Transfer woes, iWeb...

JohnRo

Honestly I despair at times. Apologies for the length but posting here for reference and any comments are always welcome.

Initiated a transfer from IG to iWeb mid May 2018.

My index tracking portfolio has just two lines of ETF stock. How complicated could it possibly be.

VWRL - Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF

WOSC - SSGA SPDR ETFs Europe I plc MSCI World Small Cap UCITS ETF

Both lines 'sold' @0 on IG on the 29th May 2018

VWRL transfer completes almost immediately, all done and dusted by 30th May 2018 iirc. Visible on iWeb.

WOSC delayed, no problem, can take up to six weeks. Six weeks later still no progress. Start making enquiries given the total lack of communication from either broker in that time.

IG account showing no stock held, zero balance.
iWeb showing the transferred VWRL line.
WOSC floating somewhere in the system but I can't see it on either broker's portal.

Initial enquiries yield excuses about there being a problem with transfer date matching and misalignment or some other such claptrap. With hindsight I now know this was just both of them giving me the brush off.

28th June 2018, receive two emails detailing a WOSC purchase @0 and then almost immediately a WOSC sale @0 on IG, nothing appears at iWeb, no progress or further communication.

Phone both brokers to get their take on things and now find that the two attempted transfers (at this point) are failing because IG are not providing iWeb with the right information and that communications between them both are ongoing, clearly something is going on behind the scenes but I'm not given any clue as to what this 'right information' is.

I'm assured that once the requested information is provided by IG and the dates settled the transfer will happen (again) and that these things 'sometimes take a while to resolve'. OK i'll wait, I don't plan to ever sell so no harm done.

In the mean time my WOSC holding is still floating around the system somewhere, not visible to me via either user portal except for a very brief period at IG on the 28th June.

FF to 26th July and IG purchase WOSC @0 again. Starting to get annoyed, phone up to find out what the heck is going on. I'm assured that the transfer has been arranged with iWeb and that it's scheduled to happen (again) on the 30th or 31st July.

On 30th July IG sell WOSC @0 again.. so as indicated the transfer is finally about to happen... but nothing shows on iWeb all week.

Once again WOSC disappears.. I'm annoyed and no one is communicating anything.

Decide to phone iWeb and try to get to the bottom of it, I'm now told by iWeb, after the mismatching dates rubbish that because it's an international stock they require an intesa account number from IG as opposed to a crest account number for UK stocks and that they've just contacted IG by email that very day. This doesn't sound right to me as WOSC is listed in London but what do I know... not enough clearly.

Contact IG to get their take on things and they seem to think that it's iWeb having the problems, I mention the intesa versus crest account thing and the chap says he has no idea what they require but will make a note and forward it to the transfer team, says they'll contact me to let me know what's happening when they've looked into it all. They never do.

It then occurs to me, with all this talk of international stock, that maybe iWeb are trying to register the wrong ETF and that what they're trying to receive is not what IG are trying to send.

An iWeb search shows up ZPRS, the penny drops, they're trying to receive ZPRS and I hold WOSC, same underlying fund but different tickers. ZPRS reports value in EUR, WOSC reports value in GBX.

Phone IG back but they seem to think that couldn't possibly be the case so I leave it as they assure me things are in progress and that they're now aware of the issues.

Then today, 17th Aug 2018 I notice a line appears on my iWeb account,

SSGA SPDR ETFS E 2 MSCI WORLD SMALL CAP UCITS (ZPRS)

only the correct quantity is shown, no pricing or value details.

Time for a call, this is getting ridiculous, looks like the idiots really are trying to transfer something that I don't even hold after all.

After a very long call to iWeb, involving being placed on hold while various departments and managers are contacted I agree to be called back. They do call back.

It eventually transpires that they have indeed been trying to transfer the wrong stock and that because there are three versions that all share the same ISIN (I always thought this was unique) that there has been some sort of oversight or error made.

I don't believe a word I'm being told by either broker but it seems iWeb use SEDOL identifiers (which are unique?) and that because IG only supplied the ISIN for WOSC they have somehow taken it upon themselves to register ZPRS instead.

I ask about them possibly adding WOSC to iWeb but it seems their system can only hold one ISIN number per line of stock and that ZPRS already has that crown so it's not possible for them to add WOSC... great.

Discussion about possibly transferring from WOSC to ZPRS in an intended move is discussed but they say they'll need to speak to IG about that. I don't know enough about ZPRS (EUR) yet.

I inform them I want to complain as this shouldn't be happening, especially after three months of regular contact and chivvying from me and being told a different story each time but am told after another held call to a manager that the complaint won't be upheld as it's not their fault.. they're very grateful I've contacted them regarding this matter and bringing it to their attention though but can't understand how it could have been possible. They're sending me a letter with FOS information and details of this incident if I want to take it further.

It feels like I've had to do their effin' job for them.

So three months on I'm now back (or will be soon) where I started holding WOSC with IG and forced to sell to avoid their newly introduced quartely fee, which is the only reason the transfer to iWeb was initiated to start with.

Investments, who'd have 'em.. what would you do?

xylophone

Get a final response in writing from iweb and complain to FOS.

darkidoe

Very unfortunate indeed. One of the many issues with transfers. IWeb is very limited in their ability to hold certains funds/ETFs. I was surprised when they couldn't hold the Vanguard Asia Pacific Ex Jpn ETF as it 'doesn't fulfill their criteria'? Why are they in the business then? Ridiculous. I had to find an alternative Fund which fortunately they could hold the iShares version which provided the same cover.

JohnRo

For reference

SPDR® MSCI World Small Cap UCITS ETF

SPDR MSCI World Small Cap UCITS ETF is an open ended, UCITS IV compliant exchange traded fund incorporated in Ireland.

Listed 2013-11-26 GERMANY 2013-11-29 LONDON

ISIN : IE00BCBJG560

6 variants of this ETF with the same ISIN according to Morning Star

SPDR® MSCI World Small Cap ETF

SPDR® MSCI World Small Cap ETF GBP
LSE : WOSC (GBP)
ISIN : IE00BCBJG560
Exchange : LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE

SPDR® MSCI World Small Cap ETF EUR
XTER : ZPRS (EUR)
ISIN : IE00BCBJG560
Exchange : DEUTSCHER KASSENVEREIN AG GRUPPE DEUTSCHE BOERSE

Why on Earth iWeb have taken it upon themselves to register the ETF listed in Germany and priced in EUR on a UK platform is a mystery. Surely this will incur unnecessary FX charges?

_pete_

IWeb were absolutely useless when I transferred a fund to them. It was the Vanguard LS60 -so it couldn't have been any simpler. They denied responsibility and blamed everyone else so I phoned the FOS who were very helpful in describing the support they could offer me. When I communicated this to IWeb they suddenly got a grip on the situation and offered me £100 in compensation. My tip is to make sure you keep a record of all contacts, then ask them if their last reply to your complaint was their 'final response', making it clear your next step is the FOS. Be clear what you want the FOS to do (I should imagine you'd like some compensation for all the time you've spent chasing them).

Good luck.

ivormonee

JohnRo wrote: »

what would you do?

It depends. The value of the holding may be a dealbreaker. If it's a small amount, I might look at some percentage based platforms. It also depends if it's in an ISA or not. Some platforms do not charge for holding etfs outside of an ISA but they do for ISAs.


If it's a substantial amount I'd consider either leaving it with IG or another flat rate platform (there's not many of them but they do exist).


iWeb are very poor (partly a reflection on the fact that they're cheap). They haven't updated their systems which are archaic and can only cope with one ISIN. Most (nearly all) etfs have more than one version of an etf per ISIN, and that limits what you can hold on iWeb severely.


The level of incompetence is yet another issue - three months and they couldn't figure out that your holding was a different version. Remarkable!


Trying to avoid platform fees has become more of a challenge as most platforms have either introduced these for shares and other exchange-based investments. This is just another way of milking the customer as it costs next to nothing for them to hold such investments on your behalf, unlike funds which have material costs involved in their administration. Hence why at least most platforms still make a distinction in charges based on whether one holds funds or shares/ etfs.

ivormonee

Just looking at this a bit more, I can see that both Fidelity and Hargreaves Lansdown do not charge for holding ETFs outside of an ISA and if you ever wanted to place a buy or sell order you'd incur a cost of £10 or £11.95 respectively. If you ever wanted to transfer out, Hargreaves has a major drawback - exit fees and "account closure" fees, so that would be the sting in the tail. Within an ISA they charge 0.35% and 0.45% respectively, capped at £45 p.a. Of the two it seems clear to me that Fidelity is the overall winner. Their ETF range is limited though, so I don't know if they have your particular ETFs on their platform.



I also looked at BestInvest which, at first glance, appeared to be free to hold ETFs inside as well as outside an ISA, with a dealing charge of £7. On checking the smallprint on a harder to find document it turns out it's not free at all - it's 0.4%, uncapped in any way, of the value of the holding. So this one is clearly daylight robbery. And I'm sure they also charge exit and account closure fees too.


Interactive Investor and IG appear to be rather similar in their charges - £22.50 and £24 per quarter but, for anyone who places some trades, these are offset against the charges - good for some but not so much in your case with only two buy-and-hold investments.


There comes a tipping point where flat rate providers become better value, in the case where no trading takes place. So if, say, one were to compare II's £90 p.a. fees to Fidelity's 0.35%, then it could be calculated that they are better off if their portfolio is valued at around £25,700 - less than this means better off with the percenatge based fees but above this the flat rate becomes progressively better value.


Not sure what all the other platforms charge although I've also come across Charles Stanley Direct who are soon to be charging 0.35% on ETFs but capped within the range £24 to £240 p.a., with a monthly trading offset which, if trading every month, would mean a maximum annual charge of 12 x £11.95, ie. £143.40. For a buy-and-hold portfolio with no trading then the minimum and maximum figures apply based on 0.35% of the portfolio value.


So, depending on whether your two ETfs are in or out of an ISA, and their overall value, the above might hopefully offer some assistance in deciding what to do. And by the way, I would personally never lose sight of exit fees and account closure fees - generally I stay away from any providers that levy these as to me it seems a backhand way of taking as much as they can from the investor without any real justification. If at some point you decide to leave whoever you might go to next, and they charge say £25 account closure fees plus £25 per holding exit fees, then that's another £75 wallop right there (for your two ETF portfolio) - almost as much as the annual platform charges of your current provider!

LHW99

Don't know how it would compare fee-wise, but have you looked at X-O? You can't buy funds / OIECS easily through them (if at all) but they are OK for IT's, shares and presumably ETF's.

EdSwippet

ivormonee wrote: »

... it costs next to nothing for them to hold such investments on your behalf, unlike funds which have material costs involved in their administration.

Really? Citations, please.

ivormonee wrote: »

Hence why at least most platforms still make a distinction in charges based on whether one holds funds or shares/ etfs.

My read on the situation is that now that platforms no longer get any back-handers from funds (a consequence of RDR a few years ago), they recoup this by instead inventing specious platform differential pricing for funds and shares/ETFs.

In practice there seems to be no reason why the costs of running each should not be at least broadly similar. Some difference, sure. But nothing close to the £1,125/year-for-funds but £0-for-ETFs-or-shares difference on a £250k unwrapped account holding at HL, for example.

JohnRo

ivormonee wrote: »

...I've also come across Charles Stanley Direct who are soon to be charging 0.35% on ETFs but capped within the range £24 to £240 p.a., with a monthly trading offset which, if trading every month, would mean a maximum annual charge of 12 x £11.95, ie. £143.40. For a buy-and-hold portfolio with no trading then the minimum and maximum figures apply based on 0.35% of the portfolio value.

Thanks, I'm fairly well versed in platforms and their charges, CSD charge £11.50 per trade btw which caps at £138pa when only holding shares and trading monthly, which I do with my income portfolio.

I already have accounts at AJB, CSD, HL, iWeb and X-O, held for a good few years. When I was asking 'what would you do' it was more with regard to this specific situation at iWeb rather than alternative platform suggestions.

I hold WOSC currently unwrapped, likewise VWRL, I had thought about CSD as an option given the monthly trade / zero platform fee setup but iWeb seemed the best low cost option beforehand given the zero ongoing platform costs, cheaper trades and my own experience with their platform and customer service up to this point.

Once I get this iWeb letter I'll (possibly) have a better idea what's gone wrong at their end. Not expecting them to go into any more detail than they already have though.

JohnRo

How can something so simple become so complicated..

..having now received the anticipated letter dated 19th August to explain everything, it is becoming increasingly clear iWeb are incompetent.

Far from explaining the unresolved issues to date and what might happen next to remedy their error, in detail or otherwise, it simply stated in one brief sentence that I made a complaint and that the issue has now been resolved as of the 18th August. The bulk of the letter then detailing the FOS service and their contact details. I read it with disbelief, on what planet is a WOSC transfer landing as ZPRS a resolution of anything.

Then to add insult to injury I received another iWeb letter dated 24th Aug today (28th Aug) that was pleased to advise my transfer request has now been completed.

detailed as

SSGA SPDR ETFS E 2 MSCI WORLD SMALL CAP UCITS USD

I'm now wondering if I'm stuck in a parallel universe, that's the underlying fund they've detailed there, well done to them for getting that right. It is not the ETF registered on my account portal though which is ZPRS, listed in Frankfurt and settled in EUR.

The ETF I was holding and transferring from IG Markets was WOSC.L which is listed in London and settled in GBP

iWeb still seem completely oblivious to this ETF discrepancy despite me contacting them on multiple occasions now to clearly explain the situation to them, in detail.

Time to contact them again... first web chat then being phoned back by them, it now transpires iWeb are, despite the letters, still looking it. At one point the CSR actually stated they had only received what IG Markets had sent.. that's a complete lie, not the first it has to be said. The transfer team are going to contact IG Markets today and will contact me to provide details about what the problem is, I honestly expect to hear nothing.

I made an almost identical call at the start of last week, having just received the iWeb/FOS letter and once I'd explained everything yet again to someone new I was told exactly the same thing, the transfer team were contacting IG Markets that day and would let me know what's happening. They didn't.

Decided to contact IG Markets, just to find out if iWeb had indeed made any contact. No prizes for guessing the response... after explaining the situation they almost immediately sent me a complete email transcript of all the transfer contact with iWeb, what a contrast.. it confirms everything is as I suspected, as far back as 25th May 2018 iWeb via Halifax were arranging to receive the wrong ETF.

Just why it wasn't picked up over the next three months and three or four failed transfer attempts is the big question, that and why despite these failures (for obvious reasons) it did eventually somehow manage to transfer anyway.

iWeb's last email sent to IG was dated 13th Aug (again) requesting account details.


It's become an unfunny farce.

Phoned FOS today and they've outlined what they'll do with a complaint, my worry having watched a fly on the wall TV documentary about the FOS and their operational incompetence and borderline corruption is that I might end up getting someone looking into the matter who's incapable of identifying what the issue is, what went wrong and who is at fault, or worst of all simply given short shrift.

If it does get to that point then it's recourse in the courts and honestly that outcome is just horrific and unimaginable over something so relatively straightforward, simple and obviously a blatant error or oversight on iWeb's part.