Money Matters

The European Union: A Benefit or a Hindrance?

Posted by

10


The European Union: A Benefit or a Hindrance?
Anne E Thompson

IMG_1255

      In society, people have different economic roles. Some work for the government (nurses, teachers) and provide a service. Some work in the private sector (this just means ‘not government worker’ – sounds more complicated than it needs to!) In the private sector, some people provide a service (coffee shop worker, plumber) and some increase the stock of assets of the community. In other words, some people add something (farmer grows grain, factory makes cars.)

If we look at that last group, they increase the stock of assets in various ways. Some reap from nature (miners, farmers). Some create/make things (factory workers, writers of computer software). Some bring in wealth from other countries (tourist industry). Lets call these three groups “the core industries”. Remember, they are adding to what a country has.

In the long term, the prosperity of a country depends on these core industries. The people who provide services are important ( I am particularly fond of Costa coffee) but they just move money in circles. It is the core industries who actually add to what a country owns.

We have just had a general election. The politicians spent a lot of time discussing how they planned to move money around, to spread the wealth between rich people and poorer people. There was very little said about actually helping those core industries (the industries who actually add to how much is owned.)

Now, I am really enjoying watching Bear Gryll’s series The Island. I sit and shout at my television, giving them all lots of advice. The two groups spend a lot of time discussing who spends too long sunbathing, how much water they can all drink every day. However, none of them will survive unless someone actually collects the water or finds some food. In other words, they need some core industry.

We live today in a globally connected world. Within that world, the UK needs some core industries, something that it is really good at. We do not, compared to places like Australia, have great mining resources. We do not manufacture as well as the Germans. Our computer industry is not as advanced as the US. We do not farm on the scale of Brazil.

So what does the UK have? We are the world’s trusted market place. We have a sensible legal system, a stable government, a city that is geared up to helping the world do business. And we are good at it. The Chinese, the Russians, the Indians, they all trust the UK. This is the place where they trust they will be treated fairly, they want to conduct their business here. English has become the international language of business.

Now, if you talk to a German, they know that keeping Volkswagon, Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Audi strong is important. They know that these are their core industries. If they go down, their economy will be in trouble. In the UK, most people do not seem to realise that our lawyers, insurers, bankers, traders, accountants (the people who operate that global market place) are our best core industry. The money they take from the rest of the world ripples down to the rest of us.

If we want to remain as the world’s market place (and remember, we don’t really have anything else that’s as good at increasing our country’s wealth) then we need to stay connected to the rest of world. We need as few barriers as possible.

In the last twenty years, the European Union has been a huge part of that market place for the UK. People from around the world use the UK as a gateway to trade with Europe.

It is clear, even to me, that the European Union is far from perfect. I think they have some silly laws and we have a problem with immigration. However, we need to be wise. These may be things we have to endure in order to protect our core industry. Leaving the European Union would severely damage our status as the world’s market place. The knock on effect of that would affect all of us.

If we think again of Bear Grylls, someone has to kill the pigs.

Which Aid Agencies Can I Trust?

Posted by

3


Which Aid Agencies Can I Trust?

     Everywhere I look, people are collecting money for Nepal. Facebook, television, even kids in the High Street. But are all charities worth giving my money to?

     I recently heard of a US based charity who were responding to the devastating effect of AIDS in Africa. Millions of children were being left orphaned when both their parents died of Aids. In response, the charity collected money for an orphanage, which they built and fully equipped. Great, except that it remains empty. Africans do not put their children into orphanages, they pass them to ever distant family members. The charity wasted both money and resources.

     So, if I want to give to a charity, who can I trust? Who will use my money wisely? Here are nine important questions to ask:

     Do they have local contacts or partners in the regions where they work? This is where the charity above went wrong. A charity should have strong links with local people who can direct what the money is spent on. This does a couple of things: It means they will have proper understanding of the people they are trying to help. It also means that it will be sustainable – after people have stopped sending money the local partners will have gained skills and strengths so will be in a better place to continue to be effective.

     How efficient/effective is the UK end of things? Is it a well organised charity?

     How capable is the charity at assessing if a project is a ‘good’ one or a ‘bad’ one? Yes, some projects can be classified as ‘bad’. For example, a ‘bad’ project might use £1,000 to build five toilets in a village. A ‘good’ project will use that same £1,000 to train people from six villages so they can build their own toilets.

     Do they have good governance? Is there a strong, independent board? This is important to check strategy, keep staff accountable, appoint good leaders, etc.

     Do they employ quality staff? Are they properly qualified for what they are doing?

     Do they have a good return on their fundraising costs?

     Do they have a good performance record? So, do they have experience in what good development looks like and are they managing to achieve this in what they are doing?

     Do they measure and monitor what happens to the money? This one is really important. Anyone can collect and send money to an area of need but a wise agency will be checking that the money is spent where it was intended to be spent. Has that new school been built or does the mayor now own a mercedes? Who is actually going and checking what happens to the money?

     Is there good risk management? Places that need aid are usually a mess. There is often civil war, no social infrastructure, not a reliable banking structure, etc. Therefore, to provide aid involves taking risks. There will be a risk to staff (people get hurt/killed/kidnapped) and a risk of corruption. This cannot be avoided if agencies are to work in these places but the risk should be understood and wisely managed. For example, it might be decided that a bloke carrying £5,000 in a carrier bag is actually safer than transferring money through a dodgy bank. Whoever makes that decision needs to have a good knowledge of the risks involved.

So, how do I know where to give my money?

     It can all seem a bit daunting so here are some quick pointers.

     If you are donating a one off, small amount of money, go for a recognised name. I would recommend the members of the DEC. These are 13 UK aid agencies who work together when there is a crisis. They save time and money by making fundraising appeals together and spend it according to which of them is best placed to help. I have listed them at the end.

     For large amounts or long term support, it is worth doing a little research. A good starting point is the charity’s own website. You can also look at their annual reports and accounts (if these are not published, ask for them. If they refuse to send them, do not give them any money!) You don’t need to be an accountant, just look for these things:

     Fundraising percentage – how much of their money goes towards raising funds and how much to the people they claim to be helping? If it’s under 10%, that’s brilliant. 10% to 20% is about normal. Over 20% is a bit too high.

     How many staff members do they have in proportion to how many things they do? Now, you might think (as I used to) that fewer staff meant more aid went abroad – think again. If a small organisation are doing lots of different things, they cannot be checking effectively. Where is that money actually being spent? If an agency has ten or less people working for it, it should only be working in one country. A charity with ten staff members working in twenty three countries are merely campaigning and raising money. They cannot possibly be monitoring, checking how the money is being spent, building relationships, etc.

     Check the small print on the donation part of the website. Does your money go to where you think it does? You might be sending money for Ebola relief but actually, a percentage will go to administration or to other work in that region or be ‘unrestricted’ (which means the charity can spend it where it wants/needs to.)

     Now, all charities have overheads, workers have to be paid. But you should know how much of your donation goes towards overheads. Under 10% is excellent, 20% is reasonable, 30% is too high and shows they are inefficient.

     If you really want to help a charity, sometimes the best place to give money is straight to the ‘general/unrestricted fund’. Then when they raise money for specific appeals they can send all the money raised to the area of need.

     I would like to finish by requesting that you think carefully about where you give your money. Some charities have what I think of as the “Father Christmas” factor. They will show lots of emotive photographs of small children receiving gifts and you think “Ahh, how lovely.” However, does that work really help the people receiving the aid or does it mostly just make the donor feel good? Do we give so that we feel like Father Christmas, or because we want to help?

      Also, be aware that there is only so much money that is given to charities. If you give to a charity that is not wise, a charity that wastes a high percentage of the money by not checking how it has been spent, buying inappropriate goods, etc, then in effect you are taking that money away from a charity who would spend it wisely.

     Please give to people in need. Please give wisely.

DEC Agencies: Action Aid, Age International, British Red Cross, CAFOD, Care International, Christian Aid, Concern Worldwide, Islamic Relief, Oxfam, Plan UK, Save the Children, Tearfund, World Vision.

Manipulation of the Financial Markets

Posted by

0


Manipulation of Financial Markets

IMG_1956

This week, a bank was fined two and a half billion US dollars for manipulating Libor. There was also an English man who had his bail set at five million for spoofing Futures markets. What do these terms mean? What did they actually do that was so bad?

Let’s go to Rabbit Town. They have a big fruit and vegetable market. Jim has a stall where he buys and sells carrots. The market has a big carrot section, there are about fifteen other carrot stalls. Every day, the town publishes the average price for carrots. People use the Town Price when they are doing their deals. For example, the Rabbit Town school buys 20 carrots every day from the farmer and they agree they will pay the farmer whatever the published price is.

The town calculates the Town Price very carefully. They ask all fifteen stall holders what their price is for that day. They then take off the top two (most expensive) and the bottom two (cheapest) and work out the average of all the others. That then becomes the Town Price for that day. People do not have to use it, but it’s a helpful guide.

Now, Jim has two brothers. One brother is a carrot farmer and he sells carrots. The other brother owns a soup factory, so once a month, he buys carrots. Both brothers have contracts with other people and they have agreed to buy and sell carrots at the Town Price. They know that the price that Jim gives in to the town hall, very slightly affects what the Town Price is set at. When they have carrots to buy or sell, they go to see Jim and ask him to slightly move the price on his stall. Not too much, because he doesn’t want to be in the top or bottom, but just enough that it alters the average a tiny bit, moving it to be in their favour. Jim likes to help his brothers, so he agrees. Sometimes he even persuades his friends to change their prices a little too.

If carrots are interest rates, then Libor is the Town Price. It stands for London Interbank Offer Rate. It is the interest rate that banks use when they lend to each other.

Jim was meant to give in the actual price that he thought he could buy and sell carrots at, not a price that would help his brothers. Even though, due to averaging, it doesn’t change the price much, it is still corrupt. The fines given to banks who do this have been huge. Now, as Jim’s false price sometimes went up and sometimes went down, it is unclear how other people were impacted. The big fine does not seem to really correspond to the financial damage that was caused. We’ll discuss this a bit more later.

Let’s take a look at ‘spoofing’ now. What is it? Well, imagine Jim has loads of carrots and he wants to sell them to other stalls. He wants the price to be as high as possible, so he makes up a rumour. The rumour says that a big carrot buyer is about to visit the market and he needs lots of carrots. Jim then sends anonymous notes to all the other stall holders, putting in orders for lots of carrots. All the stall holders quickly put up their prices, ready for when the big buyer comes to town. Jim then quickly cancels the false orders, sells his carrots to them at the higher price and makes a nice profit. This is called spoofing. It is against the law in financial markets.

Let’s look at one other thing that might affect prices. Jim has some special carrots. They are bigger and more orange than all his other carrots. He keeps them on a special shelf and they are not the same price as all the other carrots. That is allowed – he can have a special price for special carrots. What he is NOT allowed to do, is to wait until a customer arrives and then change the price for what he thinks he can get. He cannot look at Mrs Bunny and think, “Ah, nice watch, designer handbag, new shoes, I will charge her fifty quid a carrot for my special carrots.” This might be what your plumber does (“Big house, that’s a £70 call out fee” or “Small house, old lady, that’s a £30 call out fee.”) but banks are increasingly not allowed to. It is called ‘price discrimination.’

Now, we can see that banks are expected to behave differently to other institutions. If a car company does something bad, even something which is negligent and causes people to die, they will probably be given less big fines than the banks. Why? Is this fair? Personally, I think it is right. I think that the fine is not related to the injury caused financially, but the injury that has been caused to the bank’s reputation.

Our society relies on banks. We need them to be completely trustworthy and so the standard set for banks needs to be higher than the standard set for shops or manufacturers or plumbers. The financial stability of a country depends on the banks, so we need stringent rules set in place to keep them honest. They used to have similar rules to other companies but that has changed and they are now much more tightly regulated. If the laws are clearly set in place and applied to all banks equally, I think that is fair. I want to be able to trust my bank. In the same way as I want to be able to trust my legal system.

There are some politicians who like to bash banks, who think that if they impose big fines then they will be elected to a higher office, they will personally look good. Personally, I think this is cheap and they are stupid. Don’t vote for them.

The Government Deficit

Posted by

1


The Government Deficit

IMG_1908

     We often hear politicians talk about “the deficit”. What is it? Why do they seem so keen to blame it on other people and to talk about reducing it? Does it actually matter? I want to explain it very simply to begin with, so here is a story (bear with me, it does have a point.):

Our story is set in Toytown, home to Noddy and Big Ears. Once upon a time, Noddy was put in charge of all of Toytown’s money. Every year he was given fifty gold coins and he could decide how he spent it. This worried Big Ears, could Noddy be sensible? He gave him a lecture about behaving responsibly, not having wild parties with the Barbie dolls when he needed the money to run the Toytown school and to pay the Toymaker to repair the broken toys and to make new ones. They all needed some new doll houses and some faster toy cars. Noddy nodded his head wildly in agreement, he was terribly excited.
All the gold was put into the money pot at the beginning of the year and every time Noddy needed to pay the Toymaker, or to build a new road, he took some out. For a while, all went smoothly. Then one day, Noddy had an idea. The summer was very hot and he wanted to build a swimming pool. All the toys could swim and enjoy the pool, it would be a place for toys to meet and chat and, best of all, he could invite all the Barbie dolls. But a swimming pool would use up all the money from the money pot and there would be nothing left to pay the Toymaker. He went to see Big Ears.
Big Ears listened to Noddy’s plan and thought about it. He agreed that all of Toytown would enjoy a swimming pool, it was not a bad idea. But they must continue to pay the Toymaker each year. He told Noddy that he could borrow the money to build the swimming pool. So, Noddy went to the Toytown bank. He explained that he wanted to build a swimming pool and needed the bank to give him some money. He would pay back the loan, giving the bank eight golden coins every year. The golden coins would come from the money pot. It would mean that for the next twenty years they would not be able to pay the Toymaker so much money, but all the toys would enjoy the pool, so they would not mind too much.
Noddy built the swimming pool and everyone was happy. For the next twenty years the toys had fewer new houses and fast cars but they did not mind. Everyone enjoyed swimming and watching the Barbie dolls. They all lived happily ever after.

This shows how borrowing arises. It is when a government has a deficit one year by spending more than it receives. If it spends the money on something everyone needs in the long term, no one minds that it means a bit less money for other things for a few years.
Now, our government does not have a pot of golden coins. It receives money through tax (boo, hiss, we all hate taxes.) That income goes up and down depending on the economy. When the economy is going well, there is more money and therefore more tax, so the government has more income. When there is a dip in the economy, people earn less money and pay less tax and so the government receives less income. Now, although their income goes up and down, we do not want everything they spend money on to reflect that. We do not want them to open a new school one year, when the economy is going well, then close it the following year when there is a dip, then reopen it the next year when things improve again. We like stability. This is another reason why governments might borrow money. The economy might be bad for a while but they know it is likely to improve, so they borrow money to keep things going.
We therefore work on the principle that government borrowing is allowed. A government can borrow money to spend now and they pay it back later. The problem is that governments are made up of people and people are not always wise. Politicians like to be popular. They therefore like to promise people lots of nice stuff. Nice stuff makes people happy. Happy people vote for politicians. If the government does not have the money to pay for nice stuff, they promise it anyway, figuring that the future generation can pay back the debt in about twenty years (when they are too old to be in government, so who cares?) This is how borrowing grows. And grows. And grows.
Where does the borrowed money come from? It is borrowed from institutions (banks) and individuals (for example National Savings Bonds) and from selling Government Bonds.
This is all a bit boring, so let’s have another story. This one is a true story.

Our story begins years and years ago, when Egypt was run by Pharaohs. One night, when most of the world was asleep, Pharaoh stood next to the river Nile. He watched the black water lapping against the bank and listened to the frogs chirrup peacefully. Suddenly, the water began to swirl. Pharaoh watched carefully, was a crocodile about to emerge? He watched the water part as a nose appeared. It was a pink nose.
     Feeling confused, Pharaoh leaned closer. The water was bubbling and swirling and the nose began to be joined by others. There were seven and they all began to emerge from the water. First there were nostrils, huffing and puffing droplets of water, then long furry faces with long lashed eyes. Then strong necks and heavy shoulders, then backs and tails and legs. They were cows! With much splashing and mooing, the cows fought their way to the bank. When their hooves were safely on dry land, calm descended and they began to graze, nosing amongst the reeds for food. Pharaoh watched in amazement. The cows were fat, with great pink udders bursting with milk. Their damp coats shone in the moonlight, their stocky legs bearing the weight of wide flanks as they wandered along the river bank.
      Then the water began to swirl once more, to bubble and boil. Seven more noses appeared, followed by snouts and eyes and bodies. Pharaoh watched as seven new cows heaved themselves onto land. But these cows were not lush and fat and brimming with health. They climbed weakly from the river, emitting only the thinnest of moo. They were skinny beasts, with shrunken udders and sharp bones protruding from their flesh.
     The thin cows approached the fat cows. At first, pharaoh thought that they too were going to eat the lush grass that grew beside the river. But, in horror, he watched as they opened their mouths, showing great pointed teeth and they bit into the flesh of the fat cows. The night filled with screams and wails as the thin cows crunched through bone and flesh, lapping blood and chewing muscle. Pharaoh dropped, sickened to his knees. The thin cows had completely consumed the fat cows, yet they looked just as gaunt as before.
     With a great heaving sigh, Pharaoh awoke. It had been a dream, disturbing and vivid. He got up from his bed, drank some wine and emptied his bladder. Then, feeling tiredness seeping back he sank back into the comfortable warmth of his bed. His mind began to wander.
     This time he dreamed not of cows, but of wheat. He stood in a cornfield, feeling the golden sun warm his back and he saw that one stalk had seven ears of corn. They were plump and good. Then seven thin ears grew next to them, straggly and full of blight. The thin ears swallowed up the fat ears.
     When Pharaoh awoke, he was very uneasy. His dreams had been vivid and he was unable to forget them. What could they mean? He was Pharaoh, a powerful man, so he began to tell everyone he knew about the dreams, asking what they might mean.
Eventually, one of his servants told him about a man who he had met years ago, when serving time in prison. The man was called Joseph and he could interpret dreams. Pharaoh had Joseph hauled from prison and told him his dreams.
     Joseph said that God would tell him the meaning. He told Pharaoh that both dreams had the same meaning. There would be seven good years, when the harvest would flourish and everyone would have plenty of food. This would be followed by seven bad years, when there would be a famine on the whole land. He said that God had sent the dreams, so that Pharaoh could appoint a wise man to organise the food. During the good years, they could put some of the extra food into storage, so that during the famine they had a supply of food to survive on. Pharaoh was very glad to know the meaning of his strange dreams, and being a wise leader, he appointed Joseph to be in charge of all the food.
     And that is the end of the story. (Actually, it isn’t – you can read more in Genesis 41!)

Let’s look at another true story. From 2002 to 2007, the British economy was doing well. Remember, this means more tax (income for the government.) So, were they wise like Pharaoh? Did they pay off some of their debt? Er, no. Actually, they increased the borrowing by having a deficit. They still spent more than they were earning.
Then, in 2008 there was a financial crisis. They had to borrow even more because they now were receiving less in tax plus they had to bail out some banks. Oh dear, sad story.

Now, what happens if this continues? “Does it matter?” I hear you ask, “What happens if a government goes bust?” Well, we can look at countries where exactly that has happened to find out the answer. Greece is one example. Other countries stepped in to help. They decided that some of the debt could be ignored and never paid back (so institutions and individuals who were owed money would never be paid back.) They also loaned them some money (from the International Monetary Fund.) They gave the loan in chunks, with lots of conditions, refusing to pay the next installment if Greece did not conform. They set tough conditions on how Greece was to be run.
Now, because Greece was part of the European community, it was saved from the worst consequences of going bust. If we look at Russia and Brazil, we can see how awful life could become. One of the first things to change is the exchange rate (how much your currency is worth compared to other countries currencies.) This makes all imported goods very expensive. Too expensive to buy. So, if you were Russian, you could only afford Russian cars, Russian petrol, even (horrors) Russian chocolate. Anything that is imported becomes way too expensive to buy. This would not be good for Britain….

At the moment, all politicians are discussing “deficit reduction”. It should be noted that what they mean is that at some point in the future, they will stop spending more than they earn. No one is suggesting that they should only spend what they earn now. The borrowing continues to grow……..

 

More articles at:https://anneethompson.com/the-mystery-of-money/

The New Tax……

Posted by

0


101 Tax (Yuk)

IMG_2168

       Here is a first very simple guide to tax in the UK. Due to the proximity of the next election and the possibility of a new mansion tax, I will explain what that might mean.
However, please note that I am definitely NOT promoting any particular party. Tax is just one issue amongst many.

     At the moment, there are three main types of tax. This will possibly increase to four types if Labour win the election. No one enjoys paying tax but probably it is worth understanding the different types so you can have a view about which are essential and which are unfair.

Tax on Earnings
This is tax on anything that you earn, including your salary, capital gains (if you sell something and it makes a profit), interest on your savings.
In some ways it seems a fair tax. The amount you pay goes up depending on how much you earn and most people pay it.
However, it can be unfair because some people manage to avoid it, to cheat the system (which means the rest of us have to pay more, because those people still use the roads, NHS, police, etc.) If you are an employee, then you have no options at all, the tax is removed at source – in other words, your employer kindly (!) removes it from your pay packet before you are given your salary. So, someone who works in a shop will be given their monthly pay minus the income tax. Someone who is self employed has more opportunity to be clever and cheat the system. The nice old builder who says, “Pay me cash, it’ll be cheaper for you,” is possibly not declaring those earnings and therefore not paying tax on them. Wealthy people with clever accountants can also avoid paying by hiding their investments in offshore accounts. The government doesn’t see them and so does not remove tax from the interest.

Inheritance Tax
This is a one-off tax on everything you own at the time you die.
Again, this seems reasonably fair. If Bob works hard his whole life and is a jolly clever chap, why shouldn’t he enjoy a nice amount of cash? However, we might not feel that Bob’s son also deserves to have an easy life just because his Dad was talented, so the government can take a slice of the wealth and use it for the rest of us.
However, it does feel rather a personal tax, especially if you are the person who was related to dear old Bob. Plus, if Bob worked hard and wants to leave a valuable painting to his son, is it fair that the son has to sell it just so he can pay the inheritance tax? Should people be allowed to keep heirlooms within their family or should they be sold to pay tax? There is also the point that it does not seem to actually generate much cash for society. It certainly used to be the case that the admin costs involved in collecting inheritance tax were pretty much equal to the amount of tax collected. So actually, no one benefits. It is interesting that UKIP plan to abolish this tax if they come to power.

Consumption Tax
This is a tax on everything that you buy. It includes VAT (currently 17½%) and stamp duty (tax when you buy a house.)
This seems quite a good tax. Everyone pays (apart from a few dodgy builders who tell you there is no VAT if you pay cash) and no one can cheat. It is easy to collect and everyone pays.
The unfairness comes in when you consider that everyone pays the same amount. So the poor old lady and Bob the millionaire, both pay the same amount of VAT when they buy a washing machine.

     So, there we have the three main types of tax that are currently in use. The are a pain to pay but are mostly fair. We all hate paying them but we all know that if we want roads, police, schools, health service, etc, the money has to come from somewhere. Now we come to the new tax that Labour are proposing:

Mansion Tax
This is a tax on an asset, something you already own. The proposal is that every year, if you own a house above a certain value, you will have to pay an extra tax on it. You will still pay the normal taxes when you buy it and when you sell it, this is a tax for just owning it.
Firstly, this will probably be popular. It will initially only affect very rich people (who we are all a bit jealous of) and most of us will only benefit from the extra revenue.

      However, is it fair? It only targets one type of asset:houses. You can be wealthy and own other things, like jewelry, paintings, land, even pensions (I’ll come back to that one) and you will not have to pay the tax. There are other assets which cannot possibly be taxed, like being beautiful or healthy or living in a fantastic location and unless they generate income, you will not be taxed on them.

      Let’s come back to pensions. (If you haven’t read my article on pensions, read it now.) Now, government workers all receive defined benefit pensions. This is a HUGE asset. When they start to receive the pension they will pay income tax, just like when someone sells their mansion they will pay tax, but in the meantime it is a highly valuable asset which they own. Just like a house. Strangely, no politicians are suggesting that anyone should be taxed just for owning this hugely valuable asset of a valuable pension. Even though some other people (those not on defined benefits pensions) have invested in their home, expecting that when they are older they will sell it and use the money as part of their pension.

     The new tax will cause house prices to be distorted (because who will want to buy a house that is just inside the amount where they have to start paying the tax? Remember, it is every year, not when the house is purchased.)
It is also unfair. No one is suggesting that other assets should be taxed, that if you own a valuable painting you should have to pay tax every year while you own it. Sometimes, things that are unfair are worth fighting against, even if we are not affected.

      Once the new tax has been introduced, it will not be difficult for governments to lower the threshold when they do the budget. At the moment, the house price they are suggesting is huge, way above what most of us could afford. However, what will stop that from creeping downwards? How long before most people in senior positions, our doctors, head teachers, managers, who have worked hard and invested their savings in a house, will start to lose those savings? It is called a ‘mansion tax’ but if someone lives in London it might actually be an ‘apartment’ tax.
We do not know if there will be a cap on the tax or if someone who lives for many years in these houses could eventually end up owing more than the house is actually worth.

       Personally, I am very unlikely to ever be able to afford a house that will be charged the mansion tax. However, I do not like the thought that a tax could be introduced which is blatantly unfair. It is just not very British……

The Mysteries of Insurance

Posted by

0


PPI and the Mysteries of Insurance

     I was recently in a mobile phone shop. In front of me in the queue was a teenaged boy, about the same age as my sons. He had just chosen a very smart new phone and was in the process of paying. It was too hot in the shop and I was bored and wanting to leave, daydreaming and not really concentrating. Then I heard the salesman offer him insurance and I began to tune in. The salesman had a great patter, all about how annoying it would be if the boy lost his phone, how he was spending £200 on a new phone and if it was stolen on his way home, that was it, no phone, no £200. However, for a small amount each month, he would only need to pay the first £50 and then the shop would replace his phone, with a brand new one, for free. Was he prepared to risk having nothing, or would he like to take out insurance and be sure that his phone would be replaced?

     “No,” I shouted, “Don’t do it! The amount you will pay over two years plus the £50 excess is more than enough to buy a much better phone. And how likely is it to be stolen anyway? Quick, run away.”
Actually, I didn’t. Not out loud anyway. My children have spent many years teaching me what is socially acceptable and even I knew it would be inappropriate to shout at a complete stranger. However, in my head I was. Hence the purpose of this article.

      Do you understand insurance? Now, in the UK, ripping off teenagers is not illegal, as long as you explain everything to them first. Even if they are slightly dim, even if your patter is exceptionally impressive and biased, that is not against the law. We have a basic principle in our law that states “buyer beware“. That means, the responsibility for checking and understanding is with the buyer. Anyone can sell you anything and if they correctly explain (even very briefly or with a strong bias) what is involved, that is not against the law. It is up to the buyer to be wise.
When someone tries to sell you insurance, listen carefully. Use the calculator on your mobile if necessary or tell them you will think about it and come back tomorrow. Be sure that financially, it will actually benefit you. Do not trust them. Especially on mobile phones.
There is a rumour that mobile phone companies make more profit on selling insurance than they do on selling phones. Is it your money they are taking?

     In the last five years however, the government has subtly changed this for banks. For big banks, the principle seems to be “seller beware”. This means, the responsibility for being sure the correct product is being sold, that it really will benefit the customer, is now increasingly with the bank, not the person buying.
So, if you recently bought a product at a bank, like an ISA or insurance and you now feel that actually, it was not the best product for you, go back. If the bank does not refund your money, you can write to the ombudsman and they probably will. The government has not changed the law (which is still “buyer beware”) but it has forced banks to behave differently. This is due mostly to PPI.

     PPI has been huge. It has caused those annoying phone calls that always arrive when you are in a rush or in the bathroom. It is why we get those irritating texts when you think someone must love you after all but no, it is an irritating claims management company (read “shark”) hassling you. It has also had a huge impact in the last five years on the car industry because of all the reclaimed money increasing their new car sales! So what exactly is it?

     PPI was Payment Protection Insurance. It was always a rubbish product. If you had a loan, you could take out an insurance so that if you lost your job and couldn’t manage your monthly repayments, the insurance would pay them for you. But it only paid for a short time and the insurance itself was quite expensive. Banks did things like add it onto the end of the loan, so you paid them back for longer but you didn’t really notice. Banks were also bad because they sold it to everyone. Even little old ladies or unemployed people who did not have a job to lose were sold PPI (boo, hiss, we all hate the banks….) They did what the mobile phone shops do, they explained it quickly and with bias so people agreed to pay without really thinking about whether it was good for them.
The government decided that banks should pay out. They wanted this for three reasons:
Firstly, banks had been bad so they needed to put it right. A punishment really.
Secondly, people like being given money. It makes them feel happy. People vote for governments they like….. or perhaps I am just being cynical.
Thirdly, the government wanted to shift the responsibility for selling the right products to the banks, away from the buyer.

      So the regulator (this is the bank police) have made new rules. Some of these were even back dated, so banks could be blamed for not doing things before the regulations were even written.If one of those annoying claims persons (aka shark) persuades you to write to your bank and say you were wrongly sold PPI, the rules are so tough that it is easier for the banks to just pay out without doing proper checks. Even people who never bought PPI in the first place are making claims. Which actually, is stealing. The claims management companies know this and decided that they want a share too (imagine sharks circling.)

      Okay, so PPI was a bad product and banks behaved badly when they sold it to little old ladies. But what do you think about what has happened since? One of the greatest things about the UK is the fairness of our legal system. Compared to most of the rest of the world, our legal system is fair and we trust it. It makes the UK a good place to live and do business with. Is it okay for them to be unfair to banks and ignore other companies? Do we want our banks to go bust?

     Should the same rules be applied everywhere? What this unfairness has done is make banks be “seller beware.” This safeguards people like us, who perhaps don’t really understand the financial products we are buying. Maybe the same principle should extend to mobile phone companies………

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Every week a current financial issue is explained clearly at: http://www.anneethompson.com under “mystery of money”

The Mystery of Pensions

Posted by

1


The Mystery of Pensions

IMG_1956

      Okay, so this week the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osbourne, announced in his new budget that when you retire, you now have more choices about taking out some money from your pension pot as a lump sum. There was then some discussion on chat shows and daytime TV (the sort of programmes that you deny to friends ever watching) about being able to buy that sports car or luxury boat you have always wanted with money from your pension pot. Hmmmm. This needs some further thought. Here follows a simple guide to pensions.

     First, we need to know that there are two different kinds of pension. The first kind is called “Defined Benefit”. This guarantees that when you retire you will receive a certain percentage of your final salary. For life. So, if you been a teacher your whole working life and retire earning say £30,000, you might receive £15,000 every year for the rest of your life plus a £45,000 lump sum at the beginning. It will be index linked (which means if inflation goes up, so will your pension.) When you die, your spouse will get half of that. If you are lucky enough to have one of these pensions (and most companies do not now offer these, so really only government workers have them) then you are very fortunate. My advice is do not leave your job!

     However, most of us mere mortals will have what is called a “Defined Contribution” pension. (Yes, I know, very similar name. That is because financial people like to muddle us normal people. It makes them look clever. Really, they should be called “final salary pension” and “cross your fingers or pray hard pension.” That would be more accurate.) In this instance, when you retire, all the money you have paid in (plus any interest etc) is used to buy an annuity. An annuity is a financial product – you give in a lump sum, they then pay out an amount every month for the rest of your life. Some are index linked (goes up if inflation goes up), some are not.

     So, if you worked your whole life earning the same as a teacher, paying diligently into a pension fund, I estimate that you will retire with a pension pot worth £245,000. This would buy you an annuity (index linked and half for spouse on death) of £6,400 per year, with no lump sum. Pause for a moment. You have paid about £200 every month into a pension fund. That is a lot of money. You will receive about £6,000 a year to live on. That is not a lot of money. It will not allow for many ice-creams. Or even much bread.

     Now, the amount of money in your pension pot, the amount you have to buy an annuity, might have gone up or down depending on how the pension company has invested it. You need to keep an eye on it from time to time. Do not just trust it will “be enough”.

      The new rules that were announced in the budget apply to defined contribution pensions. These are what this article will be discussing.

     My first point is that if, when you retire, you take out a quarter of your pension as a lump sum, then your pension (what you receive each year for the rest of your life) will be a quarter less. This is not difficult maths! So, before you buy that yacht/ferrari/cruise/conservatory, check that when you are eighty you will still have enough money for food and heating.

     Secondly, do not over estimate how much you will receive. Pension companies are run by people who like numbers. They may wear glasses and polo shirts but they are not necessarily bad nor do they wave magic wands at things. You might work for forty years and pay (what feels like a lot) into a pension pot. You may then be retired for thirty years or more. The amount you have paid in, when spread over those retirement years may be a lot less than you think. You need to check now, before you retire and think about the numbers (brace yourself. This is your income for a long time. Force yourself to check.)You might want some chocolate when you have retired. You might even want electricity or some new clothes.

     Thirdly, when you retire, choose your next pension company – the one who will pay the annuity – carefully. It might be the same company who you have been saving with but it doesn’t have to be. Look at how much you have saved and then ‘shop around’, ask how much different companies will offer you each year that you are retired.

     Finally, think about how pension companies work. As I said before, they are maths people. When they are deciding what annuities to offer they consider things like life expectancy, stock market predictions and interest rates. Interest rates are very important. At the moment, March 2015, interest rates are at an all time low. This means annuities (remember, thats the amount you actually receive to live on) are also at an all time low. However, everyone who knows about these things, expects them to go up again. So, (big point, get ready) people about to retire should consider delaying buying their annuity. Got it? If you can work a couple of extra years or leave your pension in it’s pot for a while and not start the annuity, you might be a lot better off. Your income might be significantly higher for your whole retirement if you can wait until interest rates go up a bit.

     Some of these issues are uncomfortable to think about and if you do not enjoy numbers then they are a bit of an effort. However, think about how much you would like to receive every month when you have retired and then check how much you are likely to receive. Do not wait until it’s too late. Everyone needs chocolate, it’s a basic human right…..

More articles, stories and poems at: http://www.anneethompson.com