Stupid question!

NAR

jamiefly wrote: »

It's not as simple as that and I was unable to find a calculator with regards my original question.

After over 40 years of smoking like a chimney(albeit now ceased) I doubt if her health will see her outlive the intended withdrawals, so no need for a calculator.

(referring to dunstonh) I see your posts all the time and would say you are worth your salt and don't understand why you sell your wares for free on here so often (must be like a part time job hey there is no need for you to defend the 1%

Maybe because some people are nice guys and just want to give something back! :cool:

jamiefly

jamesd wrote: »

Dunstonh can't approach you but a private message will get you contact details and as an IFA dunstonh may also be in a good position to provide regulated advice on income-producing investments that could protect the capital long term against inflation as well as having an acceptable capital value variation of perhaps 10-20% a year up and down and producing the income required in this case.

Dunstonh wold have to consider the wishes of all POA holders and there seems to be a significant interest from your sisters in long term capital protection, which requires investments, not savings accounts.

I would agree with you that Dunstonh as an IFA would be worth paying for, however my brother-in-law is a top lawyer and refuses to use anyone else but his own financial advisor (and friend who is on his companies payroll) who has offered what I feel to be an entirely unsuitable product.

My own CV I used to be registered with the SFA and worked in risk management for very blue chip financial institutions bored with the 9-5 I quit a very high paying job and joined the army. For the last 3 years I have averaged a 9% per annum return on our own investments. Before that I switched from gbp to chf and doubled our money. What's good for me (medium/high(hedged)risk) is not good for my own mother.

jamiefly

jamesd wrote: »

Given your current plans, your sisters would be justified in seeking to have your POA removed on the basis of failure to properly protect the person you're responsible for.

To be honest with you I'd like nothing more to do with this and was already thinking about getting my name removed from POA.

Originally the trust was to be based offshore in Jersey, very similar set-up to Jimmy Carrs financial arrangements but now this is on-shore and subject to UK taxes anyway.

Edit: my fathers pension arrangements are much better and his income substantially higher although I (unfortunately for him) expect 2/3rds of this to be taken up in care fees (early onset dementia)

jamiefly

Thank you to everyone who posted here. I now understand the route I was taking was no better and possibly even worse than before.

atush

For someone interested in 'plain Vanilla' why the HE double hockey sticks are you talking about Zopa? I think Zopa is high risk myself.

I'd rather invest in a good income fund myself.

I am with James and D on this. Your mother lost out after the last advice when she didn't stay invested, and she needs proper advice now.

If your sisters are after feathering their own nests even further than the 80K they have already received, they are not using their POA properly.

I would think a mix of cash investments and income prodicing funds are the answer here, but see an IFA and agree a fee in advance.

jamiefly

atush wrote: »

For someone interested in 'plain Vanilla' why the HE double hockey sticks are you talking about Zopa? I think Zopa is high risk myself.

I'd rather invest in a good income fund myself.

I am with James and D on this. Your mother lost out after the last advice when she didn't stay invested, and she needs proper advice now.

If your sisters are after feathering their own nests even further than the 80K they have already received, they are not using their POA properly.

I would think a mix of cash investments and income prodicing funds are the answer here, but see an IFA and agree a fee in advance.

Zopa is high risk I agree and maybe my weighting was way out, trying to find a cash asset providing anywhere close to a half decent return is a ZIRP environment is proving rather difficult.

I have taken on-board all others have said on here including you.

Edit: I followed mums investments after she unwound them and can assure you she'd have lost much more than her original investment had she stayed put. It was a property company based in Switzerland with serious liquidity issues and it took two years from request to final return of capital with a whopping taxable charge to boot.

atush

Too bad she didn't stick the lot in a good old boring Vanilla general investment trust. One of the ones I invest in has returned 10% a year for the last decade.

Anyway, hopefully she with your help will do better this time.

jamesd

jamiefly wrote: »

Edit: I followed mums investments after she unwound them and can assure you she'd have lost much more than her original investment had she stayed put. It was a property company based in Switzerland with serious liquidity issues and it took two years from request to final return of capital with a whopping taxable charge to boot.

Dunstonh, would that have been during regulation? jamiefly, was any redress sought at the time? Was it really just one big investment? For how much money? Today, use of one investment from an IFA is usually a big red flag for unsuitable advice with potential redress liability for the IFA.

The "one is bad" wouldn't apply to something like the tax wrapper, which could be ISA, investment bond, pension or whatever else, though that still has to be appropriate.

But other than tax wrapper selection, if you see an IFA suggesting just one investment for more than say £50,000 of total investments, that's a bad sign and a discussion with another IFA would be a good idea.

jamiefly wrote: »

trying to find a cash asset providing anywhere close to a half decent return is a ZIRP environment is proving rather difficult.

You're not going to succeed - such things don't exist for more than the small amounts that can go into the 8% regular saver account at First Direct.

But any competent IFA can put together a mixture of investments with a limited maximum drop potential, given a required maximum drop level. 20% or so being a good low risk one, though lower is possible. 20% is good because going lower starts to substantially reduce the available income. Assuming she lives for a few years, even her dying during the worst part of a drop would leave more in her estate than drawing on capital and draining that routinely as was your original plan.

It's good that you're conscious that your investing doesn't match her needs, but you've gone to far in the other direction in looking to stick to Zopa and cash-based only. There are lower volatility funds than growth investments out there and they are extremely widely used by those who are retired to generate ongoing income.

While you haven't said whether the trust was to be using an investment bond (I wrongly wrote investment trust in my earlier reply), an offshore investment bond does have some advantages, including potentially low costs (depending on how much the advisor charges!). So can onshore investment bonds. If you say more about just what it was then maybe dunstonh might write more about whether and why it might have been suitable and how reasonable or otherwise the charges might have been. I still have some reservations about appropriateness of this though.

jamiefly

Thanks again James.

It's all well above my station and yes I can confirm that her financial advisor at the time told her to invest substantially more than £50,000 in this one vehicle (a big 6 figure sum) and other investments more closely aligned to the volatility of our stock market (trackers and the like). He made quite a few people known to us unhappy and couldn't take his medicine so took sudden retirement (came out of the blue in a letter directing all enquiries to another firm that took over his client list).

It's in the past and we have to concentrate on the present/future and make the most of what she has which I reiterate is still fairly substantial.

Not ruling out investment trysts 'if' they are the right product.