Wednesday, 19 December 2012

Income limit for age allowance 2013-14?

Question
I have been looking on the web to no avail in order to find out what change if any there will be in 13/14 to the "Income limit for age-related allowance which is at the moment £25,400 for 12/13 " can you assist please?Answer
The income limit for age-related income tax allowances will increase from £25,400 to £26,100 for 2013/14. I agree, it's currently not easy to find - I gave up on the HMRC website, finding the figure in a HM Treasury document here.

As a reminder, as part of the Government's plan to scrap the higher age-related income tax allowances, both will remain frozen at £10,500 and £10,660 respectively, presumably until the standard personal allowance catches up. The £10,500 allowance will be available to those born on or before 5 April 1948 and the £10,600 to those born on or before 5 April 1938.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/784/income-limit-for-age-allowance-2013-14

Which Lloyds staff pension funds?

Question
I'm 36, and have a deferred Lloyds Banking Group money purchase pension fund of circa £60k - invested in "Your Journey Extra".

Thanks to this site's recommendations and advice, I am in the process of arranging a stakeholder pension (now run my own company), and have been interested in trying to evaluate fund performance, whilst matching to my own circumstances (and risk appetite etc), before taking the leap and making my choices.

This has meant I've relooked at the LBG fund too - and although the AMCs seem fair (0.45% for YJ Extra), it's difficult to assess the fund's performance as although the LBG website shows a couple of year's performance I'm not sure how to get peer comparisons or any independent analysis (e.g. Morningstar). I have the option (I think) of switching to different LBG funds, or transferring out (which I'm disinclined to do given the low charges).

Any advice very welcome. (P.S. fantastic site!)Answer
Lloyds TSB doesn't offer much readily accessible information on its staff pension funds, but a little digging on its website reveals fund factsheets which are quite helpful (click on he 'fund information' icons).

The 'Your Journey Extra' fund is run by Blackrock and as at the end of September 2012 invested around a third of the fund in stock markets, just over a third in fixed interest with the balance in cash and other investment types such as absolute return and commodities. This looks pretty sensible overall, especially in the current uncertain climate. Nevertheless, if you won't be drawing a pension for 30+ years there's an argument for taking more risk, depending on what you're comfortable with.

The 0.45% Your Journey Extra fund annual charge appears to cover the costs of underlying investments, although the documentation isn't very clear on this. I'd suggest calling the scheme administrator to check, but assuming it covers underlying investment costs it's very competitive.

Comparing performance is unfortunately a fairly clunky process, as the Lloyds funds aren't included in any online fund data websites (that I can find at least). The Lloyd's fund factsheets show performance since launch (July 2010) over 12 month periods to the end of the last quarter as well as returns over the last year. Taking these figures you can compare to sectors and funds via websites like Morningstar and Trustnet, although it's approximate as the dates to which returns are shown may vary from the factsheet.

In terms of what to compare to, I think the IMA Mixed 20-60% Equity sector is a reasonable benchmark for 'Your Journey Extra' and on this basis the fund has been pretty average

In time you might want access to a wider choice of investments, in which case transferring to a low cost SIPP might be appropriate. But for now I can't see a compelling reason to transfer, although you might consider the Global Journey, Asia Pacific Equity and Emerging Markets Equity funds in moderation if you want to ramp up risk.

Hope this helps and glad you like the site!

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/779/which-lloyds-staff-pension-funds

Friday, 7 December 2012

Mercom Oil Sands a good investment?

Question
My husband had a text message today from a company http://www.mercomoil.com asking him to consider buying Mercom Oil shares at 40p a share. Is this a legitimate company or a scam, can you help. How on earth they have got hold of my husband's mobile number I just can't imagine. But you hear about so many dodgy firms out there who try sucking OAP into a false sense of security and my husband has been seriously thinking of putting money into these shares. I'm a bit sceptical of believing messages like this seeing as my husband doesn't have any dealings with stocks and shares.Answer
One simple rule I'll always stick by is to never invest as a result of a cold call/email/text. When investments require a very heavy sell then at best they're probably not very good and at worst a scam.

Mercom Oil Sands was established in February this year and intends to make its fortune by extracting oil in Alberta, Canada. It appears to be very much in its infancy and looks an incredibly speculative investment. The company appears to be having difficulties acquiring an interest in oil sand leases and has also just issued more shares to pay off some consultancy fees, suggesting cash is tight.

The company is listed on the London Alternative Investment Market (AiM) where its shares are trading at 1.66p (at the time of writing) compared to a launch price of 10p, giving the company a market cap of £5.3 million. So whoever is trying to sell the shares at 40p each is clearly a scammer (I very much doubt the text was from Mercom themselves, if so they'd be in big trouble with the regulator).

This type of investment isn't my cup of tea, but if your husband wants to take a punt then he should be able to buy the shares through a stockbroker for considerably less than 40p!

On another note, yes it's really annoying when marketing companies get hold of your mobile number. I give out a dummy number unless it really is vital the company concerned has a correct number for me. I still get pointless PPI/personal injury texts though!

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/778/mercom-oil-sands-a-good-investment

Wednesday, 5 December 2012

Gender neutral insurance update

What's the current state of play re: insurance premiums ahead of the 21 December deadline banning gender from influencing premiums?.

The 21 December deadline for insurers to stop varying insurance premiums based on gender looms. To recap, a ludicrous Eurocrat decision means insurers will no longer be allowed to use facts such as women (on average) living longer than, or having fewer car insurance claims than men when calculating insurance premiums.


Should you take any action before 21 December? Let's take a look at the main types of insurance affected to see the current state of play. My estimates for rates/premiums under the new rules assume business is split 2/3rds to 1/3rd between men and women, which might be incorrect, but these figures nevertheless give a reasonable guide as to what will probably happen.


Pension Annuities


Annuities are effectively a bet with the insurance company on how long you'll live. Because women tend to outlive men their annuity rates have historically been lower.


A quick look at current annuity rates suggests some insurers (e.g. Aviva) have already adopted gender neutral quoting, while others such as L&G are still offering better rates for men. However, in the example I ran Aviva's rate came out top for both men and women, suggesting (for the moment at least) both are getting a good deal.


Figures show annual income from a £100,000 level single life pension annuity for a non-smoking 65 year old:
















AvivaL&GAge Expectancy
Male£5,518£5,51586 years
Female£5,518£5,19388.3 years
Current annuity rates sourced from MAS Comparison tables.

Once the market settles down I'd expect women will receive a higher annuity income compared to gender-based quotes while men will see their income fall (other things being equal). However, shopping around remains vital and could certainly help mitigate the reduction for men and further boost income for women.


If you're a male pondering whether to buy an annuity before 21 December then it's certainly worth getting some quotes, but it doesn't look rates will fall off a cliff overnight.


Life Insurance


Life insurance policies are also a bet on how long you'll live, so women generally enjoy lower premiums than men at present. No gender neutral pricing as yet, so we can still only guess the extent of any change.


Figures show monthly premiums for a 20 year level term assurance policy with £200,000 of cover for a non-smoking 30 year old:


















CurrentEstimated newProbability of dying before 50Estimated cost difference

over 20 years
Male£7.81£6.811 in 28-£240
Female£6.32£6.811 in 48+£120
Current premiums sourced from Cavendish Online.

The new rules will likely mean women getting the short straw, with higher premiums, so buying a policy under current rules might be sensible, provided the premiums are guaranteed to be fixed throughout the term. By contrast, men should enjoy lower premiums after 21 December 2012.


Income Protection


Although women tend to live longer than men, they are more likely to suffer from illness necessitating extended time off work. So income protection premiums have historically tended to be more expensive for women than men.


However, having run some quotes many income protection insurers appear to have already built in gender neutral pricing, so men and women receive the same quotes (everything else being equal). Nevertheless, if you're a male looking to buy such a policy it's worth getting some quotes before 21 December to see whether you can get a competitive deal from one of the few insurers who, quite sensibly, still vary quotes based on gender (there are plenty of online comparison brokers, just google).


Car Insurance


Despite male jokes about women drivers, females actually have fewer claims (on average) so their car insurance premiums are generally lower than men's.


Because car insurance quotes can vary so widely I haven't run a comparison here, but industry consensus seems to be that premiums for women could rise by 25% or more under the new rules, while men's premiums will generally fall. The trouble is because car insurance premiums are reviewable each year there's no way of locking into current rates long term .


Is there any way for insurers to get around this?


Insurers might be able to retain a link between insurance premiums and the likelihood of a claim being made via tighter underwriting. For example, professions, postcodes and health history could have a greater influence over certain premiums than they do at present. And those professions which tend to be dominated by one gender or the other could be ripe for some 'closet' insurance premium sex discrimination.

Read this article at http://www.candidmoney.com/articles/262/gender-neutral-insurance-update

Tuesday, 4 December 2012

Property entitlement when common law partners separate?

Question
My daughter and her partner are separating after 7 years together. They are not married.

Two years ago they bought a house together. My daughter put in £25000 from the sale of her flat, and I gave them £30000 to build an extension.

My daughter's partner brought no cash to the house purchase and the two of them have been splitting the mortgage payments equally.

He owns a flat which he rents out and he keeps all the profit.

Most of their furniture was bought by my daughter when she had her own flat.

My question relates to his cash entitlement when they split. My daughter would like to keep the house, and "buy out" her partner.

Is she entitled to exclude the £25000 and the £30000 mentioned above from the settlement?

If she offered him a refund of the monies he spent on mortgage repayments and half of the money they spent on additional furniture, would this be all he would be entitled to, or are there other cash considerations to be taken into account?

They live in Scotland.

Hope you can clarify these points. Thanking you in advance,Answer
So-called common-law partners actually have no automatic rights to each other's property, regardless of how long they've lived together, unlike married couples and civil partners. So what matters is whether your daughter and her partner have ever made any written agreements about ownership of assets and, most importantly, who's listed as owner(s) on the house deeds.

Provided your daughter is the sole owner of the house (on the deeds) then she should be in a strong position. Her partner would have no rights to the house (either ownership or to remain living in), although he might be able to claim some money in respect of his mortgage contribution - certainly a basis for negotiation.

However, if his name appears on the deed it makes things more complicated, as he legally owns a share of the house (as stipulated in the deed, probably 50%). In theory this means he could receive a share of the net proceeds were the house sold and he's under no obligation to leave meanwhile.

As for other items, those bought or acquired during the time they lived together are presumed to be owned equally - with the exception of money, investments, vehicles and pets. However, items acquired before then belong to the person who acquired them and gifts or inherited items belong to the person who received them.

In light of this, provided your daughter legally owns the house then the offer you mention sounds perfectly reasonable. If the house has appreciated since purchase (ignoring the extension) then I suppose he might have grounds for wanting some of the notional 'profit', but given the stagnant housing market in recent years I doubt this will be an issue.

If his name is on the deeds then your daughter may have a harder time reaching a fair agreement, depending on how reasonable her partner is. For example, he might try to claim a share of the deposit and extension monies.

Hopefully they can come to a fair and amicable agreement without having to get solicitors involved, else legal fees could quickly dent both their finances.

For more information the Citizen's advice Bureau has a useful guide here.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/777/property-entitlement-when-common-law-partners-separate

How to move ISAs from Bestinvest to another platform?

Question
I currently have a portfolio of 20 unit trusts to the value of approximately £160,000. 18 of them are held within ISA's split between the Fundsnetwork and Cofunds platforms. All were purchased via Bestinvest who have acted for me in a non-advisory capacity.

Bestinvest are now keen for me to transfer my holdings to their "Select" service. However, having read your excellent 'Guide to ISA Discount Brokers', I believe that transfering my holdings to Interactive Investor may be my best option as they rebate all the trail commission and also I already have a share dealing account with them. I want to transfer the holdings "as is" so that they are not out of the market for any length of time. I am aware that I can't do this from Fundsnetwork until 2013 but don't mind waiting till then to transfer all my funds at once.

Something that concerns me, given that I have a total of 20 different unit trust holdings, is the potentially high cost that Bestinvest may charge for the transfer. Unfortunately I have been unable to discover what their transfer charges are and wondered if you had any idea? I know that the transfer charges from their "Select" service are £25 per asset plus a £50 ISA closure fee but I cannot find anywhere that tells me what the transfer charges from their non "Select" service are.

Also do you know if there would be any transfer charges incurred from Fundsnetwork or Cofunds. I can find nothing in their terms and conditions that says that there would be but wondered if you know otherwise?
Also just a quick thank-you for your unbiased, independant site and especially the articles on the RDR which I have found most enlightening. Answer
Under your current service Bestinvest simply acts as broker for the funds held on the Cofunds and FundsNetwork platforms. This means Bestinvest doesn't levy any charges of its own, but receives trail commission from the two platforms, probably around 0.5% of the value of your funds each year.

This gives you two options. The simplest would be to appoint another discount broker as the 'agent' for your funds. All this requires is signing a simple form or letter confirming the change, after which the trail commission will divert to the new broker but the funds remain untouched with Cofunds and FundsNetwork. Cavendish Online rebates all FundsNetwork trail commission with no explicit fee (they receive 0.05% from FundsNetwork). Otherwise Massow's rebates all trail commission from both platforms in return for a one-off £125 fee (provided the commission can be rebated into your investments, which in case of these platforms it can).

The alternative is to transfer the funds to another platform, as you've mentioned. This requires funds to be 're-registered' (also known as an 'in-specie' transfer) in order to keep them 'as is' and avoid having to sell then repurchase. Cofunds allows re-registration of funds held outside of an ISA to other platform but (at time of writing) still doesn't allow ISAs to be re-registered, despite the FSA requiring all platforms to offer this option by the end of this month. FundsNetwork is also inflexible, only allowing non-ISA funds to be re-registered where the total transfer exceeds £40,000 and excluding all non-Fidelity funds from ISA re-registration. Where re-registration is allowed, neither platform (nor Bestinvest) currently charges for this.

I would expect both to adapt their policy in line with the FSA's requirement by the end of the month (although they'll likely drag their heels until the last minute), but until then it's a far from satisfactory situation.

It's worth noting that Interactive Investor uses Cofunds for the fund part of its platform, so it should certainly be possible to seamlessly move your existing funds held via Cofunds from Bestinvest to Interactive Investor. I'd give Interactive Investor a call and ask them how they'll facilitate this.

As for FundsNetwork, if you have non-ISA funds in excess of £40,000 you can re-register now. Otherwise this facility should be available by next month. I'll update when there's some news.

Glad you like the site and you find it useful.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/776/how-to-move-isas-from-bestinvest-to-another-platform

Wednesday, 21 November 2012

Is my Skandia pension expensive?

Question
I have read, with great interest, questions and answers, on this site, relating to the changes re commission and adviser charging coming into force next year, and I was wondering what effect it would have on my existing 'expensive' pension?

I have a personal pension through an IFA that sits on the Skandia platform. I receive a 95% allocation rate on my regular contributions, and pay a 0.75% Annual Management Charge on top of Fund Management Charges with equate to 1.85% (I calculated this by taking individual fund charges and % of portfolio holding). So in total my costs are 2.1375% per annum and more when fund additional expenses are taken into account! This seems very expensive when I compare it with some of the platforms you talk about in your answers. I have the following questions:

1) Why am I paying 0.75% Annual Management Charge, which I assume goes to the platform(?), when other platforms are rebating up to 0.25%?

2) Will the changes next year reduce my costs or am I tied to my original deal?

3) What options do I have to reduce my costs - I want to stay with my IFA as my pension has provided a level of return which I am happy with?

4) When I 1st started this pension, in 2006, the Fund Management Charges worked out at 1.10%, due to various fund switches, advised by my IFA, they are now 1.85%. I was never told that the funds I was moving into were more expensive - what is your view on this?

Thanks again.Answer
I think it's likely you have a Skandia Personal Pension (Single Price), which has a different set of charges to Skandia's current offering, the Collective Retirement Account.

The Personal Pension (Single Price) has a 100% allocation rate with a 0.75% annual charge on pensions worth less than £50,000, falling to 0.25% for pensions of £50,000 or more. It may be your 95% allocation rate is because your IFA is taking 5% initial commission (which is steep) or you have an older Skandia pension on which I can't find details. Either way it's far from desirable, effectively a 5% initial charge on every contribution (unless Skandia is giving you bonus units to compensate in some other way).

To further complicate charging, Skandia generally reduces fund annual charges (total expense ratios) over their standard levels by around 0.2 - 0.5%, but then your IFA may elect to receive fees which are added on to the annual charge. You can view a full list of funds here http://www2.skandia.co.uk/Documents/Informer%20publications/Our-Fund-Ranges/SK3467-Single-Price-stats-our-fund-ranges.pdf.

If the 2.1375% total annual charge includes your adviser's fee/commission, then the pension is more expensive than some of the cheaper lower cost SIPPs, but perhaps not significantly so depending on the size of your pension fund.

If we use Alliance Trust Savings (ATS) as a comparison, the average fund TER after rebates might be around 1%. On top of this we need to add your adviser's fee, perhaps 0.5%, to get 1.5%. ATS also charges £162 a year, equivalent to 0.4% on a £40,000 pension fund - so 1.9% overall.

To answer your questions:

1) Because you're in an older style personal pension that Skandia no longer markets which may have built in sales commissions paid to your IFA within the charging structure. You might also have less than £50,000 invested, which triggers the higher 0.75% annual charge rather than 0.25% Skandia charges on £50,000+ pension funds.

2) The banning of sales commissions on advised sales from 31 December 2012 means that if you want to increase or make new contributions into the pension your IFA will likely have to agree a fee with you rather than receive sales commission (assuming this is how they're currently paid), which could affect total cost. If/when the FSA bans platforms from receiving platform fees from fund managers (due by end of 2013) this could affect you, although it looks as though Skandia either isn't taking this fee or rebating it to offset annual fund charges (in which case probably no impact).

3. Assuming the annual charge works along the lines mentioned earlier, increasing your pension fund to £50,000 will cut the annual fee to 0.25%. If you want to stay with the IFA you could ask him/her to lower their fee (or commission taken), which should reduce the amount being deducted from your pension. You might also request a transfer value from Skandia to see whether there's a penalty for transferring to another pension provider. If there isn't, or it's minimal, then consider whether a move elsewhere would prove better value.

4. Whenever an adviser recommends a fund switch, they should inform you of any costs that will be incurred in doing so, the charges on the new fund and what they'll earn out of it (if anything). If the adviser didn't do this in writing (most likely via the letter or report recommending the switch) then you may have cause for complaint. Although if you're happy with performance and the adviser didn't profit from the switches I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

If I've got the wrong pension or you have follow up questions please post below.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/775/is-my-skandia-pension-expensive

NFU with-profits pension change?

Question
I wonder whether how many other CM users have received the letter dated October 2012 from NFU Mutual stating that the current NFU With Profits Personal Pension Plan will close to new subscribers as from 31 Dec 12, and that existing subscribers will be limited to making regular payments at the level as at 31 Dec and that there will in future be no facilities for increasing or restarting regular payments or making lump sum contributions.

The first paragraph of the letter (from Tim McKeon Head of Life Services) states: 'The changes are necessary because the FSA has introduced new rules, as part of the Retail Distribution Review, that affect the way in which the Plan will operate in the future'.

I wonder if there are others who share my disappointment at what seem to be fairly drastic and draconian changes to a Plan, which otherwise appears to conform to a fairly standard pension plan model, at rather short notice, bearing in mind that most personal pension plan subscribers will probably want to stay in a scheme and use the facilities for 20 - 40 years.

If anyone can shed any light on why NFU Mutual have chosen to do this, I would be grateful for enlightenment. I should add that my family and I have similar personal pension plans with four other providers, none of which have so far made changes to these other plans, as a result of RDR. Answer
Sorry for the slow reply, been waiting on an answer from NFU which I've now finally received.

The issue here is the sales commissions currently built into the NFU Personal Pension Plan, used to pay for advice. The FSA's Retail Distribution Review will ban such commissions from 31 December 2012 for new advised sales, meaning the NFU pension will no longer be allowed in its current form if you want to restart or make additional contributions over and above your regular amount.

Under the new rules advisers will have to be paid via explicit fees, either charged directly to you or taken from the product with your permission - the latter is typically referred to as 'adviser charging'.

Most financial providers have already adapted or will adapt their existing product range to facilitate adviser charging, but in NFU's case they've decided to launch a new personal pension with this facility instead. So should you wish to increase/restart your NFU pension contributions from next year you'll have to either use the new pension or take your custom elsewhere to another provider.

I can see this proving an annoyance for some existing customers and it remains to be seen how the new pension charges will stack up against the existing, including the cost of advice (you may or may not be receiving). But provided charges don't increase and your eventual with-profits final bonus ends up being unaffected (i.e. the amount aggregated across the two plans is no different to all your money being in the one existing plan) then there doesn't seem any reason to be concerned.

For your information, here's NFU's response:

"RDR requires us to charge explicitly for advice. We believe that many of our customers will want to pay their advice charges from within their pension plans and this will require changes to our systems. The cost of the change in relation to the With-Profits Personal Pension Plan is judged to be uneconomic, given the number of policies we have sold and are likely to sell in future.

We have therefore developed a new pension plan for launch on 31st December 2012 to enable us to include the option to pay advice charges from the plan. This new plan includes With-Profits as well as a wider selection of investment-linked funds.

Consequently, we have decided not to amend the current With-Profits Personal Pension Plan but to allow existing customers to maintain their current contributions and to make available an improved pension plan for new customers and to enable existing customers to make additional contributions."

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/771/nfu-with-profits-pension-change

Thursday, 8 November 2012

Advisers incentivised to sell fixed term annuities?

Question
Thank you for providing such a great site! My question concerns Fixed Term Annuities.Is there any financial advantage to an annuity broker or financial adviser to promote this type of annuity against a traditional life time annuity? I am suspicious that there will be another fee to pay when the fixed term is up and another review is required.Answer
Fixed term annuities can be used in some pensions as a way to avoid locking into low current lifetime annuity rates. The fixed term annuity provides income for a set number of years after which you receive a guaranteed maturity payout, which can either be invested in your pension (if you opt for the income drawdown route) or a lifetime annuity (i.e. income for life).

As the rates offered by fixed term annuities are usually worse than lifetime annuities, you're only likely to benefit if lifetime annuity rates show a healthy increase (compared to the present) or your health deteriorates (probably increasing your lifetime annuity rate) by the time the fixed term annuity matures.

In my view fixed term annuities are generally not a good idea, unless you're confident either of the above will apply.

You're right to be suspicious. While the sales commissions paid on fixed term annuities tend to be similar to lifetime annuities, less scrupulous financial advisers may prefer them as they'll try and take another bite of your pie when the annuity matures, by selling you another (advisers will have to be fee-based from 31 December this year, but instead of commission they'll likely try and pocket a fee on maturity for further 'advice').

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/773/advisers-incentivised-to-sell-fixed-term-annuities

DIY personal injury trust?

Question
Does a person wanting to have a Personal Injury Trust drawn up have to use a professional person to do so, or can he/she write one out themselves. If it is possible to have a D.I.Y. Personal Injury Trust Deed, do you know where would I find a template to help?Answer
The usual rationale behind using a personal injury trust is to protect a compensation payment from affecting your entitlement to means tested state benefits. Although, of course, if the amount is significant and the injury serious a trust also provides a legal means for others (called 'trustees') to manage the money on the injured's behalf and in their best interests.

At their simplest a personal injury trust is little more than a type of bare trust, which is money for old rope as far as solicitors are concerned. However, I'm afraid I've been unable to find any diy versions or templates - so unless any readers can point out a viable alternative it looks like you'll need to use a solicitor.

In more complex cases I wouldn't hesitate to use a solicitor, although trustees should be careful who they use to advise on what to do with the money held within (as the solicitor might try and push financial advisers with whom they have a cosy relationship, with little regard for whether they're actually any good).

Sorry I can't be of more help.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/768/diy-personal-injury-trust

How do offset mortgages work?

Question
I have paid off the mortgage on my house and was thinking of taking out an offset mortgage in case I ever need a substantial lump sum of cash and was surprised when the Bank I asked about this said they needed to know what I intended to do with the money, as they only advanced money against the house for certain specific purposes such as home improvements or purchase of a car.

I thought an offset mortgage was more like an overdraft, and one could take up to your agreed maximum loan to value any time you wanted within the term of the mortgage and could pay back however much you want any time within the term?

Can you briefly explain how an offset mortgage works please.Answer
This surprises me too, as how you spend your money isn't really your bank's business. My guess if they'd prefer you to spend the money on your house as it increases the value of the asset against which they loan the money, but I've not heard of them actually stipulating this before. And, in any case, provided the bank agrees to a sensible loan to value (of your property) then they should be more than covered in any case.

Your definition of an offset mortgage is spot on. If you have an outstanding mortgage then you can use savings to offset the balance owed (normally via a linked current/savings account), reducing your monthly interest payments (which effectively equates to tax-free interest). Or, as in your case, if the mortgage is already paid off the offset mortgage acts like a big overdraft facility that usually benefits from far lower rates of interest than other forms of borrowing.

I'd try speaking to some other lenders who hopefully won't impose such a draconian condition. Or, provided you don't have to sign anything to the effect, simply tell the lender you spoke to you intend to spend the money on home improvements - banks are constantly economical with the truth to their customers, so why not play them at their own game.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/767/how-do-offset-mortgages-work

Can I manage my wifes ISAs?

Question
I am interested in setting up/transferring some ISAs for myself and my wife using a Discount Broker. Will I be able to act on my wife's behalf doing this so that our investments are all in the same place?Answer
Yes, but your wife may need to sign some letters/forms along the way.

The simplest scenario would be if your ISAs are already held on a fund platform, for example Cofunds or FundsNetwork. In this instance your funds are already held in one place, making monitoring and subsequent fund switches very straightforward. Benefitting from a discount broker (who offers trail commission rebates) simply means signing a 'change of agency' form or letter (your wife would need to sign for her ISAs) and the ISAs can remain in situ with the platform.

Given most platforms allow you to manage your investments online, it would be straightforward for you to look after your wife's ISAs (including subsequent switches) provided she's happy to give you her login details. If you want to make switches and get information over the phone or in writing then your wife would normally need to sign a letter giving you permission to do so, which would be sent to the discount broker and platform.

If the ISAs are currently held with different ISA providers and you want to consolidate onto one platform then you and your wife will need to complete ISA transfer forms, supplied by the discount broker. Once the transfer is complete, you can manage the investments as per above.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/766/can-i-manage-my-wifes-isas

Friday, 26 October 2012

View on Aberdeen Asian Income C Shares?

Question
I've read recently that the Aberdeen Asian Income Trust is launching C-shares which will trade at a lower premium than the existing shares - about 2%, just under 1/3 of the premium on the existing shares according to an article on Trustnet.

The article said that the money will be invested by 28 June 2013 at the latest, presumably in the same companies as the existing shares but it doesn't explain. It also says that "they will convert to ordinary shares on an NAV for NAV basis".

I decided I don't really understand and wondered if you would kindly explain!

Would you consider this an opportunity to invest, and is it ever sensible to buy an IT that is trading on a premium? Answer
When investment trusts want to attract more money under management, they need to issue more shares. But unlike unit trusts, they can't simply create extra units/shares on demand, it needs to be via a formal share issue - with 'C' shares the usual route to doing so.

C shares are a short term home for new subscriptions. Once money is raised and invested, then the C shares are converted into ordinary shares in the main investment trust. Why go to all this bother? It makes life much simpler - the shares can be offered at a fixed price then converted at the prevailing price later on, plus it avoids affecting the performance of the existing investment trust by suddenly injecting a whopping amount of cash and existing investors partly having to foot the bill for stamp duty and dealing charges on new investments purchased.

The potential advantage of buying C shares is avoiding the current premium to net asset value of around 7% on the Asian Income Trust. In English this means the shares currently cost about 7% more than the value of the underlying investments, largely because it's a popular trust with more buyers than sellers - hence the extra share issue.

When the C shares are converted into ordinary shares (due by 28 June 2013 at the latest), they will buy those ordinary shares at net asset value, not the prevailing share price, hence avoiding any premium there might be at that time. However, this will be partly offset by an initial charge of around 2% (slightly less if fully subscribed) when buying C shares to cover the costs of issue.

Should you buy C shares instead of the existing ordinary shares? If you want to invest now, it's arguably worthwhile in order to avoid paying a premium for the existing shares, even after the initial charge on C shares. But bear in mind the fund won't be fully invested immediately, which could drag short term performance versus the ordinary shares if markets rise meanwhile. And, if you weren't otherwise planning to invest now, the existing premium to net asset value may well decline by the time the C shares are converted, due to greater supply of shares.

There's little reason to avoid investment trusts at a premium provided you're confident the premium won't fall, by much at least. This is very difficult to predict, but in simple terms if the trust is likely to remain popular (most likely thanks to strong performance) then a premium will likely remain - notwithstanding the possible impact on the C share issue.

You can read full details of the Aberdeen Asian Income Trust C Share issue in the prospectus here.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question765.aspx

Monday, 22 October 2012

Avoid continuous payment authorities?

Question
I feel that there may be a case for banning the use of "Continuous Payment Authorities" in the UK.

They can be subject to aggressive marketing tactics, for instance, when an online, an goods retailer website may offer you a £10 discount if you sign up to an associated discount saver type website to get future discounts on all kinds of goods . But unbeknown to the unsuspecting customer who trusts the retailer, on the associated site, buried away in the small print there will be a trial offer for a limited period and then a deduction of £10 per month for membership of the associated discount website.

If you do not check your emails or your bank statements in detail this can cost a lot .I did not find it when I checked my monthly direct debits and standing orders because it was a Continuous Payment Authority and these are not listed alongside these other payment methods on the banks website I do not like Continuous Payment Authorities and I do not knowingly sign up for them but I got caught nevertheless. Answer
I agree that continuous payment authorities are open to abuse.

Continuous payment authorities (CPAs) are similar to direct debits but apply to debit and credit cards rather than a bank account and, vitally, they are not subject to the protection offered by the direct debit guarantee scheme (which essentially says you must be notified in advance if the amount, date or frequency of direct debit changes).

Finding out whether you have any set up is really a case of trawling debit/credit card statements for regular payments - far from satisfactory. And, if you have any annual insurance policies that you pay be debit/credit card be especially careful as these are more often than not setup via CPAs.

If you want to cancel a CPA then in theory your bank/credit card company must do so if you ask them (as per the Payment Services Directive). In practice it seems banks are sometimes reticent to do so and there's confusion over whether they're obliged to do so (despite the law...). So the first point of call should perhaps be the company taking the payments - ask them to stop taking payments (although you'll need to fulfil any outstanding payments/obligations as per the contract you agreed to, if relevant). If the company is difficult then ask your bank/credit card company to cancel. And if that fails take your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), although even they appear to have a chequered history of upholding CPA complaints - all in all the whole thing seems rather a mess.

Best to avoid CPAs in the first place wherever possible - companies offering free trials etc that require you to provide your credit card details will almost certainly be entering you into a CPA. And, if you have some, watch your debit/credit card statements like a hawk to ensure the company only takes what's owed.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question762.aspx

Can I setup bare trust myself?

Question
Can I setup a Bare Discounted Gift Trust without using an intermediary? Simple passing on of monies to two children but I would like to manage the investment fund myself and make changes as necessary. Where can I find appropriate wording for the the Trust document?Answer
Yes, you can.

However, for something that should be straightforward bare trusts cause an immense amount of confusion with little definitive guidance on what you actually need to do to set one up. Some fund managers/platforms/brokers provide a form and some don't. And HMRC doesn't require notification via the usual 41G trust form, but does state you need to write to them with details. In practice I doubt many people are doing this correctly and I also doubt HMRC cares that much - this is hardly the preferred route for big tax evaders.

If you want to write your own I'd use this Abbey form as a template (it may be an old form, but the wording remains valid). Then send a letter to your tax office informing them.

Bear in mind that placing the investments in a bare trust means they're taxable as the child's and count as a gift (both likely positive), although the child can't take ownership until they're 18.

Another, potentially simpler, option would be to use Junior ISAs. These avoid the hassle of trusts, are not taxable and can't be accessed by the child until age 18. The annual contribution limit is currently £3,600 per child, which may be split between cash and investments. However, there's a slight complication if any of your grandchildren already have a child trust fund (CTF), as this means they can't open a Junior ISA. CTFs will likely be merged into Junior ISAs at some point, meanwhile existing CTFs may also be topped up by up to £3,600 a year.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question760.aspx

Monday, 15 October 2012

How will fund platform charges change?

Question
May I ask a question in respect of using fund plaforms to hold investment portfolios.My wife and I hold our equity and fixed interest interest investments on Hargreaves Lansdown's Vantage platform. These are in the form of unit trusts.

H/L's customer service is impeccable, however we make all our own investment decisions and are aware other platforms offer a cheaper way of holding unit trusts through rebating most or all of the trail commissions. We are attracted by Cavendish who use Fundsnet work and seem to offer a much more attractive deal than H/L.

Next year new rules come into effect in respect of rebating trail commission and we are wondering if it would be wise to hold fire on transfering until the exect position is clearer. There are cost implications in making the transfer and would take time to recoup this cost in higher rebates not with standing any change in the rules on rebates.

The other isssue is in regard to the business model of Cavendish Online. I understand they are a small business indeed I have read they only employ 4 people and I wonder if their business model is secure and likely to endure. We would hate to be faced with having to move to another platform with the cost implications etc.
In these circumstances what would your advice be Justin in respect of:

a) waiting until the situation on rebate of commissions becomes clearer,

b) do you have a view on Cavendish On Line and their longer term stability or on other offerings such as
Alliance Trust?.

I realise it may be difficult to address the second question for obvious reasons but any general guidance would be appreciated.

By the way Justin your web site is excellent and I often visit it to cover basic points and opinion on investment. Answer
Thanks for the kind words re: the site, glad you find it helpful.

There are two big issues that could affect fund platform pricing. The first is the FSA banning platforms from receiving payments from fund managers, due to implemented by the end of 2013. The second is the potential banning of sales commissions on execution only transactions (i.e. via discount brokers when you don't receive advice), which I suspect the FSA will implement over the next year or so, although nothing definite as yet.

It's simplest to illustrate the potential impact of this with a an example.

Let's assume a fund charging 1.5% a year. Hargreaves Lansdown (HL) likely receives about 0.25% of this as a platform fee from the fund manager and another 0.5% as trail commission, so receives about 0.75% a year in total (in practice the figure appears to be a bit higher). From this HL typically rebates about 0.1-0.2% as a loyalty bonus and pockets the rest to pay for its service and turn a very healthy profit.

Assume fund manager payments are banned then we'd expect the annual fund charge to fall to 0.75%. HL would then charge customers directly for using its platform. If HL is to maintain its margin I'd expect an annual fee of around 0.6%, but I've no idea what it'll actually be in practice. The main point is there'll inventively have to be an explicit fee of some sorts, although that doesn't mean overall cost will necessarily change from now.

All fund platforms will be in the same boat, so very interesting to see what will happen. The likes of Alliance Trust Savings have arguably already built in this type of pricing, as they rebate all commissions and platform fees in favour of explicit annual and dealing fees - generally a very good deal for modest to larger sums if you don't trade very frequently.

Cavendish Online is an interesting example as it currently offers a full commission rebate and collects just 0.05% a year (i.e. £5 per £10,000 invested) from FundsNetwork as its fee. However, the FundNetwork platform fee is currently paid by fund managers, once this is banned you'll likely have to pay FundsNetwork directly. FundsNetwork's current 'unbundled' model charges 0.25% plus £45 a year (potentially £45 more than currently if our example fund charge falls to 0.75%). However, too soon to tell how the Cavendish Online deal would be affected, I suspect they'll negotiate a waiver on the £45 FundsNetwork fee to leave clients more or less on the same overall deal as now - we'll have to wait and see.

Is it worth waiting to see how charges potentially change before transferring? I suspect you'll need to stay put for up to a year for new charging structures to unfold, so tot up whether the commission saving over that time would outweigh the transfer costs (there should be no cost to sell your funds then transfer cash across and reinvest at the other end, but HL charges £30 per fund is you want to transfer across 'as is'). If it's marginal I'd stay put for now, else if you'd still end up saving then there seems little downside to transferring if you feel it's the right decision for you.

As for Cavendish Online's business model, it's firmly in the pile them high and sell them very cheap category. Margins are wafer thin, but Cavendish keeps a tight lid on costs (hence minimal staff) and appears to be a profitable business. I doubt they'll ever rival HL's c£150 million annual profit, but equally I'd be surprised if they ever went bust based on their current proposition.

In any case, because Cavendish Online is simply a discount broker and not the platform owner there's little risk involved. If they did go bust your money would remain unscathed with FudsnNetwork, although you'd have to appoint another discount broker as agent - and based on current competition the deal may end up more expensive than via Cavendish.

In the case of platform owners such as Alliance Trust Savings there is potentially a bit more risk, albeit still small overall. For more details see my article concerning nominee accounts.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question759.aspx

Tax on barn conversion?

Question
I own a house with a barn attached to it. This used to be used for storage from the main house, a basic gym and basic sleeping accommodation whenever kids pals stayed overnight. I am now converting this barn into a family home which will be sold to help pay off divorce debt. How can I avoid paying tax on any profit, which may be £100.000?

Also, the separation and sale of the barn from the main house will reduce the value of my main house - does this have tax implications?Answer
Provided the barn qualifies for private residence relief you shouldn't have any capital gains tax to pay on profits from the sale.

You can read HMRC's guidance here, but the key point seems to be whether your garden/grounds are less than half a hectare (1.24 acres).

If so, then the barn will likely be viewed as part of your main residence (assuming the house you're referring to is your main residence) hence should be exempt from capital gains tax. If your grounds exceed half a hectare then whether the barn qualifies for relief depends on whether it's 'needed for the reasonable enjoyment of your dwelling house as a home'.

The answer to the latter question is obviously not black and white. Given it doesn't sound like an integral part of your home HMRC might argue the answer is no, although you could obviously counter argue. If private residence relief is not allowed then you should be able to deduct the costs of conversion from any gain made on the barn.

Probably worth talking to an accountant with expertise in this area for more definitive guidance, but I hope the above points you in the right direction.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question758.aspx

Tuesday, 2 October 2012

Does capital gains tax affect income tax?

Question
As I understand it dividends are 'top sliced' on one's income, ie the 10% rate only applies if the total taxable income falls below the higher rate threshold of just under £35K. If in a particular year capital gains tax is chargeable does this mean that the dividends are assessed after the CGT or is CGT not considered income (though it is taxed as such under the 'simplified' system)? Thanks againAnswer
The 10% dividend tax rate for basic rate taxpayers is cancelled out by the attached 10% tax credit, so basic rate taxpayers have no further tax to pay. The logic behind this is that companies pay corporation tax on the profits from which dividends are paid, so applying basic rate to dividends would effectively result in double taxation (it's a shame HMRC doesn't apply this concept to things like inheritance tax!).

Higher rate taxpayers pay extra tax at a rate of 32.5% on the gross dividend (i.e. with the tax credit applied), which works out an extra 25% tax on the dividend received.

The illustrate the maths:

Suppose you receive a 90p dividend. The 'gross' dividend is 100p leaving basic rate taxpayers with a 10p liability (10% of 100p), which is cancelled out by the 10% tax credit, so no tax to pay. A higher rate taxpayer owes 32.5p less the 10p tax credit, leaving a 22.5p tax bill, equal to 25% of the 90p dividend received.

If you have capital gains, they are notionally added to your income for the purpose of assessing the rate(s) at which the gains will be taxed, but it won't affect the tax position of your income.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question754.aspx

Can I arbitrage my mortgage?

Question
I have a 62k interest only mortgage from LloydsTsb that currently only costs me £40.82 per month as its a lifetime tracker (currently 0.76%). The deal finishes in January 2013 consequently I have recently contacted the bank to ask what will happen then. Advice is that I will move to their SVR (which is currently 2.5%) and I will be asked whether I wish to continue with the interest only loan for a further 1, 3 or 5 years. I have the 62k available to pay off the mortgage which is earning interest in a Post Account currently paying 3.01%.

2.5% (although variable) seems cheap money to me and I wonder whether there is anywhere I use the money to earn more than the mortgage is costing me?

For background info I have a further 26k in cash ISA's and 73k in unit trusts through a financial advisor. The mortgaged property is worth around 250k and I am a 20% tax payer.



Answer
Shame your tracker mortgage deal is coming to an end, it's a great rate!

The highest savings account variable rates are currently around 3% before tax. Deduct 20% basic rate tax and you'll end up with 2.4%, slightly less than your mortgage SVR. You could use a cash ISA to receive tax-free interest, but given the annual £5,640 contribution limit the bulk of your £62,000 would have to remain outside the ISA.

Tie the money up for 3 years on a fixed rate and you can currently get in the region of 4% a year, equal to 3.2% after basic rate tax. Assuming the mortgage rate remains at 2.4% you'd make an annual profit of £496 on £62,000. Nice, but there's the risk that your mortgage rate could rise at some point and leave you out of pocket, especially if the fixed rate account doesn't allow early access to your cash (most don't). I'm not sure the potential profit merits taking the risk.

There's always the option to invest the money instead, but in the current climate I think that's probably too risky, even over five years, if you want to be sure of repaying the mortgage.

If you like the flexibility holding the cash gives you then maybe it's worth keeping it in an easy access account and more or less breaking even on the mortgage. Otherwise I'd consider removing the mortgage millstone by paying it off.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question753.aspx

Impact of currency on overseas fund?

Question
I understand how currency swings can affect investments but I'm struggling to identify exactly which currencies I am exposing myself to.

For example, if a fund invests in a basket of Latin American stocks but the fund manager I buy from is based in the U.S., am I exposed to swings in the US Dollar against the Pound, a range of Latin American currencies against the Pound or a combination of both?Answer
Ultimately, the answer is with great difficulty. Even a UK FTSE All Share tracker can be affected by currency movements in so far as the many of the underlying companies have exposure to currency via exports or overseas operations.

But let's looks at the bigger picture which I think is what you're asking about. Here are a couple of examples.

Suppose you buy units in a US fund that invests in the UK stock market. You convert your pounds into dollars, which the manager converts back into pounds to invest. When selling units the manager receives pounds which are converted into dollars which you then convert back into pounds. Sounds confusing, but the bottom line is exchange rate movements don't really impact your fund value in this instance. You invest £1,000 at £1 = $2, i.e. $2,000 of units. The manager buys £1,000 of UK shares with the money. Suppose the exchange rate moves to £1=$1.5 then selling the shares gives $1,500 which is worth £1,000 when you convert back into pounds.

So buying a fund in another currency that invests in assets priced in your home currency is unaffected by movements in those two currencies (ignoring the underlying investments themselves, which may or may not be affected by currency movements as mentioned at the beginning of my answer)..

Let's now assume you buy a US fund that invests in European shares priced in euros. You invest £1,000 at £1 = $2 to give $2,000 of units which buys €1,500 of shares at $1 = €0.75. The manager sells the shares at $1 = €0.5 to give $3,000 which is converted into £2,000 at £1 = $1.5. So you've doubled your money because of currency movements.

Breaking this down, the dollar/euro movement increases value by 50% and the dollar/pound by a third, but as the dollar/pound movement applies to the 50% increased dollar amount (due to dollar/euro movement) the overall impact is actually two thirds (50% x 1.333).

Anyway, the bottom line is that both sets of currency movements have affected the fund's value without any change in the underlying share prices. So in your example you'd be exposed to movements in all three currencies.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question751.aspx

Monday, 1 October 2012

Strategy for rising income in retirement?

Question
Can I ask your opinion on the following idea to maximise the income from my upcoming pension fund.

1. Take 25% tax free lump sum and invest in equity income funds within an ISA.

2. Opt to receive a level annuity.

3. Construct an annual budget as if I had opted for an escalating annuity, linked to the RPI, and invest the balance in equity income funds again within an ISA.

4. Repeat for subsequent years, gradually increasing the annual budget in line with the RPI, and continue to invest the remaining cash in the equity income ISA.

Answer
It sounds reasonable provided you're confident you can stick to your annual budget and are comfortable investing in stock markets.

For taxpayers, taking the 25% tax-free is generally a no-brainer, as it would otherwise be used to produce a taxable income.

Investing this money into equity income funds within an ISA will ensure the income generated is not taxable and does not count towards your increased age related income tax allowance (although the latter is being phased out by the Government in any case). But note, basic rate taxpayers don't save income tax on dividends within ISAs or pensions (blame Gordon Brown), as dividends are deemed to be paid net of basic rate tax which cannot be reclaimed - although higher and top rate taxpayers avoid any further tax in these wrappers.

Equity income fund dividend yields currently tend to be around 3-5% (net of basic rate tax), which is attractive in this low interest rate environment. However, bear in mind these things can change over time and if markets dive then the value of your ISA probably will too. On the plus side, dividends have a pretty good track record of keeping up with inflation, but I must stress this is over the longer term and short term dividend fluctuations or an inflationary spike could catch you out.

If there comes a time when the ISA income can't keep pace with your inflation-linked budget you'll have to consider either reducing your budget or dipping into ISA capital, neither especially pleasant.

You could take a look at the level vs index-linked pension calculator on our calculators page to get a feel for when the break-even point between the two types might be, although this assumes a constant rate of inflation which in real life willl undoubtedly vary.

Perhaps consider diversifying the ISA away from just equity income. For example, holding other assets such as fixed interest and property will reduce your reliance on the stock market for your strategy to work.

Alternatively, if your pension fund is large enough you might consider taking the 25% tax-free cash, leaving the balance invested and drawing an income (called an unsecured pension). You can read about the pros and cons of taking an unsecured pension on our annuities page.

Good luck.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question750.aspx

Hargreaves Lansdown SIPP more competitive?

Question
Now Hargreaves Lansdown are introducing loyalty commission rebates on ther SIPP, do they move up your low cost SIPP comparison table for funds?
Answer
Hargreaves Lansdown (HL) has confirmed it will commence loyalty payments on its Vantage SIPP from 1 January 2013. This is good news for loyal HL customers, but won't be a game changer for those seeking the cheapest SIPP deals - as HL's rebates are not very generous. It's also disappointing that HL won't commence rebates for three months following the commencement - over which time HL will keep around £1.5 million that would otherwise be rebated.

I'll update my low cost SIPP comparison nearer the time, but in terms of overall cost I'd expect HL to get a bit closer to Bestinvest - who tend to give higher rebates than HL but still lag the very cheapest.

In its favour HL doesn't charge for a SIPP wrapper, but does charge £1 or £2 a month per fund that doesn't pay trail commission and a 0.5% annual charge on shares (capped at £200 a year), which includes investment trusts and ETFs.

Bottom line, even with rebates HL will still likely be well off the pace in terms of net overall cost for larger pension funds, but may suit investors with smaller pension pots where competitor annual fees can become relatively expensive.

HL also makes much of its service, which seems to receive generally good feedback. Whether this is worth paying for is obviously a personal choice

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question752.aspx

Saturday, 29 September 2012

A few rants...

Inflation figures, NEST, MAS, wealth taxes, there's lots to rant about. .

We've always known that a lot of the stuff governments do makes little sense; politicians are often too busy posturing and looking after own self-interest to make positive long term contributions to society. And even when the intention is good, the execution is all too often flawed. But as far as 'money' is concerned things seem especially bad, or am I just feeling even more cynical than usual? A few rants that spring to mind...


RPI the new CPI?


The Office of National Statistics will consult on whether to change the way RPI is calculated, to bring it more in-line with CPI. There are 3 main differences between the two measures:



  • What's included: RPI includes some housing costs that CPI doesn't.

  • Who's represented: CPI presents all households whereas RPI excludes the highest earners and pensioners living mostly off benefits.

  • The maths: RPI is calculated using arithmetic mean whereas CPI uses geometric mean - different ways to measure an average . Don't worry about the jargon, the bottom line is CPI's method is a bit more relevant because it assumes people change their spending habits in proportion to price changes - i.e. if bread A becomes more expensive than bread B, you might buy more of B and less of A.

The maths part is important as estimates suggest it makes CPI about 0.9% lower than RPI, ignoring the other two differences. And it's really this that the ONS is proposing to change.


From an academic point of view it arguably makes sense. But the wider implications of such a change in practice are massive and make less sense.


The Government will save a fortune on the interest and redemption payments of index-linked gilts (although the contracts on a few index-linked gilt issues may require he Government to redeem them early in this event). And employers with final salary pension schemes may benefit, as the cost of inflation-linking pensions would likely fall.


But those with RPI-linked pensions, investments and savings could stand to lose out, potentially by a lot longer term - such change would be largely detrimental to and unpopular with the public.


NEST


The majority of the population faces a big pension shortfall, i.e. they're not saving enough to enjoy a comfortable retirement. The idea to automatically enrol employees (who don't already have access to a company pension) into a simple low cost scheme is therefore laudable.


However, the Government's attempt at this ('NEST') has a few possible glitches. Perhaps the biggest is that while the annual charge will be a very low 0.3%, there's an additional 1.8% initial charge on contributions - necessary to compensate for civil servants blowing too much cash when setting up NEST. There's no word yet on how long this extra charge will be levied, but it's very unwelcome.


There's also the problem that many of the pension-starved employees NEST is targeting may decide to opt-out, wrongly viewing their compulsory contribution as more of a tax than investment in their future. And employers might try to drive down employee benefits elsewhere to help fund their compulsory contribution - meaning employees won't necessarily be better off.


Nice concept, but in practice I fear NEST may be doomed.


Money Advice Service (MAS)


The population doesn't just face a pension shortfall, there's a big shortfall in money knowledge and education too (if only everyone would visit my site!).


Step forward the Money Advice Service (MAS), the Government's answer to the problem. Trouble is, despite spending tens of millions of pounds on a website, staff and marketing (funded via a compulsory levy on financial services companies), it really isn't very good - just take a look at its website or try calling the MAS helpline with a technical question.


Browse the annual accounts and you'll see senior staff on bloated six figures packages and money being spent left, right and centre - the only thing MAS seems any good at. MAS is obviously immune to the recession hitting the rest of us - annoying to see quangos like this are alive and well.


LibDem talk of a wealth tax


Whether you like the LibDems or not, you'll probably agree they have little chance of getting into power other than via the weaker half of a coalition government. But this doesn't stop Nick Clegg et al. announcing half-baked ideas to more heavily tax the affluent. I'm not against the rich bearing a greater tax burden, but wealth taxes (usually an annual tax on assets above a given threshold) are notoriously difficult to implement, police and run cost effectively. A number of European countries have ditched wealth taxes over the last 15 years for these very reasons. Luckily, unlike the above examples, it's all talk, and that's probably all it ever will be.


Anyway, rants over for now, but I'd love to hear yours, please post below...

Read this article at http://www.candidmoney.com/articles/article260.aspx

Friday, 28 September 2012

Any way to reduce CGT on let property?

Question
My wife and I bought a flat in 1990 for approx £90K which we let until recently when on retirement we moved into it. However the area is not as it was and we would like to choose somewhere else instead.

Today the flat it is valued at about £240K after agents and legal costs. Are we to be taxed on the entire difference of £150K (apart from the standard CGT allowance of around 22K) as the bulk of the 'gain' is due entirely to inflation and so not a gain at all?

This seems most unreasonable and will discourage long term holdings which is counter to the supposed originally announced intention of CGT to catch the get-rich-quick brigade. Also it means the legislation is retrospective and perhaps thereby a worrying precedent. If this large tax charge is in fact the case can it be deferred by rolling it into the bungalow we would like to purchase and thus only be payable on our deaths or further removal?Answer
Once upon a time you could take inflation into account when calculating capital gains. This was achieved by increasing the purchase price by inflation up to the sale date, a system called 'indexation'.

However, this was abolished in April 1998 in favour of a system called 'taper relief'. Under taper relief the amount of gain subject to tax reduced (by up to 40% for personal assets and 75% for business assets) the longer you held the asset. Assets owned on 31 March 1998 could also benefit from indexation allowance up to that date provided they were sold before 6 April 2008.

Taper relief (and indexation to 31 March 1998) was scrapped from 6 April 2008 and replaced by a flat capital gains tax rate of 18%. So while there was no longer any provision to take account of inflation, the rate was much lower than in the past to compensate.

The introduction of an additional 28% capital gains tax rate from 23 June 2010 (for higher and top rate taxpayers) went somewhat against the spirit of the original move to a low flat rate, but as it's still less than the higher and top rates of tax there's not much room for complaint.

However, if the capital gains tax rate rises in future, perhaps to income tax levels, it would start to look very unfair that inflation is no longer taken into account. But Government's tend to be less focussed on what's fair when they're broke!

Moving onto to your property, you can't roll-over the gain into another property but there's potentially a small amount of good news.

Because the flat is now your main residence you could benefit from private residence relief. This will be proportional based on the period of time throughout ownership it's been your main residence, although you can automatically include the last 3 years provided it's been your main residence at some point.

So if we assume you've owned it for 22 years and it's been your main residence for 3 of those you'll get relief equal to 3/22 of the £150,000 gain, i.e. £20,454 (the calculation should actually be carried out in months).

However, because you let the property you can also qualify for letting relief, which is calculated as the lower of:

- the amount of Private Residence Relief already calculated, or
- £40,000, or
- the amount of any chargeable gain you make because of the letting (calculated as a fraction of the gain - the fraction being the period of letting/divided by the period of ownership).

In your case the private residence relief of £20,454 seems to apply, giving a total of £40,908 relief. This leaves a chargeable gain of £109,092 from which you can deduct available capital gains tax allowances.

Please bear in mind my calculations are for illustration only. You'll need to calculate exact figures yourself or use an accountant to do so.

More details on private residence relief in this HMRC helpsheet.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question749.aspx

Wednesday, 26 September 2012

Equity release on shared ownership property?

Question
Can you get equity release on a shared ownership property where you own 50% and the housing association own 50%?Answer
No, I'm afraid equity release schemes require you to own 100% of the property. If you need to raise cash you may be able to mortgage/re-mortgage your 50% share in the property. However, lenders are far more cautious than they used to be, so even this might be tough unless you have a reasonable amount of equity in the property.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question747.aspx

Can I take SSSO/AVC before company pension?

Question
I have just taken voluntary redundancy on 1 September. I have a final salary pension of 27 years and also £22,500 in an AVC scheme with Aviva. I have read about a scheme called State Sptreading Scheme Option (SSSO) and want to know if it could apply to me. My official state pension age is 1 March 2015 so I have 2 1/2 years before I receive my state pension. Do I have to take my company pension in order to get SSSO?Answer
In theory it's possible to take benefits from an Additional Voluntary Contribution (AVC) pension scheme before or after you take benefits from your occupational pension, so this could allow the possibility of using the State Spreading Scheme Option (SSSO) without taking your company pension.

However, it all depends on whether your pension scheme rules allow this (just because HMRC rules do it doesn't automatically mean your pension scheme does), so you'll need to check with your employer's pension scheme administrator.

SSSO allows you to withdraw a temporary income from an occupational pension/AVC (if the scheme allows it) equal to up to 125% of a single person's basic state pension (I believe) until the state pension age, at which point the balance of the fund is used to provide a conventional annuity.

Alternatively, you might just decide to take your tax free cash entitlement from the AVC and buy an annuity now - if your scheme rules allow this.

It's the usual retirement gamble of receiving less income now but for longer or more in future for a shorter overall period of time. There's no right or wrong as such, it depends on how long you think you'll live and prevailing annuity rates.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question746.aspx

Capital gains tax on property conversion?

Question
I recently purchased an old pub which I am converting into a residential property and it is now my main (and only) residence.The pub consists of a main building with an attached restaurant to the side of it and my original intention was to the convert the pub into a 5 bedroom house with the restaurant part being a large 'lounge' area, however I decided to apply for planning permission to convert the restaurant part into a three bedroom semi-detached house (which I now have) and my question is this:-

1. Will I be liable for cgt on the restaurant part if I sell it as a 'renovation project' i,e sold the restaraunt as it stands with planning permission?

2. Will I be liable for cgt on the restaurant part if I convert it myself and sell it as a three bedroom house?

Thanks in advance.Answer
They key will be whether HMRC allows you to claim private residence relief on the sale. It's not normally granted if you "acquire a dwelling house and/or spend money on it in order to realise a gain on its disposal".

In other words, if HMRC thinks you bought the pub in order to develop part of it and sell on for a quick profit, it'll likely treat any resulting gains as taxable (possibly as income if it reats you as a developer). Even if you just sell the restaurant area with planning permission, rather than developing yourself, you may still be caught by this rule.

Of course, during the property boom loads of people effectively became property developers by buying homes, living there for a short while (as a main residence) while they did them up then selling at a profit and moving another notch or two up the housing ladder without paying any tax on the gains. Should they have paid tax? It's something of a grey area.

Bottom line, the answer to your question is probably subjective and I'm afraid I don't have enough experience in this area to give a more definite answer. I'd suggest seeking guidance from an accountant or HMRC directly (who can occasionally be helpful when you phone them).

Good luck.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question738.aspx

Views on Schroder UK Mid 250 fund?

Question
Appreciate your views on Schroder UK Mid 250 fund.

ThanksAnswer
On the surface, the Schroder UK Mid 250 is a good fund gone bad - it has underperformed the FTSE 250 Index by some margin in 4 of the last 5 years. The last 12 months have offered a ray of hope with the fund finally outperforming the Index, but does this warrant continuing to hold the fund?

There appear to be a few key reasons for the underperformance. Going back several years there was widespread concern that the fund had become too large for mid cap investing - the challenge for manager Andy Brough being he'd have to invest in more companies and/or increase the size of bet on each company - neither necessarily desirable.

The size issue appears to have been compounded by Brough making too many poor sector and stock bets over the last few years. As of the end of August Brough had over half his fund invested in the consumer services and industrial sectors, with Sports Direct his largest holding at just under 6% of the fund. His industrials weighting is broadly on par with the Index, but his consumer services exposure is quite a lot higher - meaning he either expects the economy to pick up or he's very confident in his stock picks.

Either way, remaining in the fund means having confidence in Brough. While once almost a foregone conclusion, poor performance has shaken the faith of many investors. I think there's a fair chance performance versus the Index will bounce back medium term (although I don't expect this to be consistent given market/economic volatility), but on balance I think there's a stronger argument for simply switching into a tracker. Or, at the very least, consider using a different active manager with a stronger, more consistent track record. The Franklin UK Mid Cap Growth (an ex Rensburg fund) run by Paul Spencer springs to mind, as does the Royal London UK Mid Cap Growth fund run by Derek Mitchell.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question739.aspx

Which SIPPs for cash?

Question
Which SIPPs allow Interest earning Bank deposits in its Investment Platforms?Answer
Almost all 'low cost' SIPPs restrict customers to a single cash account paying little or no interest. The simple reason being it's very profitable for the SIPP provider to do so (they earn a higher rate on the cash and pocket the margin).

The only exception I've found is the James Hay iSIPP, which offers a range of fairly competitive fixed rate accounts from four banks. The downside is that there's a minimum investment of £50,000 per account.

To access the full range of savings accounts available for pension funds (which is still rather limited and uncompetitive compared to conventional savings accounts) you'll need to use a more expensive higher end SIPP (e.g. AJ Bell Platinum SIPP, Alliance Trust Full SIPP). This will typically cost several hundred pounds both to set up and each year as administration fees, so you'll need to factor in these costs when deciding whether it's worthwhile.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question744.aspx

Monday, 24 September 2012

Which adviser for pension transfer?

Question
I am in the process of transferring my personal pension funds onto the Skandia platform. I have the choice of two advisers. One is offering me 0.5% for annual review (but monthly review of underlying funds), while the other is offering 1% for quarterly review (and monthly review of underlying funds). The 1% adviser has the most experience, but the other has an intimate knowledge of my main occupational pension scheme. I may wish to take an annuity, or place the funds in drawdown, in 3 years time. How do I decide which adviser is most appropriate for my needs?

One of the advisers has told me that, if my main occupational pension is greater than 20k, the personal pension should be in a SIPP. Is that right? I have never heard this before.Answer
If you'll likely buy an annuity in 3 years time then your investment choice should really be restricted to cash and maybe relatively safe investments such as cautious fixed interest funds. In this context it's unlikely much investment expertise or monitoring will be required, so the 0.5% adviser may suffice (or consider doing it yourself). And perhaps the bigger question is whether you'll derive sufficient benefit from using Skandia for just 3 years to outweigh the cost of transferring your existing pensions.

If you opt for drawdown instead this will require more comprehensive investment planning and monitoring, as your pension fund could remain invested for many more years and income withdrawals require careful monitoring to ensure your fund doesn't run dry. It may well be the 0.5% adviser has sufficient skill and experience to carry out this task perfectly well. But if you feel the more expensive adviser is more capable then perhaps they will carry out a better job.

I'm not particularly comfortable with advisers trying to charge 1% a year, as this is quite steep and can become a significant sum over time. However, you might feel the advice and service you'll receive justifies the cost - it's a free market after all.

As for the adviser's view that SIPPs should be used for pension pots in excess of £20,000, it's debateable. The advent of low cost SIPPs means it's now financially viable to use a SIPP on pension funds of this size. But whether it's a good idea depends on the extent you'll use and benefit from the increased investment choice. And whenever considering a transfer out of a money purchase occupational pension it's vital to check whether you'll lose any valuable benefits, such as employer contributions and subsidised charges.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question745.aspx

Monday, 17 September 2012

Tax on foreign scrip dividends?

Question
I have Royal Dutch Shell shares from I take scrip dividends.

As far as I have been able to find out no income tax is due on the scrip dividend, that is used to purchase new shares. There is a 15% Dutch withholding tax on the conventional dividends.

I called HMRC tro try and check the tax position and they seemed confused...before hanging up.

How are they taxed, is there a catch?Answer
There's no catch as such.

Like most companies, Royal Dutch Shell pays corporation tax on its profits, with dividends paid out of the remaining balance. If you opt for scrip dividends (i.e. extra shares in lieu of a cash payout) there's no 15% Dutch withholding tax, as you mention. Opt for cash dividends and the withholding tax applies.

Whichever route you choose, the dividends are subject to UK income tax as normal. This means basic rate taxpayers will have no further liability (as the corporation tax paid is effectively deemed to be sufficient) and higher rate taxpayers will be subject to 32.5% tax on the 'gross' dividend (generally equal to 25% of the dividend received).

The 15% Dutch withholding tax can be offset against the UK income tax liability, but as basic rate taxpayers don't have any further liability it's only relevant to higher/top rate taxpayers.

So in this case the scrip dividend is more favourable for basic rate taxpayers (as it avoids the 15% withholding tax that can't in practice be reclaimed) while neutral for higher/top rate taxpayers (assuming they reclaim the 15% when opting for conventional dividends).

If you want to read about scrip dividends and capital gains tax see my answer to this previous question.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question718.aspx

Index tracking strategy a good one?

Question
I am a great admirer of your website and independent opinions.

In todays volatile markets many people (like myself) are struggling to maintain the value of their investments and provide some sort of investment income/capital growth. Obviously cash deposits now loose money in real terms. There are many theories of how to do this through investments. The problem is sorting out the pressurised sales literature fiction from actual facts. I have narrowed down three areas of interest and would value any opinion on them:-

1. www.saltydoginvester.com. This is a subscription service which provides weekly online updates on performance of unit trusts, all divided up into different segments related to risk which extends backwards historically. There are a lot of figures! They also run their own portfolio which is reviewed and explained weekly and in a monthly newsletter. Their portfolio seems to have been successful in avoiding downward dips, where they have transfered into a money fund. The idea is that you can follow emerging trends by using a platform provider like Hargreaves Lansdown and make sales and purchases at very little cost or effort on line. The basis of the scheme's theory appears to mirror the Jesse Livermore investment rules of momentum trading, which means you only ever buy on a rising market, you do not implement any investments/segmented ideas until the market has confirmed by going up. etc, etc. You have to act decisively once you have spotted a trend!
Although this man Livermore was a legendary and incredibly successful investor over 30 years, his wealth se-sawed up and down and he eventually committed suicide, which is a little worrying.........
The other fly in the ointment is the forthcoming changes in investment commissions and 'trail' commissions.

2. www.monkeywithapin.com This is a website written and hosted by Peter Comley who has a degree in psychology. It is free. It contains an interesting and seemingly academic book 'Monkey with a pin' (which you can dowload and print) This book draws attention to some uncomfortable opinions/conclusions regarding investment managers and how the costs are hidden and the returns magnified by using doubtful stats. and selected time periods. He also draws attention to experiments that suggest that a monkey with a pin can probably outperform star investment managers! 'Buy and hold'' is no longer a good policy due to extreme volatility. He also says that humans are not 'hard wired' to make investment decisions successfully due to their inability to sell at a loss, etc etc.

If the best investment managers are so prone to making mistakes eventually and monkeys can out-perform them, what about tracker funds:-

3. Vanguard Investments and in particular their FTSE Equity Income range, which contain a selection of equity income shares of companies that are yielding a handsome dividend income because they are stolid and huge, like utility companies, etc and also some companies who seemingly yield a good dividend income simply because the market believes they are either boring, non growth or in trouble and have consequently marked their share price down (investing there goes against the Jesse Livermore rules though!)
They have quite a big range of other trackers.
Vanguard Group have commissioned a paper summarising the findings into active investment managers results compared to passive investment which is available on their website.
Of course - need I say - the passive strategy comes out as best and this seems to be confirmed when you compare active fund managers performance and they say that investing is a 'zero sum' game with equal losers and winners. Are these funds real shares or derivatives?
There is a 0.5% purchase fee as well as charges from Hargreaves.Answer
Thanks for a very interesting question.

I've recently written an article including a look at Saltydog Investor here. It's certainly worth a look if you believe in momentum investing and have the time/inclination to make frequent fund switches within your portfolio. But it doesn't particularly suit income seeking investors and you'll probably want to use a fund platform that doesn't charge dealing/switching for funds, else the costs of frequent switching could soon pile up.

The Monkeywithapin website/book makes some valid points. The main conclusion isn't surprising - the majority of active fund managers are simply not very good. I include a random stock pickers (i.e. monkeys) versus active managers comparison on our tracker fund page. And yes, the monkeys tend to fare well.

While the monkeys comparison is a good advert for tracker funds, we mustn't forget tracker funds charges, which pretty much guarantees they'll fail to beat the index (unless their tracking error is consistently positive). So it's important to consider low cost trackers that accurately mirror the chosen index.

It's also important to consider underlying assets when having the tracker versus active manager debate. Some assets just doesn't lend themselves to tracking, for example physical commercial property - there's no practical way to artificially track a portfolio of office blocks and retail parks. It is possible to track indices of property companies (e.g. REITs), but these tend to be more correlated to stock markets losing some of the diversification benefits of property.

Vanguard offers a low cost range of tracker funds (which buy shares, not 'artificial' derivatives), but rather shoots itself in the foot with a £100,000 minimum investment if you want to buy direct. The funds are currently available via four fund platforms, Alliance Trust Savings, Bestinvest, Hargreaves Lansdown and Sippdeal - but each route incurs extra platform fees of some sorts.

In my view (echoed by my portfolio) a mix of trackers and actively managed funds is a sensible approach, using trackers for mainstream assets/markets and active managers for more specialist areas. It still backfires sometimes, but on the whole it works well.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question708.aspx

Tuesday, 11 September 2012

How does Saxo MWM compare?

Question
I wondered what your thoughts on SaxoMWM are? It is fairly new but I have opened an acount. It seems an efficient and relatively cheap way to invest compared to ny Transact account set up through a Financial adviser.

They take 2.2% of what I pay in plus 1% pa. SMWM is much cheaper particularly if you are buying and holding funds an Etf's.Answer
Saxo Modern Wealth Management offers share and fund trading with the option of ISA and SIPP wrappers.

Perhaps the most significant point to note is that Saxo doesn't rebate any fund trail commission, which is very uncompetitive versus those platforms and discount brokers that do, e.g. Alliance Trust Savings, Interactive Investor and Cavendish Online.

There are no dealing charges for funds while shares cost a fairly competitive £9.95 per deal (up to £75,000 trades then the price rises sharply). Corporate bond trades are 0.75% on the first £15,000 then 0.1%, which is high).

There's an annual £35 account charge, which includes an ISA, while the SIPP wrapper is an additional £195 a year.

All in all, it's hard to get excited about Saxo MWM. It's an ok deal if you only want to invest in shares/ETFs, although the likes of SVS Securities and x-o.co.uk offer cheaper dealing without account or ISA wrapper fees (and for very frequent traders Club Finance may prove something of a bargain). If you want to hold funds the lack of trail commission rebates is a big negative that could prove costly over time.

The Transact charges you mention sound high, but they inclued high financial adviser fees. I believe the Transact platform charges 0.2% on purchases (up to £1 million then 0.1%) with some trail commission rebate for larger portfolios. The ISA wrapper is £12 a year and SIPP £80. While not extortionate, the fees could prove a bit steep on larger sums and may become excessive if a financial adviser adds greedy fees on top (believe me, 1% a year is greedy!).

You might find our online dealing, SIPP and ISA discount broker/platform comparisons helpful.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/questions/question740.aspx