Opinions/Experience with Hargreaves Lansdown?

DennisTenus wrote: »

Fundsmith are a fund, just like JPMorgan Emerging Markets for example?

I could invest in Fundsmith using HL but then obviously still subject to HL's fees?

They seem to have 2 income funds and 2 Accumulation class I and T of each? I'm investing for growth so would go for Accumulation but which out of I or T?

I assume I could move my ISA from HL to Fundsmith? Why do you suggest not invest directly because then I'm only investing in 1 fund and that could be risky and doesn't spread it across funds because they only have one you can invest in?

Yes, just another fund. Except JPMorgan have lots of funds, Fundsmith have little more than their "flagship" fund (but who cares if it generates decent returns ?).

Yes, investing via HL incurs HL's fees on top of Fundsmith's.

The different classes are designed to confuse. Actually we can blame the regulator who was trying to make charges more transparent. Look up the concept of "bundled" and "unbundled" on the HL website, I hope they explain it better than I can. Class T is a hangover from the bad old days when the broker always got a rakeoff from the fund manager, but HL are returning some or all of that kickback to you so the net charges are just like like class I (which is the obvious choice in 2017). If you dig deeper you'll also find class R which is even more archaic (probably designed to give a cut to a Financial Adviser).

Yes, I'm reluctant to move all of my ISA to Fundsmith because I don't want it all invested in that one fund. I suppose I could move part of my ISA (I believe that's possible) but then I lose the flexibilty to swap in and out of Fundsmith easily if I should ever have concerns about the way it is heading.

It hadn't occurred to me that the typical open-ended fund doesn't have an AGM. Maybe this is the AGM of the Fundsmith company (not the fund itself), but still unusual that they invite investors in the fund to it. Of course Investment Trusts will all have AGMs because they are constituted as quoted companies (do look closely at these, there are some gems among them, and much cheaper to hold at HL).

For all of the flaws in the way HL's "wealth 150" is compiled, I confess I still look there for ideas. But for a more unbiased set of ideas do take a look at the "Investors Chronicle" list of the "Top 100 Funds", published annually in September. The most recent list is contained in an article in the September 15th issue of IC. Here's a link to the online version:
https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/top-100-funds/2017/09/15/ic-top-100-funds-2017/
I think you can read this article without a subscription, hard to be sure, could be my subscription is identified by a cookie on my PC.

Different fund houses use different letters for different classes and there is no standard, a different fund's I class (if they even used that letter) could be more expensive than, say, their W class

Chordeiles wrote: »

And they aren't quite as good as they think they are ! Their high opinion of themselves can give them a nauseating arrogance if you ever find you don't see eye-to-eye with them. Compare this with Alliance Trust who are pretty rubbish really (but cracking value for larger portfolios !), if you complain at least they have the humility to put themselves in your shoes to see what they look like from the customer's perspective.

I heartily agree that Hargreaves Lansdown can be recommended to those just setting out on the investment path. Just don't stay with them too long as your portfolio (and experience) grows. Chances are they will have p!$$ed you off by that time and you will be ready to move on.

For the OP, nothing sums it up better than this, the arrogance is quite obvious on calls and for some reason they feel adding SIR to the end of each sentence is appropriate. They will attempt to blame anyone for an error rather than admit they got it wrong.

Chordeiles wrote: »

And then there are some share classes that some fund managers will create exclusively for Hargreaves Lansdown customers, with slightly lower charges

I've got no problem with that. Essentially they are allowing the fund house to take some of the strain on fees and mitigates the 0.45% with no cost to themselves. It takes 2 to tango and I'm sure this works to their mutual benefit

In this morning's post comes a reminder of something else you'll need to endure with HL, the "hard sell" of financial advice. Letter addressed to my wife (they apparently gave up on me) headed "Could you be £40,000 better off ?".

They quote some research that suggests that the average person who takes financial advice is £40,000 better off than those who don't.

The phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics" comes to mind ! I'm not suggesting it isn't true, I'm just requesting that the cart and horse be arranged in the correct order. Thus I would argue "those who are better off are more likely to take financial advice".

Someone I know is a happy customer of HL. He doesn't moan about the fees, which will be HUGE because he has very much more invested with them than I do. He also takes financial advice (though certainly not from HL). His wealth came from a high-earning job (at which I'll admit he worked very hard, giving him little opportunity to manage his own finances) and an eye-watering pension. In contrast my own wealth (such as it is) has come more from watching the pennies and looking after my own investments.

I'm not bashing financial advisers here. It could be that one is very appropriate for you at this stage of the game. I used them myself some 23 years ago when I was maybe in something like your position. One is still a good friend, another isn't (I won an ombudsman case against the firm) and one my mother hired is still contacting me ten years after her death, even though I ignore him. Happily for many years I've moved forward confident that I know (just) enough to be sure that no-one has my best interests at heart more than I do.

Even if a financial adviser is right for you, look around before choosing HL !