Interactive Investor is now more expensive than Hargreaves Lansdown!

Pat38493

Albermarle said:

jaybeetoo said:

Interactive Investor recently increased their fees to £21.99 a month or £263.88 a year for holding a trading, ISA and SIPP account.

If you just hold shares, cash, ETFs, investment trusts then Fidelity is £90 a year and Hargreaves Lansdown is £245 a year!

I never thought I'd ever see HL cheaper than ii.

Clearly, Abrdn are trying to get some return from buying ii.

The low cap on exchange traded products for HL and even lower with Fidelity, can not be directly compared with II charges . If you compare them for a client holding mainly OEIC funds, then II will win out for anyone with more than £100K. All these platforms are 'horses for courses' when it comes to charging structure.

Of course if you only hold shares/IT's/ETF's then the £90 cap with Fidelity is an absolute bargain. It is cap over all holdings, SIPP & ISA, and apart from a trading charge when you buy the shares etc there are almost no other charges, even when you are in drawdown.
It clearly can not be profitable, and it has been questioned in previous threads 'why do they do it?' 
The answer seems to be 1) Keeping market share at a loss 2) The number of actual clients benefitting from it is relatively small. Your average UK investor, pension holder is normally 100% in OEIC funds.

Question is, if there is a similar ETF for all of the OEIC that ou are holding, I guess you could move everything into ETF and benefit from those lower charges - for example Vanguard seems to have an ETF and an OEIC global tracker that appear to be pretty much the same in terms of the investment mix.

Albermarle

Pat38493 said:

Albermarle said:

jaybeetoo said:

Interactive Investor recently increased their fees to £21.99 a month or £263.88 a year for holding a trading, ISA and SIPP account.

If you just hold shares, cash, ETFs, investment trusts then Fidelity is £90 a year and Hargreaves Lansdown is £245 a year!

I never thought I'd ever see HL cheaper than ii.

Clearly, Abrdn are trying to get some return from buying ii.

The low cap on exchange traded products for HL and even lower with Fidelity, can not be directly compared with II charges . If you compare them for a client holding mainly OEIC funds, then II will win out for anyone with more than £100K. All these platforms are 'horses for courses' when it comes to charging structure.

Of course if you only hold shares/IT's/ETF's then the £90 cap with Fidelity is an absolute bargain. It is cap over all holdings, SIPP & ISA, and apart from a trading charge when you buy the shares etc there are almost no other charges, even when you are in drawdown.
It clearly can not be profitable, and it has been questioned in previous threads 'why do they do it?' 
The answer seems to be 1) Keeping market share at a loss 2) The number of actual clients benefitting from it is relatively small. Your average UK investor, pension holder is normally 100% in OEIC funds.

Question is, if there is a similar ETF for all of the OEIC that ou are holding, I guess you could move everything into ETF and benefit from those lower charges - for example Vanguard seems to have an ETF and an OEIC global tracker that appear to be pretty much the same in terms of the investment mix.

ETF's are normally trackers of some sort, whilst OEIC's can be many different sort of funds. Multi asset, actively managed , fund of funds etc 
So comparing just global index trackers you are right they will be broadly similar, although I think the ETF's own charges are a little higher than equivalent OEIC trackers .

artyboy

Pat38493 said:

Albermarle said:

jaybeetoo said:

Interactive Investor recently increased their fees to £21.99 a month or £263.88 a year for holding a trading, ISA and SIPP account.

If you just hold shares, cash, ETFs, investment trusts then Fidelity is £90 a year and Hargreaves Lansdown is £245 a year!

I never thought I'd ever see HL cheaper than ii.

Clearly, Abrdn are trying to get some return from buying ii.

The low cap on exchange traded products for HL and even lower with Fidelity, can not be directly compared with II charges . If you compare them for a client holding mainly OEIC funds, then II will win out for anyone with more than £100K. All these platforms are 'horses for courses' when it comes to charging structure.

Of course if you only hold shares/IT's/ETF's then the £90 cap with Fidelity is an absolute bargain. It is cap over all holdings, SIPP & ISA, and apart from a trading charge when you buy the shares etc there are almost no other charges, even when you are in drawdown.
It clearly can not be profitable, and it has been questioned in previous threads 'why do they do it?' 
The answer seems to be 1) Keeping market share at a loss 2) The number of actual clients benefitting from it is relatively small. Your average UK investor, pension holder is normally 100% in OEIC funds.

Question is, if there is a similar ETF for all of the OEIC that ou are holding, I guess you could move everything into ETF and benefit from those lower charges - for example Vanguard seems to have an ETF and an OEIC global tracker that appear to be pretty much the same in terms of the investment mix.

I'm using the HMWO ETF in my HL SIPP - partly to diversify a bit from a lot of Vanguard funds I hold, and partly to get the benefit of the lower fees.

To my mind, it's one of the most globally diversified ETFs, and although I'm sure there will be nuance in holdings/weightings with Vanguard's equivalent, it's basically doing the same thing for me - a single buy and forget low cost world tracker.

artyboy

Come to think of it, maybe £350 cashback for moving £100k to Fidelity isn't that bad a deal, if it's only going to cost me £90 a year for ETFs

SamDude

jaybeetoo said:

MX5huggy said:

iWeb’s one off £100 fee that’s currently waved for new accounts seems like the best bet.

They have a £45 a quarter charge for SIPPs, £180 pa which is cheaper than ii

If you have an ii SIPP Builder at £12.99/month, for a SIPP only comparison that is still cheaper with ii?

MK62

As the charging structures are so different on all these platforms, there's no clear winner in general terms.......all you can do is work out which is cheaper for your particular investment portfolio.......

iWeb also have a £180pa drawdown fee for SIPPs (fair enough, only relevant to those in drawdown)  and their trading fee is £5 per trade, where ii have no drawdown fee and £3.99 per trade with free regular fund trading. For fund holding ISAs with little trading involved, iWeb appear to be the lowest cost option, especially atm, with their account opening fee currently waived......however, frequent traders might find better value elsewhere.......as mentioned earlier, horses for courses!

Ciprico

artyboy said:

Pat38493 said:

Albermarle said:

jaybeetoo said:

Interactive Investor recently increased their fees to £21.99 a month or £263.88 a year for holding a trading, ISA and SIPP account.

If you just hold shares, cash, ETFs, investment trusts then Fidelity is £90 a year and Hargreaves Lansdown is £245 a year!

I never thought I'd ever see HL cheaper than ii.

Clearly, Abrdn are trying to get some return from buying ii.

The low cap on exchange traded products for HL and even lower with Fidelity, can not be directly compared with II charges . If you compare them for a client holding mainly OEIC funds, then II will win out for anyone with more than £100K. All these platforms are 'horses for courses' when it comes to charging structure.

Of course if you only hold shares/IT's/ETF's then the £90 cap with Fidelity is an absolute bargain. It is cap over all holdings, SIPP & ISA, and apart from a trading charge when you buy the shares etc there are almost no other charges, even when you are in drawdown.
It clearly can not be profitable, and it has been questioned in previous threads 'why do they do it?' 
The answer seems to be 1) Keeping market share at a loss 2) The number of actual clients benefitting from it is relatively small. Your average UK investor, pension holder is normally 100% in OEIC funds.

Question is, if there is a similar ETF for all of the OEIC that ou are holding, I guess you could move everything into ETF and benefit from those lower charges - for example Vanguard seems to have an ETF and an OEIC global tracker that appear to be pretty much the same in terms of the investment mix.

I'm using the HMWO ETF in my HL SIPP - partly to diversify a bit from a lot of Vanguard funds I hold, and partly to get the benefit of the lower fees.

To my mind, it's one of the most globally diversified ETFs, and although I'm sure there will be nuance in holdings/weightings with Vanguard's equivalent, it's basically doing the same thing for me - a single buy and forget low cost world tracker.

I used hmwo too, but someone on here pointed out swld is very similar, lower cost and accumulating, so avoids transferring $ dividends into £....

MaidaVale3499

I only hold index tracker globals funds in both my II SIPP, SS ISA & Trading account.  I received a £1k cashback for transferring into II in c2018 and now pay a fee of £263 a year which equates to a 0.032% platform fee on my portfolio size.  I'm very happy with II website, app and their uk customer service.

Yes, I could look to replicate my index funds HSBC FTSE all global (0.12% fee), same in Fidelity etc in ETFs  but I need to calc what saving I would achieve over lifetime of holding given that I'm mid 50s and hoping to retire age 58 ish.

older_and_no_wiser

I hold my SIPP with II and it is WAY cheaper than HL as it is fixed fee compared to percentage based. It all depends on how much is in the fund but I regularly transfer my workplace pension from HL across to II to save on their fees.

Albermarle

MaidaVale3499 said:

I only hold index tracker globals funds in both my II SIPP, SS ISA & Trading account.  I received a £1k cashback for transferring into II in c2018 and now pay a fee of £263 a year which equates to a 0.032% platform fee on my portfolio size.  I'm very happy with II website, app and their uk customer service.

Yes, I could look to replicate my index funds HSBC FTSE all global (0.12% fee), same in Fidelity etc in ETFs  but I need to calc what saving I would achieve over lifetime of holding given that I'm mid 50s and hoping to retire age 58 ish.

If all in ETF's then £173 pa with Fidelity. So if you live to an average age of 84 = about £5K ( plus they also regularly offer transfer cashbacks)