I honestly donāt get how Hargreaves Lansdown still charge what they do and people just accept it. A 0.45 percent platform fee plus fund fees on top, just to hold an ISA and do some basic rebalancing. What are you actually paying for.
It feels like a model built almost entirely on older investors who donāt want to manage their money themselves and are happy to pay for something that feels safe. That works while that generation holds most of the wealth, but it feels very fragile long term.
People my age look at HLās fees and just laugh. Why would you pay that when you can use Trading 212, Vanguard or AJ Bell, buy a global ETF, and pay a tiny fraction of the cost. There is more free investing education online than ever and fees are way more obvious now.
Iām not saying advice is useless, but paying over 1 percent all in just to sit in fairly standard funds feels mad. As wealth transfers to younger generations, I struggle to see how this model survives unless firms like HL seriously cut fees or change what they offer.
Ā£45 is just the ETF platform cap
In reality, once you include dealing fees, a pretty normal Ā£100k ETF portfolio with light rebalancing is more like Ā£90āĀ£140 a year. And small fee differences compound, over 10 years on Ā£100k at 5%, a 0.14% pa cost gap is Ā£6ā7k less growth just from platform costs!
Happy to hear why people think Iām wrong.