Alliance Trust Savings

Chordeiles

RD42 wrote: »

It took 30 mins for my call to be answered, but it was answered and the chap I spoke to was good

45 minutes for my call to be answered today (the guy who answered claimed this was unusual) but he was really on-the-ball and able to answer all my questions.

I probably wouldn't have kept holding for 45 minutes, but in fact I am hugely impressed with the information available online from ATS, that answered nearly all of my questions already, including some questions to which other brokers had given unconvincing replies !

woolly_wombat

webnibbler wrote: »

I moved my SIPP from HL to ATS about three years ago, as it had grown to the point where the flat fees were cheaper. I've had no complaints over the three years at all, although the website itself is a little difficult to understand at times and no way near as clear as the excellent online experience of HL.

Some of the recent warnings of profitability of the ATS platform, the possible take-over of Alliance Trust, board level changes and a Scottish independence vote has been a bit worrisome at times. But any changes are unlikely to be a concern for the ring-fenced holdings of customers (hopefully).

I'm with HL, and have found their website really excellent.

OH is with ATS as HL was just far too expensive for larger holdings. I have to say that we have found ATS' website positively labyrinthine in comparison with HL's.

We also have concerns re the possibility of Scottish independence.

Chordeiles

HL have inadvertently (?) created a further obstacle to those who wish to transfer out. Not knowing how long the transfer might take, I don't want to be out of the market for that indeterminate period, therefore I wish to transfer my SIPP "in specie". But HL have a habit of getting fund managers to create a different class of share (with lower charges) just for them. ATS advise that "if the ISIN isn't identical, it won't transfer".

Thus (for instance) Woodford has created "class Z" just for HL. HL won't offer me class C like everyone else gets, so I'll be forced to sell my Woodford funds and switch into something else (preferably in the same sector if I can find anything with which I'm happy, and which is available in the same form both at HL and elsewhere).

I wonder if Woodford thought of this when he decided to create a new class for HL instead of offering a "loyalty bonus", because ultimately it could result in an outflow of funds - or at the very least a whole lot of extra processing of sells and buys for no net gain to his funds.

Chordeiles

woolly_wombat wrote: »

I'm with HL, and have found their website really excellent.

OH is with ATS as HL was just far too expensive for larger holdings. I have to say that we have found ATS' website positively labyrinthine in comparison with HL's.

We also have concerns re the possibility of Scottish independence.

Agreed HL website is good, but definitely not without its annoyances, e,g. why can't I just have a cash account instead of cash in a "dealing" account and cash in an "income and loyalty bonus" account ? And even if it has to be that way, why must it throw away the date range I chose when switching between the two ?

My expectations are lower with ATS, that's part of what I'm prepared to put up with to lower the charges.

As for Scottish independence, it is a worry. I think ATS already set up an English company in the run up to IndyRef1, so they may be better prepared than most.

dunstonh

But HL have a habit of getting fund managers to create a different class of share (with lower charges) just for them. ATS advise that "if the ISIN isn't identical, it won't transfer".

Not quite correct. HL have a number of superclean shareclasses but they do not have the most and it is not unique to them.

Most platforms will accept re-registration of superclean share classes but not all will.

Thus (for instance) Woodford has created "class Z" just for HL.

That is not correct. Class Z appears on a number of other platforms as well.

I wonder if Woodford thought of this when he decided to create a new class for HL instead of offering a "loyalty bonus", because ultimately it could result in an outflow of funds - or at the very least a whole lot of extra processing of sells and buys for no net gain to his funds.

Seeing as other platforms have the same share class and that rebates are taxable (outside of a wrapper or should go into cash) it is a lot cleaner to have a different share class.

Chordeiles

dunstonh wrote: »

Class Z appears on a number of other platforms as well.

Not on any of the platforms I'm considering ! I'd be grateful if you could name some, to see if I should be looking at those platforms.

Maybe I picked a bad example, the very first fund I had stubbed my toe against was "Legal & General US Index" where I believe the class C really is an HL exclusive. So I'll need to switch to the Blackrock version.

Chordeiles

Chordeiles wrote: »

HL website is good, but definitely not without its annoyances

As I shuffle my funds into shape ready for transfer to ATS, more annoyances emerge:

As noted, the separate cash accounts are an annoyance. Having failed to place an order for the value I wanted (because however available cash is you have to move it into the capital account) I was still stumped by the following message "We are currently collecting management fees from client accounts and therefore cannot accept an instruction to transfer income to capital account at this time". Well, thanks for wasting my time !

And why can't I search for a fund by its ISIN code ? All other platforms let me do this ! This especially important when they get the descriptions wrong, thus GB00B29LZ803 (FP Miton Income) is described by the HL website as "class I". All other platforms plus Morningstar describe it as "class B".

And perhaps most seriously, confusion over "Initial Charges" and spreads. So there's a fund in my wife's SIPP which shows a spread of about 5%, but HL claim to discount 5% of initial charges and sure enough her monthly buy was always at the "sell" price (I checked, otherwise we'd have stopped buying it !). Yet in many other cases HL claim to discount initial charges on funds where I know that the fund manager always applies a spread (and the spread is a different amount to what HL claim they are discounting). So how do I know what to expect to pay ?

Why am I griping here instead of telling HL ? Well I know from past experience that I'll just get an arrogant brush-off from HL. Something along the lines of "it suits most of our customers".

dunstonh

So there's a fund in my wife's SIPP which shows a spread of about 5%, but HL claim to discount 5% of initial charges

There are no initial charges on clean share classes in the vast majority of cases. Are you trying to buy an old retail share class?

Chordeiles

dunstonh wrote: »

There are no initial charges on clean share classes in the vast majority of cases. Are you trying to buy an old retail share class?

Yes, Invesco Perpetual UK Equity Pension Fund (GB00B1H1HB21). It has been good but maybe gone off the boil now, and certainly won't transfer to brokers I'm considering. HL show this with a 5% initial charge, with a 5% saving on that from HL. Now HL show a spread which is also about 5%, and when we make a monthly buy we pay the "sell" price, so this could be the "saving" except I believe it doesn't work the same way on other funds that show a spread (e.g. Jupiter Distribution class I which shows a spread of 0.43% even though HL show initial charge of zero.

Alice_Holt

I have accounts with both HL & ATS.

Over the years, I have found the customer service from ATS to be poor.
As has been said their website is not as good as HL.
I had child's SIPP's with ATS (set up some years back when they didn't charge fees for these).
I had several instances of letters not being actioned, or the incorrect action applied.
(Because I was funding the account but was not the parent holding the account, ATS required written instructions from myself).
My niece received a very unfriendly reply from them once, denying responsibility for not fully acting on an instruction.

A couple of years ago, after another ATS error in actioning written instructions (and my realisation that HL now wouldn't cost any more), I complained and switched to HL.
To their credit ATS dealt with that compliant well, admitting their mistake, not charging to transfer, and reimbursing annual fees.

I still hold my ISA with ATS (transferred from HL due to platform costs), and have experienced similar problems. Last year, an ATS form to phase share purchases over several months from my deposit cash account was ignored. However, most actions can be done online, and whilst the site is cumbersome the reduced costs (on the whole) outweigh the reduced customer service.