Share trading through joint account with spouse

stphnstevey

Are there any benefits or negatives to share trading through a joint account with spouse?

It seems that assets are shared 50:50 and taxation the same, so both CG allowances can be used

I am not sure about FCSC as there is £170k limit for joint bank accounts, but no mention of this for investments?

How would inheritance tax be affected?

This might make it easier to have a joint investment strategy and transaction costs would likely be lower (but still minimal anyway)

Thanks

Malthusian

The FSCS is almost certain to be irrelevant as if your platform goes bust, your shares will still be there. But yes, you would be covered up to £170,000 for a joint account.

As a jointly owned asset, on death the account would automatically become solely owned by the surviving spouse regardless of what the deceased's Will said. IHT is irrelevant as transfers to a spouse are exempt.

Linton

If you are intending to use an S&S ISA, and I recommend you do to avoid a lot of record keeping and tax paperwork, then you cannot have a joint account.



The FSCS limit for investments was incaresed to £85K per person on the 1st April but that is not really an issue in my view as the investments are your property. The intermediaries just have the right to manage them. So if someone in the chain goes bust your money cannot be used to pay their debts - this is very different to the banks. However there could be some disruption whilst responsibility for your investments is transferred to someone else.


So there is some advantage in using 2 different his and hers platforms. That is what we do, I manage all the investments as a total portfolio but they are spread across separate his and hers accounts on different platforms.

stphnstevey

I thought assets were pooled and can be used to pay the administration of the pool of assets? So FSCS would be a benefit

Linton

stphnstevey wrote: »

I thought assets were pooled and can be used to pay the administration of the pool of assets? So FSCS would be a benefit

Assets are pooled into funds but the wealth in a fund is owned by the unit holders. If you are talking about administration after bankruptcy then the administrators costs to move your funds would be minimal - the whole fund together with its customer data etc would simply be transferred elsewhere, there should be no need to liquidate the individual assets. A fund manager has recently gone bust - the funds are carrying on exactly the same under new management but I guess with the same people.


You may be thinking of another recent case where there were large costs to extract the assets from a collapsed SIPP manager. However the assets werent regulated investment funds. I believe they were possibly dodgy loans which may have needed financial detective work and legal action to recover.

stphnstevey

Linton wrote: »

Assets are pooled into funds but the wealth in a fund is owned by the unit holders. If you are talking about administration after bankruptcy then the administrators costs to move your funds would be minimal - the whole fund together with its customer data etc would simply be transferred elsewhere, there should be no need to liquidate the individual assets. A fund manager has recently gone bust - the funds are carrying on exactly the same under new management but I guess with the same people.


You may be thinking of another recent case where there were large costs to extract the assets from a collapsed SIPP manager. However the assets werent regulated investment funds. I believe they were possibly dodgy loans which may have needed financial detective work and legal action to recover.

Beaufort Securities?

Linton

stphnstevey wrote: »

Beaufort Securities?

That's the one.