New pension drawdown products

dunstonh

It's all very well bemoaning "spin" but their charges look good to me, save for their 0.45%p.a. running charge. So it probably remains a decent choice for someone with only a modest sum. Such as me.

0.45% with no account linking puts them at the expensive end of the platforms. Although they do have certain sweet spots where they can be better value. Linking is important and not often recognised. HL treat each account individually. Not total assets on platform. That is virtually unique with platforms with tiered charges.

Its difficult to compare intermediary products with DIY (but we know intermediary products offering drawdown are available for around 0.4% which includes provider AND fund cost). You would have to add adviser cost on top of that but for fund values above a certain amount, that may be better value for money than a platform charging 0.45% plus fund charge.

In respect of other posters who DIY, they often mention DIY platforms with lower costs.

I dont want to appear as if I am anti-HL. Their product offering and service is very good for the DIY market. It isnt the cheapest. Its not the most expensive. You often find the cheapest means some compromise so you shouldnt look at price alone. I am just pointing out that they were not the first and that their marketing can be extreme at times.

kidmugsy

dunstonh wrote: »

Its difficult to compare intermediary products with DIY (but we know intermediary products offering drawdown are available for around 0.4% which includes provider AND fund cost). You would have to add adviser cost on top of that but for fund values above a certain amount, that may be better value for money than a platform charging 0.45% plus fund charge.

I am currently urging a young family member to open a personal pension of some kind, which would quickly become too big to be economic at HL. I'd therefore find it valuable if you could give me a rough idea of the size of fund that falls into "for fund values above a certain amount".

Dunnit

dunstonh wrote: »

No. However, a good lesson to learn is that HL have an excellent marketing department but you should take much of it with a pinch of salt.

...

With my blood pressure - I am to cut down on salt. Just as well you are not a health advisor

bmm78

kidmugsy wrote: »

It's all very well bemoaning "spin" but their charges look good to me, save for their 0.45%p.a. running charge. So it probably remains a decent choice for someone with only a modest sum. Such as me.

Not necessarily bemoaning spin, or HL themselves for that matter. It's going to happen across the board - there will be some new products that look and behave suspiciously like annuities, but the dreaded "a" word will be missing from the product name and marketing material.

More making the point that based on what has been announced by providers so far (as well as any "beta" products I've seen in development), there isn't likely to be a huge amount of innovation in the short term at least.

Important to ram this point home, as there are many people who holding out for magic bullets in April. Most providers are focusing on closing gaps in their own product ranges to fit the likely demands of customers, rather than revolutionising the market.

gadgetmind

bmm78 wrote: »

Most providers are focusing on closing gaps in their own product ranges to fit the likely demands of customers, rather than revolutionising the market.

And than along will come new providers, who haven't grown torpid on decades of fat fees, who'll give everything a kick in the pants.

BLB53

Looks like an interesting development.

One aspect I am still a little unclear on - do these changes apply to existing drawdown pensioners or will they continue with the current GAD restrictions and £90 annual fees?

Can any well informed experts clarify - thanks.

zagfles

kidmugsy wrote: »

It's all very well bemoaning "spin" but their charges look good to me, save for their 0.45%p.a. running charge. So it probably remains a decent choice for someone with only a modest sum. Such as me.

They are a very decent choice for those with a modest sum. And for those with larger amounts, they are prepared to negotiate charges, see https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4889890

Mind you, I'm always keen to hear about somebody cheaper. Any suggestions?

Snowman and I did a spreadsheet last year (just before the budget changes!) see the thread in Snowman's post #2, we'll try to get it updated with the new charges when the others have announced theirs.

BazzerPontefract

dunstonh wrote: »

Royal London (ex Scottish life)

I've spent a long time going through RL product documentation online - I don't have a RL plan, but I was thinking of transferring a plan in from a provider that won't offer UFPLS.
There's a discussion document there explaining the pros and cons of FAD and UFPLS, and another stating their commitment to offer both, but the product documentation goes nowhere to explaining the details. It seems to me that the commitment has been made by RL but the product documentation hasn't been updated to present the details.

zagfles

dunstonh wrote: »

0.45% with no account linking puts them at the expensive end of the platforms. Although they do have certain sweet spots where they can be better value. Linking is important and not often recognised. HL treat each account individually. Not total assets on platform. That is virtually unique with platforms with tiered charges.

They are willing to negotiate charges, so someone with a total of £250k (the first "tier") would almost certainly be able to negotiate a discount, as we saw in the thread I linked above. 0.25% seemed typical, some got at low at 0.2%.

Its difficult to compare intermediary products with DIY (but we know intermediary products offering drawdown are available for around 0.4% which includes provider AND fund cost).

You can get trackers through HL with a net OCF of 0.06%, so with a 0.25% negotiated platform charge that's 0.31% fund and platform, and no intermediary charge!

You would have to add adviser cost on top of that but for fund values above a certain amount, that may be better value for money than a platform charging 0.45% plus fund charge.

Sounds unlikely.

In respect of other posters who DIY, they often mention DIY platforms with lower costs.

Snowman's spreadsheet compares them. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64540489&postcount=15

There's also a drawdown charges one as above.

I dont want to appear as if I am anti-HL.

You? Anti-HL?? Never!! Though I think quite a few DIY'ers have an almost irrational loathing of HL. Their service is excellent and their charges aren't bad, in some cases they are the cheapest. Their reputation for being expensive isn't really deserved.

Their product offering and service is very good for the DIY market. It isnt the cheapest. Its not the most expensive. You often find the cheapest means some compromise so you shouldnt look at price alone. I am just pointing out that they were not the first and that their marketing can be extreme at times.

Their marketing can be OTT. They send masses of junk mail. But their service is excellent, they answer the phone promptly and the staff are knowledgable and very helpful. Last year I wanted a paper tax statement, I phoned them Fri afternoon, it arrived in the post the next day.

zagfles

kidmugsy wrote: »

I am currently urging a young family member to open a personal pension of some kind, which would quickly become too big to be economic at HL. I'd therefore find it valuable if you could give me a rough idea of the size of fund that falls into "for fund values above a certain amount".

See snowman's spreadsheet (link above)