Leaving HL

jimjames

saver861 wrote: »

No charges for Fund dealing, though I'm not going to be dealing on and off anyway, so it will mainly be sitting there. The investment amounts are obviously quite small anyway and mainly for tax advantage. Just feel like I might have missed something charge wise having read this thread

HL charge 0.45% platform fee. Others charge 0.25% or fixed fee say £200 one off.

If you have a £10k portfolio then that's £45 with HL or £25 with CS so not a huge issue.

If you have a £100k portfolio you'll pay £450 with HL, £250 with CS or £200 one off with iWeb.

So that's £450 more per year, every year after making one off saving of £250 in the first year by using iWeb not HL.

Does that make it clearer why people might be moving due to charges?

saver861

jimjames wrote: »

HL charge 0.45% platform fee. Others charge 0.25% or fixed fee say £200 one off.

If you have a £10k portfolio then that's £45 with HL or £25 with CS so not a huge issue.

Cheers bro ....

Ok - so even when I put in this years SIPP money we will be totalling £14400. No real difference between 0.45 and 0.25. Our SIPP's will be running for about 5 years or so - mine might be a bit longer but while the difference would build, nothing to write home about.

jimjames wrote: »

If you have a £100k portfolio you'll pay £450 with HL, £250 with CS or £200 one off with iWeb.

Well the obvious difference here is the length of time held .. so for ten years we are looking at £4,500 or £2,500 or £200. I'm guessing tho iWeb has to make that shortfall up some other way - no business can stay in business if they don't bring in enough dosh.

jimjames wrote: »

Does that make it clearer why people might be moving due to charges?

Yup ... gotcha you in one bro ... though I would say the service seems to be good at HL from my limited experience which has to be worth something .. or a lot .... depending on your knowledge levels etc.

HarryD

A lot of people on this thread are projecting forwards assuming that none of these companies will ever change their charges.

It's a bit like energy switching: you switch, possibly at a cost, only to find a few months later you'd have been better off where you were.

jimjames

HarryD wrote: »

A lot of people on this thread are projecting forwards assuming that none of these companies will ever change their charges.

It's a bit like energy switching: you switch, possibly at a cost, only to find a few months later you'd have been better off where you were.

I can't say I've ever moved energy supplier and found it worse price wise.

I actually think it's a positive step that iWeb have increased their joining fee as it is should mean their offer is more sustainable. However if the fees go up massively or a better option appears elsewhere then I'd look to move.

Not changing purely because something may change in the future is a bit daft if you miss out on a deal in the meantime. No different to a few of the posts saying people won't use current accounts to get a better rate because it may drop in future - it may do but that may not be for a long term so worth getting benefit until then.

saver861

jimjames wrote: »

I actually think it's a positive step that iWeb have increased their joining fee as it is should mean their offer is more sustainable. However if the fees go up massively or a better option appears elsewhere then I'd look to move.

Yes - though moving a £100k pot a bit different to moving energy supplier and not for the nervous!! So while you are right, its best avoided if poss and getting it right first time round - tho that is stating the obvious.

I still think iWeb has ground to make up. They may make the money initially as opposed to the others but really, most of these investments will be held long term so they really wont be gaining from short term things - other than a few dudes not knowing what they are doing etc.

Rollinghome

HarryD wrote: »

A lot of people on this thread are projecting forwards assuming that none of these companies will ever change their charges.

Which is why it's important to check the escape routes and exit fees - which vary wildly.

HL charge £25 per fund or stock for transfers out plus £30 per sub-account closed. For someone with an ISA and non-ISA account and 10 funds in each, that's £560 (plus yet another charge to transfer out any cash).

At the other end of the scale Fidelity (or Cavendish/Fidelity) would charge nothing. iWeb are somewhere in the middle with a maximum charge of £125 per sub-account regardless of the number of holdings.

The other change that most people will hope to see is to have more invested in the future. Which means they need to look forward if considering any platform that charges on the basis of the portfolio size with no cap.

If a platform unilaterally increased it's fees there would be a strong case for a free transfer out but that wouldn't apply if the fees became uncompetitive due to the portfolio size

saver861 wrote: »

I still think iWeb has ground to make up. They may make the money initially as opposed to the others but really, most of these investments will be held long term so they really wont be gaining from short term things - other than a few dudes not knowing what they are doing etc.

Which is why it's as well they are part of Lloyds Banking Group. They have the option of sustaining and cross-subsidising losses that a company involved in running a platform alone would not.

srbenjo7

I am considering leaving Hargreaves Lansdown as my portfolio of 5 funds, held in a Vantage ISA account, has grown to approx £82000 and their charges are too high. I also have £7,000 invested in 1 fund in a Fund & Share account.

I am considering a transfer to AJ Bell Youinvest who will pay my transfer charges from Hargreaves Lansdown and charge a significantly lower fee of 0.2% which is capped at £200 a year. Dealing fees are £4.95 per buy/sell for funds.

Has anybody any experience of making this switch? I would be interested to hear people's experiences of AJ Bell Youinvest's ISA account.

Thanks

shicky

Can anyone here offer an opinion on iWeb versus iii? They seem to be similar fee wise for someone in my position 20k pot which is growing. Likely to be in LS100 or DIY (4 funds)

With iii I'd stick to the two free quarterly trades, iWeb I would do less than 8 I imagine.

More interested in ease of use etc and whether the future seems rocky or not

Eco_Miser

I use iWeb, and have had no reason to complain, or even grumble. Setting up, depositing cash, buying were all easy and quick. The one dividend so far arrived in my bank account around when it was expected. The screen shows what is needed, and very little else. I do my research elsewhere.

I know nothing of iii except that there is a very long thread about it full of complaints.

Chickereeeee

shicky wrote: »

Can anyone here offer an opinion on iWeb versus iii? They seem to be similar fee wise for someone in my position 20k pot which is growing. Likely to be in LS100 or DIY (4 funds)

With iii I'd stick to the two free quarterly trades, iWeb I would do less than 8 I imagine.

More interested in ease of use etc and whether the future seems rocky or not

I have used iWeb for a year and they seem fine, if basic. Dividends arive on time, and are sent to my bank account quickly. The phone is answered and any questions dealt with promptly.

I originally signed up with III, but something made me change my mind, and judging by the posts, I am glad I did.

C