Hargreaves Lansdown charges.

JohnRo

If HL are passing those cost reductions, and if they do actually exist to any great extent, directly to their customers then that's one thing.
What they seem to be doing though is looking for exclusive, preferential treatment from fund managers to prop up their fat profit margin, which they're no doubt within their rights to do but it doesn't exactly fit within the spirit of what I thought RDR was all about.

The sooner the likes of blackrock, vanguard and others start to embrace the prospect of their own retail platforms the better imo.

xylophone

I guess some of you guys could walk in a job at these places, if you haven't already. No wonder we get such shabby service.

And how is one supposed to take that, I wonder?:D

Rollinghome

JohnRo wrote: »

I doubt those who drove forward the RDR could ever have imagined it would lead to such a shambles. The FCA should get involved at some point imho, since they're the ones in a past life who started this fire.

They need to force explicit pricing clarity and provide guidance to make matters far less convoluted than some platforms seem to be hoping they'll get away with. I'm sure the RDR was not only intended to make charges explicit but also just as importantly, simpler for retail customers.

What the regulators don't seem to have factored in to any of their calculations is that they're dealing with an industry built almost entirely on profit from kickbacks, obfuscation and hidden charges. At least breaking some of that culture apart is a start I suppose..

I'd guess HL might (disingenuously) claim that by making separate additional charges they're making it clearer what you are actually paying for.

In reality, they made it almost impossible to calculate what the total cost will be in order to massage down the headline figure. They seem to be following the "confusion pricing" sales techniques used by Ryanair - but without starting from a basic low cost.

Does seem to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent much of the thinking behind RDR and if there were a will shouldn't be impossible to require platforms to publish typical total cost figures for different levels of investment. If they don't, it'll encourage more confusion pricing and disadvantage those that don't do it.

grey_gym_sock

the regulators were concerned that many ppl thought that platforms were free. at least now ppl know that they have a cost. comparing the costs of different platforms may be very confusing, but at least if you're trying to do that, you know that they have costs. if you're confused, at least you know that there's something to be confused about. in summary: now we know what we don't know.

JohnRo

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

the regulators were concerned that many ppl thought that platforms were free. at least now ppl know that they have a cost. comparing the costs of different platforms may be very confusing, but at least if you're trying to do that, you know that they have costs. if you're confused, at least you know that there's something to be confused about. in summary: now we know what we don't know.

I agree it forces people to engage with the costs involved. For me though it's not confusion but rather irritation. Few people like to think they're being charged more for the same thing they could get elsewhere for less.

It's looking likely to be an ongoing faff to keep abreast of any platform price changes and then calculating how any such changes might affect your particular investments if held there, whether the saving is worth the hassle, and then working out the cost involved in any such move and whether it'll be a permanent one.

I suppose it'll settle down eventually.