Surviving Covid-19’s bite
Regarding your article ‘New advisers to bear the brunt of Covid-19’s bite’ (May 7).
I am a mortgage and protection adviser of more than 30 years, so I am at the veteran stage now.
I am lucky to have a large client base, so I am managing to do two to three remortgages a week at the moment (rather than my usual three to four), but the best thing from my point of view is the decision I took several years ago of taking all life commission on a non-indemnified basis.
Not only am I receiving a steady income through the crisis, but should the economy tank after the pandemic causing people to cancel policies, the effect will be a loss of future income rather than a negative clawback.
John Fisher
True Potential Wealth Management
Unreliable guidance
Regarding your article ‘HMRC wins landmark in-specie tax relief ruling’ (May 13).
I have two businesses: one is an IFA practise and the other an accountancy.
The accountant at the accountancy often seeks guidance from HM Revenue & Customs.
On one such occasion she was told “we have googled it and that was the answer we came up with”.
Therefore, unless you have the ability to understand extremely complex, and sometimes convoluted tax law, you don’t stand achance when HMRC decides to change its view on the matter.
Why even bother with guidance if it can’t be relied upon?
Name and address supplied
Adviser dedication
Regarding your article ‘“Resilient” advised platform assets beat market falls’(May 14). An interesting article for sure.
I have been doing a considerable number of client valuations recently and I am noticing that all of our portfolios (diverse, global and balanced) are down 3-5 per cent over one year against the FTSE 100 (-18 per cent).
However, your article only makes one tiny mention of diversification.
It’s got nothing to do with the platform itself.
It’s the fact that financial advisers build balanced portfolios with a diversified asset allocation.
It is not ‘platform resilience’, but the adviser’s dedication to building diverse portfolios.
Simon Evans
Shorestone Financial
Paying the Treasury’s debt
Following your article ‘Govt told to scrap pensions triple lock to reduce virus debt’ (May 13).
The idea that the government would consider scrapping the triple lock is completely stupid.
Private pensions thatare dependant on the marketplace have already been hit by the Covid-19 virus, so why should the pensioners get hit a second time by scrapping the triple lock?
Pensioners cannot pay for HM Treasury’s debt.
It should come from an adjusted tax system where higher earners pay proportionally more tax.
Pensioners are going to need all the help they can get otherwise they will become a further financial burden on the Treasury.
Ian Coles,
Surrey
Self-employed forgotten
Regarding your recent article ‘Chancellor extends furlough scheme until October’ (May 12).
Sadly still nothing for the self-employed running limited companies where income is taken as dividends.
To compare tax breaks for this segment as preferential when sole traders have the best deal available to date with supplemented income and the ability to work leaves a big gap that remains a disappointing consequence.
Name and address supplied
Freedoms were no good
Regarding your article ‘McPhail: Pension freedoms was “reckless”’ (May 6).
At last. No less than Tom McPhail (now that he doesn’t have to worry about Hargreaves Lansdown’s business) saying what some of us have been saying since these ‘freedoms’ were first introduced: that for most they were a disaster waiting to happen.
It’s OK if, like George Osborne, you had a pension worth millions, but for normal people it was a disaster waiting to happen.
As I have said on innumerable occasions these freedoms were great for HMRC, advisers, fund managers and providers, but very rarely were they good news for the clients – and nevermore so now.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the claims management companies are salivating at the prospect of extra business as a result of those in drawdown who now find their fund is unable to support their expected income.
It seems likely that now, and in the future, the state will be supporting more retirees.
And of course the more prudent (and better advised) among us will be paying our taxes to help support them.
Harry Katz
HA7 Consulting
HMRC guidance
Regarding your article (May 13). HMRC issues guidance papers apparently only for internal use, but in reality they are available online for all. If anyone follows their guidance (expecting it to be within the law), HMRC can overrule their own guidance if and when it suits them.
Contrary to the tribunal’s statement, it seems ridiculous to expect financial advisers to be cognisant with the interpretive meaning of statutory legal definitions when even the HMRC is not interpreting it correctly in the first place.
Clive Fox
Retired IFA
