S&S ISA or not?

dunstonh

masonic wrote: »

Ok, let me rephrase... for a long time MSE wouldn't go anywhere near recommending anything relating to investing...

It did recommend structured products for a while and failed to include all the warnings that regulated companies have gone on to be fined and had to pay compensation out on. Luckily, the provider it recommended didnt have lehman brothers as the market counterparty. Bullet dodged.

It did have an article for many years on best pension buys. It was woefully out of date very quickly and continued to list an Aviva pension in an example costing that was not only replaced with a more expensive version but that replacement was replaced too.

MSE has never got investing right. Not going near it was a solid approach. Investing is about opinion, has many different distribution channels, too many risks that need full disclosure and too much reputational risk when it blows up in your face. Now going into limited commercial deals on limited analysis and not meeting the standards the FCA lays out for real advice leaves it open to allegations of bias (commercial activity ahead of consumer) and puts low knowledge investors at risk of doing something that is wrong

anoncol mentioned using AXA based on that article. Yet no mention of the investments. So, anoncol, what investments would you use?

anoncol

Thanks for the replies.

Dunstho,

I honestly have no idea. So I clearly need to research.

Herbalus

dunstonh wrote: »

Now going into limited commercial deals on limited analysis and not meeting the standards the FCA lays out for real advice leaves it open to allegations of bias (commercial activity ahead of consumer) and puts low knowledge investors at risk of doing something that is wrong

I thought MSE built their best buy tables because of the provider's merit and not because of any referral payments...?

I don't read it as placement because of commercial deals. Reading the S&S guide it's clear why the providers listed are in their positions (Axa is top because it's the cheapest for the first year according to MSE analysis, which they say was based on charges for 10 funds compared across platforms).

But of course they don't mention that having a list of providers is completely useless if you don't know what you're going to invest in.

noggin1980

anoncol wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

Dunstho,

I honestly have no idea. So I clearly need to research.

Try here

http://monevator.com/category/investing/passive-investing-investing/

or/and

This book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Smarter-Investing-Simpler-Decisions-Results-ebook/dp/B00ABHBAK6/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1428785510&sr=1-3&keywords=tim+hale

anoncol

So do they all offer isa versions. Ie Hargreaves Landown?

InvestInPoker

Interesting thread

dunstonh wrote: »

not meeting the standards the FCA lays out for real advice

I am curious about this, what are the standards they say must be adhered to? I tried to answer myself by googling and got this page http://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/financial-services-products/investments which didn't really answer my question, it just says there are regulations.

noggin1980

anoncol wrote: »

So do they all offer isa versions. Ie Hargreaves Landown?

can compare brokers here

http://monevator.com/compare-uk-cheapest-online-brokers/

not sure if they all offer isas, certainly the vast majority do includeing Hargreaves Landown, they are quite expensive though 0.45% per year, Charles Stanley Direct are 0.25%, it depends what you want to buy and how much money you are investing for picking a broker ie if you are investing 100k then a percentage fee broker is going to be more expensive than one that charges fixed fees.

If you are going to just be buying funds in an isa then at least for the first few years until you have over 30k someone like Charles Stanley Direct or Cavendish Online are going to be a great choice.

Archi_Bald

A lot depends on how much you want to put into what when.

Nobody has a ready right answer because there are so many permutations.

Here's one comparison service that might help figuring out what is the best platform for you, once you know what it is you want to invest in, and how much you want to invest when http://www.comparefundplatforms.com/compare.aspx

dunstonh

I am curious about this, what are the standards they say must be adhered to?

There are a bunch of things. Most of which is handled in principle based regulation but also detailed more in a number of thematic reviews, FOS complaint outcomes etc. The regulator is very good at not telling us what it wants to see (although the FCA is better than the FSA on that front). It takes the approach of letting firms interpret guidelines, make mistakes, get fined and publishing those outcomes and then other firms adjust their position accordingly.

Couple of the key things would be considering off-platform investing. It would need to be eliminated (no mention of off-platform investing in that article and no off-platform option given). Financial solvency of the platform. Functionality/Features etc.

Research should be personalised. Not generic. Making a recommendation on a sample of funds that no-one is going to have in their portfolio (i.e. some may appear but you are not going to have all of those) would not be good enough. Complaints have been upheld on the basis that the funds used in the research were not the same as the funds applied for. The article says it eliminates platforms that did not offer one or more of those funds. But if they are not the funds going to be used, should those other platforms be eliminated? Wouldnt it be better to have more mainstream options if you are going to compare platforms in that basic way?

The recommendation should be within the understanding of the individual. The use of a selection of single sector funds for inexperienced investors has been deemed by the FOS as being unsuitable (surprising FOS decision published earlier this year). Yet that is what the article lays out in its comparison. Is that article likely to be read by experienced investors or inexperienced investors?

When the FSA did an earlier review into comparison sites, it was concerned that too much focus was on price. Not enough on features/options. No two platforms are the same. They have different tools, online portals, fund range etc. The article doesnt mention it.

Having said all that, this site is not giving advice. It doesnt have to meet advice standards. It doesnt have to consider any of those things. It does have to dumb down the articles as it has to keep it short. So, there has to be some balance. The important thing is never to read the articles as advice. Think of them as very basic guides.

masonic

Herbalus wrote: »

I thought MSE built their best buy tables because of the provider's merit and not because of any referral payments...?

One might be led to think that, but... where's Charles Stanley Direct, iWeb etc? I guess they don't pay for placement.

The Axa platform is funds only - you can't even consider ETFs, Investment Trusts or shares - and of course you have to move after just 1 year (anyone who has had to do this will know how slow and painful that can be).

Cavendish again is funds only, so has the same platform charge as Charles Stanley but a much more limited choice of investments.

AJ Bell appears slightly cheaper than Charles Stanley, but charges for trading funds, so is actually more expensive in for small holders.

Halifax has expensive fund dealing charges that will tend to tip the balance in favour of other plarforms. It does mention infrequent trading, but it would have to be very infrequent. Their alternative trading style, iWeb, which is likely to be better for many (even after the opening fee was increased from £25 to £200) is missing - probably because Halifax didn't want to give a referral link for that one.

And then we have Interactive Investor, which not even people who use the platform would recommend to anyone because of it's terrible problems, but it's paid the site to be on the list, so those aren't mentioned. Also, "How to transfer. Transfers take four weeks." No, try 4 months, and then some extra time to sort out all of the problems.