Hargreaves Lansdown charges.

sorcerer

Another thing I just realised that my ISA is an income generating portfolio and I will have no choice but to give them part of the money each month, before I can reinvest it, because they say they will take the money in the first two weeks of the month, which just happens to be about when income is passed to my account, coincidence ... I think not.


I wanted to keep all of the money the ISA makes in the ISA to compound it, and pay the charges from my fund account. But I bet it's not going to happen like this.

grey_gym_sock

Linton wrote: »

iii also supply clean funds with no rebate. How can the TER be different to the same funds from H-L? Or do you believe that H-L will go for the currently rare super-clean funds?

HL have made it clear they have "super-clean" (which could be either cheaper fund classes than a standard clean class, or standard clean with some rebate) for some funds. we don't know for how many funds. or whether II will have the same "super-clean", or get it some time later.

on average, i'm guessing that HL will have marginally lower fund charges than II. when you add on HL's or II's own charges, II's fixed charges are bound to be better with large enough fund investments, HL's with smaller investments. the only question is where the cut-off point will be.

meanwhile, comparing HL to somebody like charles stanley ... again, perhaps HL will have marginally lower fund charges. however, in this case both HL and CS have purely percentage charges - HL 0.45%, CS 0.25% - so CS are likely to be cheaper for any size of investment.

grey_gym_sock

sorcerer wrote: »

I wanted to keep all of the money the ISA makes in the ISA to compound it, and pay the charges from my fund account. But I bet it's not going to happen like this.

HL's documentation doesn't suggest that this is going to be possible. but it's something they ought to be able to do. they manage to do something similar with their existing £1/£2 platform fee if you ask them.

coastline

I've no idea how Barclays fit it with fund fees but at the moment if you are fully invested in funds theres no annual administration fee...this also applies to Sipps.
I understand things could change when they review their structure.

https://help.stockbrokers.barclays.co.uk/help/asset-types/why-should-I-hold-funds

cepheus

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

well, "Equivalent Annual Cost" (in candid money's SIPP guide) is total costs for both the funds (using 8 popular funds, which they specify) and the SIPP provider.

in the case of HL, the 1.37% figure - based on HL's old charges - consists of the full cost of the fund (using old expensive fund units) MINUS the rebate HL pay you.

with HL's new charges, that figure would perhaps fall to 1.22% (just an estimate - we don't know the exact figure yet). though it would be made up differently, viz. from cheaper "clean" fund units (costing c. 0.77%) + HL's explicit charge of 0.45%.

HL charge the same for an ISA or a SIPP (when holding funds).

II's 1.03% consists of fund charges MINUS rebate + £144 p.a. (their charge for a SIPP wrapper) + £10 per deal (unlike HL, who don't charge for fund dealing). (and we're assuming that II's charging model won't have to change.)

for an ISA, II charge the same fund charges and rebates as in their SIPP + £80 p.a. (which also counts as a pre-payment of 2 deals per quarter) + £10 each for any extra deals. so similar charges, but not identical, to their SIPP - it depends how often you deal.

note that, because II have some fixed charges in £ (for both SIPP and ISA), the overall percentage cost depends on the amount invested - it falls as investment size rises. for HL, that doesn't happen (until you go over £250k in funds).

That's more or less the assumptions I've used. The break even point is between 25-50 trades per year. However III are one of the cheapest, if these figures are true HL beat the pants of most of the others so I'm nor sure what the hysteria is about. We knew these platforms and fund managers ripped us off before.

Anyway I should be getting something back about these costs today to confirm if the overall cost is as comparefunds suggests

Gaaraz

Anyone else finding the Charles Stanley ISA transfer form unecessarily confusing? It requires two different entries for "Plan Manager & Account number" (eh?!) and also asks for an ISA reference number which I can't see anywhere on HL.

Lokolo

Gaaraz wrote: »

Anyone else finding the Charles Stanley ISA transfer form unecessarily confusing? It requires two different entries for "Plan Manager & Account number" (eh?!) and also asks for an ISA reference number which I can't see anywhere on HL.

Do you have a PDF of it? I haven't opened my ISA with CSD yet but wouldn't mind having a copy.

I would phone them up and ask though.

Gaaraz

Unfortunately I can't send the PDF over because it's got all of my personal details on when it's generated (I guess this is why you can't see the transfer form if you're not a member) but yeah, I shall call them at lunch time, thank you

Lokolo

Gaaraz wrote: »

Unfortunately I can't send the PDF over because it's got all of my personal details on when it's generated (I guess this is why you can't see the transfer form if you're not a member) but yeah, I shall call them at lunch time, thank you

Let me know what they say, as I might end up with the same problem

Thanks.

hyposmurf

dunstonh wrote: »

Nearly everyone else is using TER/OFC. It is just HL that have stuck with AMC and that is misleading.

When I use their site the wealth 150 shows the TER cost and then I click to the link of a particular fund and its the same charge.First State Asia Pacific Leaders is the same at 1.62%. Am missing something Dunstonh?

http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/wealth-150

http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/f/first-state-asia-pacific-leaders-accumulation