For small time investors with a stock portfolio of say 10-20k, using scb makes a lot of sense due to the savings from low commission rates. For experienced investors with 6 figure and up portfolio, safer to just stick to local brokerage and put your shares in cdp, you really dun wanna take even a small risk just to save a few dollars give the size of your investments
Huh? If you've got a big portfolio you care even more about low commissions, because the absolute dollar amounts are larger. The answer's not necessarily Stanchart, but it's certainly not "go to a local brokerage and pay 0.28% on everything".
If I didn't want to take even a small risk, I'd park all my shares and all my spare cash at JP Morgan Chase, pay $25 a trade, and earn zero interest. But I don't, because that would be an extra $300 or more a year in brokerage costs and $500+ in foregone interest; and that eight hundred bucks is a weekend in Vegas or Tahoe. Every single year.
(For that matter, let's be honest, dealing with CDP is an enormous pain in the arse. There's absolutely no reason your broker shouldn't be able to see what you own.)
Do you think the transaction costs saved over time using SCB would be sufficient should an investor decides to port holdings from SCB custody to CDP, if the portfolio grows to a six figure sum?
Yep. Every time you do a $1k trade with Stanchart, you're saving about $26 over doing it with a local broker. Even if your average trade size is $5k, you're saving about $15. Multiply that by one trade a month, and multiply
that by ten years, and you're talking serious money.