View more on these topics

FSA should encourage in specie bond transfers

I was never a fan of Gordon Brown, far less his henchman Ed Balls. However, when I wrote to him years ago on the topic of unequal tax treatment, I got a rapid audience. Regrettably, the civil servants were not prepared to fight off the ABI lobby so it did not move forward.

I made the point that I can transfer in specie from one Isa to another, from one Ssas to another and from one Sipp to another, yet I cannot transfer in specie from one investment bond to another. I realise the FSA cannot make this happen but it needs to recognise that, without this facility, transition will be a one-night wonder.

The irony is that the Treasury loses out at present, especially in regard to tax take in with-profits bonds. Before any with-profits disciples come after me, the manipulation of tax deductions in investment bonds is outrageous and makes TERs of 3 per cent look good value.

It is surprising that the IMA has not helped in this regard and maybe it is, as I write, beavering away. It has to be said that speed is not everything, as the ABI’s new sector labels demonstrated this week, as it was criticised for focusing too much on one asset class.

There is much talk of client centricity but little evidence, with bonds with lock-ins and no ease of transition. On lock-ins, St James’s Place says its has had its investment processes signed off by the FSA. But wait, not only is it RDR-ready, the label SJP now craves is restricted, independence no longer has the cache. Does this mean advisers will cease to be partners? They need new titles, suggestions on a postcard or on the web a prize for the most apt or more likely printable one. But I digress, as transparency becomes more common, so those who profited from opacity will become more vocal.

I feel there is a disconnection between those who run providers and the clients of intermediaries. I am not sure providers have grasped just how tenuous their connection to the end client now is. Operating in a vacuum has posed few issues in the past century but I doubt this will be equally true in the years that follow.

Now that transparency is coming for the financial services sector with the RDR, the general insurance side needs to follow. Its not as if it is being modest in the level of commission/brokerage it retains. The maxim needs to be value for money at all times.

The fund companies will be similarly affected and this has already started to appear with lower costs plus performance bonuses. But TER is not enough, especially when it does not reflect the trading volumes. In some cases, the trading can head for 200 per cent of the portfolio, making the TER the least of your worries.

Some time ago Michael Heseltine, stated in the House of Commons, following a notorious 1994 speech by Chancellor Gordon Brown which rather clumsily referred to “post-neo-classical endogenous growth theory”: “It is not Brown’s. It is Balls.”

If in specie transfers for bonds is not part of the transition project then all we are doing is rearranging the deckchairs and transparency stops with the removal of commission. This may be nothing to do with Brown but it is certainly balls!

Robert Reid is managing director of Syndaxi Chartered Financial Planners


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. This a is a good idea, and could be taken further in allowing in-specie transfers from Bonds to Unit Trusts. However, the prospects of the government allowing any step forward likely to reduce its tax take are vanishingly remote. There’s more chance of the government repealing Crash Gordon’s tax raid on pension funds, despite what it was promising in the run-up to the election.

  2. What a load of nonsense.

    This man has shown why distributors have no understanding of the products they sell.

    A life assurance bond is a contract of insurance issued by a life office to a policyholder. The money is invested in the life office’s funds which are unique to that company. Although they may choose to invest with a fund manager and link to his unit trust the “life co linked unit trust fund” is a completely different species to the underlying unit trust. This will never be possible.

    It does however highlight the need for advisers to fully understand the products and marketplace they work in. Maybe if they had understood some of the structured products that were mis-sold we would not see fees rising as fast. In my experience mis-selling is often a lack of understanding and poor judgement.

  3. Robert,
    I would like to understand the driver behind this proposal. This sort of thing could of course cut both ways with OEICs moving to bonds, maybe not many today but the tax landscape does change over the years. (That comment alone has got to get a nomination for optimist of the year).

    The main block as I see is it charges, if we take the bond product I manage it has no AMC in the unit price and all charges are taken through the wrapper. On the other hand there are bond products, and older ones on the books where almost the only charge is via the AMC.

    Valuing an in specie transfer would need a brigade of actuaries. Any transfer value would have to reflect the oustanding charges (and loyalty bonuses on some products). I think it will need to be a transfer of value at least for onshore bonds because apart from collective bonds like Skandia the onshore life fund would be a mirror version of the OEIC.

    Somehow the chargeable event data would have to be transfered over too.

    Does the Treasury lose out? Never in my expereince. When we were engaged in the bonds vs collectives tax debate the Treasury’s own figures showed that they take more tax from investment bonds, and do so more efficiently that from equivalent collectives.

    Life companies use the easements and CGT allowances permitted to reduce the effective rate of tax in a life fund to something below the assumed 20% basic rate, depending on fund and returns it’s usually circa 18%. Nothing wrong with this, just as there is nothing wrong with using our personal CGT allowances to mitigate tax.

  4. I say again… Apples and pears, not the same species. The note above is correct that you are only going to achieve this by moving the cash. Just like you can at the moment.

    End of idea.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm