Golden handcuffs

Dominic Thomas
Jan 2023 • 6 min read

Golden handcuffs…

For many employees, a key reason to remain with their employer is because of pension benefits, however the playing field of employer pension schemes is far from level and the cynic in me questions whether Government tax policy is deliberately attempting to reduce the cost of pensions to employers, particularly the State employers such as the NHS.

Firstly, it’s important to understand the two basic types of pension. The clue to what they are is in the unusually straight-forward name.

1 – Defined Benefit (DB) or Final Salary Scheme

Your pension (benefit) is based on your final salary when you leave the scheme, whenever that is at the scheme normal retirement date (NRD).

The amount you get is a fraction of your final salary, your membership of the scheme and work for the employer builds your entitlement. So a scheme with a 1/60th rate of “Accrual” 25 years of membership would provide 25/60ths (41.6%) of your final salary. This will be inflation-linked within parameters set by the scheme.

The amount you receive has nothing to do with how much you contribute, that can be any amount (sometimes nothing). It is your employers duty to honour the agreement not simply for the remainder of your life but likely the remainder of your spouse’s life as well.

According to ONS data to 2019 (the most recent at the time of writing) there are about 7.6m active members (people still building benefits) of DB schemes, of these 6.6m are in Public Sector schemes.

2 – Defined Contribution (DC) or Money Purchase Scheme

These schemes are more straightforward in that they are investment-based schemes and the only guaranteed definitions are how much the employer is going to contribute as a percentage of pensionable salary (and the employee). How much this is ultimately worth will depend on how well the money is invested and the charges applied. Many employers use fairly cautious investment strategies in the misguided belief that this is better, yet as most people will save for their retirement for three or four decades, this will be rather like driving with the handbrake on.

The Auto Enrolment pensions that were introduced to automatically add staff to a pension rather than ask them if they wanted to join are essentially defined contribution schemes. They have been a success in the sense that more people are now saving into a pension.

The majority of employers do not offer a DB scheme, in fact hundreds have been closed over the years. There are barely any open DB schemes in the private sector, because they cost an awful lot to run and provide. There are roughly 10.4m people drawing a pension from a DB scheme and it’s fairly evenly split between private and public sector pensions. Remember that these are pensions payable for many years with a degree of inflation-proofing. Back in 2006 there were about 3m members of private sector DB schemes, half of them were closed, but by 2019 only 0.6m members were actively building benefits due to the number of closed schemes, deemed too expensive. Contrast this to the 0.9m members of open private sector DC schemes in 2006 which has risen to a whopping 10.6m.

To put a little more ‘flesh on the bones’ of the open private sector DB schemes, employers contribute a weighted average of 19.1% with employees adding a further 6.5%. Compare this to the weighted average private sector DC scheme where employers contribute 3.5% and employees just 1.6%. It doesn’t take a maths genius to work out that its much cheaper (by a country mile) for employers to provide a DC scheme, for which they pay annual contributions when their member of staff works for them and not a penny more thereafter.

Stating the obvious, if you are running any business, profit is what sustains a future; reducing costs increases profits (or should). The Public Sector cannot generally make quick and substantial changes like this. Generally the approach has been to alter existing DB schemes, with pensions starting later (65, 67, 68 as opposed to 60). Member employee contribution rates have increased – doubling in many cases. Finally, the rate of accrual has also been changed, often dressed up as better, but invariably forfeiting other benefits such as a lump sum. This is where most Union and legal challenges have been directed.

So taking a typical doctor who began their career paying 6% into a 1/80th pension scheme that would provide a pension for life from age 60 and a one-off tax-free lump sum. If they started working without any career breaks they might build 36 years of service (36/80ths) providing a 45% pension of their final salary (say £130,000) of £58,500 a year and a one off lump sum of £175,500.

If we exclude inflation, a same salary doctor will need to work an extra 7 years to get their pension at 67. They pay closer to 13.5% of salary to the pension and build it as 43/54ths of 79% of their salary (no lump sum)… but the Government was smarter than that, the maths isn’t really 1/54th of final salary, it’s of each year … the term ‘career average earnings’ captures this. A doctor starting out is obviously paid substantially less than one at the peak of their expertise and career earnings – so it’s nothing like a final salary but an average salary over 43 years. Taking the midpoint as an example, 21 years into a career – or retiring on a salary that you had 21 years ago. In fairness it isn’t quite like that, there is some inflation-linking, but this is detail you don’t need to know right now. The principle is how pensions in the Public Sector have been sliced and diced to save money.

When you add in draconian Government/HMRC rules about the Lifetime Allowance (a tax charge of 25% or 55% for those with pensions valued at over £1,073,100 and the Annual Allowance formula used, (which for many triggers a substantial tax on a pension income they have not yet had), it is very hard to conclude anything other than a deliberate strategy to remove higher paid long-term employees … like doctors.

So quite apart from the awful treatment medics often get in the media and utterly fictional suggestions of Consultants barely breaking from a round of golf to turn up for work occasionally, there is little wonder that most of them feel betrayed by a nation that they chose to serve. I can certainly tell you that from three decades of working with NHS doctors, I’ve not met any that became multi-millionaires through their work within healthcare. Some are certainly more entrepreneurial than others, but most of them simply love medicine and get satisfaction making a real difference in people’s lives, more likely describing it as a ‘calling’.

The reasons for the NHS being in crisis are complex and many, but part of the reason is that many doctors are being forced to reduce the number of sessions that they work or retire early so as to avoid a scenario where they are essentially paying more tax than the income they earn … actually paying to work. It is down to the Government and policymakers to have an adult approach to pensions and scrapping many of the really very badly thought through self-defeating rules.

You can read more articles about Pensions, Wealth Management, Retirement, Investments, Financial Planning and Estate Planning on my blog which gets updated every week. If you would like to talk to me about your personal wealth planning and how we can make you stay wealthier for longer then please get in touch by calling 08000 736 273 or email info@solomonsifa.co.uk

BACK TO ALL BLOGS

Golden handcuffsJemima Thomas2023-12-01T12:12:39+00:00

What is the truth about SIPPs?

Solomons-financial-advisor-wimbledon-blogger

What is the truth about SIPPs?

If you didn’t read yesterday’s post, can I suggest that you do so. Click here to see it. The quickest route to a financial scam is to fail to read information. The Radio 4 programme suggested that the scam concerned meant that some people had pretty much lost their entire pension. So can I encourage you to simply give me 5 minutes of your time so that you have a few more facts about financial scams? This article assumes that you have heard the radio programme concerned.

SIPPs

Firstly, a SIPP (Self Invested Personal Pension) is not simply for the rich (as implied by the programme). There is nothing wrong with a SIPP they can be just as cheap as a standard personal pension. The main difference is that they can include unregulated investments. You may recall that this was supposedly what the public was clamouring for at one point – remember Gordon Brown back-tracking on being able to put residential property into a pension? Well that would have to be into a SIPP. A residential property is an unregulated investment too! We arrange SIPPs because they have a far greater range of funds – our main reason for using them is to access low cost funds (very low cost).

Risk Profiling and Risk Questionnaires

Any decent adviser will attempt to explain and assess your attitude to risk. This isn’t an easy concept. The best tool I know is the one I use for clients. The world-leading software from FinaMetrica, it’s a psychometric test and naturally rather more than “on a scale of 1 to 10..” Risk is relative and requires thought. Crossing the road is “risky” but rather more so if you don’t look or listen. Box-ticking is never going to do justice to a proper, contextualised conversation…. but worst of all is assuming that your attitude to risk is the same as your advisers…. almost certainly not.

Transferring Your Pension

Again, there is nothing wrong with this, but there needs to be a good reason to do so (or several). Moving an investment based pension to another investment based pension is pretty straight-forward, but there issues to consider carefully. In any event moving this sort of pension is called a pension switch (like for like), although often called a “pension transfer” in layman’s terms it isn’t. It doesn’t help that all the forms to do this are called pension transfer forms, or transfer packs and so to be consistent, advisers, myself included use the same term, but it is not what the regulator means by “pension transfer”.

A Real Pension Transfer

Moving a final salary or “Defined Benefit” pension is invariably unwise, but there are exceptions. We do not (and never have) moved these sort of pensions, these are called pension transfers, and these are the type that causes the regulator concern – for good reason – you would be giving up guarantees! In essence a pension transfer involves moving from a guaranteed arrangement into an investment (which fluctuates in value, so not guaranteed). On occasion, there can be good reasons to move though – if the original scheme is in difficulty or your own circumstances are a little unusual. This requires specialist advice, which we can refer. However, I would argue that historically pension transfers were done to generate commission for the adviser rather than benefit for the investor. However at times, a transfer might be suitable.

Valuing Pensions

Invariably we arrange investments of all descriptions and provide valuations. My own view is that the investor ought to be able to view the investment online and the data should confirm what we say. I also do not like lock-in’s. Any investment that is a little bit out of the ordinary will need an exit method. Many more complex, high risk and unregulated investments all have problems with exit. Normal, regulated funds do not, with the exception of property funds, which can have similar problems and are far from ideal for anyone seeking or requiring liquidity.

Fraud

There will always be people wanting to take advantage of you. These psychopaths (I cannot think of a more suitable term) have little remorse (if any) for the fact that this is your hard-earned money. People are always behind investments, never forget that, on both sides.

Celebrity Endorsements

Similarly, taking advice from anyone not qualified to provide it is a mistake that you really do not need to make in 2015 and beyond. Just because he or she writes about cars, finance, cooking or music or performs in films, does not make the product “good”. They are being paid to read a script. Most people would willingly accept a cheque for reading and smiling, my advice would be to never endorse anything that you have no genuine knowledge of. It is of course a very old “trick” of confidence.

Why does this happen?

Lots of reasons, here are 4.

Because people become fed up with their investments and don’t like the alternative of cash which is currently paying peanuts. There are a plethora of alternatives now, some are ok, but most are simply taking advantage of the generally poor opinions about Bankers and will just as easily take advantage of you (by which I mean deprive you of as much of your money as you are willing to hand over).
Because they are short of cash and being desperate will raid the future to pay for today
Because they have been duped by people implying trustworthiness, but actually have no accountability or relationship
Because financial stuff is pretty dull and full of jargon and its a lot of effort to read and not many people want to pay for advice, particularly if that advice doesn’t deliver the news that they want to hear.

The good news is that your investment experience does not have to be like this, however you do need to remove emotion from your investment strategy (easy to say) and also retain discipline. Investing is life-long, certainly not just for Christmas.

Want more? I suggest you get my free downloadable report about pensions.

Dominic Thomas
Solomons IFA

What is the truth about SIPPs?Dominic2023-12-01T12:19:39+00:00

1000 Pensions at Risk

If you are a member of a final salary scheme, or were, I’m sorry to bring you some sorry news of a new report from the Pensions Institute, part of Cass Business School, which highlights the acute pressure faced by many private sector defined benefit (DB) schemes and their trustees as they strive to meet their long-term liabilities.

The report, “The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number“, predicts that the businesses of hundreds of employers will become insolvent well before the end of their recovery plans, under which the trustees and sponsor agree contributions to make good the deficit over an agreed number of years. On insolvency, these schemes may have insufficient funds to pay members’ pensions in full.

In theory the Pension Protection Fund would support those schemes that become insolvent. However it is important to understand that this does not always apply and doesn’t cover all of the pension benefits in any event.

The long-term problem

The research found that of the approximate 6,000 DB schemes in the PPF Index, most of which are closed, as many as 1,000 schemes are highly vulnerable to the risk of significant underfunding and the sponsor’s insolvency as scheme funding levels continue to weaken. Around 600 schemes – 10% of the total – are unlikely to ‘ever’ pay off their pension scheme debts. The businesses of up to a further 10% are at risk of failure due to the DB deficit. Quantitative Easing (QE), low interest rates, and low gilt yields are all considered to add significantly to the problem, especially as gilt yields are a key factor in the assumptions used for valuations.

Key Points

Up to 1,000 of the 6,000 Defined Benefit Pension Schemes are at serious risk of falling into the Pension Protection Fund.
Of this, members of 600 schemes may only receive PPF compensation; many sponsors are expected to become insolvent in the next five-to-10 years
The remaining 400 sponsoring employers might initially survive, but may eventually fail if they are not able to off-load their pension obligations
the report challenges the ‘flawed assumption’ that, in time, the majority of these sponsors will meet their pension promises in ful
Planned and coordinated action now could secure better outcomes for members than the PPF compensation floor while securing jobs and freeing up businesses to create growth

So, I’m sorry to report that we may all become rather more familiar with the Pension Protection Fund unless action is taken and with so many financial pressures, one can see why it isn’t. Of course, not everyone has a final salary pension scheme and it should be said that many of those in existence are very well funded. However the key lesson in this that applies to everyone is that providing income for a lifetime is expensive, getting your pension income sorted out, in whatever form, is important to address and why you need a good financial plan.

Dominic Thomas
Solomons IFA

1000 Pensions at RiskDominic2023-12-01T12:19:41+00:00

The Budget 2015 – A New Mad Max

So, the Budget is already ancient history, the political hoo-hah has been left to fester, tweak and develop into an election manifesto campaign. So what, if anything grabbed my attention?

Jilted Bribe

Firstly, I have to admit that I was expecting there to be a little more of an electoral bribe. Whilst the Chancellor certainly made much of the fact that he wasn’t going to (and thus seek to be understood as prudent or sensible) the truth is that, well… he didn’t really offer a bribe (unless its one I missed). Frankly with the national purse in the shape its in, I was rather glad, (though I remain open to the possibility of solving the problems differently).

ISA with tax relief? – future implied?

That said, the first time buyer ISA does sound like a good idea. The detail needs further examination, but in essence there is 20% tax relief on the annual ISA allowance for people that are 18 or over and don’t (and have never) own a home. £3,000 of the £15,000 ISA allowance will be paid by the Government. Whilst everyone that qualifies will benefit, in practice, this will be a very good way of saving if you qualify… if not you, perhaps your children… opening up further options for more wealthy parents.

Pensions and Politicians… taking the …point?

As for pensions, I have to admit that the utter folly of politicians in relation to pensions has shifted gear over the last 10 years. Whilst knowing that we all need to save more so that there is less reliance on the State system… perhaps even the prospect of a means-tested State pension (who knows?) they are determined to punish successful investing and saving.

Here in the UK we are now restricted on how much can be paid into a pension and how much the pension fund can be worth. Utter madness. Yes £1m is a lot of money, but are we also going to cap how much can be held in a bank account or the value of property? what about the value of a business? These are measures to appear a poorly informed crowd by a poorly informed media. I would immediately abolish the Lifetime Allowance and simply restrict how much tax relief is provided on payments to pensions. It doesn’t have to be more complex than that. However we have a new maximum pot size for your pension. To say that this complicates life further for anyone in a Defined Benefit (DB) pension such as the NHS, would be a masterful understatement. Just so that we are clear… the Lifetime Allowance has reduced from £1.8m to £1.25m already and the Budget has reduced this to £1m in 12 months time. Ok, there will be some form of protection, but if recent experience is to go by, this is about as useful as pushing someone out of an aeroplane with an umbrella instead of a parachute. As for those that put a commercial property in their pension pot… good luck with that! The Annual allowance is now £40,000 a year as the maximum value of contributions to pensions, which may as well be written in algebra when attempting to calculate this for DB members.

Final note: our free APP is updated with all the changes announced for personal allowances, savings rates and so on.

Dominic Thomas

The Budget 2015 – A New Mad MaxDominic2023-12-01T12:40:00+00:00

It happened on the way to Essex (warning: dangerous information)

I was in the car, on the way to a client listening to the radio. Possibly I should have stuck with my own music, but decided to listen to some “news”. It was Thursday (yesterday) and the media was agitated about pension charges. The panel discussion was about as badly informed as it gets and if this was designed to reduce or remove confusion about pensions, then it failed spectacularly even on explaining the difference between a Defined Benefit and a Defined Contribution pension and proving the adage “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. Why a sensible IFA wasn’t asked to speak I have no idea. So I had better explain.

Firstly there are broadly two types of pension. A Defined Benefit, so called because it defines what you will get. More commonly known as a final salary scheme. This sort of pension is based entirely on your service and your final salary. Each year of service in such a scheme is built up at the rate of a fraction each each. So take a doctor or nurse, 1/80th each year. So a doctor or teacher that works for 30 years, the sum is 30/80ths (37.5%) of their final salary = annual pension (for life). Ok these schemes are changing, but the principles are remaining pretty much the same.

The other type of pension is an investment based pension. If you are employed and in such a scheme it is often called a defined contribution scheme… it won’t surprise you to learn that it is aptly named, because the contribution (the amount paid in by you and/or the employer) is defined – eg 5% of salary. However as its just an investment, the value of the pot will change… daily. So the value you end up with is based on what the pot is worth.

The row is over the charges applied to investment based schemes and whether they actually offer value for money as a result. A lot of hot air on the radio resulted in my exasperation fogging my windscreen, not a good idea on the M25 when it is grey and wet. There were a lot of inaccurate statements and very little placed into a context. So at the risk of boring you, I will attempt to do so.

Back in the 1980’s investment based pensions began to take the place of final salary schemes. Why? because of the liberated stock market (big bang) and a desire for people like you and I to capitalise on capitalism. There was also a growing (albeit muted) appreciation that people are living longer and therefore the old style final salary pensions were going to have to pay out for longer, costing employers a lot more money. Divorce rates were also rising, meaning that the spouses (and ex-spouses benefits) might also last a very long time. The rise of retail investment funds (Unit Trusts) which only began life in 1931 (thanks to M&G) became more widely available. Pension companies (a considerable number back then) ran their own investment funds using their own fund managers. Financial advisers were largely sales people that worked for pension providers. They were paid to sell pensions (and other products) from commission in the same way that pretty much every other type of selling works… the more you sell the more you earn (as a salesman/person)

Now you and I might think it a pretty bad idea that people are paid a commission to sell financial products. The advantage of hindsight is a wonderful thing isn’t it. However, most people, even in 2013, do not wake up and think that they should start a pension, or take out life assurance and sadly some people (most) need to be “sold” the wisdom of doing so (unless it isn’t appropriate for them = very few people). So “advisers” needed an incentive to incentivise the public. Yes it was a silly system, but in January it all changed. Every adviser must charge fees – properly. Surprisingly people are not jumping up and down with enthusiasm about this (on both “sides”).

Taking a step back in time, commission was paid based on the products type, the premium and the term of the “policy”… more for more. Then factor in some pension companies thought that they could offer a bit more for the “same thing” . This led to bias (you are not surprised). Bias between financial product and also financial provider. Simple example… you have £300 a month to invest. You could do so into a variety of “products” a pension, an endowment or a PEP (old form of ISA). The commission might range from £5,000 to £9 for a PEP.

Eh? well endowments paid very large commissions, they were generally 25 year policies and if I recall paid more than a pension. A pension though has tax relief but couldn’t be touched until 50 (back then) most though retired at 65, an extra 15 years on the policy term (commission is related to policy term too). A PEP, well it doesn’t have a term, its not a policy. It was a single investment of £300 that happened to recur. 3% of £300 is £9… each month. Not many advisers were going to advise a PEP not because they thought it was bad, but you would have to sell a lot of them to make a living. Other products though were “contracts” so you were agreeing to pay for 25 years. The product provider (names you know and possibly loathe for a variety of reasons) had a separate agreement with the adviser (well the adviser firm). Rather than pay £9 a month, they paid it upfront (£9x12monthsx25years = £2,700) for example. How? (with only £300 a month going into the pot)… it would surely take 9 months before £2,700 was even in the pot right? Well thats where some very “clever” accounting and charges and types of units comes into play. The details varied from provider to provider, making it hard for even good advisers to accurately compare one with another. In short, the commission was really a loan, if the investor (you) reduced or stopped paying, the commission loan would have to be back in full or in part.

This approach led to two key things. Firstly, people took out policies that they didn’t need or couldn’t afford. As a result advisers had to pay back commissions, invariably leading to a very high rate of staff turnover. Secondly there was an obvious pressure to sell, sell, sell… which meant a focus on new business and not servicing existing clients. The regulation at the time was as divided as the industry, independent advisers regulated by FIMBRA and Tied advisers by LAUTRO. The latter working for the insurance company, the former doing your shopping. However, even being independent did not prevent bias between solution (product) and provider selected. So in 1995… that’s 18 years ago! commission disclosure was introduced and at around the same time a single regulator was introduced (the Personal Investment Authority – PIA). You (and the adviser) could both see what the adviser would be paid. However both relied on standard projected rates of returns to work out which provider was cheaper than the other. Still smoke and mirrors, but in all honesty, nothing to do with the advisers.

Stay, with me…if you can. The regulator then decided that advisers should write proper reports, “reasons why letters” and also provide better data about who they were placing business with. The profession of advice began to evolve (slowly catching up with the IFP Institute of Financial Planning, born in the UK in 1984). The PIA became the FSA in 2001 and with it decided to end polarisation (tied/IFA) and added a third option “multi-tied” which confused things even more and enabled certain high street Banks to give the impression that they weren’t only peddling their own stuff. However to be independent, you had to at least offer clients the option of paying a fee rather than a commission. In January 2013, advisers were to be defined as either Independent or restricted and with both options, if you are arranging any form of investment, a fee must be agreed and paid – not a commission. Hooray, we finally got there and with another version of regulation – the FCA. In practice the regulator has said, your advice must not be biased and your client must agree the amount they pay for it. The results are yet to be seen, but in reality, most people cannot or will not pay for financial advice, because most people’s experience has been bad, sold duff products, that didn’t deliver and weren’t serviced.

The role of the adviser has altered dramatically, for all but the dinosaurs or stupid. A financial adviser is ADVISING you what you should do. A good adviser will be doing proper cash-flow planning, working with you on your actual goals and figuring out what you need to do to get there. A great adviser will also be helping you to assess risk and the returns you need, adjusting your portfolio and minimising the number of bad decisions you would otherwise make. A brilliant adviser will also keep you disciplined and focussed on what your goals are and help you avoid the 98% of the financial media that is a complete red-herring to your goals and life story. These people tend to call themselves financial planners, wanting to emphasise the planning work and disassociate themselves from selling products.

In short the skill set has evolved. You wouldn’t believe the level of research that is done these days. This is possible because of better technology and frankly better skills and a much better context. The truth, as painful and sad as it may be is that we have all messed this up at some point. Investors in believing in “free advice” and advisers in not being clear that it wasn’t, perhaps afraid to be. The product providers are guilty of making highly complex charging structures in order to pay for sales, and they have also effectively bought and bribed business. The fund management industry has overcharged and underperformed, manipulated data and set in motion a system that rewards big bets. The regulator has invariably focussed on the wrong things and hasn’t evolved as quickly to cope with some very complex financial instruments. In fairness though, it has had to take on more and more – now it is also taking on regulation of consumer credit – everything from a washing machines to a Ferrari (or Aston to Zanussi). However, the myth that is still perpetuated is that investing is easy and it is cheap. It is neither. I don’t care what massive “discount brokers” say or “money saving experts” they have all come from the same place and are focussing on the wrong things.

So (if you are still with me) back to the radio show. Statements about charges on pensions are very flawed, as flawed and silly as the charging structures themselves. Old style pensions were very pricey by today’s standards. Sometimes it is worth getting out of them, sometimes it isn’t. This needs careful consideration. Suggesting that 25% of a fund will be wiped out by charges is a foolish thing to say. It won’t, because you cannot invest for free. The charges are projections about a future that will not even happen. Returns are unknown. You are unlikely to have the same investment in 30 years time that you have now. The real menaces to investors are these:

1. Not reviewing your portfolio at least annually (and not being disciplined)

2. Not having clearly defined goals and objectives

3. Not assessing your attitude to risk and ability to cope with market volatility and therefore figuring out what returns you can accept and therefore what it will produce.

4. Running out of time, or money.

5. Not having a proper financial plan, that tells you when you have reached your goal and have “enough” (by your definition of “enough”)

6. The utter rubbish talked,written, recorded,filmed about money and investing

7. What the FTSE does is largely irrelevant to you

8. Government policy that messes with and creates a tax regime so complex that you need to pay an expert’s expert to decipher it.

9. Inflation, inflation, inflation, inflation…

10. The myth that you can get something for nothing, falling for the latest investment fad or fear.

You can have a successful investing experience, but you also need to be realistic. There are, and always have been some good advisers, some good fund managers, some good product providers and some good regulation. Life is not as binary as many would like to suggest. Over the years I have met some thoroughly decent people from all these camps. I have met advisers that I would trust with my own money – or my widows/children’s.

What’s more, this is not new. I set up my firm 14 years ago. I created a product neutral playing field, charging the same fee structure for investing in any form, in any product. I removed commission from new protection policies (which by the way is still available to advisers). I began to develop a proper investment philosophy and service and gradually began to use proper cash-flow planning. I have evolved, grown and learned. I made mistakes along the way, taking too long to improve in some areas and doing others too soon. That’s life. However I have remained consistent to the notion that my job is to improve my clients position, not make it worse. My long-term interests are best served by serving yours. Yes the financial services industry has a lot to answer for, it is miles from perfect.

One final point, here in Britain we seem to think that someone else will pay, that things are actually without cost. The very real and difficult truth is that we don’t really want to acknowledge that things have a price. Whether this is social security, care of the elderly, good education, quality teachers, good government, protecting children on the internet, a watchdog for the police, media, government, NHS, utility companies, stock market, financial advisers…or helping refugees and decommissioning weapons. Everything has a price and pretending that it doesn’t or it can be cheap is… well its like that big river in Egypt…. denial.

Footnote: By the way, the regulator does not think investors are capable of working out charges in a percentage format. They want charges expressed in monetary terms. So what hope do we have if people cannot even calculate what 1% is?

Dominic Thomas – Solomons IFA

It happened on the way to Essex (warning: dangerous information)Dominic2023-12-01T12:23:53+00:00