Consolidating vs keeping separate S&S ISAs (above 100k)

Kaizen917

Its been a few years now since I started to more seriously utilize my ISA limits where I would use different providers in different years. The change that we can use different ISAs in the same FY was also pretty handy, allowing me to contribute the annual 20k allowance as I please.

My current providers:

Vanguard for ISA

Invest Engine for ISA

Trading 212 for ISA (though only from this year so only few k in there)

Dodl for LISA

Initially, using different brokers was good in order to check them out. Overall, I had no problems with any of them. Leaving the LISA aside, my dilemma is this - when I first started, the amounts were not so big so I was making sure my fees are reasonable and surely both T212 and IE cant get any more reasonable than being free as platforms. However, the ISAs combined have surpassed 100k which prompted me to consider that 1) maybe its wiser to use more established broker, albeit for some extra fees and 2) that maybe these fees wont be too bad considering that some brokers offer flat fees.

So I wanted to check if anyone reached a similar point in their investing journey and stuck to either different accounts or consolidating into one. Which broker(s) did you go for? Are you happy with them so far? I was thinking that if I want to stick to established, I could just move all to Vanguard but I find their fee cap quite high.On the opposite end, sticking it all in IE or T212 would be great on fees but I dont know if people would go for them when being relatively less established?

Ive left out the topic on the specific fund options since this is purely about the platforms. In general, Im 100% global equities accumulation funds on each and still have a 15+ years horizon so Im sure that any decent broker will have a fund that I would like.

masonic

Currently my S&S ISA money is split between iWeb (part of Halifax Sharedealing) and Hargreaves Lansdown. I'm paying no custody fees at iWeb and a £5 trading fee, while HL is capped at £45 plus trading fee of £12. I have no concerns around holding a large account with either of these. I transferred to HL for cashback, so might move again in a few months if there are any good switching offers. Likewise for my SIPP. I also have a LISA with AJ Bell and will leave that there as transferring isn't easy after you reach the age of 40, and besides, this is capped at £42 with trading at £1.50 (regular investing service), so is cheap.

Having two S&S ISAs is inefficient, but it means should one provider go down I would not be locked out of all my accessible investments.

Albermarle

Some better established providers have a relatively high % platform charge, but if you avoid OEIC funds ( which is the traditional, mainstream choice) and only invest in ETF's , shares and Investment Trusts, the fees are capped at a low level. Although you will pay trading fees to buy and sell, which you do not with the OEIC funds.
As already mentioned HL cap their fees for these types of investments in an ISA at £45, but with a trading fee of £12.
Fidelity have a trading fee of £7.50 and a platform cap of £90 ( so covers SIPPs as well as ISA's)
Aj Bell and a couple of others do something similar. 
Trading fees are usually reduced for regular investing.

Alexland

Vanguard are huge and established but their UK platform fee cap is too high for serious amounts of money so there will be a point where it's best to move a large ISA containing existing contributions to somewhere like iWeb backed by Halifax/Lloyds who as we know from the GFC are also too big to fail.

InvestEngine and Trading 212 are fine for new contributions but I wouldn't go above the FSCS limit with them.

Dodl's percentage fee is fine for a small LISA but after enough years it's cheaper to hold an ETF on the main AJ Bell platform especially if you don't trade often. I would be fine to go above the FSCS limit with AJ Bell.

Overall I like to have my 'main' accounts spread across a few reputable platforms so that I am not overly exposed in the unlikely event that they fail and leave losses in excess of the FSCS limit.

Kaizen917

I suppose this is where I wish brokers were more straight forward instead of obscuring how fees will vary dramatically if transactions are charged and depending on type of investment, frequency etc. There is a rationale for me to stick to the current course for some time since none of my holdings come close to the FSCS limit, and then do a move into a more established broker where transaction costs wont matter when I do lump sums/regular transfers. At the moment Vanguard has the most at just over 60k but Im ok with even if it goes above the limit.

There is also a chance that I should have created this thread in 1-2 months time, when its possible that a broker comes up with an enticing transfer offer.

eskbanker

Kaizen917 said:

I suppose this is where I wish brokers were more straight forward instead of obscuring how fees will vary dramatically if transactions are charged and depending on type of investment, frequency etc.

Which providers do you feel obscure their charges?  Obviously there are a variety of pricing models, and overall costs will inevitably be influenced by the factors you list, but it's rarely difficult to find the relevant information on their sites and there are comparative summaries at the likes of https://monevator.com/compare-uk-cheapest-online-brokers/ 

masonic

Kaizen917 said:

I suppose this is where I wish brokers were more straight forward instead of obscuring how fees will vary dramatically if transactions are charged and depending on type of investment, frequency etc. There is a rationale for me to stick to the current course for some time since none of my holdings come close to the FSCS limit, and then do a move into a more established broker where transaction costs wont matter when I do lump sums/regular transfers. At the moment Vanguard has the most at just over 60k but Im ok with even if it goes above the limit.

There is also a chance that I should have created this thread in 1-2 months time, when its possible that a broker comes up with an enticing transfer offer.

Having some choice between pricing models is a good thing IMHO, and all are clearly set out on a dedicated webpage by each provider. Different types of investments have different underlying processes and costs, and those making the broker lots of money by actively trading (not a good idea to fall into this bucket), or those willing to have their trades aggregated with other customers, are given a break. Those providers that offer different types of investments (with some you are stuck with exchange traded or non-exchange traded investments), tend to have different fee structures to reflect that, but not all do, so you can choose a simpler model if that's what you prefer. It means that investors in different situations can find a competitive deal to suit themselves. You may find that what is good for you today is not the model you prefer later, and you'll be free to switch to a provider with a different structure.

Kaizen917

eskbanker said:

Kaizen917 said:

I suppose this is where I wish brokers were more straight forward instead of obscuring how fees will vary dramatically if transactions are charged and depending on type of investment, frequency etc.

Which providers do you feel obscure their charges?  Obviously there are a variety of pricing models, and overall costs will inevitably be influenced by the factors you list, but it's rarely difficult to find the relevant information on their sites and there are comparative summaries at the likes of https://monevator.com/compare-uk-cheapest-online-brokers/ 

I think I worded it poorly - its not brokers trying to obscure their pricing out of some nefarious reason and it sure has its upside when the pricing of certain broker fits some peoples' investing style. I was just mindful in a way of the fact that it will require some homework and assumptions for someone before actually jumping from brokers with one pricing model into others that differ.

eskbanker

Kaizen917 said:

eskbanker said:

Kaizen917 said:

I suppose this is where I wish brokers were more straight forward instead of obscuring how fees will vary dramatically if transactions are charged and depending on type of investment, frequency etc.

Which providers do you feel obscure their charges?  Obviously there are a variety of pricing models, and overall costs will inevitably be influenced by the factors you list, but it's rarely difficult to find the relevant information on their sites and there are comparative summaries at the likes of https://monevator.com/compare-uk-cheapest-online-brokers/ 

I think I worded it poorly - its not brokers trying to obscure their pricing out of some nefarious reason and it sure has its upside when the pricing of certain broker fits some peoples' investing style. I was just mindful in a way of the fact that it will require some homework and assumptions for someone before actually jumping from brokers with one pricing model into others that differ.

Yes, some research will always be necessary when investing, and platform choice is no different from other aspects of the process, albeit less significant in the overall scheme of things.

There are sites that attempt to compare costs for a given set of assumptions about wrapper, types of investment, trading frequency, values, etc, but they should only ever be seen as indicative and subject to further clarification, especially when they won't pretend to cover the entire market:

https://www.comparefundplatforms.com/

Albermarle

Kaizen917 said:

eskbanker said:

Kaizen917 said:

I suppose this is where I wish brokers were more straight forward instead of obscuring how fees will vary dramatically if transactions are charged and depending on type of investment, frequency etc.

Which providers do you feel obscure their charges?  Obviously there are a variety of pricing models, and overall costs will inevitably be influenced by the factors you list, but it's rarely difficult to find the relevant information on their sites and there are comparative summaries at the likes of https://monevator.com/compare-uk-cheapest-online-brokers/ 

I think I worded it poorly - its not brokers trying to obscure their pricing out of some nefarious reason and it sure has its upside when the pricing of certain broker fits some peoples' investing style. I was just mindful in a way of the fact that it will require some homework and assumptions for someone before actually jumping from brokers with one pricing model into others that differ.

It is like buying anything, it is not always straightforward to compare like with like, without delving into the small print/specifications.

jimjames

Kaizen917 said:

eskbanker said:

Kaizen917 said:

I suppose this is where I wish brokers were more straight forward instead of obscuring how fees will vary dramatically if transactions are charged and depending on type of investment, frequency etc.

Which providers do you feel obscure their charges?  Obviously there are a variety of pricing models, and overall costs will inevitably be influenced by the factors you list, but it's rarely difficult to find the relevant information on their sites and there are comparative summaries at the likes of https://monevator.com/compare-uk-cheapest-online-brokers/ 

I think I worded it poorly - its not brokers trying to obscure their pricing out of some nefarious reason and it sure has its upside when the pricing of certain broker fits some peoples' investing style. I was just mindful in a way of the fact that it will require some homework and assumptions for someone before actually jumping from brokers with one pricing model into others that differ.

There are obviously differences and some brokers catering to certain sections of the market but it's no different to the research you need to do for other things such as buying a car. The small city car won't be suitable for a large family with lots of luggage so in the same way one size doesn't fit all.