seadoc
19 May 2017
Re: New Shares James,Thanks, clearly the brokers can put in but one application on behalf of all nominees and if your bedfellows did not like the offer you will get a higher proportion of the spoils than I got through Barclays. But it is always there, in bold letters, that the allocation will be shared between all clients of the agent. It will be interesting if I really do only get 25% compared to your 72.5% through your broker.Regards,Seadoc
JB78
19 May 2017
Re: New Shares Hi Seadoc Same thing here. Explanatory note from my brokers seems to make sense:"Holders that applied for additional shares have received approximately 72.5% of the shares that they applied for under the excess facility. Accounts have been updated with the new shares. A refund of the uninvested cash will be applied to your account upon receipt from the company registrars." That suggests that they are waiting for the excess cash to be returned from the company registrars, so it's not the brokers dragging their feet.James.
seadoc
18 May 2017
New Shares Sorry,Got distracted, how many excess shares did anyone get? I applied for just over 6000, got charged for the lot and today seem to have just under 1500 excess on the account but not yet a refund. That's Barclays.Regards,Seadoc
seadoc
18 May 2017
Re: new shares PIE-EATER,"Fortunately, (and I may be tempting fate here)....I can't see ISA's being taxed....the impact on the nation after 30 years tax exemption (PEPs TESSAs etc) would make that party unelectable again....ever!"Six years after retirement (but deferring the state pension and gaining 10% a year) I have to agree with you, at least on the first bit. There were draconian restrictions on my original PEP, specifically that I had not paid in to any other provider in that year. But that first PEP has moved 4 times, and one of the others 5 times, been sold on really. Between us, Mrs Seadoc, and I now have 11 ISAs all funded according to the rules and I suspect untraceable without my help. My dear old dad died with no memory of the last five years of his life, and not too much in relation to matters financial going back twenty. Although there is detailed information about my pension payments, going back fully 50 years, I do not believe HMG retain ANY records of PEP and ISA contributions.FWIW: Each year for last ten I have been lucky to be able to declare capital gains outside of the ISA/SIPP but disposals of less than (?) 35K and an overall gain of less than the annual limit. I do still have paper copies of returns of my loss in 87/88 and again in ? 1995 and 2000 but no idea how I have apportioned those losses in the years since in which I have gains. I even have a letter from the tax office in reply to my suggestion of how I had apportioned them which says that that was not the preferred method but not elucidating further.If I go gaga before Mrs Seadoc (she might argue that I already have!) I would hope she will have sufficient funding to care for me, and ultimately herself, with minimal interference from the Taxman.Regards,Seadoc
annieoldiron2
18 May 2017
Re: new shares Govt probably does not need to tamper with ISA's. Instead beware the introduction of higher stamp duty or some kind of transaction tax on share dealing. That way, they catch all share deals, not just those in ISA's. The big funds will scream about it but in the end, just pass on the cost to us holders.
strapuk
18 May 2017
Re: new shares Absolutely agree on the likelihood of reduction on pension tax relief, (not that I mean I agree with the cut). Currently not a higher rate tax payer, so am faintly hoping they will equalise all relief to a standard 25%, meaning basic rate payers will be slightly better off, although as long as the basic rate relief is maintained I cannot grumble.Interesting times when the Conservative Party starts behaving more like a centre-left party, but then the current situation isn't sustainable, with Brexit only complicating matters. This is actually a very interesting time in history - goodness, perhaps I should sit down and put the kettle on until the feeling passes, getting far too prosaic here!
PIE-EATER
18 May 2017
Re: new shares Fortunately, (and I may be tempting fate here)....I can't see ISA's being taxed....the impact on the nation after 30 years tax exemption (PEPs TESSAs etc) would make that party unelectable again....ever!What WILL happen is more on the way of stealth or service taxes.....Tory manifesto on care funding and the omission of a pledge not to increase VAT, Income tax or NI (a dead cert to rise in autumn budget)....if necessary they will stop ISAs or reduce the amount you can put in. FAR more likely to restrict tax benefits of pensions going forwardPE
Pearlyglo
17 May 2017
Pleasantly suprised. to stumble on very useful retirement advice, thank you!
strapuk
17 May 2017
Re: new shares Well for what it's worth I did convert my old private pension into an (enhanced) annuity before the rule change back then was about to be introduced. And it was the upcoming rule change that prompted me so to do. Was able to get I think 6.5% (level) at the time, so was happy with that. Purchased Sept 2009 aged 51, when the rules were to be changed from 50 to 55 before one could draw a PP. Not actually sure when that change was effective from.Current SIPP I plan to just add to and leave for my sons - unless rules change again. (My wife is well provided for in ISA's and her own PP).
strapuk
17 May 2017
Re: new shares Great PR, thanks for the detail. Of course the key to all this planning is that future Govts don't change the rules!!! I can just see a "one-off" wealth tax on ISA holdings to plug some "revenue" gap or other!Then this will creep so that they get treated as trusts, say subject to a "one-off" 6% tax every 10 years!!Goodness, why am I so cynical?!?!?!?
Eadwig
17 May 2017
Re: new shares PIE-EATER, "Should be ok assuming whoever gets in doesn't do anything before autumn budget as turn 55 just before"That's the problem isn't it? Never quite sure what the government is going to change next. This is supposed to be fund built over a working lifetime for, hopefully, a long retirement. You're so close now, I'm sure that you wont get caught by any further changes so far as the private pension goes. On the other hand, it may suit many people to let it run a little longer as they have no intention of retiring or even slowing down at 55. Will they feel under pressure to take it when the window is open though, before it gets closed again?My brother (about 5.5 years older than me) took his at 50, and says he is perfectly happy that he did having seen the changes that came in.Vern S,I had no idea about the Gordon Brown changes. They obviously snuck under my radar. It was Brown that extended the private pension age, of course, that I knew. 44 years for someone who left school at 18 and University at 21, didn't give much time for, say, a year out, and still collecting a full state pension, did it?Not to mention the re-training time successive governments now talk about when they say that young people leaving school today should be prepared to have three or four careers.The fact is, its plain that the balance has been got wrong in the past. When the stte pension came in there were 14 workers for each pensioner, they say. There is now less than 3 and the ratio is falling. When a government finally decided to raise the retirement age, I was amazed they only added 3 years once they had decided to take the politically dangerous plunge. I thought they could have got away with more, politically speaking.It has to go up again, but at some point it will have to be recognised that some careers can be worked longer than others, in my opinion. Imagine still digging holes in the road in all weathers in your seventies, for example.One last point, I heard a radio programme the other day about some of the small 'cities' in Southern California. These might only be 15 or 25,000 people, but have their own police and fire departments and other 'municipal' utilities.Some of those have so many retired ex-employees pensions and benefits to support that they are now down to no money left for some services, and cannot borrow any more, even from the state (I.e. California), which is in a similar position itself.To illustrate what was probably an extreme example, the programme looked at one particular city, a place extremely prone to wild fires spreading to homes in the city. The city is down to zero police officers, a mayor (interviewed) and one assistant is the whole public sector admin staff, and the all important fire department has been reduced in staff and equipment by two thirds since the present fire chief (also interviewed) joined as a basic fire-fighter about 35 years ago. More cuts are required each year as the number of retired ex-employees continues to grow, but tax rates remain the same. The people of the city refuse to pay more tax (local City tax rate changes are voted on, I believe) and the unions refuse to allow pensions and benefits to be cut. There is an insight into where we are headed without serious reform, or perhaps a whole new approach to retirement, pensions and benefits as life expectancy increases and birth rates drop. It gets pretty depressing if you think about it too much.
PIE-EATER
16 May 2017
Re: new shares Eadwig,Don't forget to explore additional class 3 NI contributions......not sure on either your or their (NI) situation as have planned on not getting state pension.....so will regard as bonus. Should be ok assuming whoever gets in doesn't do anything before autumn budget as turn 55 just before.PE
Vern S
16 May 2017
Re: new shares To be fair to David Cameron (not a phrase I use often), the reduction from 44 years for men and 39 for women was made by Gordon Brown and took effect in April 2010. Making such a reduction at a time of increasing longevity was barmy, even by GB's standards. I suppose we should be grateful it only went back up to 35 years.
Eadwig
16 May 2017
Re: allocation PE, "Eadwig....did you apply for excess?"Yes I did. As far as I can tell, I got the shares that were due to my current holding ok, and 15% of the excess I applied for when it all came out in the wash. That 15% was suspiciously exact. It obviously isn't correct in terms of what I (thought I had) applied for, although at least the few extra shares I did get were all correctly charged @136p, shown in two separate batches. The way things are going I'm thankful for small mercies.I've had a whole series of small errors recently. A sale of VOD shares this morning @218p which was the price I had named on a previous limit order that I then cancelled. I entered a new one with a price of @221p. I might have sold all my VOD shares out of my SIPP accidentally if I hadn't happened to be at my terminal as the order went through today and cancelled the second limit order which was still live.In my small SIPP I don't have much 'headroom' for trading, and I like to trade around a position on a high yield share so that effectively the money allocated to that share earns a higher yield. My VOD book price average in my SIPP is now 150p giving an historic yield of 8%. I'll keep trading it whenever I get the chance, until I reach 15% or more. That is my target for all 'yielders' in my SIPP. The holding is also currently showing a 45% profit at close of play today.Its all pretty academic as I have no great belief the government will ever let me get to my SIPP. Not in anyway that is meaningful. That's why my real pension is in my trading account ... slowly being moved into an ISA year by year as positions are sold and I open new positions in the ISA. I'm about half way through the process now.What's the betting that once I've completed the process the government starts taxing withdrawals from ISAs in some way? Don't laugh, they've already made some in-roads into removing protection. E.g. A pensioner with £20k saved in an ISA could previously claim, for example, council tax credit if their pension was small (typically older women this happened to, who were dependent on the husbands pension, but ended up divorced and with little or no personal pension provision).As regions are moved onto Universal credit, which covers all benefits in one, money in ISAs must now be counted, hence the pensioner must pay their council tax until their savings have gone, then they can re-apply for the benefit. Ian Duncan Smith's master-work.At least, this was where the rules stood when I was working for a charity helping such people fill out government forms when Universal credit was first being piloted. It might have changed, but against I.D.S's wishes if it has. I think premium bonds are still safe. Its only a matter of time though ...
Eadwig
16 May 2017
Re: new shares PE, "I hope you are not talking about state pension age here?"No, No. Calm down! Private Pension. I signed a contract to say I would take my pension aged 50. A contract between myself and a private insurance company. That was pushed back to 55. the government. They gave notice of that when I was 43, or 7 years to (possibly for some people) figure out where you are going to earn an extra 5 years income from over the next 12 years. I guess the politicians reckoned it didn't really matter. 50 or 55 - who retires at that age? Just people in the public sector who take early retirement on final salary pensions usually offered around 52. Public sector workers don't have private pensions because the public sector plan is so fantastic.Having already retired at 34 I had factored in my small pension plan to be taken at 50. I figured it would cover my council tax bill each year, so actually it was a bit of a blow for me.Since then, another 2 were added, but as I was within a certain age I believe it doesn't apply to me. It will to a younger person. I'm 53 now. Just. My birthday is just before the end of the tax year, which I always had a feeling was going to work against me one day. I still can't figure out how, but i know with my luck it will.My state pension was raised to 67 at same time as the rise to 55 for private. State went to a max of 68 for younger people at the same time. There is now talk of it rising to 71 in the next parliament. David Cameron got into power and told us that anyone with 30 years of N.I. contributions would get a full state pension. That has been slid up to 35 years now. 35 FULL years. If you have a 'part year' with 51 weeks instead of 52, it counts not one jot towards your state pension requirement. I had this confirmed by HMRC just last week.I spoke to them last week after they sent notification that they had ceased paying me child benefit for my 3 year old. This is because I don't have enough N.I. contributions. You are probably aware you can check this online now. I did so. I have 33 full years and 80 weeks spread across 5 'part years'. The latter count for nothing at all. I also have some years with 104 weeks of payment in them. Don't ask me how - working more than one job possibly. They also only count as 1 full year.I wouldn't mind, but I've had all this happen before. Its all a big waste of time. In fact, I'm just wasting your time writing about it now. So I'll shut up. I will get the benefit, because its for my child. If it were for me, you'd have to pay me a lot more than £20.70p a week to talk to such people, who are actually working in the same building but couldn't organise a party in a brewery if it involves two different departments.
