|
|
|
 |
|
Posts Tagged ‘LinkedIn’
Wednesday, August 17th, 2011
Please see below a link to August 2011′s Quarterly Private Client Newsletter from Kennedy Black Wealth Management.
In this edition, we continue a theme from the last issue, focusing on our investment beliefs. This time, it’s the Efficient Markets Hypothesis – which has come in for some criticism recently, somewhat unfairly in our view. We also include a list of ten top tips for tax optimisation which should be interesting to anyone thinking they pay too much tax (even if the 50% tax band is rumoured to be cut).
Again, we hope it provides food for thought. If you would like to discuss any of the content herein (or anything else for that matter), do not hesitate to get in touch.
Click here to access the August 2011 edition in pdf format (requires Adobe Reader).

To receive this newsletter by email every quarter, please sign up using the box on the right. You can also follow us on Twitter.
Tags: LinkedIn Posted in Investments, Tax | No Comments »
Thursday, June 30th, 2011
On a day of public pension strikes, I thought some comments on pensions (especially private vs public) would be a topical subject.
If you are confused as to how much to contribute towards your pension, then you are in the majority. When I was working in the City, I used to think that my employer’s contribution (3% of salary) plus a contribution from me (another 3%) which was matched by my employer (bringing the total to 9%) would be fine.
Not only is it not fine (as we’ll see), but the new Auto-enrolment rules will enforce a new minimum 8% total contribution, part from the employer part from the employee. There are real concerns that there will be a race to the bottom, with employers taking the opportunity to default to the 8% minimum where they were offering more before.
According to recent research, a 35 year old with a Basic State Pension and an 8% minimum auto-enrolment contribution will receive an income in retirement at age 65 of approximately 43% of final earnings. Bear in mind that typical final salary schemes are set at 2/3rds of final salary.
The following table should help you put this into perspective, courtesy of the Hutton Review and the Office for National Statistics. You may start to lose sympathy with the public sector picketers, assuming you had any to start with:
Public vs Private Sector Pensions:
| Profession |
Member
contribution |
Employer
contribution |
Total
contribution |
Retirement
age |
| Civil service |
1.5% |
18.9% |
20.4% |
60 – 65 |
| Teacher |
6.4% |
14.1% |
20.5% |
60 – 65 |
| Armed Forces |
Nil |
29.4% |
29.4% |
55 |
| Judges |
1.8% |
32.15% |
34% |
65 |
| Average private sector DB* |
4.9% |
16.6% |
21.5% |
65 |
| Average private sector DC** |
3% |
6.1% |
9.1% |
55 – 75 |
* DB = Defined Benefit (i.e. ‘final salary’)
** DC = Defined Contribution (i.e. ‘money purchase’)
These are the opinions of Kennedy Black Wealth Management only and do not constitute advice. Should you wish to discuss how this may affect your own circumstances, please contact your Personal Finance Consultant at your earliest convenience.
Tags: LinkedIn Posted in Pensions | No Comments »
Tuesday, May 31st, 2011
Please see below a link to May 2011′s Quarterly Private Client Newsletter from Kennedy Black Wealth Management.
In this edition, we focus on some of the fundamental investment beliefs that we hold here at Kennedy Black Wealth Management, namely that stock picking and market timing are sure-fire ways to erode long-term investment performance.
We have also highlighted a couple of important themes in the protection market which we hope provide some food for thought.
Click here to access the May 2011 edition in pdf format (requires Adobe Reader).

To receive this newsletter by email every quarter, please sign up using the box on the right. You can also follow us on Twitter.
Tags: LinkedIn Posted in Investments, Protection | No Comments »
Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011
Please see below a link to February 2011′s Quarterly Private Client Newsletter from Kennedy Black Wealth Management.
In this edition, we focus on some year end tax planning topics such as ISAs and Capital Gains Tax planning. The first article outlines how stocks and shares ISAs are almost as tax efficient as pensions – and since we all should recognise the tax benefits of pensions, perhaps ISAs are a little undervalued as a financial planning tool.
Furthermore, we conclude with a topic that comes up time and again with clients – investing for children. This seems to be particularly topical since the Child Trust Fund has been scrapped and its replacement, the Junior ISA, is still only in the pipeline. Yet even these wrappers have limitations and there are several important tax points that parents should be aware of if they want to ensure tax-free investment growth on behalf of their children.
Click here to access the February 2011 edition in pdf format (requires Adobe Reader).
To receive this newsletter by email every quarter, please sign up using the box on the right. You can also follow us on Twitter.
Tags: LinkedIn Posted in CGT, Investments, Pensions, Tax | No Comments »
Friday, November 5th, 2010
Please see below a link to the latest Kennedy Black Wealth Management Quarterly Private Client Newsletter. In this edition, we focus on one of our favourite pet topics – Behavioural Finance, and how to beat it (well, perhaps that should be “how to identify it”). We could go on for days, but fortunately (for you) we’re limited by space here! If it’s something you’d be interested in discussing further, then drop us a line – happy to grab a coffee, and we even have some interesting tests that will help demonstrate your behavioural weaknesses! Aside from that, a recent scare story around ETFs should test whether you really have a good understanding of this relatively new sector, and we conclude with an overview of our ‘Core and Satellite’ portfolio methodology. Once again, hope it’s of interest.
Click here to access the November 2010 edition in pdf format (requires Adobe Reader).
To receive this newsletter by email every quarter, please sign up using the box on the right. You can also follow us on Twitter.
Tags: LinkedIn Posted in Investments, Miscellaneous | No Comments »
Thursday, November 4th, 2010

In what could be the most revolutionary changes to pension legislation in decades, the Department of Work and Pensions (“DWP”) has recently published “Making Automatic Enrolment Work” (October 2010), a review into two new proposals: Auto-enrolment and NEST (short for “National Employment Savings Trust”). For employers, the implications are significant so here is a summary of what has been proposed and what it means.
Firstly, from a policy point of view, the proposed changes should be commended. I believe that the government is entirely right to encourage retirement planning through automatically enrolling employees into an appropriate investment vehicle. In its report, the DWP estimates that 4-8 million people will start saving for a pension for the first time if forced to enrol through work.
Here is a summary of the proposed changes, in as clear English as I could muster:
- Employers will be required to enrol their employees in a qualifying pension scheme. If the employer doesn’t already offer one, they must put one in place or use a new default scheme called NEST. The employer must contribute towards this pension.
- The new rules, once fully in force, will require a minimum total contribution of 8% of salary, of which at least 3% must come from the employer. If an employer contributes 3%, the employee can contribute 4% with tax relief adding a further 1%. Employers can contribute more than 3% if they wish;
- The rules will apply to all companies; there are no exemptions for small companies;
- All employees between the age of 22 and the State Retirement Age (which rises to 66 from 2020) earning over £7,475 per annum (the level at which income tax becomes payable from next year) must be automatically enrolled into a suitable pension scheme, unless they choose to opt out;
- Contributions will be payable on earnings in excess of the National Insurance threshold (currently £5,715) up to a cap of £38,185 at 2010/11 earnings levels;
- Employees who opt out will be automatically re-enrolled every three years (so will actively have to opt out again if they wish to remain opted out);
- If an employee opts out, the employer will not be permitted to reimburse the employee for the benefits being surrendered, since employers will not be allowed to incentivise employees to opt out;
- The new rules will begin on 1 October 2012, initially applying to the largest companies only – with smaller employers being phased in over a four year period depending on size;
- The level of contributions will also be phased in: from October 2012 to October 2016, the employee will only be required to contribute 1% and the employer 1%. From October 2016 to October 2017, the employee will be required to contribute 3% (including tax relief) and the employer 2%. From October 2017 onwards, the rules will apply in full: the employee will be required to contribute 5% and the employer 3%;
- Employers that do not provide a pension can set one up or can sign up to the National Employee Savings Trust (“NEST”). However, the details of NEST remain unclear, and a large part of the success of the proposals will boil down to how effective NEST really is, particularly for small companies.
What does all this mean for you as an employer?
Firstly, if you already provide a pension for your employees into which both you and they contribute, then broadly speaking nothing much will change. The pension on offer must be as good as or better than NEST, although at this stage it is difficult to judge how high that bar will be.
If you currently provide a pension but do not contribute, then you must get ready to start contributing. Equally, employees who are currently not contributing (or only contributing small amounts) will need to get ready to start making higher contributions or opt out.
If you do not provide a pension, then you either need to put one in place (as good as or better than NEST) or sign up to NEST. You also need to get ready to start contributing and managing the administrative burden that this system will create.
There are a number of question marks, most noticeably about what form NEST will take and whether it really will serve small businesses (those that require it the most) in the manner required. Furthermore, it is feared that employers who currently make generous contributions may use this as an opportunity to “level down” their contributions to the bare minimum. It is also difficult to anticipate how many people will opt out. Some have speculated that low earners may be more inclined to opt out, particularly if they haven’t been contributing previously and are then being asked to contribute 4% of their pay when making ends meet is hard enough as it is.
At this stage, employers need to educate themselves about what is being introduced and when (I hope this article is a good start) and to prepare themselves for their new responsibilities – both in terms of new pension contributions as well as the administrative responsibilities that will apply. However, be aware that at this stage the above are simply proposals – much is likely to change between now and 2012.
I believe that the Government is entirely right
Tags: LinkedIn Posted in Corporate Benefits, Pensions | 2 Comments »
Friday, October 22nd, 2010
So the Spending Review has now been and gone. I won’t dwell on the more general elements here, but I will cast an eye over the pension changes announced – less than a week after the last set of pension reforms.
In summary, the State Pension age for everyone will rise to 66 by 2020. Not too big a deal, you might think, since it’s currently 65. However, there are two important points here. Firstly, 2020 is six years ahead of the previous proposed rise to 66. And secondly, the minimum retirement age for women is currently 60, so women will see a significant increase in a relatively short space of time.
In my opinion, the rise from for men from 65 to 66 (to be phased in between 2018 and 2020) is not a moment too soon. When the State Pension was introduced, life expectancy at 65 was for a further four years; it is now 22 years and rising. That is unsustainable. I often advise people planning for their retirement now to expect something very different by the time they get there.
In fact, I believe that the government should be acting more decisively: more substantial rises implemented more quickly. However, as is always the case with these matters, the first step is always the most politically sensitive. Once the retirement age has changed once, it will undoubtedly be moved further at a future date without much reaction.
However, I do think it’s unfair for women to bear the biggest brunt in seeing their retirement age rise six years over the next ten. If ever there’s evidence that equality is a double-edged sword, this is it. If the government were to act more decisively, then perhaps retirement age equality could be given longer to implement. That sounds ‘fairer’ to me.
Tags: LinkedIn Posted in Pensions | No Comments »
Wednesday, October 13th, 2010
In response to the global influence of Twitter, we will be publishing these blog articles and more using Twitter. We promise not to bore you with what we’ve just had for dinner, instead we will focus on providing key updates on the ever-developing world of personal finance.
I’ve already posted the very first tweet, so it would great if you could join us.

Tags: LinkedIn Posted in Miscellaneous | No Comments »
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010
I’m very pleased to see lots of focus on pensions by the BBC at the moment. First Newsnight, now Panorama.
Some initial thoughts on last night’s Panorama programme.
Firstly, the positives:
- They are right to name and shame pension providers for high charges (for the record, HSBC, Co-op and L&G were the three worst offenders);
- They were also VERY right to focus on fund rebates as a murky area of charges. Rebates can make up a significant part of any investment charges and investors should be aware of what happens to these rebates;
- They are right to highlight that some people have received poor advice and to name and shame the advisers involved.
However, there were a few short-comings:
- The presenter threw numbers around in a very alarmist fashion, without much context. e.g. “Did you know you have paid £4700 in charges on your pension?” What transpired was that this wasn’t high by comparison to some other products in the market, the real issue with the pension concerned was the very poor returns it had generated over a long period of time;
- At the same time as naming the worst providers, they should have named the best providers – not all pension providers are equal, and by focusing on the negatives they missed an opportunity to encourage people to focus on their retirement plans more constructively;
- Not all advisers are unscrupulous. In fact, in light of the content of the programme, surely a good adviser is surely worth his weight in gold? The final part of the programme was bit more Watchdog than Panorama.
If you’d like your own pension health check, drop me a line.
Tags: LinkedIn Posted in Investments, Pensions | No Comments »
Wednesday, September 29th, 2010
On Monday, Swiss Re published its annual European Insurance Report, highlighting a worrying EUR 10 trillion gap in life assurance across Europe. The UK ranks third worst in terms of consumer protection in the event of death or serious illness (behind Germany and Sweden). Worryingly, only 11% of Europeans believe themselves to be ‘financially well positioned’ if they die or suffer long-term illness or disability, and perhaps even more concerning is that 26% expect to rely on Government benefits (just £90 a week in the UK – source: www.direct.gov.uk, Sep 2010).
So do you need life assurance, and what might it cost?
When advising our clients on their financial well-being, a large part of their peace of mind is derived from the knowledge that their finances and their family will be looked after should the worst happen. Specifically, the following questions should be addressed in the event of death, accident or serious illness:
- Will the mortgage (or other debts) be paid off?
- Will my family be able to support themselves?
- Who will continue to pay school fees?
- Would I be able to afford the necessary medical bills?
- Could we afford to make the most of the time we had left?
- What if I were unable to work for a prolonged period of time?
Life and health premiums have continued to fall in recent years (£100,000 of 25 year life protection for a 35 year old male now costs about £8 a month – source: Webline, an online quotation service, Sep 2010), but new capital legislation for insurance companies (known as ‘Solvency II’) is widely expected to push the cost of protection up as life assurers are required to keep more capital aside to cover their liabilities. Hence, now would be a perfect time to take out new policies (or to review existing ones).
Tags: LinkedIn Posted in Protection | No Comments »
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|