So. Trump’s victory means it’s a whole new world, to coin a phrase. But until our new overlords tell us otherwise, we’re still going to run through the week in news.
Donald Trump is elected to the White House, advisers face trouble with the taxman and Brexit fails to leave the news.
1) Trumpocalypse now!
He may have spent the past 18 months offending his fellow Americans but neither that nor the revelations about his misogyny prevented Donald Trump from becoming President of the United States this week.
The morning after Mr Trump’s election some of Europe’s major stock markets were down, with the FTSE 100 down 1.2 per cent, Germany’s Dax down 1.77 per cent and France’s Cac 40 down 1.4 per cent.
Since then the Dow Jones Industrial Average has reached a record high on the basis of Trump’s pledges to cut taxes and deliver a package of infrastructure spending.
But the chief executive of Hermes Investment Management has said consensus underestimates the damage the Republican could do to the US economy through the prospect of him alienating other nations.
2) Advisers left hanging as taxman stands them up
Advisers have said they are being left in limbo by HM Revenue & Customs in-specie contribution review, as the Association of Member-Directed Pension Schemes confirmed it is in talks with the taxman on the issue.
In-specie contributions are where ownership of assets are transferred from one person or entity to another in its current form, so they aren't converted into cash.
But HM Revenue & Customs may be changing its stance on in-specie contributions.
As a result the industry has stopped accepting in-specie contributions until the situation is clarified.
3) Suffolk Life tells client it’s their way or the highway
How many advisers would like to tell their clients exactly where to go? Well, that’s what Suffolk Life did this week.
Pension ombudsman Anthony Arter ruled the company had not acted with maladministration in a complaint and said the breakdown in relationship between the company and the couple in question was so bad Suffolk Life was reasonable to tell the client to seek another provider.
Despite having complained repeatedly about the service they got from Suffolk Life since setting up a Sipp with the company in 2002, the couple objected to having to leave the company and complained to Mr Arter.
He said: “There had been a breakdown in the relationship that existed between Mrs S and Suffolk Life and, in such circumstances, it was reasonable for Suffolk Life to have sought to terminate this relationship by requiring Mrs S to transfer her Sipp to another provider.”
4) Advisers need a cunning Brexit plan
Meanwhile Andrew Bailey, the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, has told advisers to prepare for Brexit.
Speaking at the Treasury Select Committee he said firms would need a contingency plan in place.
He said the regulator tells firms to have contingency plans for other events which pose a risk, so it would be inconsistent not to expect them to have one for Brexit.
Mr Bailey also addressed some of the issues raised by the Brexit negotiations, such as the UK’s ability to influence the European Union’s rules.
He said: “The more you become a taker of standards, the less influence you have over standards.
“That is a difficult place to be for a major financial market like the UK.”
5) Adviser in hot water over transferred client review
The Financial Ombudsman Service has told an advice firm it should have reviewed a transferring client’s finances within two weeks.
In 2009 the client, a semi-retired landscape gardener referred to as Mr F, met with his adviser when she was working for a different firm.
Mr F was advised to invest all his pension fund of more than £45,000 in the Centurion DMS Enhanced fund.
The adviser moved to Bank House Investment Management Limited in 2010 and took Mr F with her as a client.
However, neither Bank House nor the adviser offered Mr F the opportunity to review his finances and his pension plan during the first year after he became a Bank House client.
Ombudsman Adrian Hudson said the review would have allowed the firm to check the suitability of the assets.
