Iii

masonic

minted_visitor wrote: »

Do you have a special deal? According to their website they charge 0.25% on the first 250K and 0,1% for 250K - 1m. So if, for example, you held 250K it would cost you £625 p.a.

That's not a special deal. Custody charge on ETFs, ITs and shares is capped at £7.50 per quarter.
https://www.youinvest.co.uk/isa/charges-and-rates

HL does a similar thing.

minted_visitor

masonic wrote: »

That's not a special deal. Custody charge on ETFs, ITs and shares is capped at £7.50 per quarter.

Ah OK, I was talking about funds only.

cloud_dog

masonic wrote: »

That's not a special deal. Custody charge on ETFs, ITs and shares is capped at £7.50 per quarter.
https://www.youinvest.co.uk/isa/charges-and-rates

HL does a similar thing.

Not sure why people investing in ITs / stocks / ETFs in an ISA pay any platform / AMC charge; why not just move it to one of the decent providers who don't charge, or don't charge if a not very high hurdle (size of holding) is met?

masonic

cloud_dog wrote: »

Not sure why people investing in ITs / stocks / ETFs in an ISA pay any platform / AMC charge; why not just move it to one of the decent providers who don't charge, or don't charge if a not very high hurdle (size of holding) is met?

It's not necessarily cheaper to go with a provider that has no custody charge vs. a provider with a low charge that has other benefits, such as discounted regular investment charges. Paying £30-£45 per year to bring down regular investing charges from about £5 per trade to £1.50 per trade could result in a saving.

The other aspect is the cost of moving a portfolio. In specie transfers are not cheap, so a very substantial saving must be made to make it worthwhile.

cloud_dog

masonic wrote: »

It's not necessarily cheaper to go with a provider that has no custody charge vs. a provider with a low charge that has other benefits, such as discounted regular investment charges. Paying £30-£45 per year to bring down regular investing charges from about £5 per trade to £1.50 per trade could result in a saving.

The other aspect is the cost of moving a portfolio. In specie transfers are not cheap, so a very substantial saving must be made to make it worthwhile.

You are correct regarding the 'not necessarily cheaper' but my point is that they are never discussed / offered / considered which I believe is a failing.

We have two primary ISA platforms (holding stocks / ITs), neither making a platform charge; one offers regular investment at £1.50 the other does not offer RI but dealing charges are £5.95.

My post was a direct comment on BLB53's post regarding the structure of their investments and still inuring platform charges.

Nothing wrong with BLB53's choice; that was not the purpose of the post, merely a comment regarding the holistic approach for deciding on platforms based on all available information. This is why I am such a big fan of SnowMans spreadsheet, simply because it shows clear concise charging for different investment structures.

masonic

cloud_dog wrote: »

You are correct regarding the 'not necessarily cheaper' but my point is that they are never discussed / offered / considered which I believe is a failing.

We have two primary ISA platforms (holding stocks / ITs), neither making a platform charge; one offers regular investment at £1.50 the other does not offer RI but dealing charges are £5.95.

My post was a direct comment on BLB53's post regarding the structure of their investments and still inuring platform charges.

Nothing wrong with BLB53's choice; that was not the purpose of the post, merely a comment regarding the holistic approach for deciding on platforms based on all available information. This is why I am such a big fan of SnowMans spreadsheet, simply because it shows clear concise charging for different investment structures.

Well I don't know why they are never discussed, but you could have mentioned them in your post, and didn't, which I find odd. Presumably one of them is x-o, but I'm not aware of the other, which offers £1.50 RI.

Chordeiles

coyrls wrote: »

Well there's not an 89 page thread on AJ Bell and people tend not to post when things are going as expected, so that should suggest that AJ Bell are better.

There isn't an 89 page thread on Alliance Trust Savings either, must mean they are great !
Or might simply suggest that III have more customers ?

On Trustpilot:

• 5 reviews of Alliance Trust Savings (average score 4.3)
• 5 reviews of AJ Bell YouInvest (average score 6.0)
• 116 reviews of Hargreaves Lansdown (average score 5.2)
• 724 reviews of Interactive Investor (average score 8.2)

Of course I realise I have presented even more statistics from which even more unreliable conclusions can be drawn:). For instance a lot of positive reviews for III from folks who have only one or two reviews to their name, which I find a bit suspicious.

goRt

Unfortunately, normal service has resumed at iii :-(

After a series of awkward discussions relating to the logistics of taking my 25% PCLS (it struggles with the concept of selling 25% of my units - I only hold a single fund in the relevant SIPP) the following emerged (purely by accident in a throwaway comment by iii):

On my 55th birthday, it will place my paperwork [that it finally acknowledges receipt of] into its work queue to produce an illustration for me showing that taking my 25% PCLS will reduce my SIPP by 25%.
It will then post said to me which I can then post back to it saying that I agree with its mathematically challenged illustration.
It will then place my request into its work queue and eventually at a date convenient to itself release my funds to me.

It seems to struggle with the concept that I have no requirement for the illustration, that said illustration will have zero legal status and that I won't be at home to receive, sign and return said illustration.
It has known about this situation for several months now, but doesn't care, I guess you get what you pay for

Linton

goRt wrote: »

......
It seems to struggle with the concept that I have no requirement for the illustration, that said illustration will have zero legal status and that I won't be at home to receive, sign and return said illustration.
It has known about this situation for several months now, but doesn't care, I guess you get what you pay for

I doubt it has any choice on whether to produce an illustration. If it doesnt, when you run out of money because you took a lump sum early there is the danger that you could sue them if they hadnt warned you. Bestinvest sent me a 14 page illustration and charges document when I took my PCLS.

goRt

Linton wrote: »

I doubt it has any choice on whether to produce an illustration. If it doesnt, when you run out of money because you took a lump sum early there is the danger that you could sue them if they hadnt warned you. Bestinvest sent me a 14 page illustration and charges document when I took my PCLS.

It could produce it now, it could put me in the queue now, it could email it to me, it could have advised me of this earlier, it's already committed to certain actions that it's now trying to back away from, its complaints handling is pitiful...

It had lots of choices but is now backed into a corner.

Nowhere on its forms does it ask about other pensions / savings / income, it will not be offering advice so won't have anything to hide behind.

I simply want it to act on an execution basis and to stop guessing at answers when simple logic shows the answers to be stupid and expose me to HMRC!