Charles Stanley Direct Increase Platform Charges

Stockbroker Charles Stanley Direct are increasing their platform charges. Their platform fee will rise from 0.25% per annum to 0.35% per annum. That might sound a large increase but in practice many clients will not pay any more. The overall annual cap of £240 per annum remains on those holding shares rather than funds and even that disappears if you trade once per month. On funds the charge of 0.35% reduces on larger portfolios to as low as zero on those over £2 million. Transaction charges remain at £11.50 per trade on shares and zero on funds.

That’s a brief summary of the new charges, but as with any platform you need to work out exactly what you will pay based on the composition of your investments, the size of your portfolio and the frequency you trade.

It would appear that these changes will mainly impact the smaller investor and Charles Stanley put the reason for the change down to the need to maintain investment in the platform when they face complex and evolving changes. Mention is made of the need for more cyber security but all brokers have been hit by increasing regulation and the requirement to change their systems as a result.

As we saw from the results from The Share Centre last week, who reported a statutory loss of £280k for the half year, it’s not easy to make money in the “platform” business at present. Charles Stanley Direct lost money in the last full year also, although the rest of Charles Stanley made a profit. Only Hargreaves Lansdown, the gorilla in the market place, seem to be making real profits on their capital invested although it will be interesting to see the financial figures from A.J.Bell Youinvest if they go public soon as forecast.

Part of the problem is the exceptionally low interest rates brokers obtain on their holdings of client cash from which historically stockbrokers made a large proportion of their profits. Bank of England base rate increases will assist but they have been waiting a long time for that to improve and rates are not rising rapidly.

As I said before in my comments on the recent FRC Report on the Platforms Market, “informed investors can no doubt finesse their way through the complexities of the pricing structure and service levels of different platform operators. I can only encourage you to do so and if an operator increases their charges to your disadvantage then MOVE!”.

Incidentally my submission to the FRC on their Report is now present on my web site here: https://www.roliscon.com/Investment-Platforms-Market-Study.pdf

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Hargreaves Lansdown and Fund Charges

There was a good article published yesterday by Phil Oakley of Sharescope on Hargreaves Lansdown (HL). Why are they so profitable a business when, as Terry Smith said, they seem to be in essence a “distributor” operating in a highly competitive field with few barriers to entry? The answer, apart from their high-quality customer service, is the level of charges they make on investment in funds (unit trusts and OEICS, not investment trusts which are treated as shares).

Investors in SIPPs via HL might be paying several thousands of pounds per year on larger portfolios (e.g. £3,000 on £1m and more on larger amounts), when investors would only pay £200 for a similar portfolio in shares. Other platforms also charge more for funds, but are substantially cheaper even so.

Why do they charge so much more for funds than shares? Phil questioned whether there is any more administration as a result.

But you can see why HL and other platforms promote funds so aggressively rather than direct investment in shares or in investment trusts (and bear in mind that there are usually equivalent investment trusts for most OEICs, often even managed by the same managers).

HL seems to be a company that it is better to be an investor in than a customer. Customers are suffering from the syndrome of buying something that they are sold that is in the seller’s interests, rather than standing back and deciding what they want, who they wish to buy it from and what price they wish to pay. In other words, investors are not “shopping around” for the best deal.

For that reason when HL adopted their new platform charges, I closed my account and moved my SIPP portfolio elsewhere. But it’s not a thing to be done lightly as it takes a lot of time and hassle to do so as disgruntled customers of Barclays are finding out. An example of the FCA not ensuring there is a competitive market by guaranteeing rapid transfers as they should be doing.

Now many readers might say, but I don’t have a large portfolio – just a few tens of thousands in value. And I get the same high-quality service for relatively little money. Firstly you need to bear in mind that overall portfolio charges are a significant drag on investment returns. As your portfolio grows, the bigger the drag.

HL may be vulnerable to losing their larger customers, who are clearly the most profitable ones, to competitors who could cream off the big hitters by various marketing tactics. Having a number of different stockbroking accounts, in general I find the administration is fine and they seem to compete on price to a large extent rather than facilities or service. Their focus is on attracting new investors who wish to start investing rather than converting existing investors from other platforms. Perhaps it’s the difficulty of persuading clients to move their accounts that inhibits them and reduces the competitiveness of the market for stockbroking services.

HL might therefore be vulnerable to regulatory change if the FCA tacked this issue vigorously and other platforms got their marketing act together.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.