Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Hargreaves Lansdown Plc LSE:HL. London Ordinary Share GB00B1VZ0M25 ORD 0.4P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -41.00 -2.26% 1,776.50 1,776.50 1,778.00 1,802.00 1,753.00 1,799.50 804,754 16:35:19
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
General Financial 480.5 305.8 52.1 34.1 8,426

Hargreaves Lansdown Share Discussion Threads

Showing 1276 to 1299 of 1300 messages
Chat Pages: 52  51  50  49  48  47  46  45  44  43  42  41  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
20/11/2019
13:36
Are these simplistic assumptions when medium term risks and opportunities should be at one's forefront... How many new clients will willingly move to Hargreaves this year? How many clients might they lose? The bulks were just pension partnerships probably? But individuals in corporate pensions can always opt out or switch their pension assets to different providers.. these are people's nest eggs. Has Hargreaves' fund capabilities improved? Does it affect their reputation?
j0sekl
20/11/2019
13:19
Telegraph's Questor today: Questor: can Hargreaves Lansdown shares recover from the Neil Woodford collapse? Questor share tip: the investment shop was a key backer of the former star manager and the market seems to fear for the effects on its customers’ loyalty The Woodford saga is not yet over but we know roughly what is going to happen: investors in his flagship fund are expected to get the first of their money back in the new year but could suffer losses of about 33pc in the process. Woodford Investment Management itself will be wound up, but what of the other business closely involved in the disaster, Hargreaves Lansdown, which this column tipped in January 2017? Hargreaves’ involvement with Woodford came in two forms: it included his funds in its influential best-buy list and held stakes in them via its “multi-manager” funds. As a result, a large proportion of its customers had exposure to the fallen fund manager. It’s easy to imagine that those clients might blame Hargreaves for their losses, or just lose some of their faith in the firm, and move elsewhere. This certainly seems to be what the stock market fears: shares in Hargreaves have fallen from a high of £24.33 in May, just weeks before Woodford suspended dealing in its main fund, to £18.18 at yesterday’s close – a decline of 25.3pc. But will its existing clients actually desert the firm for a rival? And will potential new ones shun Hargreaves and choose a different platform? As we have written in the past, we are sceptical about such an outcome. Customers of financial firms seem to be remarkably reluctant to switch, even under extreme provocation. Don't look back in anger Questor is thinking especially of the IT disaster that overtook TSB last year: customers were unable to spend their own money as the bank in effect closed for business – but since then it has lost remarkably few of them. When businesses make these huge mistakes it seems that customers fume while the situation lasts but forget about it once things return to normal. Hargreaves is famous for the efficiency and reliability of its systems and for its customer service, none of which has been called into question by the Woodford saga. Questor wonders whether clients will consider that Woodford has already happened, they can’t do anything about it now, so why risk having to put up with inferior service from a rival in future just to vent their frustration at Hargreaves? Figures published by the broker since the debacle began seem to bear out this view. On October 10 it released a trading update for July, August and September – months in which Woodford was in every newspaper. Despite all that negative publicity, Hargreaves gained 35,000 customers on a net basis, which was more than the 29,000 it added in the same three months of last year. New clients accounted for £1.7bn of assets, again better than the £1.3bn achieved last time. It’s true that £900m of this sum came from bulk transfers from two fund groups that had closed their savings schemes but Hargreaves also spoke of “organic new client growth [and] ongoing wealth consolidation on to our platform from existing clients” – hardly signs that customers new and old had decided to give the firm the cold shoulder. If Hargreaves can turn in that kind of performance while coverage of Woodford was at its height, Questor has few fears about its attractiveness to clients once the scandal does eventually die down. We tipped the stock at £13.21 and readers who followed our advice are sitting on a gain of 37.6pc. We have every confidence that the shares will recover from recent weakness once memories fade and will therefore hold. Questor says: hold Ticker: HL Share price at close: £18.17½​
lomax99
19/11/2019
19:26
Agree - I use HL but never been interested in their funds
davr0s
19/11/2019
19:16
Actually think HL have a great product but questions have to be asked about their blatant promotion of Woodford products even right at the end when it was obvious to just about everyone that he was in serious trouble.
tim 3
18/11/2019
16:09
Excellent, thank you very much for the info.
jordantheman
18/11/2019
11:17
Hi Jordantheman, most of HL's profits come from clients holding funds (unit trusts/OEICs) in ISA/SIPP and Dealing accounts. They charge 0.45% pa on the first £250k in each account, and then less for monies above £250k. They are trying to branch out of a reliance on this income stream and in recent years have increased their share of the stockbroking market (ie. clients paying a commission per trade) and their new cash management service (Active Savings) now has over £1 billion of assets and is growing.
ochs
17/11/2019
16:34
Thanks for article on shorts. Confirmed my opinion on Hargreaves. I'm a amateur when it comes to my knowledge of HL unlike many of you. i'm interested in knowing where the majority of HL's profits come from. i'm presuming they make the most of their revenue comes from funds right? If so, the woodford scandal is not good news. In regards to their bread and butter (trading platform), Interestingly, since July, they still acquired a lot of customers and I did read a study saying that under 50% of current users researched other platforms and the high fees did not bother them. As mentioned, I'm a bit of an amateur on hl tbh. Thanks.
jordantheman
17/11/2019
09:24
Short sellers circling:Https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/460fd484-5b08-4831-87d0-f3ef25f59c2cBaillie Gifford long term holding:Https://www.ftadviser.com/investments/2019/11/14/major-investor-tells-hargreaves-to-grow-up-after-woodford-saga/
lomax99
12/11/2019
13:05
HL is part of a secular growth story with the PENSION freedoms meaning more and more investors left to DIY their portfolios
growthpotential
04/11/2019
13:24
Lot's of talk of potential action.... Suspect it will remain just that, talk.
lomax99
04/11/2019
11:40
Class action would hurt the share price but suspect its chance of success is very low. Plenty of warnings re any investments made these days.
its the oxman
01/11/2019
15:54
is that the sound of multiple class actions i hear getting ready in the distance haha
porsche1945
30/10/2019
11:09
HL had what they call a 'Wealth 150' (now renamed 'Wealth 50') and it was always marketed as their suggestions for new long term investments. I don't think HL ever called it a 'Best Buy' list themselves, but others might have done. I doubt a class action would have any merit as HL have always been very careful to make clear any investments clients make based on their articles and the W150 are on a strictly 'non-advisory' basis. The FCA has always been happy with this distinction. Therefore the only people to make money would be the lawyers...
ochs
30/10/2019
10:59
The Telegraph today has an article inferring that class actions may be taken against HL by people who invested in Neil Woodford's fund(s)which they say were recommended by HL as they were included in HL's 'Best Buy' lists. Did HL have a 'Best Buy' list as to me that could be construed as a recommendation? On looking at HL's website I cannot see any references to best buy, however they use the terms most viewed, most traded, favourites etc which are clearly not recommendations
bengrady
23/10/2019
19:05
Latest WEIF price is 85.34p - I guess the final price will also depend on what they get (if anything) for all the unquoted stuff.
ochs
23/10/2019
12:49
I reckon 60p.
montyhedge
23/10/2019
12:33
Of course if HL share price suffers, so does Lindsell Train, and then so do the owners of the fund .... heavily promoted by HL.
hpcg
23/10/2019
11:57
I would think WEIF will be worth somewhere between 70 and 90p at liquidation, so not great, but nothing like 70pc. Additionally HL assets and profits keep going up, so unless there was serious competition who could actually prise investors away in big numbers then I don't see how the shares would end up anywhere near £12.
ochs
22/10/2019
06:32
I agree, they do have work to do. My comment was more aimed at the, frankly, OTT ongoing vilification by the press.
lomax99
22/10/2019
06:19
In reply to lomax99, yes the 2% is small, but the 1/3 of HL clients is big and whilst clearly those clients also have other investments with HL, losing money on Woodford is not going to taste nice and could make them doubtful about fresh investments through HL for the time being (especially those in the W50) - hence HL need to work really hard to keep those types of investors on side and happy.
ochs
21/10/2019
23:29
I am not sure whether % impact of victims or number of affected clients is a measurement to go by. The reality is that HL gave investment advice, failed to perform due diligence, used Woodford to promote its own products from which HL derived a management fee, and benefited from all of this hype it created. Losing trust in Woodford qualifies a loss of trust in HL's fund of funds and fund advice. Dampier apparently invested even more into Woodford since being given the boot. Till now he doesn't see the mistakes he's made, that loyalty to someone's historical track record is a resounding demonstration of the fact he doesn't really understand Woodford. He doesn't understand the underlying investments, and should never have been given responsibility to assess investments... It goes to show HL have no clue how to really run a fund of fund business and should remain a platform without trying to be too smart. Plenty of investors have been badly burnt by Woodford, and is evidence there are so many freeloaders pretending to know how to give investment advice on fund managers, besides HL. Supposedly independent IFAs, wealth businesses, retail bank channels.. It is shocking.
j0sekl
16/10/2019
21:51
Let's get some context here, HL. clients funds in W were under 2% of AUM, yes that's right just 2% - which means the holders of the other, only, 98%, are probably relatively oblivious to all the, agenda driven, 'noise'.It has also been reported that up to 1/3rd of HL clients held W (either directly, or indirectly), which means their average W holding would represent barely 6% of their individual porfolio's.
lomax99
16/10/2019
21:20
Ochs is right. I opted out of mailshots with Hargreaves way back. You had to call them but that was normal back then. Added to which, if people want compensation from HL for ‘pushing’; Woodford, are they also advocating that people pay Hargreaves some of their profits for all the US trackers they were ‘pushing’; back then which have rocketed since then?
gettingrichslow
16/10/2019
18:24
No, you've always been able to opt out - you just needed to ring them and speak to them in 2014.
ochs
Chat Pages: 52  51  50  49  48  47  46  45  44  43  42  41  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
HL.
Hargreaves..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20191121 00:49:05