SIPP that allows share or fund buying after leaving the UK?

dunstonh

I still think it is not as simple as Fidelity suggests. I have the impression they are afraid of the new EU rules and the MIFID II but there are ways to not involve Reverse solicitation but they do not want to risk any fines?

Fidelity are not scared of MiFIDII.   They comply with MiFIDII requirements which are still statute in the UK.

However, there will be different interpretations in the early months/years until evidence becomes available that shows how it should be.  Typically that comes from regulators taking action.  

Also, some firms may just decide that its not worth having exceptions in small areas and restrictions in others and may just restrict the whole lot.

So HL says you can still buy listed shares, investment trust, bonds and ETFs..

They are direct assets and not investment funds (which are retail financial instruments)

Even if it were illegal under EU rules how would a UK-based SIPP provider be penalised?

They can face prosecution in the country of the EU resident for offering retail financial services without regulatory permissions.

bostonerimus

dunstonh said:

Deleted_User said:

Ouch. Crazy. 

Indeed it is.  It is seen as one of the punishments dished out to the UK for leaving the EU.   Although it actually hurts EU consumers just as much as the cost of financial services at an institutional level is more expensive on the continent.

It it a punishment or a general consequence of being a "third country"?

nigelbb

dunstonh said:

Even if it were illegal under EU rules how would a UK-based SIPP provider be penalised?

They can face prosecution in the country of the EU resident for offering retail financial services without regulatory permissions.

If they have no presence in the country of the EU resident then it would be an empty threat. The UK could even see it as being unwarranted interference in the business of a UK company.

dunstonh

bostonerimus said:

dunstonh said:

Deleted_User said:

Ouch. Crazy. 

Indeed it is.  It is seen as one of the punishments dished out to the UK for leaving the EU.   Although it actually hurts EU consumers just as much as the cost of financial services at an institutional level is more expensive on the continent.

It it a punishment or a general consequence of being a "third country"?

It is both.  Being a third country doesn't mean you have to lose the ability to transact within the EU.   The EU can grant equivalence in a range of areas.      The US, for example, has equivalence in 21 out of 27 areas despite having a very different rulebook.   India has equivalence in 10 areas.   The EU has granted the UK equivalence in just two areas despite the UK having an identical rule book.   And it only did those because it needed to for its own benefit.

There was a history, even before the referendum was announced, of the EU trying to take financial services away from the UK (such as trying to force transactions to be within the Eurozone and not within the EU -  something that ended up in the courts and the ECJ ruled in the UKs favour).  So, this is nothing new.   The longer they leave it, the more they hope firms will move chunks of their business to the Eurozone and by the time they do grant some equivalence then it will be too late.

So, it is both a consequence and a punishment.  

bostonerimus

dunstonh said:

bostonerimus said:

dunstonh said:

Deleted_User said:

Ouch. Crazy. 

Indeed it is.  It is seen as one of the punishments dished out to the UK for leaving the EU.   Although it actually hurts EU consumers just as much as the cost of financial services at an institutional level is more expensive on the continent.

It it a punishment or a general consequence of being a "third country"?

It is both.  Being a third country doesn't mean you have to lose the ability to transact within the EU.   The EU can grant equivalence in a range of areas.      The US, for example, has equivalence in 21 out of 27 areas despite having a very different rulebook.   India has equivalence in 10 areas.   The EU has granted the UK equivalence in just two areas despite the UK having an identical rule book.   And it only did those because it needed to for its own benefit.

There was a history, even before the referendum was announced, of the EU trying to take financial services away from the UK (such as trying to force transactions to be within the Eurozone and not within the EU -  something that ended up in the courts and the ECJ ruled in the UKs favour).  So, this is nothing new.   The longer they leave it, the more they hope firms will move chunks of their business to the Eurozone and by the time they do grant some equivalence then it will be too late.

So, it is both a consequence and a punishment.  

That's what I thought. Is there any progress on the financial services arrangements that were left out of the trade agreement? As the UK is now outside the EU I think it would be strange if the EU didn't do everything it could to attract business to the block...without much regard for the UK as they are now in competition.

SomeMadeUpName

dunstonh said:

bostonerimus said:

dunstonh said:

Deleted_User said:

Ouch. Crazy. 

Indeed it is.  It is seen as one of the punishments dished out to the UK for leaving the EU.   Although it actually hurts EU consumers just as much as the cost of financial services at an institutional level is more expensive on the continent.

It it a punishment or a general consequence of being a "third country"?

It is both.  Being a third country doesn't mean you have to lose the ability to transact within the EU.   The EU can grant equivalence in a range of areas.      The US, for example, has equivalence in 21 out of 27 areas despite having a very different rulebook.   India has equivalence in 10 areas.   The EU has granted the UK equivalence in just two areas despite the UK having an identical rule book.   And it only did those because it needed to for its own benefit.

There was a history, even before the referendum was announced, of the EU trying to take financial services away from the UK (such as trying to force transactions to be within the Eurozone and not within the EU -  something that ended up in the courts and the ECJ ruled in the UKs favour).  So, this is nothing new.   The longer they leave it, the more they hope firms will move chunks of their business to the Eurozone and by the time they do grant some equivalence then it will be too late.

So, it is both a consequence and a punishment.  

Another awesome Brexit dividend.

So glad we had that great 'oven ready' deal all sorted and ready to go.  Shame financial services were left out of it, still it's not an important part of the UK economy at least, and the people who work in it pay very little tax into the UK coffers.

So it's all good, right?

SomeMadeUpName

Back to the OP, if anyone does have a SIPP provider who will take the 5 years, my mate retired today and is moving to Spain next month, so I'd love to let him know how to get the last few quid he can out of the HMRC.

bostonerimus

nigelbb said:

dunstonh said:

Even if it were illegal under EU rules how would a UK-based SIPP provider be penalised?

They can face prosecution in the country of the EU resident for offering retail financial services without regulatory permissions.

If they have no presence in the country of the EU resident then it would be an empty threat. The UK could even see it as being unwarranted interference in the business of a UK company.

Any legitimate firm would want to avoid prosecution in the EU. The EU resident could also be punished. There could be local tax consequences if trading in regular investment accounts. Pension wrappers are usually covered by a Double Taxation Treaty

muze77

Back to the OP, if anyone does have a SIPP provider who will take the 5 years, my mate retired today and is moving to Spain next month

https://www.hl.co.uk/pensions/sipp/apply-now#contentId
then scroll down to SIPP declaration. It talks about relevant UK individual so 5 years should be ok. But he still needs to be UK resident when applying and notify them within 30 days of leaving at a later stage. Plus he should check all this himself fully before signing up (and never pay in more than 2880 after having left)!

SomeMadeUpName

muze77 said:

Back to the OP, if anyone does have a SIPP provider who will take the 5 years, my mate retired today and is moving to Spain next month

https://www.hl.co.uk/pensions/sipp/apply-now#contentId
then scroll down to SIPP declaration. It talks about relevant UK individual so 5 years should be ok. But he still needs to be UK resident when applying and notify them within 30 days of leaving at a later stage. Plus he should check all this himself fully before signing up (and never pay in more than 2880 after having left)!

Thx
Pretty sure his current SIPP (and his missus) is AJBell.
I assume nothing stops him opening an HL now, maybe sticking a few hundred in (allowances and Apr/May salary allowing) and then leaving it doggo as he leaves UK then starting Apr'22 to put annual £2880's in.
He does have potential LTA issues on the horizon though, so that might spoil the party.
Still I can let him know, the rest is up to him.