S&s platform risk

bowlhead99

kidmugsy wrote: »

I didn't know that; thank you. Can you point me to an official source, please?

Page 15-18 of this 2018 consultation (https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/consultation/cp18-11.pdf) includes commentary on the feedback received on the previous consultation where views had been sought around changing the level to £85k for investment provision and investment intermediation; and confirms they are going ahead with the change from 1 April 2019.

Alexland

It's also on the HL website:

http://www.hl.co.uk/security-centre/how-safe-is-your-investment

And in the news:

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/new-pressure-on-levies-as-fscs-payout-limit-upped-to-85k/a1115537

Makes me a bit more confident in transfering our ISAs to Jarvis X-O to grow above the £50k limit.

Alex

tg99

Alexland wrote: »

It's also on the HL website:

http://www.hl.co.uk/security-centre/how-safe-is-your-investment

And in the news:

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/new-pressure-on-levies-as-fscs-payout-limit-upped-to-85k/a1115537

Makes me a bit more confident in transfering our ISAs to Jarvis X-O to grow above the £50k limit.

Alex

Looks like HL have updated their website then in light of Beaufort as don’t believe they mentioned administrator costs before or the point about costs being higher for illiquid assets.

stphnstevey

firestone wrote: »

followed by lower in the link that your investments are held in a nominee account in a non trading company that can't run up liabilities of its own so can't be touched by creditors.So i assume (maybe wrongly) the administrator would first take their fee from HL assets as there first in line,of which you would guess there would be enough but even so your investments can not be used for wages,suppliers etc.If in the unlikely event a fee was to be paid would it matter if you had £20000 or £2000000?

I think we all would "like" to feel safe with the structuring of client accounts

I wouldn't necessarily say it is "unlikely" there would be an administrators fee - that would depend on a number of factors: the assets within the company, the level of the admin fee/work needed, a potential sale of the accounts etc

As I understand, the first £50k of the administrators fee would be covered under the compensation scheme. Thats why it matters how much you have

If someone could give you an exact answer, like you seem to want, then they would probably be guessing, which is probably the best anyone can do

stphnstevey

Alexland wrote: »

It's also on the HL website:

http://www.hl.co.uk/security-centre/how-safe-is-your-investment

And in the news:

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/new-pressure-on-levies-as-fscs-payout-limit-upped-to-85k/a1115537

Makes me a bit more confident in transfering our ISAs to Jarvis X-O to grow above the £50k limit.

Alex

Hi Alex

Are you transferring over your entire ISA pot to X-O? Wondering if I am missing out on some of your much loved wisdom, so was wondering why the transfer (if you dont mind kind Sir)?

Alexland

stphnstevey wrote: »

Are you transferring over your entire ISA pot to X-O? Wondering if I am missing out on some of your much loved wisdom, so was wondering why the transfer (if you dont mind kind Sir)?

Our S&S ISAs are fairly modest compared to the pensions but the total values are such that the percentage fees are starting to look expensive. We still have some minimum time to run on those providers where we took intro bonus offers but I plan to consolidate down to one S&S ISA each. My preference would be iWeb (as they also offer funds) but I already have a lot of pension money with their parent Halifax SD which leaves Jarvis X-O.

Alex

firestone

stphnstevey wrote: »

I think we all would "like" to feel safe with the structuring of client accounts

I wouldn't necessarily say it is "unlikely" there would be an administrators fee - that would depend on a number of factors: the assets within the company, the level of the admin fee/work needed, a potential sale of the accounts etc

As I understand, the first £50k of the administrators fee would be covered under the compensation scheme. Thats why it matters how much you have

If someone could give you an exact answer, like you seem to want, then they would probably be guessing, which is probably the best anyone can do

The question of £20000 or £2000000 was rhetorical in my mind as if there was a fee to be paid to work out investors holdings it would be split across all customers not based on how much you are holding so how much you have invested is not important(to have money from a large sell etc in cash maybe different).If it takes £50000 to workout investors holdings and sell the funds etc then maybe HL should charge more then 0.45% on a yearly basis.With your investments in a nominee account in your name how hard would it be which is why HL say most customers are in liquid assets but hopefully we don't find out.But its hard to believe that the assets of large fund platforms would not cover the admin fee as they would be paid first with creditors possibly only getting pennies in the pound

stphnstevey

Alexland wrote: »

Our S&S ISAs are fairly modest compared to the pensions but the total values are such that the percentage fees are starting to look expensive. We still have some minimum time to run on those providers where we took intro bonus offers but I plan to consolidate down to one S&S ISA each. My preference would be iWeb (as they also offer funds) but I already have a lot of pension money with their parent Halifax SD which leaves Jarvis X-O.

Alex

Yes, as you are aware, IWeb ISA is one of the cheapest ISAs and you can trade funds and shares.

So is X-O SIPP (refunded fees), but your limited to shares and a transfer can be a faff

Glen_Clark

I've transferred 2 cash ISAs into x-o S&S ISA
The first one - from Nationwide was done and dusted in less than a week.
The second - from Halifax, took a month and then only after I had chased the Halifax up.

horace972897

bowlhead99 wrote: »

One thing to note is that if your pensions are with traditional 'insurance-based' providers, you get 100% coverage. So if for example you were looking to open a SIPP because in your workplace scheme it costs x% to get use the Scottish Widows version of Fund A and in a SIPP it only costs y%, the saving has cost you that fully insured guarantee. So it that was a major consideration you could think twice about doing the move if you're likely to sleep worse at night.

How do you know if your workplace pension is with an insurance-based provider? Where I work the life insurance is with Legal and General and the money purchase pension is with Zurich/Mercer - I assume in this case I have the same protection i have with my SIPP with iWeb? (Their websites states they are authorised and regulated by the FCA.



However Zurich's documentation states "There is also a small risk that a fund manager or company responsible for
the funds your payments are invested in become unable to meet their
financial obligations. In the unlikely situation this occurs you would not be
covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). In this
event, Zurich Assurance Ltd would make a claim against the fund manager
or company in an attempt to recover the money. However, you could still
lose all or some of your retirement fund." :shocked: