Cost of S&S ISA on the Vanguard platform versus iWeb

csgohan4

ColdIron said:

csgohan4 said:

ColdIron said:

IWeb have a different charging structure for SIPPs. £90 or £180 pa plus dealing costs. There is an additional £180 annual charge when you take an income via Flexi-access drawdown. In some circumstances this is easily beaten by people like Hargreaves Lansdown with no drawdown charges and a £200 cap for investment trusts and ETFs. Horses for courses

https://www.iweb-sharedealing.co.uk/charges-and-interest-rates/sipp-charges.asp

Drawdowns are one aspect but to lose 0.45% of your pension a year via  HL  is eye watering, unless you have purely ETF's in your portfolio which is another discussion
https://www.hl.co.uk/pensions/sipp/charges-and-interest-rates

Which is why I said 'in some circumstances' and 'Horses for courses'. If you choose to use their most expensive option it's going to cost you more. My drawdown SIPP with HL is predominantly ITs and an ETF and I consider it very good value. My income GIA, also with HL, is 100% ITs and at £0 pa is about as good as it gets. I use IWeb for my growth funds GIA/ISA which only costs a handful of fivers dealing costs when I do my annual bed and ISA. If you will allow me another adage: you cut your coat according to your cloth

Indeed alot of the providers provide discounts for ETF and IT holders. Do they provide more commission to the platform or easier to maintain for them?

Commission has been illegal since the Retail Distribution Review. As ITs and ETFs are exchange traded instruments (much like company shares) there is no mechanism for them to provide a cheaper ongoing charge or share class to platforms as happens with funds

I agree with what you have said, some people like ITs, ETFs e.t.c. 

What do you think of the theoretical risk of securities lending from ETF's vs risk of Index mutual funds?

I must admit some ETF's are looking good value such as VWRL with good coverage incl EM. But haven't branched into them due to the perceived risks some investment websites mentions such as Monevator

ITs are useful, I often See SMT and Monks on here as well, although a bit Tesla heavy on the former

[Deleted User]

FinancialIdiot said:

Deleted_User said:

... 300,000 into one fund ...

Oh, if only. Sadly I'm not that intelligent (or lucky or criminally successful). Thanks for drawing my attention to the spreadsheet, though. Also thanks to other posters.

I'm suspicious now that iWeb sounds too good to be true - is there nothing simple about investing?

Will change screen dump

ColdIron

csgohan4 said:

ColdIron said:

csgohan4 said:

ColdIron said:

IWeb have a different charging structure for SIPPs. £90 or £180 pa plus dealing costs. There is an additional £180 annual charge when you take an income via Flexi-access drawdown. In some circumstances this is easily beaten by people like Hargreaves Lansdown with no drawdown charges and a £200 cap for investment trusts and ETFs. Horses for courses

https://www.iweb-sharedealing.co.uk/charges-and-interest-rates/sipp-charges.asp

Drawdowns are one aspect but to lose 0.45% of your pension a year via  HL  is eye watering, unless you have purely ETF's in your portfolio which is another discussion
https://www.hl.co.uk/pensions/sipp/charges-and-interest-rates

Which is why I said 'in some circumstances' and 'Horses for courses'. If you choose to use their most expensive option it's going to cost you more. My drawdown SIPP with HL is predominantly ITs and an ETF and I consider it very good value. My income GIA, also with HL, is 100% ITs and at £0 pa is about as good as it gets. I use IWeb for my growth funds GIA/ISA which only costs a handful of fivers dealing costs when I do my annual bed and ISA. If you will allow me another adage: you cut your coat according to your cloth

Indeed alot of the providers provide discounts for ETF and IT holders. Do they provide more commission to the platform or easier to maintain for them?

Commission has been illegal since the Retail Distribution Review. As ITs and ETFs are exchange traded instruments (much like company shares) there is no mechanism for them to provide a cheaper ongoing charge or share class to platforms as happens with funds

I agree with what you have said, some people like ITs, ETFs e.t.c. 
What do you think of the theoretical risk of securities lending from ETF's vs risk of Index mutual funds?

I don't give it a lot of thought if I'm honest, especially with a giant company like Vanguard. Mutual funds is an Americanism that you would do well to avoid. In the UK they are referred to with the generic term 'funds' or more specifically Unit Trusts and OEICs

I must admit some ETF's are looking good value such as VWRL with good coverage incl EM. But haven't branched into them due to the perceived risks some investment websites mentions such as Monevator

VWRL is just an ETF that tracks the FTSE All-World Index. There are many funds that track that index as well so they will perform much the same. As it trades at NAV (the net asset value of the underlying holdings) it can't be said that it is good or bad value compared to a fund. Unless you perceive a particular advantage to using an ETF (live pricing, dealing charges, platform charges etc) there is nothing wrong with using a fund. They are easier to understand for most people and have FSCS protection for what it's worth. My only ETF is VHYL as it combines the simplicity and low cost of a global tracker with a respectable dividend, something that most trackers don't do very well. My growth portfolio is mainly tracker funds

ITs are useful, I often See SMT and Monks on here as well, although a bit Tesla heavy on the former

I have small allocation to Scottish Mortgage and Bankers in my income portfolios but mainly to increase the likelihood of keeping the bottom line green rather than red. If you take dividends from the lion's share of your income investments it greatly reduces the scope for growth

tel_

csgohan4 said:

Iweb is a good punt, no frill service, good if you know what your doing.

It does sound appealing to transfer a drip-fed years worth of investments to IWeb, from Vanguard every year to help save ongoing costs.  But to a stock & shares novice like myself, how diffrent is IWeb's website compared to Vanguard's?

Should us novice's stay clear of IWeb if we want 'easy to understand' interpretation of our investments?

csgohan4

tel_ said:

csgohan4 said:

Iweb is a good punt, no frill service, good if you know what your doing.

It does sound appealing to transfer a drip-fed years worth of investments to IWeb, from Vanguard every year to help save ongoing costs.  But to a stock & shares novice like myself, how diffrent is IWeb's website compared to Vanguard's?

Should us novice's stay clear of IWeb if we want 'easy to understand' interpretation of our investments?

in a way we are all novices unless your Warren Buffet, as long as you do your research and happy with a set if funds, ETF's e.t.c then you just need to research which platform is suitable for you and has your funds.

Iweb for example don't have LISA, So I've settled with EQI due to low costs and only going to dump one lot of funds and only do 1 transaction a year so makes sense, wheras if your doing loads of transactions over many funds it may not be suitable.

It's personal preference

Albermarle

Indeed alot of the providers provide discounts for ETF and IT holders. Do they provide more commission to the platform or easier to maintain for them?

From previous threads on this , it seems that the reason is down to historical developments and competition between platforms.

The cap on charges for IT/ETF/Shares is a way for platforms with a % charging model , to try and hang on to larger customers who otherwise might defect to a flat fee platform like II or Iweb. Presumably they are not making much ( if any ) profit from a customer paying £45 a year for a full drawdown service ( like you can with Fidelity for example ) but its about market share I guess.