Muitl platform vs single

ChilliBob

With all this recent chatter on platforms I wanted to get people's take on one platform vs multiple... 

I was under the impression that holding a substantial ISA, GIA and Sipp on one platform was a risk (say combined value is in the seven figure range).

This HL thread by BananaRepublic got me thinking, and one of the financial planners I mentioned also made me think.. If you get to a certain value with one provider then you get better fees, are there any other perks? 

I was thinking I'd end up with a mix of iweb, Fidelity and Interactive Investor, probably, as aside from Fidelity for Jisa I was ignoring percentage fee providers. But, get to a limit and this, disappears. 

Just wondering people's views, my gut tells me the benefits and cost savings of one platform are not significant enough to away it... But perhaps I'm wrong, I guess management and reporting comes into it too. 

masonic

Some percentage fee providers have tiered platform fee rates, but normally you are still paying the higher rate for the first £X of your holdings even if you enter the next fee tier and pay a lower rate on amounts above that threshold. So if a flat fee is cheaper for a smaller amount, it will not become less competitive for a larger amount.

ChilliBob

I guess I'm saying if you used a few places at flat fee, but the sum of these was big enough to attract a flat fee, of no fee from the likes of HL etc, is there a huge benefit (or even much) in doing so besides perhaps savign a few hundred quid?

My thoughts were multi platform is better but I just thought I'd float this on here! 

IvanOpinion

I have been consolidating my investments that were spread across multiple platforms - simply for ease of management and to cut down significantly on fees.  I had an II account, its platform delivered everything I needed and therefore felt that it was silly paying additional fees when it would cost me nothing more to move everything to II (equally I could have chosen iWeb but I prefer the II platform).  Consolidation is saving me over £70 per month.

MK62

Single platform is obviously easier to manage, and might save a bit on fees (though it depends on the fee structures in place and how you use your accounts).

Multiple platforms are a bit more work, and may cost a bit more (above notwithstanding), but you then have the comfort of knowing that providing all your platforms don't go under at the same time, you can still get to at least some of your money.
While your actual money might be protected on a platform which went under, by the FSCS, access to it is not....and if that single platform was your only source of income, well you get the picture......can you afford to be cut off from that money for potentially a year, and maybe even longer?.....

That said though, it also has to be said that platform failures are rare, so you could argue the pros and cons to this forever.......in the end you pay your money and take your choice.

Alexland

Once you get onto the reduced tier(s) of percentage platform charges it's already well beyond the breakeven point of moving to a capped or fixed charge so still a bad deal hardly a 'perk'. For example when the first % reduction in the HL fund custody charges occurs you are already paying them £1,125 pa on the first £250k at the 0.45% rate - ouch!

II's pricing is OK and better than the above HL example but it's not as cheap for us as the iWeb ISA and capped Fidelity SIPP (and free Fidelity JISA) combination (and capped AJ Bell LISA which II don't offer) with the additional benefit that it spreads our money out better between unrelated platforms. Overall including the LISA it's still cheaper than II's nearly £240 pa inc SIPP.

ChilliBob

Thanks for the replies guys. To be clear with something like HL or others I'd not consider unless it was fixed fee/free, which I know it can be in pretty extreme situations.
I think I need to think carefully about my pots what what I want to do. For example I forsee a GIA account seeing limited changes and a small number of mostly passive funds. The isa is potentially an area I'd want to be a bit more 'naughty active' in so I might want lower dealing costs etc. 

The idea of HL giving discount fees threw a bit of a spanner in the works as I had dismissed them a while back! I feel those low fees might be a bit irrelevant in the end thou compared to other costs. 

Keep_pedalling

MK62 said:

Single platform is obviously easier to manage, and might save a bit on fees (though it depends on the fee structures in place and how you use your accounts).

Multiple platforms are a bit more work, and may cost a bit more (above notwithstanding), but you then have the comfort of knowing that providing all your platforms don't go under at the same time, you can still get to at least some of your money.
While your actual money might be protected on a platform which went under, by the FSCS, access to it is not....and if that single platform was your only source of income, well you get the picture......can you afford to be cut off from that money for potentially a year, and maybe even longer?.....

That is what an emergency cash fund is for. Temporary loss of access to your assets is not the only reason you might want to fall back on cash for a short time. 

ChilliBob

For sure - and I intend to keep a fairly large cash buffer. 

Albermarle

masonic said:

Some percentage fee providers have tiered platform fee rates, but normally you are still paying the higher rate for the first £X of your holdings even if you enter the next fee tier and pay a lower rate on amounts above that threshold. So if a flat fee is cheaper for a smaller amount, it will not become less competitive for a larger amount.

Fidelity is 0.35% up to £250K . Above that figure it drops to 0.2% , including the first £250K and including all members of your household . Also you only have to hit £250K for your total on the platform , not in each account. If you take into account the lack of any charges for drawdown , or anything else apart from market trades and that any IT's , ETFs or share holdings are capped at £45 . If say you are over £250 K and with 50% in funds and 50% in ITs/ETFs, you are effectively paying 0.1% so you are in the same area as II charges.

ChilliBob

This is interesting @Albermarle
I need to break it down a bit to make sure I've understood (I'm sort of doing about 8 things not very well this morning). From Fidelity's site:

"The same service fee is charged across all of your investments. So, if you hold £300,000 - the fee would be 0.20% across the full amount. For exchange-traded instruments, this portion of the fee is capped at £45 and there is no service fee for these investments when held in the Fidelity Investment Account. There’s also no fee for investments held in a Junior ISA or Junior SIPP."

0.2% on £300k = £600.

For exchange-traded instruments, this portion of the fee is capped at £45 and there is no service fee for these investments when held in the Fidelity Investment Account.

What does this actually mean though?
Say you have an SS ISA with them, for arguments sake, and it's got £300k in it, does that mean you can buy and sell ETFs willy nilly with zero cost each time and you pay just £45 on top of the £600?

I ask because I was considering Fidelity for my partner's ISA (which would be a new one, so 20k soon, 40k in April), I thought this would be £45 per year, plus £10 per ETF chosen - so if two ETFs then 65 per year. 

And if you added a FUND to this SS ISA then the 0.35% fee would kick in - so £140 on a 40k pot - more than II or iWeb

I'm interested in your comparison to II, which as I understand it is £120 a year.