Stocks & Shares ISAs

jimjames

gavin7094 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see HL still work out cheaper than most as they frequently offer a saving on the AMC. On the range of funds that I own this is between 0.05-0.75%, which more than makes up for the fact that their fee is 0.45%. Am I missing something here? I am about to switch funds from Cavendish online into HL as they work out about 0.3% per year cheaper on average. Even if iWeb or AXA offered my funds (which they don't) I would still be paying the full AMC which would make me worse off.

I posted a thread last week showing difference between HL and Cavendish. For the funds I looked at HL were still more expensive.

Which funds are you looking at? I can't see any reason why you'd want to move to HL on cost.

stphnstevey

Looking for low cost ISA and SIPP

Only want invest in funds. Previously choose wide selection, now just happy with low cost trackers


Approx 6 trades a year


iWeb looking the cheapest?

innovate

Have you used snowman's spreadsheet to work out your cheapest platform? Link posted earlier in this thread.

It is possible that your best deal might be different platforms for the ISA and the SIPP. For me, it is Halifax Sharedealing for my ISA (same charges as iWeb) and HL for my SIPP (which is sub-£50K since I can only pay tiny amounts into it. Also the transfer charges would be prohibitive).

Your mileage may vary. use the snowman spreadsheet.

planteria

innovate wrote: »

For me, it is Halifax Sharedealing for my ISA (same charges as iWeb) and HL for my SIPP (which is sub-£50K since I can only pay tiny amounts into it. Also the transfer charges would be prohibitive).

are you all funds in both your ISA and SIPP? and how come you are limited to tiny contributions?

badger09

planteria wrote: »

... and how come you are limited to tiny contributions?

Like me, no 'earnings' so contribution is limited to £3600 gross per annum

badger09

innovate wrote: »

Have you used snowman's spreadsheet to work out your cheapest platform? Link posted earlier in this thread.

It is possible that your best deal might be different platforms for the ISA and the SIPP. For me, it is Halifax Sharedealing for my ISA (same charges as iWeb) and HL for my SIPP (which is sub-£50K since I can only pay tiny amounts into it. Also the transfer charges would be prohibitive).

Your mileage may vary. use the snowman spreadsheet.

Similar situation for me, except I chose IWEB for ISA (transfer stalled ) & have left SIPP with HL

stphnstevey

innovate wrote: »

HL for my SIPP (which is sub-£50K since I can only pay tiny amounts into it. Also the transfer charges would be prohibitive).
.

The transfer charges seem to be £75 (http://www.hl.co.uk/pensions/sipp/charges-and-interest-rates) - is that high to you because of the low amount you have in there?

planteria

badger09 wrote: »

Like me, no 'earnings' so contribution is limited to £3600 gross per annum

that is the case for innovate too, badger?
i'm not sure £3600/yr is "tiny", but fair enough.
i moved my ISA, SIPP and Trading account from HL to II together. i don't think i'll be allocating any more to my SIPP this tax year.

Brand

jimjames wrote: »

I disagree. An IFA should be using tax preferred options where it is no more expensive

I remember, e.g., Christine Ross, saying exactly that on TV, but I am warning that it is never "no more expensive". There are various charges and constraints involved, mostly involving the inability to switch freely in and out of interest-bearing cash accounts, the distortion on your flexibility and quality of your decision about how much to hold in cash, how much in shares, and how much in other assets. The taxation of dividends means that an IFA or other FA has to prove the case for a basic rate tax payer, and yes the things mentioned (simplicity of paperwork, a determination to stay invested whatever in the stockmarket for the very long term, through ups and through downs, the prospect of becoming a higher rate taxpayer, the desire to build up a large lump sum to take all at once, and interaction with various benefits) might be able to add up to a case, but for a basic rate taxpayers the IFA or FA must make a much stronger case than for higher-rate taxpayers, who get lower tax on dividends.

innovate

Brand wrote: »

but I am warning that it is never "no more expensive"

what evidence do you have for making this assertion? I would suggest there is none.