short answer is: most of the other providers.

But there isn't a one-size-fits-all. The best one for you will depend on how much you have invested, what you invest in, and how you invest. You'll need to do your own research.

HL have delayed announcing their new fees 3 or 4 times now so we still don't know their exact position. They'll be compelled by RDR2 to fess up within the next few weeks and in the meantime the best you can do is guess.

Currently they're grabbing about 0.7% from investments and when Barclays analysts recently calculated that under the new fee structure 0.7% was likely to be the cost to clients with up to £50k Danny Cox said the analysis was “a reasonable representation of how things might work” and would be reflective of the premium service they offered. Ian Gorham had earlier said that their clients weren't sensitive to price.

The fact that they delayed their announcement again might mean they're rethinking on how to present it, possibly with a lower headline figure that's clawed back by other fees. They've already announced they'll be going down the road of what they call "Waitrose-style pricing" so unlikely to be cheap.

Some of the alternatives are listed here http://www.candidmoney.com/guides/3/guide-to-isa-discount-brokers and here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3153942 but you'll need to make adjustments for recent changes.

The most straightforward option for someone investing entirely in UTs might be Cavendishonline/Fundsnetwork, 0.25% with no other charges and free transfer out if you change your mind. For others, Alliance, Charles Stanley, Trustnet etc. may be a better option. You'll need to decide what you want, whether you're happy to accept lower returns to pay for it, and do the sums.

Imnoexpert_2

Thanks RH.

I think Funds Network/Cavendish might be the way to go for me.

My wife's IFA uses Fidelity for her ISA and they now charge her the 0.25% on funds, plus £45 a year with the adviser pocketing 0.5% from her on top oh and a 1% buy in charge.

I suppose if I go direct I can choose Fidelity FN direct with a better website than Cavendish but it costs £45 a year more than Cav.?

In Fidelity's brochure it says "The total cost of investing in a clean share class won't always necessarily be cheaper than its bundled equivalent as a result of the new charges". So I take it some clean funds either don't exist or aren't as clean as others?

I shall miss HL if I go because it was through their pr and simple yet informative website and brochures that I got into 'investing'. I hope they read these forums.