Charges with Hargreaves Lansdown

Alexland

I agree if you have started with HL you might as well stay with them until the pots are big enough to make a saving by moving. Just don't forget to move when the fees are too high.

The_Doc

Monevator is an invaluable source of information:

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

Chordeiles

zagfles wrote: »

HL are known to negotiate on charges if you have a big fund, see https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4889890

That's a very old thread and Hargreaves Landsdown's policy will have "evolved" (perhaps because of the way folks are sharing such information ?).

In April of this year my request for improved fees was rejected in terms so blunt as to be quite rude. I have about half a million in my HL SIPP. A request for waiving of transfer-out fees was more successful (but then I probably had them "over a barrel" on that one, for reasons too long-winded to explain here).

As I have proceeded with my transfer-out a couple of other emails I have sent them have been misinterpreted by HL as further requests for reduced fees, or at least they took the opportunity to reiterate that there could be no reduction in fees when that really wasn't what I was now asking for.

Ironically the reduction they would have needed to make to keep me as a customer wasn't actually that great.

If anyone had a different experience in recent months I'd be pleased to hear about it, it could be that my original request got clouded by being included with a complaint, and in their determination to reject all complaints they felt the need to reject every part of my letter.

Alexland

Even if it is possible to negotiate with HL on fees I have not yet seen an example where the reduction was significant enough to be a best in market product and so worth staying with them on large account balances.

jamei305

I notice HL are now including the "vantage service charge" of 0.45% on each fund's Annual Charges. For example the Legal & General International Index Trust used to be listed as having just the "net ongoing charge" of 0.08% but now is clearly shown to have a "maximum overall charge" of 0.53%.

This should help as there have clearly been people on here confused about their charges for funds. I wonder if it was pushed on them by a particular regulatory change?

dunstonh

The disclosure on charges is changing from 3rd January. MiFIDII directive comes in at that point.

ColdIron

Where is the "maximum overall charge" clearly shown? I'm not saying it isn't, just that it eludes me