coronavirus and personal pensions

Prism

GrandadSteve said:

I retire in 6 months but I am past the original retirement date my pension was set at and I am seeing it drop quite drastically but my pension provider says it would take almost a month to cash the pension in by which time I could have lost a significant amount ..I hear talk on here that it will recover but have I got time for that to happen ..I think not but do not know what to do

What are you thinking of doing with the pension when you retire? Most people don't cash it in unless they are buying an annuity. Are you?

[Deleted User]

The time to do something was in January but of course you couldn’t have known a correction was coming. A good reason to change asset allocation is based on a plan as you are approaching and entering retirement. You do that by reducing allocation to stocks and increasing allocation to bonds. Reacting to something that has already happened is rarely the right thing to do. 

GrandadSteve

Due to past circumstances it is not a great amount just enough to subsidise my State pension or was so I intended to simply take it as a lump sum 

Thrugelmir

GrandadSteve said:

Due to past circumstances it is not a great amount just enough to subsidise my State pension or was so I intended to simply take it as a lump sum 

Bottom line is how much can you afford to lose. Markets generally have had an exceptional period of performance. So you've enjoyed growth well above what would normally be expected. Sometimes it's good to be happy with what you've got. Rather than be greedy for me. Markets have a nasty habit of snapping very suddenly. Only requires one piece of bad news to send investors into meltdown and stampeding towards the exits. . 

ElephantBoy57

Prism said:

Likely no effect at all

Flu kills around 17,000 per year in the UK, with a reported death rate of 0.1%

Coronavirus has a death rate of 2%, so my arithmetic would mean we will have 340,000 extra deaths this year. Coronavirus can reinfect people like the common cold does, whereas people build up resistance to the flu. So, maybe a similar amount next year too. Will that affect annuities or pensions?

Public Health England told ITV News: "The number of flu cases and deaths due to flu-related complications varies each flu season. "The average number of deaths in England for the last five seasons, 2014/15 to 2018/19, was 17,000 deaths annually.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-02-06/how-does-the-wuhan-coronavirus-compare-to-seasonal-flu/

GrandadSteve

I have,nt enough to really be able to afford to lose anything but too late for that ..I am thinking maybe I should start the ball rolling to get whatever is left as a cash lump but by then there could be nothing left .. I would welcome any suggestions to any alternative

Thrugelmir

Deleted_User said:

MarkCarnage said:

A buyback programme can destroy value by doing so at an inappropriate price, it can also weaken the company's balance sheet, perhaps fatally. 
The tax efficient argument is irrelevant if done in a tax wrapped account. Personally, I like the certainty of dividends, clearly while it's appropriate to pay them. 

Amazon and others who either don’t pay dividends or pay little or started recently, having made trillions for investors. 

 

Amazon hasn't made trillions. As an investor you have valued the shares as worth buying. With the consequence that the value of the company has risen. Not unsurprisingly Bezos cashes in a $1 billion of stock every year to spend on his play projects. Just as an side. Walmart has a greater revenue and makes more profit than Amazon. Yet it's market value is only a fraction of Amazon.

In the Dot Com bust than followed the boom. Microsoft lost over 50% of it's value. Not recovering to the January 2000 highpoint until 2016. From which it has more or less trebled. As night follows day. History has a habit of repeating itself. 

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

MarkCarnage said:

A buyback programme can destroy value by doing so at an inappropriate price, it can also weaken the company's balance sheet, perhaps fatally. 
The tax efficient argument is irrelevant if done in a tax wrapped account. Personally, I like the certainty of dividends, clearly while it's appropriate to pay them. 

Amazon and others who either don’t pay dividends or pay little or started recently, having made trillions for investors. 

 

Amazon hasn't made trillions. As an investor you have valued the shares as worth buying. With the consequence that the value of the company has risen. Not unsurprisingly Bezos cashes in a $1 billion of stock every year to spend on his play projects. Just as an side. Walmart has a greater revenue and makes more profit than Amazon. Yet it's market value is only a fraction of Amazon.

In the Dot Com bust than followed the boom. Microsoft lost over 50% of it's value. Not recovering to the January 2000 highpoint until 2016. From which it has more or less trebled. As night follows day. History has a habit of repeating itself. 

I didn’t say “amazon made trillions”. I said non-dividend and low div payers and listed 3. Between these 3, they did. You want to bet on Walmart vs Amz - go ahead. And you know who didn’t fall for dot com in the 90s?  Buffett. Who did ok by investors. BRK never paid a cent in dividends and has always been equivalent with value. Ignoring dividends is silly; making a fetish out of hem - ditto. Just one easily manipulated number. 

MarkCarnage

BRK never paid a cent in dividends and has always been equivalent with value.

True, because management and external shareholders' interests are very much aligned. Intrinsic value has generally been created by reinvestment, not destroyed as with so many companies indulging in takeover activity etc. 

Thrugelmir

Deleted_User said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

MarkCarnage said:

A buyback programme can destroy value by doing so at an inappropriate price, it can also weaken the company's balance sheet, perhaps fatally. 
The tax efficient argument is irrelevant if done in a tax wrapped account. Personally, I like the certainty of dividends, clearly while it's appropriate to pay them. 

Amazon and others who either don’t pay dividends or pay little or started recently, having made trillions for investors. 

 

Amazon hasn't made trillions. As an investor you have valued the shares as worth buying. With the consequence that the value of the company has risen. Not unsurprisingly Bezos cashes in a $1 billion of stock every year to spend on his play projects. Just as an side. Walmart has a greater revenue and makes more profit than Amazon. Yet it's market value is only a fraction of Amazon.

In the Dot Com bust than followed the boom. Microsoft lost over 50% of it's value. Not recovering to the January 2000 highpoint until 2016. From which it has more or less trebled. As night follows day. History has a habit of repeating itself. 

I didn’t say “amazon made trillions”. I said non-dividend and low div payers and listed 3. Between these 3, they did. You want to bet on Walmart vs Amz - go ahead. And you know who didn’t fall for dot com in the 90s?  Buffett. Who did ok by investors. BRK never paid a cent in dividends and has always been equivalent with value. Ignoring dividends is silly; making a fetish out of hem - ditto. Just one easily manipulated number. 

Reminds me so much of the Dot Com era.