LPA: Is "Standard Clause X" for Discretionary Investments still needed in 2026

eldaniel

Hi everyone,

I am currently completing my own Property and Financial Affairs LPA using the online service. I’ve come across the debate regarding "Standard Clause X" (the wording that allows attorneys to use Discretionary Investment Management services).

I know the OPG updated their guidance in 2022 saying this clause is no longer "mandatory" because attorneys now have an implied power to do this. However, I’ve come across story of banks and platforms still being difficult if the wording isn't explicitly there.

I have two specific questions for the group:

1. Is it still "best practice" to include it? Even if the OPG says it’s implied, has anyone had issues with banks recently where they refused to act without an explicit clause?
2. Instructions vs. Preferences? This is where I’m stuck.
   • The OPG guidance says Instructions should use mandatory language like "must" or "shall."
   • The standard STEP/OPG wording for this clause often uses softer language: "My attorney(s) may transfer..." or "I authorize my attorney(s)..."
   • If I put it in Instructions, does the "may" make it legally invalid because it isn't a strict command? Or, if I put it in Preferences, is it weak enough for a bank to ignore it?

The wording I'm looking at is:

"My attorney(s) may transfer any or all of my investments to a discretionary investment management service, and I authorize my attorney(s) to delegate to the managers of that service the power to make investment decisions on my behalf. This includes the power to buy and sell investments without prior consultation with my attorney(s)."

Would love to hear from anyone who has had an LPA registered recently or any legal professionals who see how banks are behaving on the ground in 2026.

Thanks in advance!

Daniel54

DFMs are mostly accessed via IFAs and are not limited to being the private client offshoots of high street banks.Quite the opposite.

if you explicitly wish to allow your attorney(s) to utilise a discretionary financial manager then I can see no problem in stating this in the LPA along the lines you quote.Two possible scenarios where attorneys might choose this route are

1)if the donor is already using a DFM prior to losing capacity

2) If the donor had been DIY investing and the attorneys do not feel competent to continue down that route

Either way,you would certainly be looking at stocks and shares investments well into six figures before using discretionary management.

My most recent experience in 2021 was registering as attorney with the DFM my aunt was using and that was a relatively simple and straightforward process.

eldaniel

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81920316#Comment_81920316

Why do you say that only would be relevant when it comes to six figures, please? Surely stock and shares ISA would come under that as fund manager make decisions which shares to buy/sell and when? Thanks

Daniel54

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81920444#Comment_81920444

Whether the investments are in ISAs or not is immaterial ,as that is just a function of tax payable.

Discretionary managers are geared to what might be loosely referred to as high net worth portfolios and you will find that many of them have indicative minimum investments of say £200k or more.Their costs and charging simply make lower value investments unviable for them economically.

That’s just how it is.An alternative for your attorneys would be to use an IFA but accessing less expensive options than full discretionary management, such as index linked funds eg Vanguard.This option would be open to them under your LPA,if they believed it to be in your best interests.

eldaniel

The confusion seems to stem from the fact that I was under impression that modern budget investment companies like Nutmeg, Moneyfarm etc also manage the funds where you just choose the risk level you would like to take. According to your comment this would not apply to such investements. Assuming that I understood that correctly, then there would be no need to add a clause like that in my case. Many thanks for your help.