My old workplace DC pension has been closed, the new one has very poor fund choice, so I’m looking at moving my old pot to a SIPP.

MSE suggests Interactive Investor for pots over £100k – mine is £250k. Any experiences/ other suggestions?

II is cheap in terms of platform fees, but the fund fees are expensive, so overall it works out the same as HL and the others.

I’d recommend HL or Tilney Best Invest.

If you pick a fund they generate a cost fact sheet, most funds work out at 1% per annum fee, which is the same a HL (0.45% platform plus 0.55% annual fund fee with discount), whereas II is £120/year platform but 1%+ per annum fund fees…

I use Interactive Investor. Cheap and cheerful, suits me because I don’t trade much.  You get what you pay for.  You’ll find this useful:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/sipps/in-tables-the-cheapest-sipp-firms–whether-youre-investing-5000/

I use Interactive Investor. Cheap and cheerful,

Only it’s not actually much cheaper ….

The wrapper is dirt cheap, but the fund purchase fees and annual mgmt fees are the same and in some cases higher than HL etc (does depend on what you’re buying).

E.g. Scottish Mortgage Trust

II Annualised charges for year 1  = 1.39%

HL Annualised charges for year 1 = 1.43%

So, not a lot of difference between supposedly the most expensive platform (HL) and the cheapest (II)…..

I have an ISA and SIPP with III. I never pay for trades as I get 3 trade credits each qtr which is enough. The SIPP is fixed cost around £100 pa which is preferable to being % based for me.

I have an ISA and SIPP with III. I never pay for trades as I get 3 trade credits each qtr which is enough.

The trade fee is pretty irrelevant as it’s tiny compared to the sums in a SIPP / pension e.g. £15 / trade and the rate at which most people trade.

The SIPP is fixed cost around £100 pa which is preferable to being % based for me.

If you’re buying funds, then you still pay the % annual mgmt which varies a lot between platforms. Eg HL etc negotiate a 50% discount on most of them, II don’t. So the annual cost of holding managed funds works out the same.

Might be cheaper if you buy shares direct.

II make it harder to find out the true cost as you have to have an account and log in to get the fee breakdown, whereas HL show it up front to anyone. If you’re buying funds, worth comparing the breakdown as it varies by fund depending on what % discount they can get. HL gets the highest discounts, but has a higher flat fund fee (although it reduces the more you hold, so for large sums it will be 0.5% ish cheaper than II).

Everything you need to know http://monevator.com/compare-uk-cheapest-online-brokers/

The trade fee is pretty irrelevant as it’s tiny compared to the sums in a SIPP / pension e.g. £15 / trade and the rate at which most people trade.

Youve lost me. I only trade in my SIPP say every 6 weeks. I also only buy funds as oppose to individual shares. Maybe other platforms are cheaper if you trade a lot. The size of the SIPP is irrelevant regarding frequency or cost of trades?

I also only buy funds as oppose to individual shares. Maybe other platforms are cheaper if you trade a lot. The size of the SIPP is irrelevant regarding frequency or cost of trades?

OK, there are two different costs.

1. The platform cost (what II or HL charge you for the SIPP wrapper)

2. The fund costs (sometimes a one off % to buy and they all have an annual % charge).

II charges £120 /year for the platform (SIPP wrapper). HL charges 0.45% per annum for their platform.

So, on paper II looks way cheaper….

Except that when you buy into a fund the annual % mgmt fees differ….

Say the default annual fee is 1% (pretty average).

With II you pay £120 / year plus 1% of your fund holding in fees.

HL, being huge, will negotiate a discount of 50%, so the annual fund fee is 0.5%.

HL costs are 0.45% platform fee and 0.5% fund fee, ie 0.95% per annum overall.

Which is actually cheaper than II.

As every fund % annual mgmt fee is different under every platform, you have to go and compare each basket of funds on each platform – they all have to give you a breakdown of full costs for each fund, so all the data is there, see my example above for SMT where I grabbed both breakdowns from II and HL (copied below).

These figures are from their own cost breakdown sheets:

E.g. Scottish Mortgage Trust

II Annualised charges for year 1 = 1.39%

HL Annualised charges for year 1 = 1.43%

So, not a lot of difference between supposedly the most expensive platform (HL) and the cheapest (II)…..

There’s no way II can provide the platform for £120/year per client, so I assume they are getting a kick back from the fund ie part of the 1% mgmt fee goes to II to cover costs.

HL’s platform fee (0.45%) also decreases the more you hold (0% for £2m and above IIRC), which would make it much cheaper than II for large investments….

Cheers. I have funds directly on other platforms but I am reluctant to move them into 1 pot to take advantage of FSCS. How do you overcome this with a SIPP etc?

FSCS

I thought that was for cash holdings. Supposedly shares are OK as they aren’t considered an asset of the platform company, so should be OK if they were to liquidate. NB II is far more likely to fold than HL (who is a billion dollar cash positive monster running at approx 50% GM).

My SIPPs / ISAs are spread over multiple platforms as I don’t want all my nest eggs in one basket, it just costs be 0.2% more per annum for the peace of mind.

My main point was, II is no where near as cheap as everyone assumes and HL is no where near as expensive as everyone assumes – you have to go digging for the full fee breakdown for each fund on each platform and compare the real numbers for that investment.

why do you have multiple platforms ? is it to spread the risk?

I have little cash other than a couple of K sitting in my ISA pot that I could call on in an emergency if I had to wait to liquidise my ISA

I have a large part of my overall ISA pot with Fundsmith directly, I suspect I could reduce my annual charges moving it to III

why do you have multiple platforms ? is it to spread the risk?

Yes, risk of:

1. Platform doing a TSB and having an IT meltdown

2. Platform being hacked and money going missing

3. Me being hacked / password cracked and money going missing

In all cases you’d get it back eventually, but if I can only loose 25% in one hit, I’ll sleep better than having 100% of my pension in one platform.

“Yes, risk of:

1. Platform doing a TSB and having an IT meltdown

2. Platform being hacked and money going missing

3. Me being hacked / password cracked and money going missing

In all cases you’d get it back eventually, but if I can only loose 25% in one hit, I’ll sleep better than having 100% of my pension in one platform.”

+1, and ff is right about HL not being as expensive as it seems. I use iweb as well as HL and AJ Bell and Charles Stanley. iWeb despite touting themselves as a no platform fee platform will happily charge full wack on fund fees including entry and exit fees which can be 5% each!  HL have negotiated discounts with Fund houses which makes overall costs comparable to other “cheaper” platfoirms. Their facilities, features, variety of funds and ease of use make their platform a no brainer for me. If you’re buying foreign shares then few retail platforms offer such a variety of markets.

I just read my annual dc pot report and surprise surprise, negative total return and ongoing fixed fees.  It really boils my wee wee.

On the other hand i have a self managed pot that must have increased 10% after costs.

No wonder so many people have cashed in their pensions.  My friend always tells me he is q capable of losing his own money, he does not need any help.

I have a II sipp & have not been changed 1% on the total value. The only change has been the flat fee £80+vat. Just read all through the rates & charges & it makes no mention of a 1% value charge. I don’t have funds though, only trusts & shares.

@Footflaps… using SMT for your comparison is one-eyed, re-do it with Fundsmith and you get a very different result.  For a portfolio of any kind of size II is far cheaper than HL simply because of the flat £120 fee vs HL’s 0.45%, irrespective of whatever “discount” HL provides on the fund AMCs (which is very rarely anywhere near the 50% you mention for SMT).  And II chuck the ISA in for free if you have a SIPP.  HL are about as expensive as it gets – Peter Hargreaves is a billionaire for good reason.

I have a II sipp & have not been changed 1% on the total value.

With managed funds, you don’t see the mgmt charge; it’s taken from the pot each year and not listed as a deduction – you just get less gain or bigger losses depending on how well the fund has done.

I don’t have funds though, only trusts & shares.

With individual shares there isn’t a mgmt fee.

using SMT for your comparison is one-eyed, re-do it with Fundsmith and you get a very different result.  For a portfolio of any kind of size II is far cheaper than HL simply because of the flat £120 fee vs HL’s 0.45%, irrespective of whatever “discount” HL provides on the fund AMCs (which is very rarely anywhere near the 50% you mention for SMT).  And II chuck the ISA in for free if you have a SIPP.  HL are about as expensive as it gets – Peter Hargreaves is a billionaire for good reason.

As I said before, you need to look at your basket of funds and do the sums. I hold 15% of my pension in SMT, hence relevant to me…

IIRC some of the Legg Mason funds worked out more expensive in II than HL, so I didn’t put them in my II SIPP.

The 50% discount is quite common, quite a few of my holdings get that with HL.

It is a complete pain doing the comparisons as only HL give you the costs up front if you’re not logged in. All the others make you open an account and then log in, mainly because when you look at the numbers they are no where near as cheap as you expect….

For a portfolio of any kind of size II is far cheaper than HL simply because of the flat £120 fee vs HL’s 0.45%, irrespective of whatever “discount” HL provides on the fund AMCs (which is very rarely anywhere near the 50% you mention for SMT).

That’s simply not the case, if the mgmt fee difference is more than 0.45% then II is will be more expensive. You get a lot of variation between the platforms depending on what discount the platform can negotiate / how much kick back they get from the fund and every fund is different, hence no two baskets of funds behave the same between any two platforms….

In fact the AMC for SMT on HL is the same as anywhere else. because it’s an IT.  It’s not right to say that the total cost is similar for II & HL – it simply isn’t, they’re at opposite ends of the scale for all but a handful of funds.  The only funds discounted on HL are those in their execrable Wealth 150 list, most of which are uninvestable and picked by HL because they make a bigger margin on those selected rather than because they might be any good.

It’s not right to say that the total cost is similar for II & HL – it simply isn’t, they’re at opposite ends of the scale for all but a handful of funds.

For the funds I invest in, they are very close, to the point where I’m only using II to spread platform risk.

The only funds discounted on HL are those in their execrable Wealth 150 list, most of which are uninvestable and picked by HL because they make a bigger margin on those selected rather than because they might be any good.

Well the example I’ve used above, which seems to upset everyone, isn’t in their Wealth 150 list.

I really don’t get why people are upset with my example, all you have to do is log into each platform, get the cost breakdown sheet for each fund, compare them and then make an informed choice for yourself. Don’t just assume that HL is the most expensive and II is the cheapest.

In fact the AMC for SMT on HL is the same as anywhere else. because it’s an IT.

Log into II and HL and pull down the cost breakdown sheets and take a look. The percentages I quote above came from these. They work out 0.05% different per annum, which is in the noise.