Hargreaves Lansdown Charges for Funds?

dunstonh

naedanger wrote: »

Can it not be much, much more than double the cost of some other platforms, e.g. for those with substantial investments in unit trusts?

Yes. Whilst they do tier down, others do as well. There are a few windows where HL can be cost effective. though.

Another thing often not realised is that HL do not charge adjust their tiers on the total amount invested on platform. They do it by account.

So, £500k in a pension and £100k in an ISA would be viewed as £600k by most platforms and their charges tiered on £600k. HL treat one account as £100k and the other as £500k. They dont have family linking either (again, something that some other platforms have). Family linking takes the total assets invested by that family and gives all members of that family the benefit of the combined value tiering.

gadgetmind

dunstonh wrote: »

All that being said, there is absolutely no reason why HL charges differently for the assets. I believe they may be unique in that respect (if there are others, then its rare).

Definitely less common than it was but you still see it. I'm still on BestInvest's fixed "custody fee" for my ETFs/equities whereas I'd be on their (uncapped!) percentage fee for OEICs/UTs.

MoneyBob

HL offer free fund trading within a SIPP which is nice - do others do that also?

For a SIPP likely to go to 35 to 40k this year, invested mostly in low cost tracker funds (bulk in Legal & General costing approx 0.06-0.09%), what do you all recommend as the best platform?

Comparison sites seem to suggest iWeb is the cheapest but I must concur with the poster above - their website is extremely off-putting despite the FSA declaration(s) at the bottom.

gadgetmind

MoneyBob wrote: »

HL offer free fund trading within a SIPP which is nice - do others do that also?

Most do fund trading without a charge but some charge a little in return for lower percentage/platform fees.

Choosing a platform is down to size of pot, what you want to hold, which wrapper(s) you'll be using, size of ongoing contributions, and much more.

dunstonh

HL offer free fund trading within a SIPP which is nice - do others do that also?

Virtually all of them do. No dealing costs with funds is one of the advantages of using funds.

FSA declaration(s) at the bottom.

I would be off put with a financial firm using the food standards agency too.

xylophone

For a SIPP likely to go to 35 to 40k this year, invested mostly in low cost tracker funds (bulk in Legal & General costing approx 0.06-0.09%), what do you all recommend as the best platform?

Some "good for" suggestions here which might be worth investigation.....

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

Rollinghome

MoneyBob wrote: »

HL offer free fund trading within a SIPP which is nice - do others do that also?

For a SIPP likely to go to 35 to 40k this year, invested mostly in low cost tracker funds (bulk in Legal & General costing approx 0.06-0.09%), what do you all recommend as the best platform?

Comparison sites seem to suggest iWeb is the cheapest but I must concur with the poster above - their website is extremely off-putting despite the FSA declaration(s) at the bottom.

Platforms may charge a percentage of the sum invested, or charge per trade, or a combination of both. In general, those that charge a percentage tend to be most suitable for smaller sums and those charging set fees more suitable for investors with larger sums to invest.

Those that charge a percentage fee for funds include HL, Fidelity, Charles Stanley and BestInvest.

There are a number charging per trade for funds including Alliance Trust, Interactive Investor, iWeb, Halifax, YouInvest, Trustnet Direct, and Share Centre.

Which is the best value will depend on how much you intend to invest, how frequently you will trade, and what services you require. High platform fees can have a significant impact on long term returns so you need to decide how much a snazzy website is worth to you. Deciding whether you want only a SIPP or may at some point want an ISA and non-ISA account may also be relevant.

I have accounts with iWeb, which is part of Halifax/BOS, and they seem to be very efficient. I also have accounts at HL (paying a negotiated reduced rate) for funds I trade more frequently. iWeb is vastly less expensive for me and I haven't increased the amount invested with HL for some years.

MoneyBob

dunstonh wrote: »

I would be off put with a financial firm using the food standards agency too.

:rotfl: Hehe. Sorry about that. Of course I meant the FCA.

bigadaj

MoneyBob wrote: »

:rotfl: Hehe. Sorry about that. Of course I meant the FCA.

It's a fairly reliable indicator for a government department or quango that if they've changed their name or acronym they've screwed things up pretty badly. Fsa to fca, or maff to defra, same people who screwed up just a different title.

MoneyBob

I asked HL for a discount because I could get the same, cheaper elsewhere. They wrote me 2 sides of A4 listing the reasons why they would not. Their primary point was that other providers operate at a loss and had questionable futures. They felt it better to pay a little more (for additional service level and...) for peace of mind that the platform is going to be around for a very long time.

If the others are operating at a loss then perhaps they're right but I suspect they (HL) can still be profitable charging a capped price. Presume it doesn't cost them any more if I hold £10,000 or £100,000 in a particular fund?