Pension stuff, how's it all looking ? HAve you prepared ?

[mangocrazy]

Talking of losing money, I wonder how many remainers knew that a vote to remain was a vote to let the EU dip into your bank accounts to prop up the failing EU currency, like they did during the last crash. There was a limit in your account to which anything above, the EU could and did take from people.

You clearly spend far too much time reading rags like the Express and Mail. This was never actually A Thing, it was just the tabloid press doing their best to bolster the Leave argument. The Greek crisis blew up while we were still in the EU. No UK funds were ever directed to bailing out Greece and the EU explicitly ruled out such a course of action, seeing as we were not part of the €uro currency area. And the notion that the EU could 'dip into your account' is purest fantasy.

If there's a failing currency here, its Sterling. Prior to the EU referendum, GBP/EUR was trading at 1.40 - 1.45. It's currently at 1.16.

Whether you believe that or not, at least you've acknowledged that such funds were at risk, due to the EU wanting to prop up their failing currency.

With not being in the EU, such funds are not at risk.

And prior to the referendum, it's been 7 years, so trading figures are of course different, but it's not just UK Sterling which is also different, just look at the whole picture, instead of comparing something from nearly a decade ago.

I absolutely reject the suggestion that UK funds were at risk, and my earlier comment in no way suggested that; it's just wishful thinking on your part. As the UK was not part of the EU currency area, any such 'transfer of funds' could and would never happen.

You were talking about EUR vs GBP. Sterling's position vs EUR has stayed broadly similar within a couple of pence/cents in the period since teh referendum until now; it's been in the 1.13 - 1.17 range for pretty much all of that time. So the currencies respective value has changed very little in 7 years.

[Count Steer]

Back on subject (sort of), one can speculate in other markets and currencies (with some limitations) and I wonder how many people have actively chosen to invest their pension money in something other than sterling and the UK market? Seeing as how the UK is apparently doing so badly compared to the rest of Europe.

Yeah. Got some European and USA funds. Steered clear of Far Eastern Opportunities as, although there was a possibility of growth a) I don't know enough about that part of the world and b) there seemed to be similar possibilities of 'not growth' c) that bus pulled out some time ago if you wanted gravity defying growth.

TBH I've been looking more at 'not losing against inflation' for the last 10 years and gave up on hunting for 'kerrching! growth' some years before that.

[Horse]

Back on subject (sort of), one can speculate in other markets and currencies (with some limitations) and I wonder how many people have actively chosen to invest their pension money in something other than sterling and the UK market?

Do you include gold in that 'other'? If so, I know some who have.

[Mr. Dazzle]

My biggest chunk is US, but only "once removed" IYSWIM. So UK based funds traded in Stirling, but with a big(gest) US slice.

I had to look that up BTW It's all just fund managers doing their things, handily the platform gives me a little global breakdown pie chart. They're all funds called "global this" and "worldwide that".

I do have some actual American companies too i put a bit of money on just for fun, Nvidia are up 195% and my solar panels are over 200% In fact I'm universally up on Yankee companies. . I doubled my money on Tesla before leaving, shoulda invested more

[ZRX61]

Talking of losing money, I wonder how many remainers knew that a vote to remain was a vote to let the EU dip into your bank accounts to prop up the failing EU currency, like they did during the last crash. There was a limit in your account to which anything above, the EU could and did take from people.

You clearly spend far too much time reading rags like the Express and Mail. This was never actually A Thing, it was just the tabloid press doing their best to bolster the Leave argument. The Greek crisis blew up while we were still in the EU. No UK funds were ever directed to bailing out Greece and the EU explicitly ruled out such a course of action, seeing as we were not part of the €uro currency area. And the notion that the EU could 'dip into your account' is purest fantasy.

If there's a failing currency here, its Sterling. Prior to the EU referendum, GBP/EUR was trading at 1.40 - 1.45. It's currently at 1.16.

In the US it's actually a thing, anything above $250k (per account) can be used by the banks to cover their incompetence. We have a deal where if you have up to $50M laying a round they will spread it across 200 banks & you agree to leave it there for a specified time.

[Horse]

. There was a limit in your account to which anything above, the EU could and did take from people.

Has it ever happened?

And what was the limit? Isn't there something that the government guarantee up to £85k per account anyway?

In the US it's actually a thing

You should vote to leave.

[Horse]

We're off on a different subject ...

.... Seeing as how the UK is apparently doing so badly compared to the rest of Europe.

Coincidentally, this popped up in a news feed:


It’s been almost 10 years since a columnist first calculated that the UK had a lower GDP per capita than every American state bar Mississippi, says John Burn-Murdoch in the FT. So you’d imagine that having “half slumbered, half stumbled” our way through the intervening years – pausing for “occasional acts of egregious self-sabotage” – we may even have dropped below the Magnolia State. Happily not: by 2019, Britain was actually richer than America’s six poorest states. “Heady days, indeed.” But there’s another, more worrying comparison to be made. If we’re considering US states individually, why not look at the UK’s constituent parts?

It quickly becomes obvious that the UK has a remarkable “economic monopolarity”. Removing London’s output would shave 14% off British living standards, “precisely enough” enough to slip below the poorest American state. Compare that to amputating Amsterdam from the Netherlands, which would cause a drop of 5% in GDP, Munich from Germany (1%), or even the “opulent” San Francisco from the US (4%). Britons may have mixed feelings about London – which seems culturally more at home with New York than Newcastle – but it’s undeniably keeping the country “economically afloat”. We should be thankful our capital has weathered the Brexit storm “relatively well”: its economy is 4% larger than in 2019, “bucking the broader national trend of stagnation and decline”. But if Britain is to “banish the Mississippi Question” and spread the wealth amassed in its capital, “it will require more than one economic engine”.

[MyLittleStudPony]

Talking of losing money, I wonder how many remainers knew that a vote to remain was a vote to let the EU dip into your bank accounts to prop up the failing EU currency, like they did during the last crash. There was a limit in your account to which anything above, the EU could and did take from people.

You clearly spend far too much time reading rags like the Express and Mail. This was never actually A Thing, it was just the tabloid press doing their best to bolster the Leave argument. The Greek crisis blew up while we were still in the EU. No UK funds were ever directed to bailing out Greece and the EU explicitly ruled out such a course of action, seeing as we were not part of the €uro currency area. And the notion that the EU could 'dip into your account' is purest fantasy.

If there's a failing currency here, its Sterling. Prior to the EU referendum, GBP/EUR was trading at 1.40 - 1.45. It's currently at 1.16.

Whether you believe that or not, at least you've acknowledged that such funds were at risk, due to the EU wanting to prop up their failing currency.

With not being in the EU, such funds are not at risk.

And prior to the referendum, it's been 7 years, so trading figures are of course different, but it's not just UK Sterling which is also different, just look at the whole picture, instead of comparing something from nearly a decade ago.

Exactly. Just quantify all those Brexit Benefits. Ant can run us through them if required.

Keep it Brexity. Nice and Brexity.

[Cousin Jack]

Exactly. Just quantify all those Brexit Benefits. Ant can run us through them if required.

Keep it Brexity. Nice and Brexity.

I'm not sure which is worst. Your inane "Keep it Brexity. Nice and Brexity" or Ant's ridiculous assertions of what the EU were planning to do.

[Horse]

. There was a limit in your account to which anything above, the EU could and did take from people.

Has it ever happened?

And what was the limit? Isn't there something that the government guarantee up to £85k per account anyway?

While we wait, a further question: are you talking about this?

https://www.sia-partners.com/en/insight ... 20of%20DGS.

The European Deposit insurance scheme (EDIS) is the last step in fulfilling the European banking union. By 2024 this new system will replace the present deposit guarantee schemes which were put in place locally by the respective national governments, without fully removing them. EDIS will exist on top of DGS. The European Commission communicated that the installment of EDIS will go through three different phases of development over the next eight years.

First, it will start off with a re-insurance scheme to be introduced in 2017 next to the existing DGS. In practice this means that, in case of a bank crisis, the national deposit guarantee schemes would take action and start paying back depositors their guaranteed 100,000 euros per bank deposit account.

€100,000 being, very roughly, £85,000.

[Horse]

It would be better if we could explore the odd tangent but keep it mainly about pensions.

It’s not been a bad thread and it would be a shame to lose it to politics.

Fair point, but remind us who introduced the 'non-uk investment' aspect ...

[Count Steer]

Having moved from a company with a final salary pension (put your money in, forget about it) to a company with a 'self managed' pension scheme )where you and they put money in, you decide what 'style' you want), I did think, 'Oh, so we're all supposed to be investment experts as well as the skills/knowledge they employ us for'. Probably reasonable for that type of company but it's a bit of a stretch for anyone not particularly numerate/hasn't got a clue about investments (probably was the majority of people).

They're the ones that I feel most sorry for if they said 'put it into the plan that gets safer as I get closer to retirement' and had the date scheduled for recently.

I do know three very savvy people that got stitched by Equitable Life (or, more accurately, by the other members of EL who wanted what they were promised and sod everyone else!).

So, even if you have your head screwed on, you don't always win.

[Horse]

Having moved from a company with a final salary pension (put your money in, forget about it) to a company with a 'self managed' pension scheme )where you and they put money in, you decide what 'style' you want), I did think, 'Oh, so we're all supposed to be investment experts as well as the skills/knowledge they employ us for'.

I only joined the final salary scheme on a whim. At about age 30, retirement wasn't something that concerned me. The now mandated contributions at least mean that decision to save is made for you.

Of course, the days of the 3% contribution that I started with have long gone!

With the self-managed savings you at least get the illusion of some control: "choose how risky you want your funds to be"

When many people don't understand the basics of credit card interest and minimum monthly payments, and many are struggling to pay rent and day-to-day costs, it's a stretch to expect them to pay detailed attention to something a long way in the future.

And on what basis would they make decisions anyway? Did many people predict last year's financial ructions?

One suggestion is, rather than retire at a certain age, to withdraw the funds when they are on an 'up' rather than down. But it won't fit everyone in all work situations.

[Count Steer]

One suggestion is, rather than retire at a certain age, to withdraw the funds when they are on an 'up' rather than down. But it won't fit everyone in all work situations.

Yebbut. You withdraw it and do what with it? ISAs, Premium Bonds and Savings Accounts?

Actually, what happened with the bond market was, to my mind, like finding your £50k in Premium Bonds was suddenly £35k or your £85k in a savings account was suddenly £60k. That's how 'safe' it was supposed to be. It's not supposed to happen. It takes a particular sort of stupidity to shake confidence in things that much. Quite a legacy.

[JackyJoll]

One suggestion is, rather than retire at a certain age, to withdraw the funds when they are on an 'up' rather than down. But it won't fit everyone in all work situations.

The days of everyone retiring at 60 or 65 ended a long time ago and they weren’t entirely golden days: my fellow Government employees were made to leave at 60 and be poor on their work pension until they got OAP at 65.

Now people retire for reasons such as affordability, decrepitude, whatever.

Timing the money market is a possible reason to retire, but the real issue is seeing a downturn coming. That ain’t easy!

[Horse]

There are a multitude of issues beyond financial, such as notice periods.

Possiby even personal moral challenges, for example if you're a sole trader with a loyal customer base then you might not want to just stop, instead ease off. I've no idea how it would work with any sort of partnership.

My final salary scheme was 65, whether or not I wanted it then. Investment type savings not. State pension for me is next year.

My notice period was minimum three months, I gave more. I started work succession and project planning before October 2022. I wouldn't, couldn't, just say "3 months" then "Bye!".

However, as I've said, I am likely to be returning to work part-time.

Also, as it happens, there's a personal change that is likely to have implications on my spending.

[JackyJoll]

My final salary scheme had a maximum rule of 40 years contributions, but no age limit I think. I was only at 34 and a bit years but I was getting old!

[Horse]

My final salary scheme had a maximum rule of 40 years contributions, but no age limit I think. I was only at 34 and a bit years but I was getting old!

I think mine was 40 x 60ths. I got to 16. Then began collecting 'savings' types.

[Horse]

Yebbut. You withdraw it and do what with it? ISAs, Premium Bonds and Savings Accounts?

Indeed. Taking the whole lot has tax implications.

Otherwise, it's:
Annuity, not great returns
'Flexible draw down', which sort of assumes you don't need a steady, regular and predictable income

Actually, what happened with the bond market was, to my mind, like finding your £50k in Premium Bonds was suddenly £35k or your £85k in a savings account was suddenly £60k. That's how 'safe' it was supposed to be. It's not supposed to happen.

Yup. Hence my belief that most people would be upset by it. It certainly caused me some consternation and rethinking.

It takes a particular sort of stupidity to shake confidence in things that much. Quite a legacy.

I saw an interesting article* that suggested that the big(gest) mistake they made was not discussing it beforehand. Which apparently Blair or Brown did when they were planning changes.

* no, I don't have a link

[JackyJoll]

I saw an interesting article* that suggested that the big(gest) mistake they made was not discussing it beforehand. Which apparently Blair or Brown did when they were planning stages.

Yes, the PM has the same duty as a Naval Admiral: to be right.

At the end of the day, low tax does encourage growth, but life is not simple! She wasn’t carrying the people she needed with her. She should not have accepted the leadership, because the MPs didn’t want her.