View more on these topics

Barclays Stockbrokers reveals new platform pricing

Barclays Stockbrokers has announced its new platform pricing model at 35 basis points for all fund investments with a cap on charges.

Barclays is the latest direct platform to reveal its new pricing, setting its charges in line with Fidelity and undercutting Hargreaves Lansdown by 10 basis points for smaller investors. 

Barclays will operate a capped charging structure with a minimum fee of £35 per account a year and a maximum of £1,750, with no charges for fund transactions.

It will charge £30 plus VAT as an annual Isa account fee and £200 plus VAT as an annual Sipp account fee.

Share trading costs have been cut from £12.95 to £11.95.

The Platforum managing director Holly Mackay says the latest pricing announcements from the direct platforms reflect not so much a price war, but rather “a somewhat less epic price pub brawl”.

She says: “For providers supposedly at war, there is actually not that much between the top platforms for customers. Barclays is competitively priced in general although smaller Sipp investors with shares will find this a pricey option. Fidelity’s ‘all-in’ fee makes it a nice, easy-to-understand option for fund investors but it is not a good option for those with shares. Hargreaves will suit accounts with both an Isa and a Sipp and some of their Wealth 150 funds.

“The cost challenge is really coming from AJ Bell Youinvest, Alliance Trust Savings, Charles Stanley and Interactive Investor for larger accounts although – again – read the small print. By the time you have traded, transferred in a pension, and bought some funds, you might find there was not that much in it after all. The flat fee platforms are really worth looking at for investors with much larger portfolios.”

Barclays Platforum table.jpg

Source: The Platforum

Scenario assumptions:
£10,000 in funds within an Isa with four transactions per year
£50,000 in funds split equally between and Isa and a Sipp with 10 transactions per year
£150,000 in funds split equally between an Isa and a Sipp with 10 transactions per year
£500,000 – £150,000 in an Isa and £350,000 in a Sipp, each with half equities and half funds, with 10 transactions per year

Barclays table Platforum Axa notes.jpg

Who do you rate as the best adviser platform? – we want your votes

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Love your assumptions. With £500,000 in ISA only – self balancing funds I’m going to pay £90 next year with ATS. Even your £10,000 figure seems wrong to me. Assuming sell and buy is one transaction costing £25 then ATS figure should be £190 and not £220.

    Flat fees are good for larger investors but also for the majority who don’t foolishly over trade. Re balancing is a much over rated concept.

  2. Richard Bradley, The Platforum 27th January 2014 at 10:24 am

    Bones,
    All the charges include the underlying funds’ annual management charges, which is why the ATS figure is higher (the share classes available differ between platforms and a few are still operating off rebates so we included them).
    The £50k portfolio is an ISA only, the other portfolios are split between an ISA and a SIPP.
    There are a few more details of the assumptions we used on The Platforum’s website.

  3. I don’t see why you confuse the situation by including the underlying fund charges. I could be holding a tracker 0.15% pa or active at 0.75%. pa. I would like to know the clean cost of a platform, the clean cost of the funds and the clean cost of advice if needed. I thought this idea of separating the costs was central to RDR ?

    I appreciate that making a fair comparison is complex and will look at your site BUT you say that the £50,000 portfolio is ISA only ( contradicting the main article). So my calculation is £50,000 at 0.75% = £375 + £90 ( platform charge + £250 ( 10 transactions or 25 buy and sell) = £715 not the £805 quoted. If any of the funds charges less than 0.75% my costs would be lower.

    Sorry but the fund costs should NOT be included in platform comparisons – ONLY the platform costs. The investor can then pick the funds and then compare fund costs.. Messy I agree but better than lumping ALL costs together.

Leave a comment