Leaving HL without transfer charges

ozzage

Just realised we're running out of time! "Secure messaged" the complaint from earlier in the thread and will be transferring 2 SIPPs, 2 ISAs and 1 trading account to III.

I am largely in Vanguard LS so this is a complete no-brainer for me.

Edit: Received the letter today with same conditions as everybody else. No counter-offer with a lower % though.

rpc

Received the standard letter less than a week after doing the secure message. They are claiming that "valid reasons" make it fair even though I specifically pointed out that the OFT don't think they do. But then they say they will waive fees as I "obviously have strong feelings on the matter"

In my case, I won't be immediately worse off. If anything, my charges under the new regime might be a touch lower. As a result, my complaint was based on rejecting the change rather than my platform costs increasing immediately. That's mainly because of the ITs and ETFs that I hold and them having a capped charge. The change in tracker costs is likely to balance out against the clean priced OEICs initially.

I would be paying more within 2-3 years, though so there is significant long term advantage to me moving away. I was slightly concerned that my position might weaken my complaint. I wonder if they are at the point of just reading "blah blah waive fees blah blah" "OK, it's another moaner, just send out the standard letter again"

Sparky47

I also received the standard letter today 3 days after complaining.

Being in managed funds, my costs with HL will actually be lower than before so I based my complaint on the new charges for cash transfer, probate charge and account closing.

Although my costs should be less, I will save considerably more elsewhere so will be moving to III.

hyposmurf

Another success on the transfer charges.Got my letter this morning saying they will waive the charges.Seems a shame they couldnt have waived them in the first place and had to have a complaint letter sent warning them them I'd go to the OFT over their charges. Together with the cheaper charges offered by other supermarkets H&L's poor attitude to their customers has been another nail in the coffin. Not the kind of attitude you'd expect from a Waitrose style service.
Many thanks for all the input in this thread.Without the template letter theres a chance they may have wormed out of waiving my charges.

mikebeaches

Article in the Telegraph today concerning haggling at HL et al:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/10667183/Investors-force-fund-shops-to-haggle.html

lejog2003

mikebeaches wrote: »

Article in the Telegraph today concerning haggling at HL et al:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/10667183/Investors-force-fund-shops-to-haggle.html

I must admit to having tweeted the Telegraph reporter about these offers when they first appeared in this thread (he had just written an article on HL performing a U-turn on IT charges).

Its good to see these deals being out in the open.

SnowMan

This has come out today

FCA Review of implementation of platform rules

We also saw some firms introducing exit charges, and we wouldn't want those exit charges to get to a level where they might present a barrier to exit for the customer and inhibit competition more generally in the market

Rollinghome

SnowMan wrote: »

This has come out today

FCA Review of implementation of platform rules

I noticed they expressed concern at exit charges which they wouldn't want to be "barriers to exit and inhibit competition".

They also want firms to ensure that clients are actively made aware of the effect of the changes. Hargreaves Lansdown's presentation to shareholders made clear that they expected to maintain margins by continuing to collect commissions on top of platform fees on unconverted bundled funds - a plan that would seem to largely depend on not making clients aware.

An obvious example are the Ruffer funds where clients with O class funds will continue to pay 1.5% amc but with the 0.45% platform fee on top and HL will then additionally retain all commission they receive without rebating it. The clean version will cost an amc of 1.2% plus the platform fee, net 1.65% and a 0.50% initial fee.

Mention too of concern on influencing the sale of some funds, which seems to be the whole point of the Wealth 150 list.

I hope the FCA will do more than just raise their eyebrows.

itm2

Rollinghome wrote: »

I noticed they expressed concern at exit charges which they wouldn't want to be "barriers to exit and inhibit competition".

They also want firms to ensure that clients are actively made aware of the effect of the changes. Hargreaves Lansdown's presentation to shareholders made clear that they expected to maintain margins by continuing to collect commissions on top of platform fees on unconverted bundled funds - a plan that would seem to largely depend on not making clients aware.

An obvious example are the Ruffer funds where clients with O class funds will continue to pay 1.5% amc but with the 0.45% platform fee on top and HL will then additionally retain all commission they receive without rebating it. The clean version will cost an amc of 1.2% plus the platform fee, net 1.65% and a 0.50% initial fee.

Mention too of concern on influencing the sale of some funds, which seems to be the whole point of the Wealth 150 list.

I hope the FCA will do more than just raise their eyebrows.

Interesting that you should choose Ruffer as an example, as I'm currently invested in a couple of their funds (Total Return and European - both class O). Would you happen to know:
- Will I be left on class O unless I intervene (and hence pick up unnecessary additional costs)?
- If I switch to the clean version would I expect to pay the Ruffer's initial charge again?

Rollinghome

itm2 wrote: »

Interesting that you should choose Ruffer as an example, as I'm currently invested in a couple of their funds (Total Return and European - both class O). Would you happen to know:
- Will I be left on class O unless I intervene (and hence pick up unnecessary additional costs)?
- If I switch to the clean version would I expect to pay the Ruffer's initial charge again?

They'll be able to get away with it until the FCA's deadline of April 2016 I believe.

My understanding is that if you simply switch then you would pay the initial charge. If you ask for a "conversion" that could take quite a while and you'd not be able to trade the funds during the conversion. Details here http://www.hl.co.uk/my-accounts/how-do-i-guides/convert-my-funds-to-unbundled-units But I've only skimmed through it all so if in any doubt you'd do best to read it all yourself or ask them and get it on record in a pm or email.

You might also want to review whether at the new higher cost it still offers good value. A clean price of 1.20% when 0.75% or less might be expected is quite a price. Another option if you like the company would have been the Ruffer IT but that's a global fund and isn't a direct match and currently sells at a premium of 2.1.