Citywire for Financial Professionals
Stay connected:

View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/money/article/a732320

Hargreaves Lansdown abandons trust charge

Investor outrage forces fund supermarket to withdraw its proposed fee on investment trusts. Its share plunge 10%.

 
Hargreaves Lansdown abandons trust charge

(Update) Hargreaves Lansdown will not proceed with the platform charge for investment trusts it announced last month.

The operator of Vantage, the country's largest fund supermarket, sparked protests from investment trust holders with its plan to charge them a separate annual fee from 1 March.

Investors complained that if they held investment trusts alongside shares or exchange traded funds (ETFs) they could face a trebling in their charges, in some cases.

As anger mounted on online investor forums there was even the suggestion of taking Hargreaves Lansdown to the small claims court.

However, the threat of a customer exodus to rivals who were not introducing an explicit investment trust holding fee is more likely to have prompted the u-turn.

In the City Hargreaves Lansdown (HRGV.L) shares plunged 10% to £13.48 as investors took fright at the sign that the company's repricing was going wrong.

Hargreaves' retreat means that from 1 March there will, as previously, be no charge for holding any shares, investment trusts, bonds, gilts or ETFs or venture capital in the Vantage Fund & Share Account. 

In its ISA, however, there will be a single annual charge covering these investments of 0.45% capped at £45 per year. 

Similarly, holding these investments in the Vantage Sipp will also cost 0.45% although capped at £200 per year.

Because investment trusts are not being charged separately, individuals holding a mix of investment types on Vantage will not pay more.

In fact investors of these assets will be better off as previously the annual charge was 0.5% a year.

Ian Gorham (pictured), Hargreaves Lansdown chief executive, said: 'We have always listened to clients and designed our service around what they want. It is clear that this particular aspect of our pricing change has been disliked. I believe it is therefore the right thing to do to revert to a charging structure that clients are happy with. Clients who hold investment trusts through Hargreaves Lansdown will therefore be better off than previously proposed.'

Despite the blunder Hargreaves Lansdown said it would continue with plans to improve its service to investment trust holders, with a new section of the site devoted to investment trusts and improved data on their fact sheets from next month.

It will also proceed with a 0.5% loyalty bonus for investors in the Fidelity China Special Situations (FCSS ) investment trust, which it heavily promoted at its launch three years ago.

Ian Sayers, director general of the Association of Investment Companies, which represents investment trusts, said: 'Whilst investment trusts are held in much the same way as funds, they are shares which are traded just like any other. We are very pleased that investors can now continue to hold both investment trusts and other shares in a cost-effective way.'

Hargreaves Lansdown said investment trusts had been 'one of the most challenging' aspects of its recent repricing.

Like other investment platforms Hargreaves Lansdown has been banned from receiving commission payments from fund management groups and has had to charge its customers new fees to make up the shortfall.

As market leader, the company has enjoyed high profit margins generally regarded as unsustainable now that the cost of investing of fund supermarkets and execution-only platforms becomes clearer. Its shares were also one of the biggest risers last year leaving scope for profit taking. First half results for the six months to the end December released today were strong, howver, with £13 billion of new mone from investors and profits 11% higher at £104.1 million

Because customers with investment trusts did not trade them as actively as they did shares the company had felt it a separate fee was justified.

Although it has now changed its mind, the company said its other price changes had been well received by customers. These will see holders of unit trusts and open-ended investment companies pay a new annual service charge starting at 0.45% per account. When new lower clean fund charges are taken into account, most customers will pay less than they did before, it said.

But Mark Polson of fund supermarket consultant Lang Cat said Hargreaves Lansdown had two more 'key issues' to resolve. 'Those are exit fees and the rather silly discount model which is based on assets held per account rather than overall assets held.'

On exit fees Hargreves Lansdown is raising a flat £75 charge for transferring to another Sipp provider to a new fee of £25 per stock, which greatly increases the potential costs to investors. The new charge applies from 2 June.

Unlike Fidelity and other rivals Hargreaves Lansdown applies its platform charge to each account (eg, ISA, Sipp, general account) rather than to the overall value of investments a customer holds on Vantage.

Polson added: 'If they can reverse those decisions too then they really will have demonstrated they have listened to their customers and are acting in their best interests.'

Hargreaves Lansdown said it had no plans to make further changes to its tariffs but would continue to listen to customer feedback.

63 comments so far. Why not have your say?

William Phillips

Feb 05, 2014 at 10:58

Good climbdown. Customer power!

Anything that gets more PIs to look at solid old trusts instead of awful, gimmicky, shapeshifting open-endeds and the sinister, seething unregulated twilight of the Exchange Traded Fund.

HL has also announced an 11% increase in its interim dividend this morning, so it isn't exactly starving.

report this

gggggg hjhjkl;'

Feb 05, 2014 at 10:59

A victory for customer power, as well as common sense!!

report this

Redundant (Old Timer?)

Feb 05, 2014 at 11:25

Great news, Maybe I will stay with them.

report this

Mystery X

Feb 05, 2014 at 11:26

I understand HL charges £25 per share / per IT / per Fund on transfer to another provider. I thought this was being introduced from March but I am now told that this charge has existed for sometime. The charge is also applied if cash is transferred to another provider. Why one would do that rather than transferring it via your bank account is beyond me. Don't you think this is outrageous and can we do some thing through the FCA.

report this

alan thorburn

Feb 05, 2014 at 11:36

Mystery X, what if cash is in an ISA ? Withdraw to transfer to another provider and you have lost that amount from current year ISA subscription. Transfer in an ISA and you have not.

report this

colin fellowes

Feb 05, 2014 at 11:44

Why only in the fund and share account ? I hold mine in my ISA and will still be penalised. Unfair Hargreaves. I'm still leaving.

report this

Redundant (Old Timer?)

Feb 05, 2014 at 12:06

CF - my reading of the HL email is that ISA's are not penalised, i.e. one charge for shares/ITs/ Bonds etc of 0.45% capped at £45.

report this

Broomtree

Feb 05, 2014 at 12:33

Great news and fair dues that they listened to clients concerns. CF you have misread - ISA max charge now £45 for holding shares and IT's [instead of £90] SIPP max charge now £200 for shares and IT's [instead of £400] and at long last they are going to improve IT database for research - I am happy we now seem to listening to each other, bodes well going forwards

report this

Mystery X

Feb 05, 2014 at 12:46

Alan - Many thanks. A very good point and reminder. Clever HL to put a £25 charge to transfer cash to another provider.

CF - careful - Broomtree and Redundant are both right.

report this

TJLamb

Feb 05, 2014 at 13:19

Whatever else, I'm impressed that they have been big enough to climb down.

report this

Spartacus

Feb 05, 2014 at 13:19

HL would have lost even more in the long term had they persisted with the silly charges on IT's...

report this

sloccy123

Feb 05, 2014 at 13:23

I have my SIPP ,ISA & Vantage share account with HL & will be sticking with them.In which case,transfer fees are irrelevant. Anyway, their customer service is excellent & their website brilliant-plus- the charges overall are reasonable.

report this

DIY

Feb 05, 2014 at 13:43

Agree with TJ Lamb. Great to see customer power working. And HL deserve congratulations at making the change.

report this

colin fellowes

Feb 05, 2014 at 14:45

Thanks to Old timer and mystery x for pointing out my error. Maybe I'll reassess. Cheers.

report this

colin fellowes

Feb 05, 2014 at 14:57

Sorry, should have thanked Broomtree as well !

I need to read things more carefully obviously. Good investing to all. Regards.

report this

Roger Lawson

Feb 05, 2014 at 17:01

Definitely a victory for common sense re the investment trust charge. Pity that the charges for corporate actions and voting are still in place. But just had a letter from the CEO which includes reference to "engaging" on the voting issue which I will follow up.

Roger Lawson, ShareSoc

report this

Robert Rutherford

Feb 05, 2014 at 17:07

@DIY

"HL deserve congratulations for making the change..." really? I don't think so - they tried it on and rightly got beaten up. This is a greedy management and I doubt whether they have learned much of a lesson.

I also wonder to what extent they got some regulatory pressure telling them not to be so bloody stupid?!

report this

uhm

Feb 05, 2014 at 17:28

H-L are too expensive for "larger" portfolios of tracker funds such as Vanguard Life Strategy. Before the new prices it was £24 fixed fee per year per fund, now it's 0.45% which is a huge jump

report this

James Piercy

Feb 05, 2014 at 17:45

However, I do note that their drawdown charges are lower than those of some of their competitors.

report this

Gleaner

Feb 05, 2014 at 17:46

I cashed in my funds in my HL ISA, switched my years allowance to X-O.

I bought a couple of IT's, a few shares and a couple of ETF's I'd had my eye on. Total cost 6 x £5.95p, on-going costs nil.

Mrs Gleaner has kept her HL ISA, but sold the IT and a couple of shares she had and put the proceeds into funds. She has a couple of years contributions, so doesn't want to lose the allowance by selling out. But is keeping a close eye on charges.

I wondered if other HL'ers had been re-aligning their portfolio's and it registered in the HL boardroom.

Gleaner

report this

BazzaH

Feb 05, 2014 at 18:07

@ uhm yes Vanguard do have a platform fee of £2 per month, although the charge is going upto 0.45% the AMC (annual management charge) that Vanguard charges should come down, so that should be reduced. On trackers which have low charges you may have a point.

I think its a good move by HL they may have lost many customers and if its just over £45 it hardly worth, not sure why HL shares have gone down so much looks like they are over sold to me.

report this

BazzaH

Feb 05, 2014 at 18:09

@ Gleaner the problem with funds is the fees are not capped so if you have £100,000 you will pay £450 pa but if in shares and/or ITs only £45 pa.

report this

Alan Jay

Feb 05, 2014 at 18:19

Let's not forget some of the other unjustifiable charges that H-L have introduced. Don't they remind you of a certain Irishman who has had to take a back seat because of the negative effect his ideas on "fair" charging had on the profitability of his company? The level of charges for transferring cash, closing the account, producing valuations for probate etc only go to reinforce the culture of greed that exists within this company.

report this

TeaJay

Feb 05, 2014 at 19:04

I'm still in two minds, given the raft of charges they have introduced which, unlike the IT charge, can't be avoided. As to service, I have noted a definite falling off since the 'Royal Mail' shambles, the 'phones take longer to answer, e-mail can take a week to be acted on and a transfer in of an ISA started in October took a very long time to complete. The time taken may well have been down to the original provider but I was not kept updated about delays, as in the past.

I may be over-sensitive, but Gorman and a number of the longer serving 'talking heads' look awfully sleek and self satisfied these days.

report this

mo khan

Feb 05, 2014 at 19:18

Perhaps HL apologist’s would like to continue to pay whatever the whim of sales & marketing of HL wanted.. i.e when all else fails, skin the clients..

HL business depends on doing the bidding of clients and not their sales merchants, it is upto HL to find ways to keep expenditure down and not merely to pass it on. Sometimes they are apt to forget this.

Except for sleeping ones, Clients have choices as HL is learning.

I am amazed that clients are charged and pay for corporate action and voting right charges...

Where is all that justification and platitude’s offered by their advocates and unpaid spokes persons for HL now.... all evaporated….

So much for the expertise knowledge? When HL starts to waggling the dog.

Was this adventurism ever thought through.....?

report this

TJL

Feb 05, 2014 at 19:30

Absorbing the information available, I am now starting to see this as a huge PR gaff/damage limitation exercise by HL.

How the hell didn't the billionaires and millionaires at the top of HL see this coming?

This is potentially an even bigger defining moment for HL than I thought their response to RDR would be.

report this

ynys

Feb 05, 2014 at 19:43

I think Polson has missed a trick (not BazzaH though).

What these RDR changes have really done is allow investors to see more clearly how much of there money actually goes into purchasing shares and how much of the possible dividend income they receive. BUT surely one glaring anomaly is apparent: if you have a 100,000 gbp ISA, for instance, if it is made up of shares, it will cost you 45 gbp per annum and will not exceed this no matter how many more shares you buy. But if it holds funds it will cost you 450 gbp and this cost will go on rising as you purchase more shares. A huge imbalance and, for me, an unacceptable imbalance whem alternatives exist.

report this

sgjhaghsdg

Feb 05, 2014 at 19:47

I may (just may) now leave my wife's portfolio of unwrapped ITs with HL, but TBH it's touch and go as there are a raft of new charges beyond the redacted IT one.

However, our ISAs and her SIPP will definitely be moving as they've unilaterally increased charges from "reasonable" to "exorbitant" for holding a simple tracker portfolio.

Hats off to BestInvest who have kept (grandfathered) their Custody Fee for holding shares and have even advised us to switch from trackers to ETFs.

report this

Alan Jay

Feb 05, 2014 at 20:26

I suspect that Mr Gorham won't be too worried about the future because, on 16 September 2013 he paid £2,048,800 for 500,000 shares and sold 425,000 of them for £4,330,749 on the same day. He then followed this up by buying 800,000 shares for £3,665,840 on 18 November 2013, and then selling 715,000 shares for £8,429,850, again on the same day. The Digital Look website reports that he also sold 192,372 shares for £1,633,719 in April of the same year. Doesn't it give you confidence when you see this sort of commitment from the CEO? Billionaire Mr Lansdown has already moved on and it does look as if Billionaire Mr Hargreaves is withdrawing from the business going by his lack of presence on the web site

report this

Fellow philanthropist

Feb 05, 2014 at 21:45

Hmm well Saint Peter still holds £150 Million HL shares to be fair! I agree though the amount of trades placed by HL directors in past year is telling....£75million sold.....how much bought......a whopping £30k bought by a non exec. No other trades. The bosses clearly know they are sitting on a cash cow they need to milk quickly before the jig is up!

report this

snoekie

Feb 05, 2014 at 21:55

I still won't be able to use them, as my SIPP shares are certificated, and they insist shares have to be in Crest, the next charge to be made a couple of times a year, Money for old rope as I don't often change shares.

report this

Nick-

Feb 05, 2014 at 23:28

Greed is good!!!

The owners are billionaires, but it is not enough for them.

All their clients should leave for good.

report this

Sinic

Feb 05, 2014 at 23:53

In the fifteen years I have used Hargreaves Lansdown they have never provided anything other than exemplary service. I think that they are an outstanding company;I wasn't going to leave them before and certainly won't now. They got to being the biggest in the business by being the best!

report this

sgjhaghsdg

Feb 06, 2014 at 09:12

When it comes to investing, my primary goal is to maximise my return. While there are many factors that influence this, the main ones is fees.

Hargreaves Lansdown can send me as many glossy brochures as they like, and peddle their Wealth 150 to their hearts' content, but if their fees are too high, I will leave to improve my retirement situation.

As it happens, I also use BestInvest and find them far more response and polite. They have also stood by existing clients on the issue of fees and have offered a very good deal. They will therefore get more business from me at the expense of HL.

report this

sloccy123

Feb 06, 2014 at 09:20

Well,most of my investments are in shares,so the wealth 150 is not that relevant- anyway,you don't have to read it! As far as i am concerned HL are an excellent company & their customer service is exceptional. In addition,their trading platform/website is also very good. I believe in loyalty & i am sticking with them. Their charges are reasonable & you generally get what you pay for.

report this

uhm

Feb 06, 2014 at 10:05

@BazzaH -

I like Vanguard Life Strategy funds and have a large chunk of my SIPPs and ISAs in those funds - they're ready made, tracking error is one of the lowest, run by a huge experienced management company, rebalancing is done for you, income is re-invested and above all - they are cheap! (Well, they were before H-L hiked their prices up.) Why stress over selecting shares? - though I still do!

I can't find all that in any one ETF and with the increase in H-L's charges my only option is to leave them and take the Vanguard funds to Interactive Investor, who charge £144 a year fixed fee if you have both a SIPP and ISA with them.

I just hope they handle the transfers without too much grief! I'll keep you posted

report this

BazzaH

Feb 06, 2014 at 10:24

@uhm fair enough, my experience of Vanguard is slightly different, the fund I had was my worst performing last year, lost about 6%, also I was getting hit with £2 fee pm which on a small holding was quite a lot, certainly more than 0.45%. I did look at the fund you are in and it does not seem to perform that well, yes fees maybe low but its overall that counts, some managed funds have produced 40% gains pa in the last 2 years, also over 200% over 5 years, look at the top UK small co funds, like Cazenove, Marlborough and Standard Life.

report this

DRM

Feb 06, 2014 at 10:30

0.45% for funds is still there and far too high. A nominee service for funds that one picks for oneself is just a utility - HL's extra services, which have to be paid for are superfluous as far as I am concerned. When holding for long term lowest possible charges are key. HL's 'service' is liked by many but the service provided by all the other major players is also much more than adequate and perfectly good enough. With the economies of scale that HL can bring to bear, charges should be much much lower. Are HL prioritising interests of shareholders over clients ? - perhaps it's no coincidence that I made more money on my HL shares, now sold, than I paid them in fees !

report this

David Huntley

Feb 06, 2014 at 10:43

Annual charge for looking after £100,000 ISA:

Managed funds £450,

Trackers were £24 pa each, now £450.

Inv. Trusts and ETFs £45 total (+ dealing chg)

Conclusion: Sell funds, buy and hold Investment Trusts

report this

BazzaH

Feb 06, 2014 at 11:10

0.45% is too high but if AMC come down as promised then maybe cheaper than before as HL suggest? Depends what AMC the others have? My concern is the funds outside the HL 150 will have higher charges than those within, you will have to wait and see. I would not go jumping the gun, as moving can be expensive.

@ David Huntley, it not just trackers that had £24 fees and also some trackers do have an AMC as well, althougth it is lower but still not 0% on all of them.

report this

Gavin Lumsden (Citywire)

Feb 06, 2014 at 11:54

Well done everyone for shouting out about this and getting HL to change their mind. It is good that HL listened, just a shame they messed up in the first place.

report this

DRM

Feb 06, 2014 at 12:12

I would not want to be restricted to a narrow range of funds for with HL have negotiated lower AMC. Even HL specific superclean units at 0.55% (I don't expect there will be many of these !) +0.45 % are not cheaper than standard clean units of 0.75% + 0.25% or less from other platforms. Add to this the incovenience that HL superclean units will not be easily transferrable to other platforms and dont forget HL's exit charges. With standard clean units one can move between platforms to get lowest platform charge / exit charge as needed so best to get out before HL convert some of one's holding to superclean !

report this

Mystery X

Feb 06, 2014 at 12:19

David Huntley & Others

There is a point which I think everyone is missing or perhaps I am.

ITs have a charge (without HL's crazy 0.45% pa) and have always had of some 1% pa and Funds used to be between 1.5% to 1.8%. Now some Funds will be less than 1% or very marginally more. Therefore what is the point of holding ITs anymore. This is why it was dropped - also complaints from us and IT companies.re. The HL charge of 0.45% before it was dropped would have made ITs more expensive than Funds.

Your thoughts please.

report this

uhm

Feb 06, 2014 at 12:30

@BazzaH

That's into the realm of tracker vs active investing. In the past I invested in some actively managed funds that did extremely well for a couple of years or so but then plummeted (I'm still holding on to a couple now, in vain hope).

It made me realise that there are sectors of the market that come into vogue and do really well for a while, but like all fashions they eventually peter out. I came to the conclusion that if you're investing for retirement (which is over 10 years away in my case) then you're better off being in ALL sectors of the market, plus bonds and property too. I do agree however that if you know what's in and invest actively in that whilst it is in vogue, then you will do much better during that time.

But if you decide to take the passive route - and some hedge fund managers advocate that as the best way for most of us - then then you immediately lose one of the main advantages in doing so if you stay with H-L.

report this

BazzaH

Feb 06, 2014 at 12:50

@ uhm that is partly true but trackers will also fall if the market falls. I just looked at Cazenove UK Small cos and you are correct over the last 10 years it did not do anything over the 1st 5, went up 4%, however the FTSE small cap went down 30%, over 10 years the Cazenove fund is up 398% and FTSE SC is up 115%. Yes timely is vital with all investments.

report this

sandy

Feb 06, 2014 at 13:10

H-L's backtracking on this matter leaves me wondering about what it says concerning power ,within the relationship between the investorate and providers such as H-L.

At first glance,it suggests to me that some power may have shifted,for the first time in my investing lifetime,from providers to investors.

It makes one wonder also,what influence we might be able to exert on those to whom we entrust our hard-earned,if we banded together in an investors association able to bring pressure on H-L or,indeed,the full range of providers.

Any thoughts?

report this

Alan Jay

Feb 06, 2014 at 13:42

Mystery X:

OEICs will continue to have an annual management charge as well as the charge from HL. Investment Trusts will only have an annual management charge following HL's u-turn.

Other plus point to bear in mind are:

1) The very nature of open ended funds whereby, when you invest, the manager has to go into the market to buy the relevant shares for the particular fund and conversely he has to sell investment when you sell. This can affect the price.

2) Investment Trusts are quoted on the stock market so you always know what they are worth and you can sell your shares with the minimum delay. With funds you tell the broker you want to sell and, if your lucky you find out how much you've got for them on the following day.

report this

William Phillips

Feb 06, 2014 at 14:06

Investment trusts are run by boards of non-executive directors on relatively modest fees which can, and often do, sack the professional management. IT shareholders who have not signed their rights away in nominee holdings can in turn hold the board to account, as in any other quoted company.

ITs are additionally bound by a framework of English and Scottish law and precedent which has been evolving for 150 years.

Unit trusts, OEICs, ETFs and the like are a law unto themselves, often domiciled abroad.The ETF industry has mushroomed since the last financial crisis and not yet been through the fire of a bear market. Many of the fancier ones' procedures are opaque, not yet tested in a panic.

The IT industry's only bad scandal since it began in the 1860s was the mis-selling of split trusts in the 1990s, which affected only a minority.

Open-ended funds have been racked by scandal since they evolved out of the old fixed trusts and began to be mass-marketed in the 1960s. The system of kickbacks to 'independent' financial advisers such as HL is an institutional expression of the grey-area sleaze which hangs around this gimmick-ridden business.

In the Eighties the largest unit trust manager, Save & Prosper, was known in the City as 'you save, we prosper'. The spirit of those more carefree days lives on.

report this

Mystery X

Feb 06, 2014 at 14:20

Alan & William

Many thanks. Besides the pros and cons the total cost of ITs and funds will now be more or less the same under HL..

report this

Mark R - IFA

Feb 06, 2014 at 15:28

William Phillips - Brilliant comment, couldnt agree more! Quite like ETF structure actually but unit trust/OEICS are the biggest misselling scandal in financial services to not yet be called as such. An industry built to hoodwink investors and extract £ from them to wealthy fund managers. How people are willing to face a 1.5% hurdle rate on their investments is beyond me. Most diy invesotrs with a brain and the internet can do better and without paying someone else

report this

snoekie

Feb 06, 2014 at 16:01

I repeat what I have said before. This a bit of govt interference, and because of their legislation SIPP holders have to have the likes of HL.

That allows the likes of HL to rip off pensioners, increases employment of seat polishers, earns VAT for the govt, and income tax as well. It is totally unnecessary because the fact that people saved for their retirement also means that they are not going to blow the lot in one go, but will plan carefully how to manage their money.

I repeat because of the legislation, the likes of HL can SIPP holder to ransom on charges, and oh boy do they milk it.

report this

D B

Feb 06, 2014 at 21:04

The changes appear to reverse HL's charging structure,

- They propose to levy 0.45% for holding funds in either an ISA or ordinary investment A/C with no cap,

- yet holding shares, IT’s, bonds etc in an ordinary investment A/C has no ongoing charges

- but holding shares, IT’s, bonds etc in an ISA, will have a 0.45% charge but capped at £45

- so the conventional wisdom of having your Funds in HL but shares elsewhere no longer applies.

- It is now a bad place to hold Funds, but an acceptable place to hold Shares etc.

- So I’ve finally realised the reason for HL trying to charge 0.45% on IT’s (just rescinded), they were trying to stop switching of all Funds into the equivalent IT. Which I now plan to do!

- ISA’s I can start straight away, but Cap Gain rules will delay the Investment A/C moves. Will look at switching charges to another platform.

- HL do offer agreat service, but regrettably they have priceded themselves out of the Fund Mkt for me.

report this

BazzaH

Feb 06, 2014 at 21:38

Thats if you can find the equivalent IT, I have drawn a blank with most of mine, HL only has 400 ITs but probably quite a few more funds. ANyway most of my funds don't seem to have an equivalent IT.

report this

sgjhaghsdg

Feb 06, 2014 at 21:52

HL are now doing "confidential" deals to retain customers. Rather than 0.45% they are offering 0.25% or even 0.2%.

They seem to be making it up as they go along.

report this

ynys

Feb 06, 2014 at 22:22

'HL are now doing "confidential" deals . . . ?

Any links?

report this

Alan Jay

Feb 06, 2014 at 23:58

BazzaH, are you referring to the number of ITs that HL offers research on? You can buy any quoted IT through their web site. Go to www.theaic.co.uk to see every UK IT that is available. I'm sure that this will help you in your decision making.

report this

gggggg hjhjkl;'

Feb 07, 2014 at 00:32

'HL are now doing "confidential" deals . . . ?

Yes sgjhaghsdg, where has this come from.

If they are then I want some!!!

report this

sgjhaghsdg

Feb 07, 2014 at 08:18

See this message and others in the thread.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64619700&postcount=226

If the link doesn't work, then this is in -

MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > Pure Money > Savings & Investments > Leaving HL without transfer charges

There is also a poll here -

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4889890

This lets people anonymously indicate what special rates they have been offered.

report this

BazzaH

Feb 07, 2014 at 08:20

@ Alan, yes I am because these are in an ISA. ITs also have fees often around 1%, they also have spreads of of 1%-2%.

report this

BazzaH

Feb 07, 2014 at 08:49

@ ALan, I had a look at your website but still many management companies are not listed, Legg Mason, Cazenove, Old Mutual and Marlborough. Threadneedle are there but only 1 UK IT, no European?

report this

ynys

Feb 07, 2014 at 23:55

sgjhaghsdg

Thanks

This seem to be a sweetener aimed at very large portfolio though

report this

RippedOff

Feb 09, 2014 at 16:32

HL have previously got away with more than they have just returned. I still wouldn't touch them with a bargepole i.e. go back to them.

report this

uhm

Feb 13, 2014 at 10:05

Does anyone have experience of using Interactive Investor? What are they like to deal with and would you transfer to them?

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

News sponsored by:

The Citywire guide to investment trusts

In association with Aberdeen Asset Management

Fund managers from Standard Life Investments quizzed on investment trusts


What can SLI bring to the table for those who want to put their money into investment trusts?

More about this:

Look up the shares

  • Hargreaves Lansdown PLC (HRGV.L)
    Register or Sign in to receive email alerts for items in your favourites whenever we write about them

Look up the investment trusts

  • Fidelity China Special (Ordinary Share)
    Register or Sign in to receive email alerts for items in your favourites whenever we write about them

More from us

Archive

Today's articles

Tools from Citywire Money

From the Forums

+ Start a new discussion

Weekly email from The Lolly

Get simple, easy ways to make more from your money. Just enter your email address below

An error occured while subscribing your email. Please try again later.

Thank you for registering for your weekly newsletter from The Lolly.

Keep an eye out for us in your inbox, and please add noreply@emails.citywire.co.uk to your safe senders list so we don't get junked.

Read more...

Markets surge as Japan delivers shock QE boost

by Daniel Grote on Oct 31, 2014 at 09:58

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet