Best place for stocks and shares ISA

SteveSilva

Hi I have a s&s ISA with H&L I've had it for about ten years where I put some money into Aberdeen emerging markets and HSBC 250 tracker. I gather from the posts on here though that H&L overcharge and there are better alternatives out there. I may leave the H&L as it is and open a new S&S ISA

My situation is that I'll be looking to have a diversified portfolio of trackers funds/investment trusts but only put in £25-50 per month and occasional lump sums of hundred pounds here and there. 
The lump sum I'm drip feeding from is about £5k so not a lot of money.
I'd appreciate a simple to use website  with a good range of funds to choose from and not too high charges.
Any suggestions?

eskbanker

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/stocks-shares-isas/ gives an over view of some options in the MSE house style.

You can compare platform costs via sites such as:

http://monevator.com/compare-the-brokers/

http://www.comparefundplatforms.com/

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5583030rel="nofollow" href="https://www.boringmoney.co.uk/calculator/">https://www.boringmoney.co.uk/calculator/

Albermarle

that H&L overcharge

 They market themselves as a very good ( popular ) provider, with a good website and good customer service, and consequently charge  more than others, and many people are happy to pay .

That's not overcharging , it is just business . Like Waitrose, or M&S Food.

dunstonh

I gather from the posts on here though that H&L overcharge

HL do not overcharge.  They charge exactly what they say they will charge.   However, that charge is "higher" than most other platforms.

and there are better alternatives out there.

"Better" needs some context. A cheaper option does not mean that is better.  There are plenty of pretty naff cheaper options.
HL is not a naff option.   It generally has a good reputation for its software and service, as long as you ignore their marketing.

My situation is that I'll be looking to have a diversified portfolio of trackers funds/investment trusts but only put in £25-50 per month and occasional lump sums of hundred pounds here and there. 

So, with that sort of amount, you would be looking at just one fund then?   After all, no point having multiple funds with that sort of figure.

I'd appreciate a simple to use website  with a good range of funds to choose from and not too high charges.

have you considered Hargreaves Lansdown?

Alexland

For small amounts I agree to stick with a single well diversified fund.

Have a look at https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk in particular their LifeStrategy multi asset fund series or their Global All Cap equities tracker fund. Your total cost of platform and fund manager should be under 0.40% pa much cheaper than HL where the platform charge alone is 0.45%

SteveSilva

Alexland said:

For small amounts I agree to stick with a single well diversified fund.

Why is that then? I'm sure you're right but why, sorry just trying to make sense of it all 

Albermarle

SteveSilva said:

Alexland said:

For small amounts I agree to stick with a single well diversified fund.

Why is that then? I'm sure you're right but why, sorry just trying to make sense of it all 

If you buy a well diversified fund designed by a professional manager , then not a lot of point adding other funds on top of it .
If no other reasons than you will incur charges every time you invest , so on £25 to £100 a month you will be losing a significant % to charges .
For example HL do not charge for buying funds but will charge £12.95 every time you buy an investment trust .
Other platforms may charge less but will also charge for buying funds .
Even with a regular investment plan you could find yourself being charged £1.50 a time . So cheaper only to have one fund and one charge , especially if you are only investing small amounts .

dunstonh

SteveSilva said:

Alexland said:

For small amounts I agree to stick with a single well diversified fund.

Why is that then? I'm sure you're right but why, sorry just trying to make sense of it all 

If you build a portfolio of single sector funds, you will have some areas that have higher allocations (e.g. UK equity, US equity etc).  And you will have areas with lower allocations (e..g Japan equity, Asia equity, Emerging Markets, property etc).
if you are looking at a balanced level portfolio you may only have 3% allocated to Japan equity.  At £50pm that means you are only paying £1.50 into Japan.

It's pointless having a portfolio of single sector funds with small amounts.  Many consider around £100k before you do that.
Also, you need to have an understanding of portfolio building and the weightings you should use.  Do, you have that?
Multi-asset funds that handle the weightings within them. they do all the work for you.

SteveSilva

dunstonh said:

SteveSilva said:

Alexland said:

For small amounts I agree to stick with a single well diversified fund.

Why is that then? I'm sure you're right but why, sorry just trying to make sense of it all 

If you build a portfolio of single sector funds, you will have some areas that have higher allocations (e.g. UK equity, US equity etc).  And you will have areas with lower allocations (e..g Japan equity, Asia equity, Emerging Markets, property etc).
if you are looking at a balanced level portfolio you may only have 3% allocated to Japan equity.  At £50pm that means you are only paying £1.50 into Japan.

It's pointless having a portfolio of single sector funds with small amounts.  Many consider around £100k before you do that.
Also, you need to have an understanding of portfolio building and the weightings you should use.  Do, you have that?
Multi-asset funds that handle the weightings within them. they do all the work for you.

I did mean that  I'd be putting in £50 per month into each fund,  so a fund covering ftse 250, an asia Pacific, a North America, an emerging markets etc. Don't know if those amounts change anything 

dunstonh

SteveSilva said:

dunstonh said:

SteveSilva said:

Alexland said:

For small amounts I agree to stick with a single well diversified fund.

Why is that then? I'm sure you're right but why, sorry just trying to make sense of it all 

If you build a portfolio of single sector funds, you will have some areas that have higher allocations (e.g. UK equity, US equity etc).  And you will have areas with lower allocations (e..g Japan equity, Asia equity, Emerging Markets, property etc).
if you are looking at a balanced level portfolio you may only have 3% allocated to Japan equity.  At £50pm that means you are only paying £1.50 into Japan.

It's pointless having a portfolio of single sector funds with small amounts.  Many consider around £100k before you do that.
Also, you need to have an understanding of portfolio building and the weightings you should use.  Do, you have that?
Multi-asset funds that handle the weightings within them. they do all the work for you.

I did mean that  I'd be putting in £50 per month into each fund,  so a fund covering ftse 250, an asia Pacific, a North America, an emerging markets etc. Don't know if those amounts change anything 

When you build a portfolio of funds, you should not have an equal amount in every sector.    Yet, that is what you are proposing to do.   To get coverage of all the major areas (ignoring the minor ones), you would be looking at around 8-12 funds.    

Your amounts do not justify a portfolio of single sector funds.

SteveSilva

So will it make sense to open a couple of multi asset funds with vanguard, a safer fund with lower exposure to equities and then a separate fund with a higher exposure which means greater risk and potential reward?

Or is it best to just stick to one fund?