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

Is it a fair cop?

On the face of it the recent statement that ISAs are here to stay is good news for investors.  It means that savers can continue to put aside £7,000 each year into investments which are permanently exempt from Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and from higher rate Income Tax.  But how beneficial are these concessions?  Anecdotal evidence from some of WAY’s supporting IFAs indicate that a high proportion of PEP and ISA holders could easily hold and manage their investments perfectly well and effectively tax-free by utilising their existing annual CGT allowances.  Most are not higher rate Income Tax payers and so will not suffer any further tax on dividends/distributions.  So are they needlessly investing in PEPs and ISAs?

The only real beneficiaries of these tax-exempt investments are either (a) those taxpayers who invest in cash or fixed interest investments (not equities or mixed funds) and who benefit from exemption from standard rate Income Tax on those specific investments, or (b) higher rate taxpayers who are already utilising their annual CGT allowances.  For these two minority groups the continuing concessions are very good news.  WAY has many regular contribution ISA investors who are young, dynamic, higher-rate taxpayers saving into high growth funds for school fees and other medium term commitments, and doing so with the added benefit of pound cost averaging.

So far, so good.  What is rarely questioned, however, is whether these ISA savers should be taking any other considerations into account.  Is the ISA news all good or is there a potential downside?

By stealth tactics the Treasury is misleading investors into thinking there are substantial tax benefits in retaining PEP and ISA portfolios into one’s dotage, while simply ensuring that it can continue to collect large amounts of IHT from the unwitting and unprepared elderly investor.  In my view investors from their mid-sixties onwards who believe they will have an IHT liability should no longer be holding PEPs and ISAs.  What so many of them do not realise is that they will suffer a punitive IHT sting at death, whereby they and their families potentially lose a colossal 40% of their hard-earned savings.  This loss completely dwarfs the often marginal annual tax benefits resulting from the ISA wrapper.

Based on Office of National Statistics figures for holders of ISAs and PEPs, combined with our own research, WAY Group estimates that at least 165,000 elderly investors (aged 70 or older) are holding ‘tax-sheltered’ portfolios in excess of £100,000.  Based on published mortality rates this would mean that some £0.5bn, or one sixth of the annual total IHT tax take of £3bn, arises from IHT on PEPs and ISAs from this group!  This cannot be right.

I believe that there are substantially more then 300,000 investors across the country who currently hold substantial equities-based tax-free investments within their portfolios with no provision whatsoever for these funds to be transferred into alternative investment schemes which can mitigate the IHT. Over half of these investors – some 165,000 – of those with large tax-sheltered investments are aged 70 plus. This is the age group at the greatest risk of losing out on the tax-free benefits of their savings strategy.

So what can these investors do to avoid IHT on their accumulated savings?  The answer is simple, even after Gordon Brown’s Budget measures from last year.  They should encash up to £285,000 of their ‘tax-free’ savings and gift them to their chosen beneficiaries via a flexible trust.  Although gifts into such trusts now constitute an IHT taxable transfer there will be no tax so long as the gift is within the current Nil Rate Band for IHT – £285,000 per person.  Such gifts fall out of account after 7 years and so there is an opportunity for each taxpayer to make gifts up to this level every 7 years.

At age 65 the average investor still has a life expectation of some 16 years (males) to 19 years (females).  Even at age 75 these numbers are 9+ and 11+ years.  This means that any average investor has time to gift their former PEPs and ISAs completely IHT tax-free so long as they start shortly after their mid 60′s.  The real benefit of the tax exemptions associated with PEP/ISA portfolios is that when this IHT mitigation exercise becomes appropriate the targeted funds can be surrendered entirely tax-free at that point, making investment in an IHT mitigation plan that much more effective.

WAY offers a comprehensive range of IHT mitigation arrangements, uniquely offering both unit trust based and offshore bond based plans.  These are further subdivided between flexible and discounted schemes whereby trustees have a great deal of flexibility in making financial provision for both donors and beneficiaries.

A simple recent example illustrates the benefit of this approach.  The lady in question was a fit and healthy 73 year old widow.  She and her late husband had bought their ex-Council house under the ‘right-to-buy’ scheme and the rump of the mortgage was paid off from her husband’s PEPs and ISAs.  The table shows her circumstances both before and after swapping her PEPs and ISAs for a combination of flexible and discounted schemes from the WAY stable.  She has a life expectation of some 13 years but only needs to survive 7 to remove the gift into trust from her estate.  Assuming she does live those 7 years then she will have virtually removed IHT from her estate.  Even were she to live less than 7 years then her net IHT liability would be substantially reduced as a result of moving her funds.  Moreover her income is maintained and, via her trustees, she retains tremendous flexibility over the future return of funds from the flexible trust.

Before vs After Planning

Paul Wilxox,
Chairman & Technical Director, WAY Group.

Posted on 19th June, 2009 | Tags: Capital Gains Tax, Higher Rate Income Tax, IHT, ISA, ISA Savers, Life Expectation, PEPs |
Comments: One Comment