Cheers i'll have a look at AJ Bell
I'll try and dig out my Scottish Widows details. I can access a summary from my Halifax account but not make any changes.
Trading the stockmarket (NO Referrals)
- Thread starter mcast123
- Start date
Cheers i'll have a look at AJ Bell
I'll try and dig out my Scottish Widows details. I can access a summary from my Halifax account but not make any changes.
I think that was mine and Russinatings exact point about the HL platform - their measuring matrix is basically meaningless. Sure, a fund could be up 60% but that could be over 20 years which probably isn't a great return.
I was expanding on his point rather than saying "look at me, I'm great at this" but understand posting pictures could present that.
To develop the conversation, any good platforms that have a good suite of measurements, good articles and sensible fees? I like HL for the articles and it's very easy to use but it's the only one I've ever used.
Use - https://monevator.com/compare-uk-cheapest-online-brokers/ for platform fees.
I use Fidelity for my SIPP and they've made a lot of improvement to their website in the past year or so. They do post a lot of articles but I rarely read them - https://www.fidelity.co.uk/markets-insights/ It's really easy to navigate and view account summary info. Transactions are all nicely filtered now and they use Morningstar for holding reports so you get good information and nice graphs about your holdings.
Can anyone please advise on the FSCS limits on shares/funds holdings? I think investments are covered up to £85,000 - but is that per platform, per share/fund held on one platform, or per share/fund across all platforms?
As an example, say I use two platforms but have investments on both platforms in the same fund - am I covered up to £85,000 on each platform?
As an example, say I use two platforms but have investments on both platforms in the same fund - am I covered up to £85,000 on each platform?
It's £85k per person, per firm......that's your simple answer.
However - what you need to factor in is that platforms are there to hold multiples shares/funds from multiple companies. So if the platform provider fails - you would loose nothing as you still have the funds/shares, you simply need to find a new platform.
If you hold M&G fund on AJ Bell platform and M&G go bankrupt, you would claim for that fund, not the platform as your other investments are fine.
So unless you hold £85k in any one share, any one fund, your fine. Even holding £300k on a platform that's spread equally across 6 funds with 6 investment companies - your fine.
Make sense?
Yep, thank you for the explanation!
I hesitate to challenge you on this, as you clearly know and work in the industry. 99.9% of the time I'd agree with your statement but, rather than derail the thread with excessive detail for others, I'll just say that Beaufort Securities put a very big challenge to this last year.
I don't think it would be off topic to add detail to that, especially after another poster was asking about funds being protected etc... That situation did highlight that segregated clients funds aren't necessarily protected when it comes to a firm collapsing/administration costs being collected.
I did review some of that information/situation after a client challenged me on it.
My "understand", which may/may not be completely correct was that the Beaufort Securities had a UK arm and a US arm, this immediately complicates things. They went into administration and PWC (Administrators) tried to say the cost of the administration would be $100 over next 4 years!!! (nice money if you can earn it) - they eventually revised this down to something like £50 million over 2 years.
Beaufort Securities was more of a stockbroker who did a lot of penny stocks etc - super high risk stuff - So there was 2 parts to this -
1 - mis-selling of stocks - which would be a separate claim under FSCS
2 - administration/insolvency and loss of funds - some client money was not properly segregated from the main company accounts and therefore was "usable" by the administrators
However FSCS covered something like 94% of the costs for returning assets to approximately 17,500 retail and corporate clients.
They as a company were placed under supervision multiples times from 2016 by the FCA, and were still authorised (crazy) , but eventually they were insolvent.
Basically a very niche company, who were up to no good from the off.
Stick to regulated, large platforms/SIPP providers, ISA providers and large funds/investments and you'll be fine.
But fair point @The_Abyss - you can never be too careful.
I remember having to claim myself for my cash ISA with Icesave...remember them....when they went bust. Got money back very quickly, to be fair.
I do indeed remember them, we had to claim against more than one Icelandic bank on behalf of clients.
I raised the issue of Beaufort Securities as our legal structure was designed to fully insulate the client against administration and third party costs. We had to take legal advice after the whole affair, and concluded that we'd likely not be immune from them either, and indeed many platforms also came forward (were forced to) and state the same.
As you say, the chances are very, very slim. But as Patisserie Valerie has taught the market, even listed firms with supposed good governance are not immune from fraud and subsequent collapse.
I raised the issue of Beaufort Securities as our legal structure was designed to fully insulate the client against administration and third party costs. We had to take legal advice after the whole affair, and concluded that we'd likely not be immune from them either, and indeed many platforms also came forward (were forced to) and state the same.
As you say, the chances are very, very slim. But as Patisserie Valerie has taught the market, even listed firms with supposed good governance are not immune from fraud and subsequent collapse.
Actually, AFAIK, one issue highlighted isn't necessarily about funds not being properly segregated but rather that even when properly segregated client funds, while protected from general creditors etc.., aren't necessarily safe from administration costs contrary to popular opinion/wisdom. This relates to a change in the law in 2011 which was prompted by the Lehman bros collapse which allows for client funds to be used for administration costs, this affected MF global and a couple of other firm collapses too IIRC.
Platform goes bust - you get a new platform provider. Nothing changes. Your investments are effectively ring fenced from the platform provider.
https://ftof-finance.co.uk/investment/what-happens-to-your-shares-if-your-broker-goes-bust/
https://www.lovemoney.com/news/71562/isa-stocks-shares-safety-protection-limit-investments-broker-uk
Apologies. I see it was raised to £85k a couple of months ago
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 1,167
For those with money in any of the Linsdell Train funds - are you moving any out due to them being cut from HL's wealth 50 list?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
I'll post a good article on that but its for liquidity reasons not because he is wrong exactly to arrange funds like that. Its not as extreme as woodford afaik
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
I am, don't need the hassle of a repeat of the Woodford situation. Gonna go for a global index tracker instead.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,315
- Location
- Bristol
No, why would you? The Wealth 50's just a recommendation list, there's plenty of decent funds outside of it and the only reason they're removing it is because the funds hold an increasing value of HL shares.