It's hard for a simple site like MSE to be able to cover all the options and variations but they certainly don't make things easy for new investors with some of the misleading info provided.

HL are one of the more expensive providers but as you have spotted it really depends on the amount you have invested. At £10k the difference is small and like you say the good service and friendly website is worth paying for.

However once you get to having a portfolio of £100k or £200k and the difference is £450 vs £250 or £900 vs £500 then saving £200 or £400 per year starts to become far more significant and maybe not worth paying for.

The entire MSE article just serves the purpose of generating affiliate income for MSE. It is anything but impartial, and does not equip investment newbies with the basic yet comprehensive information needed to make informed decisions. Sad but true.

A lot also depends on what you have invested in, and whether you chose an ISA or a SIPP. For small SIPPs (up to around £50K), HL are amazingly competitive. They are also quite competitive if you have a huge portfolio (£1m upwards - - - which almost nobody has presently).

HL also have many other potential charges that need to be taken into account. Let's not forget, they are a plc that has to generate income and added value for their shareholders. Similar to MSE having to generate affiliate income.

Dog eats dog.

I do not have an approach.

MSE is stating a fact: To buy an ISA yiu need to have a platform first and buy funds using it.

You are saying this is wrong because it is unwise to choose the platform first when the costs of the funds you buy may be cheaper on another platform. Also true, but MSE makes that point three paragraphs later.

I am in no position to accuse anyone of being pedantic, but I think you could cut them a little slack!

Not sure if you've seen the rather long thread - currently running to 47 pages - about folk trying to leave Hargreaves Lansdown?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4870018

I stopped paying any attention to the information on the main site a long time ago. The quality of information that can be gleaned through reading the forums is much better and it appears this article is no exception.

MSE, and you, are saying that you first chose a platform and then choose your investment. This indicates that neither MSE nor you actually do understand anything about investments since it is totally obvious to anyone thinking this through is that you start with defining your investment portfolio, not with opting for your investment vehicle.

Nothing pedantic about it, just plain logic and common sense.

If you would care to read up on investments (e.g. Tim Hale "Smarter Investing", anything on Motley Fool or monevator, anything in the personal finance sections of respectable papers, and even the personal finance sections of tabloid papers), you would see that nobody who wants to make money from their investments is starting by choosing a platform.

I can't work out which is the best platform for making regular (monthly) investments. Let's say I want to put anywhere between £250 and £1,250 a month into a stocks & shares ISA. It looks like I'm better off with Cavendish's 0.25% fee (maximum £37.50 for the first year) rather than iWeb's fee of £5 per trade (£60 a year + £25 charge); but in subsequent years I might have to switch.

Ease of use is important too. Are there any providers where I can set up a standing order, and have it automatically invested in a specific fund or share? iWeb used to offer this for just £1.50 a month, but they stopped, citing "low demand".

Interactive Investor still do £1.50 monthly trades. Platform fee is £80, but you do get that back in free trading credit.

Thank you for the feedback above folks.

We've done our best to meet the constant demand from users for an article on this subject.

As you'll note this is what we call a 'first incarnation' article - and we always welcome your thoughts as on an expansive piece like this people don't necessarily read it the way we intend it to be read. So we have to tweak it to try and reflect that.

I'm actually off work this week, but was involved in the planning and angles we chose to take before I went, though not the final draft.

We're constantly tweaking this and improving it, and your feedback where appropriate will be incorporated. I have a meeting next week, as I normally do with new guides, when back to review the guide again looking at feedback as well as data analysis of the article use itself (plus as I didnt edit this personally, my take on it) as we aim to hone and improve it.

It's not easy writing a guide like this, and I think the team have done a great job. The difficulty is it must be aimed both first time investors who haven't a clue where to start, and more experienced investors who just want to know the cheapest place to do it. More difficult is the fact that our focus is on platforms not funds as we don't aim to become an investment choice site.

One thing I would note is that a few of the criticisms above seem to have missed where we say exactly what you're saying "we should say". Eg we already have a full Junior ISA guide. We have a SIPP guide. Yet we segment articles on the subject - this is only a 'stocks and shares ISA' guide for adults.

The point about cash ISAs v shares was for those who wanted to do both talking which is more favourable for tax in different circumtances, that obviously didn't come across, so I've asked the team to look at tweaking the text to make it more clear.

The team have done very detailed research and number crunching into different scenarios to pick these providers. As always we first do the research, pick the top providers, then go seee if the top providers had affiliate links, in this case most did - if they hadn't we would've still linked and written in the same way (its worth noting in this sector, virtually all proividers have affiliate programmes, so the vast majority of those we didn't pick have them too).

Anyway back to the main point, hopefully over the next few weeks (then months, then years) you'll see the article iteratively improve and help more people - and your feedback will have been a valuable part of that so thank you.

Martin

PS Sorry if this is scrappily written, I've bashed it out quickly while Mrs MSE isn't looking - as Im meant to be going work Cold Turkey!

Wrong here, CS have punishing charges if you do not deal regularly i.e. 6 time in 6 months. You cannot buy & forget, but have to choose between unwanted trades or high charges and if you inadvertently only make 5 trades then you pay BOTH!

I agree with this, that it is a good guide (there is another pretty good overview on thisismoney but it is the nittygritty, which the guides can't possibly cover, that is hard to find out. Remember too that these schemes were worked out quickly, and inspired by a marketing person, so headline counts more than detail. I had queries on fees, penalties and incentiveswith TDW, interactive, youinvest, and iWeb and found it easiest just to ring them up.
Use the guides to get an idea of a couple of providers , then think what do I want to invest in and in what timescales, then think is an isa useful for this, or is it not worth the hassle and constraints and costs, especially if you are a basic rate taxpayer (it usually isn't - see Teresalia comment on this is money)and then look into the detail.

More specific providers to look at to start with: if you want to invest in a spread of funds with a smallish total £, then start with a %pa provider such as cavendish online ( for LSE listed shares (including London-listed ETFs and I.Ts covering abroad, and expecting several trades per year, look at commission rates, so start with x-o and iWeb. For the occasional New York listed stock or ETF, you can get that with iWeb. For the above shares (not funds) with infrequent trading, try interactiveinvestor, for a mix of LSE and NY listed shares, but mixed with some funds too, and try also interactiveinvestor. The frequent trader options are mentioned in the guide. For the thought-free, start with fundsmith, which is a single simple fund with an isa wrapper possible.
Also if you want a spread of providers, later, you need to keep your providers separate now, as you won't usually be able to split up a provider later.
The key thing we don't know is the interest rate on cash in a stocks and shares isa that inevitably the providers will need to offer after July,and if they will alter account transfer out charges later.

Sounds like a typical "shoot - ready - fire - aim" approach to me

I would wholly disagree that an S&S ISA isn't "usually" worth it if you have decided to invest. As has been discussed, just alone the avoidance of the need for detailed record keeping over several years for tax purposes is a massive benefit.

Apart from that, the tax shelter costs nothing extra (if you choose the right provider) but can be a massive advantage a few years or decades down the line, when some people might find themselves in higher rate tax brackets. And particularly now that it is possible to transfer from S&S to cash.

This would really only be a potential issue because the costs might be prohibitive, and/or in specie transfers might not be possible if you chose some exotic investment. A huge range of mainstream investments is available on all good platforms. If a provider doesn't offer the mainstream investments, that should perhaps be a very good reason to avoid them in the first instance.

I think a lot of people underestimate their chances of exceeding the CTG limit. With the maximum yearly investment in a ISA at around £15,000 from July, and the CTG limit still at around £10k, it only requires a 66% rise in value for CTG to become a consideration. In a period when the market is rising (say over the last 3-5 years ) that's far from unlikely even for mainstream FTSE 100 companies - some have tripled or quadrupled in value over the last few years.

http://www.hl.co.uk/shares/stock-market-summary/ftse-100/performance

My concern with the article is the statement that only higher rate tax payers gain from the benefits of receiving dividends in an ISA. This might be true for many but not if one also receives tax credits. Admittedly, those saving in stocks and shares and receiving tax credits may be relatively small, but if one is on a low to medium income with a family but have a high level of savings (from inheritance in my case), then receiving dividends in an ISA makes a huge difference as one does not have to declare income from an ISA for the purpose of tax credits. Considering the taper on tax credits is 41%, this means that as a basic rate tax payer I effectively lose 51% of any dividend outside an ISA but only 10% in an ISA. I have therefore made an effort to move as much of my income generating investments into an ISA.

Yes for you the convenience outweighs the cost and constraints, but I suspect you are unusual for a basic rate payer. An IFA should normally say not to bother unless trying to avoid CGT for a lump sum (e.g. for house purchase and need to sell investments all at once instead of sell yearly in chunks
interested in tax credit teatment of isa divis, as I thought assessment took into account all income. If true then yes, could be a big consideration for basic rate taxpayer.

Yes, though t's not "now", it's July, so why not wait til then, so no costs incurred until then, and the providers revamp their offering perhaps?

if you eventually want a provider who is good/cheapest for shares and and a provider good/cheapest for a small amount of money in funds and a provider for a large amount of money in funds and a provider who is good/cheapest for frequent share trading, this might not be the same provider, so you need to keep your isa pots separate, as you usually can't unravel a single isa. There might also be a good isa offering in the future, and you think I'd like to try that with a little of my isa money but not all.

A few people have stated as absolute that the only way to invest in funds is via a platform. That it is not possible to invest via the fund manager directly.
This is not true.
For many years I've invested into index trackers with Legal and general directly. I have only gone with platforms for active managed funds as the platform reduced the initial and annual management fees and hence it was cheaper to invest via the platform.
From my reading of the fees, it is better for people to invest in two of the funds listed (The L&G UK Index and the L&G US Index) directly with L&G themselves. It certainly was in comparison with investing via H&L as H&L gave no reduction in the AMCs (there are no initial fees) and added their own platform fee on top.
So am I right in that in this case (L&G) the charges are lower going directly? In which case why would anyone use a platform for these funds?