iWeb Change to Scottish Widows

mebu60

QrizB said:

mebu60 said:

talexuser said:

mebu60 said:

Bring back 'widow' #3 I say (Amanda Lamb 1999 - 2005). 

No, Roger Moore's daughter

Deborah. The original 'widow'.

Deborah, you say?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJS3xnD7Mus

RIP the real-life Deborah who the song was about, sadly, bone cancer aged 51. I believe Jarvis Cocker sang Disco 2000 at her 50th birthday party. 

ivormonee

Iweb and Scottish Widows (platform), both part of Lloyds (of which Halifax is also a part of), have a different charging mechanism (both of which also differ from Lloyds, and indeed Halifax).

Iweb have zero platform fees but SW have a % charge on value of assets held. These are:
Value of assets and Platform charge at each band –
On the first £100,000 0.35%
On the next £100,001 – £250,000 0.30%
On the next £250,001 – £500,000 0.25%
On holdings above £500,000 0.10%

Dealing commission is also different. Iweb charge £5 per deal, regardless of size. SW charge 0.07% of value of deal, which is subject to a minimum amount of £7.50 and a maximum amount of £120. This charge is applied per individual asset transaction for each product.

Iweb say that when they merge with SW they will retain their current charging. What is not clear is how this will reconcile with existing SW account holders who have a different tariff of charges altogether, as above.

A sneaking suspicion, albeit speculative, is that the current charging may not be indefinite and that at some point ex-Iweb account holders and current-SW account holders may find their charges become aligned in some way.

Should Iweb deviate from their current charging model and become more expensive (at some future point after having been merged into SW), it might be difficult to find a suitable alternative; in fact, I am not aware of any that would be comparable for range of investments at a similar cost.

GeoffTF

ivormonee said:

Should Iweb deviate from their current charging model and become more expensive (at some future point after having been merged into SW), it might be difficult to find a suitable alternative; in fact, I am not aware of any that would be comparable for range of investments at a similar cost.

You would avoid the percentage charges by switching to Halifax, unless the charges change there too. The current Halifax charges are more than iWeb though. It may never happen.

[Deleted User]

ivormonee said:

Iweb and Scottish Widows (platform), both part of Lloyds (of which Halifax is also a part of), have a different charging mechanism (both of which also differ from Lloyds, and indeed Halifax).

This is a bit simplistic - yes, they are all ultimately owned by Lloyds Banking Group but that doesn't in itself mean that they're the same or will all be aligned. Companies (including financial services) use branding and pricing differentiation to attract different types of customer.

Eco_Miser

ivormonee said:

Iweb and Scottish Widows (platform), both part of Lloyds (of which Halifax is also a part of), have a different charging mechanism (both of which also differ from Lloyds, and indeed Halifax).

Iweb have zero platform fees but SW have a % charge on value of assets held. These are:
<snip>

Iweb say that when they merge with SW they will retain their current charging. What is not clear is how this will reconcile with existing SW account holders who have a different tariff of charges altogether, as above.

Lloyds, Halifax, Bank of Scotland, Scottish Widows and Iweb are all brands of LBS, and  each (except Iweb) are applied to different companies doing different things (eg bank, stockbroker, insurance, pensions).

Halifax Share Dealing Limited (HSDL) is the group's in-house stockbroker, currently trading under the Halifax, BOS, Lloyds and Iweb brands, each with a different charging model. 

My understanding is that the IWeb Share Dealing  brand is to be renamed as Scottish Widows Share Dealing brand, with no change to charges, except the introduction of a free regular investment plan service. This is separate to the existing Scottish Widows platform.

Additionally, the SW app is to be upgraded to access HSDL accounts with SW branding.

EthicsGradient

You would presume that if the existing "Scottish Widows Platform" with the charges listed above is going to continue, with the charges, then they'll have to rebrand it to something else. Having a fee-free "Scottish Widows" and a "Scottish Widows Platform" with charges would be a marketing nightmare, leading to some hacked-off customers.

ivormonee

EthicsGradient said:

You would presume that if the existing "Scottish Widows Platform" with the charges listed above is going to continue, with the charges, then they'll have to rebrand it to something else. Having a fee-free "Scottish Widows" and a "Scottish Widows Platform" with charges would be a marketing nightmare, leading to some hacked-off customers.

I agree with you. The already existing Scottish Widows share dealing service seems to have limited client base, and it seems unclear what their current target market is. From what I can make out it's a hopscotch of customers from different sources. It's also split between the unit trust version and the pension version. Then there is the separate Scottish Widows platform, with the hefty ad valorem charges as listed earlier. This seems to be exclusively for advised clients. I can't tell at the moment whether the Iweb rebranding will be a third Scottish Widows entity, separate to the two (or even three) existing ones (which would make things seem quite messy), or whether it'll be a merger into the non-advised Scottish Widows service (the unit-trust flavour). Lloyds Banking Group is going to end up with a wide array of platforms, different sub-brandings and perhaps aimed at attracting customers of different demographices and inclinations.

GeoffTF

EthicsGradient said:

You would presume that if the existing "Scottish Widows Platform" with the charges listed above is going to continue, with the charges, then they'll have to rebrand it to something else. Having a fee-free "Scottish Widows" and a "Scottish Widows Platform" with charges would be a marketing nightmare, leading to some hacked-off customers.

I expect that iWeb will be called Scottish Widows Share Dealing, which will bring it into line with Lloyds Share Dealing and Halifax Share Dealing. We omit "Share Dealing" in our discussions, because it is too long winded. I do not expect it will add much confusion. HSBC has long has two investment platforms. I expect that the Scottish Widows app will show all you Lloyds Banking Group accounts, in much the same way that the Lloyds app shows your Halifax accounts and vice versa (or so I understand).

Eco_Miser

GeoffTF said:

I expect that iWeb will be called Scottish Widows Share Dealing, which will bring it into line with Lloyds Share Dealing and Halifax Share Dealing. 

It will be. That's in the email sent to IWeb customers.

EthicsGradient

GeoffTF said:

EthicsGradient said:

You would presume that if the existing "Scottish Widows Platform" with the charges listed above is going to continue, with the charges, then they'll have to rebrand it to something else. Having a fee-free "Scottish Widows" and a "Scottish Widows Platform" with charges would be a marketing nightmare, leading to some hacked-off customers.

I expect that iWeb will be called Scottish Widows Share Dealing, which will bring it into line with Lloyds Share Dealing and Halifax Share Dealing. We omit "Share Dealing" in our discussions, because it is too long winded. I do not expect it will add much confusion. HSBC has long has two investment platforms. I expect that the Scottish Widows app will show all you Lloyds Banking Group accounts, in much the same way that the Lloyds app shows your Halifax accounts and vice versa (or so I understand).

I think you're referring to HSBC's  "Global Investment Centre" and "InvestDirect" - which have quite different names. "Scottish Widows Share Dealing" and "Scottish Widows Platform" are a lot closer, especially since the first can be called a platform, and "Scottish Widows Platform" allows share dealing, so there's still opportunity for confusion.