As the smoke clears we begin to see the flames

So the phony campaign is now over. After four weeks of argument as to whether £6bn or £10bn of cuts now or next year would be the right way to deal with a £163bn deficit, the election delivers a government and a collection of policies that nobody voted for. Whilst the election seemed to take place in a surreal parallel universe, we now have a real, if unexpected, government and we are beginning to see the truth behind the false debates. A painful fiscal pinch is beginning, as taxes are hiked and public spending cut.

One of the first casualties of the re-emergence of the real world is the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment to increase the IHT nil rate band to £1m. The Tories had clung on to this pledge despite the best efforts of Ken Clarke, in their own ranks, and the wider weight of common sense, that said the policy was not a good or affordable priority. Mr Cameron hinted in the final leader’s debate that the increase would not be top of the agenda in the event of an outright Conservative victory. In any case, events have now moved on and the policy has been kicked firmly into the long grass. The nil rate band is £325,000 and we will either stay frozen as per the outgoing government’s plans or at best might enjoy some annual indexation.

The killing off of this policy is in many ways a good thing for financial planners. The move restores a good amount of certainty to the market: We know IHT is here to stay and we know at what level it bites. Some planners will have agreed a “wait and see” approach with clients who would be taken out of the IHT net by a £1m nil rate band. The difficulty facing clients in such a position was how long would they have to wait until they knew that the nil rate band was to be raised high enough? Well, we haven’t had to wait long and now we have seen. It is therefore time to revisit those clients and to get on with the business of planning for IHT mitigation.

Whilst the position for IHT is much clearer, we have a little longer to wait to know what changes the new government will make to lifetime taxes. We know the news will not be good, and we also know that we only have to wait until the next Budget is delivered by new Chancellor Osborne on 22nd June. The outgoing Labour government had already brought in a new 50% rate of Income Tax and we know from the coalition agreement that the new government is to make CGT bite harder upon non-business assets. At present details are scant regarding the level of the rate, the exemptions and the date of introduction, so we will have to hold our breath for a few weeks more until Budget 2010.2.

Frequent changes to the tax regimes are of course very unwelcome for long-term investors and their advisers. The current flat rate CGT regime only dates back to 2008 and the previous (taper relief) regime only survived about 10 years. Such upheaval becomes a great hindrance for individuals who are trying to put in place a long-term investment strategy. The current changes to taxation will of course mean that advisers will have to, once again, review the provisions in place. In the current climate it may be hard to find a safe haven from a demanding Treasury however. So what strategies are available to advisers upon reviewing their clients’ portfolio options?

The first thing to keep in mind is that whilst there may be choppy waters ahead, in the longer-term we may find that we just have to get through a difficult but short period where taxation rates are unusually high. One would hope that in a few years time healthy growth will have returned to the economy and the deficits will be under better control. The first option may therefore be to just ride out the storm, keep investments in place and wait until a more favourable environment allows profits to be taken with less penalty. This will suit many long-term investors who do not rely on encashment of investments to meet income needs or shorter-term objectives.

Whilst the ultimate drawing of profits may be able to be delayed, most investors will want their portfolios to be actively managed and for their portfolio asset allocations to be adjusted from time to time. It is clearly unhelpful if considerations of the tax chargeable events that would be generated have to interfere with such activity. The answer, of course, is to ensure that such activity takes place within a suitable investment wrapper. Fund of Fund portfolios will therefore be very useful where it suits the client to be ultimately exposed to CGT on the realised profits, as they deliver cost effective active management within a Unit Trust or OEIC wrapper. Where an Income Tax environment is preferred a life insurance bond will provide similar shelter.

Investors with funds in trust, such as WAY Inheritor Plan holders, will now have the forthcoming changes to the CGT regime to absorb on top of the recent Income Tax changes. Holders of the classic Unit Trust versions of the plans already benefit from the inherent tax efficiency of the nil-yielding WAY Global Portfolio funds of funds. As the choice between the CGT and Income Tax environment becomes more critical it will also be good to know that WAY, uniquely, offer access to their funds within the Inheritor Plans both as direct Unit Trust/OEIC investments and within offshore bond wrappers.

The most flexible variants of the plan such as The WAY Flexible Inheritor Plan, The WAY Gifts from Income Inheritor Plan and the WAY Duo Inheritor Plan can also perform a key role in adapting a client’s overall investment strategy to the new tax regimes. As well as the choice of tax environments identified above, these plans also allow the trustees to determine whether or not the flexible reversions take place. Thus the adviser can recommend that more or less (or none) of the client’s income needs are provided for by the Inheritor Plan and balance the reversions with drawings (or not) from other sources. This judgement can of course be made year by year and respond to changing tax regimes and client needs – an option that is not available where a typical discounted gift scheme is used.

In summary then we can present our manifesto for a new government:

• Now is the time to revisit IHT planning that was put on hold
• Review tax wrappers but don’t chase the tax tail – it may be better to ride out the storm
• Make sure investments have the best income / growth profile for the client
• Shelter active management within a suitable wrapper
• Maximise flexibility – only choose plans that can adapt to client needs as the winds change

Welcome back to the all too real world!

Yours sincerely,
Mark Benson TEP CertPFS
Technical Manager, WAY Investment Services Limited
28th May 2010.

References:
1. Preliminary Budget Report, Data & Statistics – ‘Budget 2010, UK Stationery Office, HC 451, 24th March 2010′
2. Labour, Conservative & Liberal Democrat pre-Election Manifestos – May 2010

Posted on 28th May, 2010 | Tags: Coalition Government, IHT Mitigation |
Comments: Have Your Say

When is a fund a portfolio?

Advisers’ own label funds are highly tax efficient
Clients who invest into IFA firms’ own-label portfolio-style collective funds can gain freedom from capital gains tax on their returns as well as keener pricing and the ability to mix and match funds.

When is a fund a portfolio?
Peter and Mary Singer are recently retired and have been taking advice on how to invest their surplus savings which, of course, includes tax-free lump sums from both Peter’s and Mary’s pensions.

Their adviser works within a major IFA firm which has its own fund management company offering discretionary investment management to clients such as the Singers. They have been advised to place a large part of their available funds within the firm’s own portfolio style collective funds with a smaller proportion directly invested in specialist funds and shares. They are concerned as to whether they are being shepherded into a fund which is as much for the benefit of the adviser as it would be for them.

This is an interesting dilemma which in some ways is part of the focus for the FSA’s current work on the much heralded Retail Distribution Review (RDR) and their recent thoughts on the merits or otherwise of ‘Distributor Influenced Funds’ (DIFs).

The answer lies in provenance
Following the 1980s scandals surrounding broker bond funds it would be lazy to simply write off ‘own label funds’ as yet another self-interested money-making idea for adviser firms. In fact in almost all cases this would be an incorrect assumption. To put these portfolio-style funds into context we need to follow their provenance from the discretionary investment services which have existed for more than a century, to their current highly contemporary manifestation.

It was traditionally the stockbroker to whom investors turned and the stockbroking community has a long history of managing individual bespoke portfolios for wealthy investors. The benefit of bespoke services was that each investor’s own requirements could be satisfied, by an individually-tailored selection of investments making up a personal portfolio. Furthermore the client was in direct personal contact with their stockbroker and was able to derive confidence from the personal nature of the relationship. Going back one hundred years or more the whole industry worked in a more leisurely and controlled manner than hitherto, commensurate with the limited speed of communications and administration of the day. In spite of increasingly volatile markets throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the manner in which these services operated continued undisturbed.

Sea change in control
It was only in the 1980s that a major sea change occurred following Margaret Thatcher’s removal of exchange controls in 1979. Investment managers then had increasing access to the international markets in order to buy shares in successful companies from across the world at the forefront of the new age of globalisation. This coincided with the information age when computerisation and global media access changed the investment scene forever. From that point on it became extremely difficult to operate effectively as a private client stockbroker whilst holding oneself out as an investment manager. Each of those jobs became so specialised that it was impossible to do both well. Either you were a client-facing stockbroker or you were a specialist investment manager. This demarcation has fed through to the typical high net worth advisory firms of today, whether stockbrokers or financial advisers, and the person you see for advice is generally the GP who within the practice employs investment specialists to actually manage client portfolios.

Own-brand portfolio evolution
All very interesting, but the relevance of ‘own brand’ portfolio-style funds is a direct consequence of this evolution and the various factors behind it. I remember managing over 700 individual discretionary portfolios back in the 1980s in the build-up to the market crash of 1987. When a change of direction was called for, my colleagues and I trawled through every single portfolio marking out the necessary re-balancing prompted by our strategic decisions. This certainly meant that every client received our individual attention but the process was fraught with stress and difficulty.

I recall many times when we worked through the night, collating all the dealing which we deemed necessary and which, in an ideal world, we should probably have done a day or two earlier had our systems allowed it. The problem was that any decision, say, to reduce exposure to Japan, which had fallen some 12%, in favour of an opportunistic exposure to Hong Kong, which had fallen more than 50%, involved a real decision on each client’s individual portfolio. This was because every single client had a slightly different Japanese exposure, depending on when they joined the service and which Japanese funds were favoured at the time. This scramble to re-balance portfolios rarely involved an examination of each client’s Capital Gains Tax (CGT) status because there just was not enough time to take that into account. This could always be justified by not allowing the ‘tax tail to wag the investment dog’.

The rise of the model portfolio
The result of that 1980s stockmarket fallout was a move by investment managers to convert these bespoke portfolios into ‘model’ portfolios, where clients with similar objectives and attitudes to risk held identical but suitably scaled portfolios. These were then deliberately managed for investment results and CGT was put to one side. With this new ‘model’ approach every single portfolio could be re-balanced in a trice because they were identical and could be managed via a simple spreadsheet.

Then in 1991 the unit trust regulations were changed, to allow collective funds which contained other collective funds to operate on a commercially viable basis. This was the penultimate step in the evolution of unitised portfolio management via portfolio-style funds. Compared with the evolved ‘model’ portfolios these new collective portfolios offered far greater economies of scale, much keener pricing (because of greater bargaining power) and complete freedom from CGT on underlying management. My firm ‘share-exchanged’ most of those 700 portfolios spread across three ‘models’ into three newly-constituted unit trusts launched specifically for that purpose.

The most recent changes to regulations have allowed collective funds to mix and match underlying funds and direct equity investment, as well as to blend a much wider range of asset classes. This means that contemporary portfolio-style funds can now comprehensively and effectively mirror and replace virtually any (far less efficient) individual, bespoke portfolio.

Trust in financial advisers
There may be very good reasons why the Singers should seriously entertain the advice of their financial adviser. The first is that a good local and personal investment management department can be met and ‘eyeballed’ by the client to offer regular reassurance about the style and substance of the management – there is far more accountability.

Secondly a good portfolio manager is not quite the same as a good fund manager. The portfolio manager is running portfolio substitutes and therefore has a keener eye on the overall risk aspects of managing the client’s money. The specialist fund manager works to very tight specifications regarding where they can invest and to what extent they can protect their funds by going liquid (the majority of specialist funds require the manager to remain relatively fully invested within their specialist area since that is the objective of the fund as specified in the prospectus).

A word of warning regarding the current obsession with performance tables. Do not be tempted to buy a portfolio-style fund based on performance tables. The job of a portfolio-style fund is to deliver safe and competitive ‘portfolio’ performance.

This means that individual constituents of the portfolio (the underlying holdings) need to be competitive within their own sectors, from a performance perspective, but the overall portfolio itself is meant simply to offer a sensible and rounded financial lifestyle solution.

Paul Wilcox,
Chairman & Technical Director, WAY Group.

Posted on 9th October, 2009 | Tags: Capital Gains Tax, CGT, IFA |
Comments: Have Your Say