H&L SIPP v IFA managed

mcc28_x

Hi,

For many years I have had a SIPP with Hargreaves Lansdown. The funds have performed well and my investment has grown quite well.

Last year I had cause to consult an IFA regarding another matter and she has recently contacted me for an annual review. Her company is keen to get hold of my SIPP and manage it themselves.

I am reasonably attracted to the idea particularly as I probably need to keep a closer eye on the level of risk I am exposed to as I get closer to pension age.

I am though concerned that I am likely to increase costs by effectively introducing a middle man i.e. the IFA to manage the investment. But perhaps they would be cheaper than H&L. Could anyone advise me the best way to compare the two scenario's?

Thanks

Mark

Drp8713

mcc28_x wrote: »

Her company is keen to get hold of my SIPP and manage it themselves.

Of course they are, they will almost charge you a percentage fee to transfer it to another provider and then a fee to manage it each year.


If all is well, as you suggest, why pay for something you don't need?


If you know what you are doing, then just gradually lower your risk as you near retirement.

redbuzzard

If you want advice and portfolio management, HL offers that too. I make no recommendation, but you could investigate that, and the cost.

mania112

HL SIPP is cheaper. The downside there though is that you have a 'self-invested' plan with a firm that also offer no meaningful support and guidance to retirement (in my opinion). HL have an enormous bank of clients, and that can easily be seen as a downside.

With an IFA you will have (I would hope) face-to-face meetings with someone who will know you and your finances inside out.

The goal here should be to ensure you have a decent standard of living in retirement - who is going to know if you're on track?

mania112

I should say HL SIPP is 'likely' to be cheaper, especially if you also consider the cost of any ongoing management from an IFA.

dunstonh

I am though concerned that I am likely to increase costs by effectively introducing a middle man i.e. the IFA to manage the investment. But perhaps they would be cheaper than H&L. Could anyone advise me the best way to compare the two scenario's?

An IFA can offer cheaper options than HL. However, these are different services. HL is a DIY option. IFAs offer transactional (one off) advice with some very cheap options or servicing options which cost more but provide ongoing reviews, rebalancing etc.

So, you need to decide what you want.