Stocks & Shares ISAs

dunstonh · 7 January 2017 at 4:46PM

Dunstonh -Seems you don't approve of Martin Lewis's crusades to get justice/change for those of us who have been misled, then.

He has had no crusade with investments.

What are you doing on his forums -questioning the veracity of the experiences of people who dare to question the fairness of what and how they were sold financial products, and trying to crawl out of the oblivion they find themselves in?

I have every right to question people who present things as facts when they are not factual.

Tolerance? Who do you think you are! Your arrogance does not belong on the website of the great man himself who chooses to debunk the myths pedalled by "advisors" of many generations (many before "Independent Financial Advisor" was even part of the industry's parlance) and whose modus operandi is to respectfully encourage us to challenge.

IFAs came into existence in 1988 with depolarisation. You bought in the 90s from a tied sales rep. So, you have no experience with IFAs and in reality, no experience of a real adviser. Just an insurance agent that was a tied sales rep from over 20 years ago and one you havent seen for around a decade.

It is ironic that you feel it is important to challenge your so called myths. Yet when people challenge you with your myths, you turn to name calling and become intolerant.

Were it not for Martin Lewis, those of us whose skills lie elsewhere would still be the victims of an industry shrouded in mystery and mystique and disparagement;

No they wouldnt. Most of the home service companies had already pulled out before MSE existed. MSE has very little coverage of investment products. Mainly as it hasn't got a good track record historically.

lease grace another thread with your brand of "expertise", whilst I try to benefit from those who I have the right to choose to liaise with.

This is a public forum and this thread is a generic thread that does not belong to you. I have every right to correct your errors with facts and inform you of your misunderstandings as anyone else has. And there have been plenty of others that have.

Your self-made strap-line says it all about you....

And you may wish to consider what your posts say about you.

chinno100 · 7 January 2017 at 5:51PM

Hi, First post here so please go easy on me.
For me and a friend of mine just trying to understand and explain the following.
Half way down the web page guide 'Stocks and Shares ISA's' is a table labelled

'Will you benefit from using a stocks & shares ISA?'

At a glance this table implies if you are getting less than £11,100 capital gains tax having a stocks and shares isa is not beneficial. Can somebody explain this please. I am paying £0 CGT and a 40% tax rate payer. Am I to avoid a stocks and shares ISA?

Regards

le_loup · 7 January 2017 at 6:14PM

No.
ISAs are perfect for 40% tax payers and you don't have to report or record any capital gains
If you want to do it outside an ISA, then you have to report and keep records.

bowlhead99 · 7 January 2017 at 7:08PM

supersabw wrote: »

Please grace another thread with your brand of "expertise", whilst I try to benefit from those who I have the right to choose to liaise with.

Supersabw. Have you considered that if you listen to all suggestions, rather than ignoring all who think have slighted you in some way, you will get a clearer view of the available options and some sensible ideas for what you can practically do going forward?

supersabw · 7 January 2017 at 7:23PM

Thanks for your suggestion bowlhead99, but the problem is that I feel that anyone who chooses to misrepresent what actually happened to me are just as likely to misrepresent or misunderstand what might be a good way forward for me. The "customer's" situation, financial-understanding and preferences need to be properly taken into account for the advice to be appropriate and relevant. Viz I don't want a repeat of the inappropriate advice I've received before (from CIS reps) from anyone who either chooses to misunderstand or just doesn't understand my personal financial-abilities and situation. I'm sure the reason for distrust of "advisors" is obvious, as that was who I thought I was dealing with from CIS. And on principle, I won't liaise for advice with anyone who attempts to discredit or ridicule me or my genuine experiences. If you care to make suggestions without judgements, I will gratefully consider them, thank you

dunstonh · 7 January 2017 at 8:02PM

The "customer's" situation, financial-understanding and preferences need to be properly taken into account for the advice to be appropriate and relevant.

Correct. That rule was introduced in 2007 with MiFID.

I'm sure the reason for distrust of "advisors" is obvious, as that was who I thought I was dealing with from CIS.

It is like comparing a chef at a restaurant with the workers at McDonalds.

And on principle, I won't liaise for advice with anyone who attempts to discredit or ridicule me or my genuine experiences.

And no-one here has done that. However, your failure to take on board factual information means they wouldn't really want do deal with you either. Some of what you say sounds about right. Some of what you say is clearly incorrect (such as losing 90% of your initial investment yet the fund you say you had has never had a loss of that scale since it was launched a couple of years after you said you bought it). I suspect a lot of what you believe is poor memory recollection. Nothing unusual there as it was 20 odd years ago.

supersabw · 7 January 2017 at 8:08PM

Mega Magnificent Maxi-Meticulous Uber-MoneySaving Magnate: How can you possibly know which funds or trusts or whatever I hold? When I liaise with RL they say they need the exact name of each fund/trust whatever, clearly showing that there are many variations/editions. I wouldn't even bother to try to correct/inform you. And since I am not the type of "customer" you wish to deal with, the benefits of your "wisdom" are best offered elsewhere.

bowlhead99 · 7 January 2017 at 8:33PM

supersabw wrote: »

If you care to make suggestions without judgements, I will gratefully consider them, thank you

I suggested the following in an earlier post:

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The way forward is to simply decide for yourself now whether you still want an investment that you don't understand, or not. Seems to me that the only rational answer can be "not".

As such, it doesn't matter what it's worth. If it is worth a lot, great. If it is not worth much compared to what it would be worth in 2019, because markets have a lot further up to go over the next couple of years, that's fine, because after taking the cash you could just invest it somewhere else and have it go up over the next couple of years.

So take the money and run. You then have a 3 way choice : keep it in cash, engage an independent advisor to help you invest it, or invest it yourself. If you don't know how to do the latter option, research investing or trust it all to luck. If you are going to trust it all to luck you will of course risk a worse result than just leaving it be.

Though you might take offense at getting blunt advice, I don't see anything fundamentally flawed with the suggestion of cashing out and re-evaluating what you would like to do with your money, which may be buying an investment, or it may not be. You have an investment that you don't fully understand and don't know how it will perform, or even how it might perform. In the absence of advice on its suitability for your needs (which you would not get for free), you are taking a risk by holding it, because investments involve risk. There is no penalty for cashing out and taking the cash. So, take the cash, unless you are happy that it is definitely suitable for your needs over the next decade.

Could it be suitable for your needs over the next decade? Well:

You mentioned that you don't need the cash at the moment, although you might need it within two to five years. If the investment is medium risk, it could fall in value quite substantially (though not 90%) during the next two to five years. Really, a medium risk investment is vary rarely suitable for a goal which is only 2-5 years away unless you are satisfied that you wouldn't mind losing 30%+ of the value just as you needed to spend the money.

Medium risk investments are more suitable for eight to ten years or more, because over that time any unfortunate fall in value is likely to be 'more or less' recovered and you would be getting a return more in line with the 'typical' returns achieved over an entire economic cycle. However, you said in an earlier post that "...though may need to within 2-5 years if other areas of my life don't go well, perhaps 10 years if things improve". So, you don't have 10 years for the investment to deliver its ongoing normal returns and recover from negative fluctuations ; you only have that timescale if other things in your life improve.

As such, an investment like this may be much less suitable than having the money in cash and simply accepting that the interest may not keep up with inflation over the next decade.

You also mentioned that you "don't want to risk that awful feeling of losing almost everything all over again". It is unlikely that if you hold a medium risk investment with RL you risk losing almost everything. As mentioned, 30% loss in the next 2-5 years would be possible but not 90%. That is, if it is truly a 'medium risk investment'. However, I don't think you have told us the exact name of the fund(s) you currently hold and what proportions. In fact you just told Dunstonh "How can you possibly know which funds or trusts or whatever I hold?". You are not going to get much in the way of guidance or help on your situation if you don't tell us what the situation is. For example, you said that in some point before, the predecessor to what you are currently holding at RL lost 90% and so it is quite possible that it is a growth fund invested mostly in shares.

If the portfolio value is invested 100% in equities (shares) in companies across UK, Europe and US, for example, then a 50% loss in the next two to three years would certainly not be impossible. If it is truly a medium risk allocation, the loss potential would be lower than that.

Keep_pedalling · 7 January 2017 at 9:02PM

The fact that you are not happy with RL and the fact that there is a strong chance you might need these funds in the short term probably means your best option now is to cash them in.

If the current value is well over £20k then transfer to a cash ISA in case you wand to move back into S&Ss ISAs in the near future.

supersabw · 7 January 2017 at 9:02PM

Thank you Bowlhead. I don't object to blunt advice. I do object to being "judged" on only part of the information, the rest being supplemented by assumptions, and derogatory language being used. There is a big difference. I will give consideration to what you have offered, and maybe come back with more questions. For now, in principle, are there any products out there on offer between "safe" (ie negligible growth) and "medium risk"?

Stocks & Shares ISAs

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free