In contrast to the previous 2 budgets, with one hour to go until the budget speech, there is still a high degree of speculation about what Mr Osborne’s red box might contain.
There is talk of a higher than expected personal allowance and some significant changes to pensions tax allowances.
We will be watching the budget announcement as it happens and will be providing updates and analysis throughout the day. Stay tuned for more.
In 5 days time George Osborne will deliver his 5th budget as chancellor of the exchequer. If the leaks and predictions are anything to go by (which they seem to be if the past two years are anything to go by) then this budget could have significant impacts from a financial planning perspective.
We are all too aware of the fragile state of the economic recovery and as such we expect this budget to be “cost neutral”. That is, any tax cuts or spending increases, will have to be paid for from increased takings elsewhere.
There is speculation that the chancellor may announce yet another increase to the state pension age (as I alluded to in my previous blog), as well as making yet further reductions to the annual or lifetime pensions allowances.
Add in the fact that there could well be a significant change to income tax legislation, and a reform of the capital gains tax rules, and we have a budget that anyone who is interested in financial planning will want to keep a close eye on.
We will be watching the budget and blogging live as it happens. We will also be preparing a short guide to the major announcements and providing specific advice to clients over the coming months.
If you would like to find out how the budget will impact on your finances, please get in touch to arrange your discovery meeting, provided at our expense,
At present the amount of pension savings that can be accumulated by an individual is limited by both an “annual allowance” and a “lifetime allowance”.
As the names would suggest the “annual allowance” is a limit on the amount of tax advantaged pension savings and individual can make in a single “pension input period”, not to be confused with the tax year. This allowance used to be £255,000 per annum, which meant that it was not a concern for all but the most wealthy pension savers. Recent legislation has sought to reduce this allowance though, and on 6th April this year it will reduce to £40,000 per annum.
The “lifetime allowance” restricts the amount of pension savings one can accumulate in their lifetime. Any excess over the allowance carries a rather severe 55% tax charge. Like its annual counterpart, the lifetime allowance has been on the chopping block in recent budgets, falling from a previous £1.8m to £1.25m on 6th April 2014.
Some commentators are predicting that the government will announce the abolition of the lifetime allowance in the 2014 budget (at least for some individuals). This is one prediction which I do hope turns into reality.
It seems counterintuitive to limit an individuals lifetime pension savings, which are influenced by market growth and other factors over which they have no control, when we are already setting a limit on the annual pension input amount.
Surely it makes far more sense to simply limit the annual level of contributions, and stop taxing people on the growth in their pension funds. After years of increasingly complex pension legislation, any move to simplify things is surely a step in the right direction.
If you would like assistance with your own pension provision, please get in touch to arrange your discovery meeting, provided at our expense.
I have recently finished work on a set of new investment portfolios for our clients. This is arguably my most important task as a financial planner because this is where I recommend my clients invest their money. It is a large responsibility, and one that I take extremely seriously.
This process has taken almost a whole month of solid work. I would approximate 130 hours in total. This is the amount of time required to conduct proper research, analysis and due diligence on the daunting amount of investment options available in the marketplace. What’s more, this is a process we will undertake every 3 months to ensure we keep up to speed with the fast changing world of investments.
Our process focuses on finding funds and investments that will meet our clients’ objectives, represent good value for money and that don’t expose our clients’ funds to excessive risk (however some risk is required in order to generate above average returns).
We repeat this process once every 3 months to ensure that our investment portfolios remain suitable for our clients’ needs. All in all then, this investment process takes up around 1/3 of my working time and even then we rely on external research and analysis conducted by experts in various fields to assist us in our endeavours.
While some people can and do “self invest”, I would suggest that they are unable to dedicate 1/3rd of their working life to such tasks. While some people feel confident taking this approach, most would feel more comfortable knowing that they have left the selection of their investments to an experienced professional, who can dedicate 1/3rd of their time to researching suitable investments and protecting their clients money.
If you would like to know more about our investment process or to find out how we could help manage your portfolio, please get in touch to request your discovery meeting, provided at our expense.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Legal & General chief executive Nigel Wilson has called for several financial products to become compulsory, namely income protection and long term care insurance, in addition to the already launched auto enrolment pension system.
The case made is that the state cannot be expected to continue to provide for us in the event that we fall ill or require long term nursing care. Wilson suggests that insurance for these needs should be compulsory, however perhaps this is a bit too much of a one-size-fits-all approach.
While I agree that most individuals do require further planning and protection in these areas, is compulsion really the solution? It would seem that if we are going to force people to take out these insurance products, then an increase in taxation and state provision would be the simplest, if not the most desirable solution.
Many people certainly need to do more to protect themselves in the event of a spell of time off work, or the need for long term nursing care, however, there are many ways that this protection can be achieved.
One way for example, is to hold a sufficiently large emergency fund in cash and other investments. The fortunate people who already have this type of provision in place would justifiably feel a little aggrieved if they were forced to purchase insurance to cover a need that they have already taken care of.
Income protection and certainly long term care insurance are complex products with myriad different options. Surely it would be better for individuals to have a say in the type (and cost) of the cover that they require, rather than trying to fit all individuals into one mass solution.
An interesting article on IFA online today likened investors to pigeons. While some might say that this is a little offensive, the similarities can be stark in some cases, when it comes to investing.
The premise of the report is an experiment in which pigeons were given a red light and a green light to peck on. The green light would dispense food 60% of the time and the red light would only give a morsel of food 40% of the time.
Now it seems obvious that the pigeon should continuously peck the green light, as this is the one that will distribute food most often. What the pigeons did however, was try to “time” their pecks and they would peck the green light 60% of the time and the red 40%.
What they were in effect doing was trying to “time the market”, thinking that they could correctly select which light was going to give food at any given time. It goes without saying that this was not a good strategy and the pigeon would have been more successful by sticking to the green light alone.
Investment markets are cannily similar to the above example and markets post gains in around 60% of months and losses 40% of the time. The issue is knowing which months will be winners and which losers. Some people will try to “time” their entry and exits from markets to take advantage of its ups and downs, however this is a strategy most likely destined for failure.
Multiple studies have shown that long term “buy and hold” investors are far more likely to be successful than short term traders. While there is an argument for small “tactical” allocations into different markets to take advantage of opportunities, the general position within a portfolio should be long term holdings.
As investors we need to “control our inner pigeon” and make logical, long term investment decisions, otherwise we will find ourselves pecking more lights than we need to and receiving less food!
On paper a cash-flow forecast seems quite simple really, it’s a summary of your expenditure, both now and forecast into the future, along with an idea of the income and capital that can be used to meet that expenditure. The net result of the exercise is a good idea of how long your money will last. This is something that clients ask us about all the time.
The data that drives this plan, however, is very complex and requires a significant investment of time and effort on our part to get right. We will need to establish suitable assumptions for inflation, asset class performance and earnings growth as well as considering the impact of unexpected market events on the plan.
The foundation for any good cash-flow model is the “base plan”. This is what your financial future could look like based on todays position and known future income and outgoings.
Following the completion of this base plan, we can then consider various “what if” scenarios. These allow us to model the impact that different courses of action will have on a clients’ overall financial plan.
For example, if the initial (base plan) cash-flow model had identified that a clients assets would only last until the age of 76, we could consider the impact that downsizing their home would have on the picture. This might generate sufficient funds to last until the age of 80. Following this, we could then calculate the investment return that a client would require to ensure that their funds would last until the age of 90, and then make an appropriate investment recommendation to make this a reality.
A client had a real light-bulb moment when we were completing his cash-flow model a few months back. The gentlemen in question was desperate to retire in 6 years time at the age of 68, but was unsure as to whether this was realistic based on his current level of investments and pension provision.
We put together a detailed cash-flow projection for him which not only showed that he had sufficient funds to support his desired retirement lifestyle right now, but also that he would be able to sustain that level of expenditure until the age of 107!
Based on the outcome of our cash-flow modelling the client felt secure enough to take an early retirement, a whole 6 years before he had planned. He is very much looking forward to spending this time with his grandchildren. He has also now gained the confidence to start to pass down some of his wealth to help fund their education.
The output of cash-flow modelling may just look like a fancy graph, but it is fantastic lifestyle outcomes like this that make it so much more than that! Cash-flow modelling is, in fact, a powerful, enlightening, life changing tool.
You may have seen the term “clean” or “super clean” funds in the news recently. What this refers to is the “unbundling” of fund manager charges and the shift on to a new charging structure.
To “clear things up” (no pun intended), it may help to first explain what a “dirty” share class is.
Historically a fund manager has made an annual management charge which included the cost for actually managing the fund as well as an additional provision to pay some money to a broker for introducing the client to the fund. For clients who use online platforms, the fund manager will often rebate some of the total charge to the platform as an incentive to introduce more clients to the fund manager.
This old system was rather “muddy” (I’m really on a roll now) to say the least so the FCA has seen fit to introduce a new charging structure. So called “clean share classes”.
Under a clean share class you pay predominantly for the costs of fund management and as such there is little or no rebate paid to the platform. Consequently, most platforms will now charge an explicit fee for their services.
The idea is that charges should be clearer and more transparent, however due to the number of deals being done between fund managers and platforms, that ambition has only been partially realised.
Investors should review their investment holdings without delay in light of these new charging rules, in some cases a switch into the new “clean” share classes will be beneficial. For those investors in tax wrappers (ISA’s and pensions for example) it may be better to remain in the old “dirty” funds.
If you would like tailored advice on your investment holdings, please get in touch to arrange your discovery meeting, provided at our expense.
A recent report by Which? Highlighted the fact that many financial advisers were slightly coy about their fees. The report highlighted that during a phone call to 30 financial planning firms enquiring about the fee for a typical £60,000 investment, only 14 gave a “clear indication” of what their fees would be. In addition only 9 firms published details of their fees on their website.
I do sympathise to a certain extent with the above mentioned firms. Pricing for a financial planning job is certainly not simple, as each set of client circumstances is different and upon further inspection, even 2 seemingly similar jobs can turn out to vary significantly both in their scope and complexity.
I do feel however, that financial planning advice should be clear and transparent and to that end we publish a detailed list of our service packages and indicative prices on our website. Each client who engages our services, does so following the receipt of a personalised “scope of work” letter, setting out the range of work that we have agreed to complete on their behalf, as well as a full breakdown of the initial planning and implementation fee, and the ongoing advice fees required.
We are not coy about our fees, because we feel that they offer exceptional value for money. The value we add often covers our fee several times over.
For some reason the report is also quite critical of “free but lengthy face to face sessions”. Now personally, when I appoint a professional to deal with an element of my personal or business life, I like to meet that person beforehand. A face to face meeting gives both parties the opportunity to get to know each other and to decide if they are a good “fit”. In most cases financial planners offer at least an hour of their time to new clients and will often meet them at home for their convenience. I would suggest that this is far more generous than some other professionals would be before any money has changed hands.
If Which? would rather we charge them for an initial discovery meeting then we would be glad to, but from experience most clients really appreciate the chance to get to know us, and find out about our services, without pressure or obligation.
With pension charges back in the news again last week following the governments decision to delay the cap on charges for auto enrolment schemes, perhaps now is a good time to consider value, rather than price. In the famous words of Warren Buffet “price is what you pay, value is what you get”.
Please don’t get me wrong; I am not excusing, nor defending, overly high or punitive pension scheme charges. In fact, I am one of the strongest proponents of better value pension savings vehicles. It does seem however, that in our never-ending quest to make all financial products cheaper, that we have forgotten all about value for money. Surely this should be the deciding factor.
Lets illustrate this with a simple example and assume for a second that both options are similar in terms of risk profile and financial strength. Fund A charges 1.5% per annum and generates a return of 8%, fund B charges 1% but only delivers a return of 4%. All other things being equal, I will choose fund A thank you very much.
Now clearly the above example is quite extreme, but the principle is sound. It should be the value for money of a particular scheme that we are questioning, not the fee itself. Part of any good fund analysis should take into account the level of charges made by the fund manager, and the additional performance that the manager has generated (or, heaven forbid, subtracted) from the fund. Only then can we get a true idea of the value for money that the proposed investment represents.
While the government is right to look into the cost of pension plans for workers under the auto enrolment regime, surely it should be value for money, and not cost alone that is the primary focus of any review.
Cookie Policy | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy
Buckingham Gate Chartered Financial Planners
25A Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5AP
Telephone: +44 (0) 203 478 2160
Email: contact@buckinghamgate.co.uk
Buckingham Gate Chartered Financial Planners is a trading style of Buckingham Gate Financial Services Ltd
which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. You can find us on the FCA register. FCA Number: 630307
Registered Office: 6th Floor, 60 Gracechurch Street, London EC3V 0HR. Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg No. 8738804.
© 2021 Buckingham Gate. All rights reserved.
