Danny Cox of Hargreaves Lansdown being pulled apart on Radio 4 Moneybox over new fees

bigadaj

JohnRo wrote: »

I can only speculate, but perhaps it is as simple as "old habits die hard"

The way they've handled this is a wonderful insight into the prevailing culture at HL, which seems to thrive on obfuscation and apparently finds it difficult to behave in the manner you describe towards it's customers, which I totally agree would have been far and away more beneficial to them and much preferred by existing and potential new customers.

To be slightly fair to hl then the whole financial services industry operates on a lack of transparency and obfuscation, their main fault seems to be that they are making themselves out to be low costs when they ain't.

jimjames

bigadaj wrote: »

To be slightly fair to hl then the whole financial services industry operates on a lack of transparency and obfuscation, their main fault seems to be that they are making themselves out to be low costs when they ain't.

The thing is that they were low cost when they started the Vantage service. They got fat on that commission system and are having to find ways to retain their slice of the pie when everything is changing around them.

I'm sure being more competitive as they were previously and increasing customer numbers would grow profits more but time will tell.

JohnRo

bigadaj wrote: »

To be slightly fair to hl then the whole financial services industry operates on a lack of transparency and obfuscation, their main fault seems to be that they are making themselves out to be low costs when they ain't.

I'm not convinced, given that RDR has forced the issue many of their competitors have moved very early and not only made but fully embraced the required shift to explicit charging well ahead of time. In the case of interactive investor at some considerable cost to themselves in terms of reputation at least.

HL have played and delayed this for as long as they could and at best they're being disingenuous about their new charges imho.

jimjames

JohnRo wrote: »

HL have played and delayed this for as long as they could and at best they're being disingenuous about their new charges imho.

The fact that Danny Cox refused to answer or confirm that HL make 71p out of every £1 they take would suggest it is correct. If it wasn't then he would have outright denied it.

That is some impressive profit margin so you can see why they don't want to let it go.

Deneb

dunstonh wrote: »

Skandia have got lower pricing on their blackrock trackers since RDR. e.g. Blackrock Cont Euro moved from 0.22% to 0.12%. So, it is likely to happen with others.

I currently have about £30K in a single Vanguard LS fund within a SIPP with HL. Although I'm looking at a fairly substantial increase in charges over the previous £24 per annum, comparison of other fund manager charges seems to indicate that HL are still cheaper for a holding within a SIPP.

Does anyone know of a platform or manager who allows Vanguard funds within a PP, which I'm gathering from other posts would almost certainly be cheaper, if it is possible?

Otherwise, if I want to look at the PP route, I assume I would have to sell and transfer as cash into Blackrock or another alternative?

lejog2003

jimjames wrote: »

The other thing I thought was interesting was he suggestion that fund managers don't deserve to be paid much and that a platform should get more. It seems strange that they have only just come out with that gem. Key section is at 5:45 in the programme.

Mark Dampier said last week that there are layers and layers of management in fund groups, ‘and don’t even get me started on the salaries – and I don’t just mean the fund managers’ moneyobserver.com/opinion/will-fund-supermarkets-kill-industry. These comments are going to go down well with the funds industry.

A HL customer could equally validly say "Don't even get me started on HL's 66% profit margins"

SallyG

For me the great consumer benefit of RDR has been the spotlight on the long history of fleecing - behave towards them as towards someone you know will mug you if you look away.

Glen_Clark

SallyG wrote: »

behave towards them as towards someone you know will mug you if you look away.

:T Wise advice, and a Good way of putting it

dunstonh

I currently have about £30K in a single Vanguard LS fund within a SIPP with HL. Although I'm looking at a fairly substantial increase in charges over the previous £24 per annum, comparison of other fund manager charges seems to indicate that HL are still cheaper for a holding within a SIPP.

Is there any reason you prefer a SIPP and the vanguard VLS fund when similar options are available on PPPs at lower cost. 0.40% OFC inclusive of wrapper and fund for example is possible.

You are paying for a wrap platform but not taking advantage of platform services. So, you have to ask why you are willing to pay for that?

cepheus

And fund managers and platform operators such as HL are only part of it, haven't tied and commission based financial advisors taken even more? No wonder we have such a large financial industry in the UK, but how many of them are really necessary or do anything useful?