Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Savings and Investments thread
Comments
-
My first questions on this are always two fold:RaplhMilne said:I’d be interested in the view of the Finance savvy guys on here, on my current financial setup. I’m thinking, it could be time for a radical change.I’m 67 this year, I get a £37,000 private pension, and £10,500 state pension. I have Cash investments of £110,000 of which £20,000 is in an ISA. The remainder is in 1 year bonds , or highest interest available Easy Access accounts. No mortgage or debts.
The recent Bull markets have sent my Investments to an all time high. I have £145,000 in a Stocks and Shares ISA, and £44,000 in a non ISA share account.
The cash and dividends currently give about £12,000 interest/dividend income.I’m thinking that as I’m 67 and not getting a younger, should I de risk my finances, a cash in my investments. I’m thinking if I move my shares and funds into cash within the ISA, I can then transfer that out to a Cash ISA or ISA,s (easy access or term) and safeguard my future finances.Thoughts…..?
1. What is it you are saving and investing for?
2. Are you actually spending any capital at the moment, or just the interest?
You are into the higher tax bracket so getting non ISA money into an ISA or dare I say premium bonds (to avoid any tax burden) is a must.
After that it comes back to the above, what is it you are investing/saving for? What is tyour lifestyle, do you envisage needing more in future years, do you want to spend more now?
Regardless of the above I would as a start move the £44k out of a taxable account and either put in a Cash ISA or Premium bonds. After that it needs a lot more info really.3 -
Another story that appears to say something, but ultimately doesn't. It quotes just ONE fund that has performed very badly, and surprise surprise its Woodford's old Invesco High Income fund.Covered End said:
It's a bit like saying that 91 teams failed to beat Man City over the past 4 years and then quote Charlton's record this season to show how bad other teams are.
And for the record I'm seeing a client tomorrow who has a Royal London pension, invested in around 12 funds. Return over the period 20/05/23 to 20/05/24 was 14.4%. I think that comfortably beats the FTSE All Share Index over that time period !
0 -
Not quite how I read the article - yes it quotes the Invesco Perp fund as being the lowest over the last 10 years at 13% compared to the iShares UK Equity index at 73%, but don't think it's basing everything on that one fund, it states 91% of UK funds have done worse than the iShares one above i.e. investment funds, not peoples individual pensions.golfaddick said:
Another story that appears to say something, but ultimately doesn't. It quotes just ONE fund that has performed very badly, and surprise surprise its Woodford's old Invesco High Income fund.Covered End said:
It's a bit like saying that 91 teams failed to beat Man City over the past 4 years and then quote Charlton's record this season to show how bad other teams are.
And for the record I'm seeing a client tomorrow who has a Royal London pension, invested in around 12 funds. Return over the period 20/05/23 to 20/05/24 was 14.4%. I think that comfortably beats the FTSE All Share Index over that time period !
But it is interesting that 91% of UK funds can't beat the simple iShares tracker. Mirrors some of my experience in general that a lot of the time the trackers out perform (especially once you take into account the fund fee's) the managed funds.1 -
But they are measuring apples against pears. And what is a "typical" pension fund anyway ? I know a lot of "uk pensions" are invested into default managed funds, which could have a lot of Bonds & Gilts in them. Over the past couple of years being invested into Fixed Interst funds would have really brought down any performance. They are not measuring the same thing if they are comparing a pension fund against the All Share Index.Rob7Lee said:
Not quite how I read the article - yes it quotes the Invesco Perp fund as being the lowest over the last 10 years at 13% compared to the iShares UK Equity index at 73%, but don't think it's basing everything on that one fund, it states 91% of UK funds have done worse than the iShares one above i.e. investment funds, not peoples individual pensions.golfaddick said:
Another story that appears to say something, but ultimately doesn't. It quotes just ONE fund that has performed very badly, and surprise surprise its Woodford's old Invesco High Income fund.Covered End said:
It's a bit like saying that 91 teams failed to beat Man City over the past 4 years and then quote Charlton's record this season to show how bad other teams are.
And for the record I'm seeing a client tomorrow who has a Royal London pension, invested in around 12 funds. Return over the period 20/05/23 to 20/05/24 was 14.4%. I think that comfortably beats the FTSE All Share Index over that time period !
But it is interesting that 91% of UK funds can't beat the simple iShares tracker. Mirrors some of my experience in general that a lot of the time the trackers out perform (especially once you take into account the fund fee's) the managed funds.0 -
golfaddick said:
But they are measuring apples against pears. And what is a "typical" pension fund anyway ? I know a lot of "uk pensions" are invested into default managed funds, which could have a lot of Bonds & Gilts in them. Over the past couple of years being invested into Fixed Interst funds would have really brought down any performance. They are not measuring the same thing if they are comparing a pension fund against the All Share Index.Rob7Lee said:
Not quite how I read the article - yes it quotes the Invesco Perp fund as being the lowest over the last 10 years at 13% compared to the iShares UK Equity index at 73%, but don't think it's basing everything on that one fund, it states 91% of UK funds have done worse than the iShares one above i.e. investment funds, not peoples individual pensions.golfaddick said:
Another story that appears to say something, but ultimately doesn't. It quotes just ONE fund that has performed very badly, and surprise surprise its Woodford's old Invesco High Income fund.Covered End said:
It's a bit like saying that 91 teams failed to beat Man City over the past 4 years and then quote Charlton's record this season to show how bad other teams are.
And for the record I'm seeing a client tomorrow who has a Royal London pension, invested in around 12 funds. Return over the period 20/05/23 to 20/05/24 was 14.4%. I think that comfortably beats the FTSE All Share Index over that time period !
But it is interesting that 91% of UK funds can't beat the simple iShares tracker. Mirrors some of my experience in general that a lot of the time the trackers out perform (especially once you take into account the fund fee's) the managed funds.Of course they are not measuring the same thing - if they were then there would be no difference.They are measuring 'different' investment strategies and their respective returns over time.
2 -
Yeah, I read it the same. Using bad examples maybe but bottom line is 9/10 managed funds don't beat the tracker.Rob7Lee said:
Not quite how I read the article - yes it quotes the Invesco Perp fund as being the lowest over the last 10 years at 13% compared to the iShares UK Equity index at 73%, but don't think it's basing everything on that one fund, it states 91% of UK funds have done worse than the iShares one above i.e. investment funds, not peoples individual pensions.golfaddick said:
Another story that appears to say something, but ultimately doesn't. It quotes just ONE fund that has performed very badly, and surprise surprise its Woodford's old Invesco High Income fund.Covered End said:
It's a bit like saying that 91 teams failed to beat Man City over the past 4 years and then quote Charlton's record this season to show how bad other teams are.
And for the record I'm seeing a client tomorrow who has a Royal London pension, invested in around 12 funds. Return over the period 20/05/23 to 20/05/24 was 14.4%. I think that comfortably beats the FTSE All Share Index over that time period !
But it is interesting that 91% of UK funds can't beat the simple iShares tracker. Mirrors some of my experience in general that a lot of the time the trackers out perform (especially once you take into account the fund fee's) the managed funds.
Didn't Buffet basically say once upon a time, pick a low fee tracker fund and just stick with it. The majority of the time it'll outperform managed funds over a meaningful period?
For the last year, my tracker has done 20.4% which ain't too shabby.
0 -
I think you are coming from a different angle on 'pension fund' - you are coming at it from someone's overall pension fund, the report is comparing different funds, i.e. iShares UK equity v's other UK equity funds, not individuals pensions made up of numerous funds.golfaddick said:
But they are measuring apples against pears. And what is a "typical" pension fund anyway ? I know a lot of "uk pensions" are invested into default managed funds, which could have a lot of Bonds & Gilts in them. Over the past couple of years being invested into Fixed Interst funds would have really brought down any performance. They are not measuring the same thing if they are comparing a pension fund against the All Share Index.Rob7Lee said:
Not quite how I read the article - yes it quotes the Invesco Perp fund as being the lowest over the last 10 years at 13% compared to the iShares UK Equity index at 73%, but don't think it's basing everything on that one fund, it states 91% of UK funds have done worse than the iShares one above i.e. investment funds, not peoples individual pensions.golfaddick said:
Another story that appears to say something, but ultimately doesn't. It quotes just ONE fund that has performed very badly, and surprise surprise its Woodford's old Invesco High Income fund.Covered End said:
It's a bit like saying that 91 teams failed to beat Man City over the past 4 years and then quote Charlton's record this season to show how bad other teams are.
And for the record I'm seeing a client tomorrow who has a Royal London pension, invested in around 12 funds. Return over the period 20/05/23 to 20/05/24 was 14.4%. I think that comfortably beats the FTSE All Share Index over that time period !
But it is interesting that 91% of UK funds can't beat the simple iShares tracker. Mirrors some of my experience in general that a lot of the time the trackers out perform (especially once you take into account the fund fee's) the managed funds.
Buffets view is simple, invest in an S&P tracker. He's not wrong, of my numerous funds in my pension my S&P Tracker since June 2022 is up 40%, by far the best performing. My next best is Vanguards life strategy 100%, only up 28%! I've a few others in the mid 20's a Japan ETF, FTSE100 ETF and a FTSE Developed Europe ETF.cafcpolo said:
Yeah, I read it the same. Using bad examples maybe but bottom line is 9/10 managed funds don't beat the tracker.Rob7Lee said:
Not quite how I read the article - yes it quotes the Invesco Perp fund as being the lowest over the last 10 years at 13% compared to the iShares UK Equity index at 73%, but don't think it's basing everything on that one fund, it states 91% of UK funds have done worse than the iShares one above i.e. investment funds, not peoples individual pensions.golfaddick said:
Another story that appears to say something, but ultimately doesn't. It quotes just ONE fund that has performed very badly, and surprise surprise its Woodford's old Invesco High Income fund.Covered End said:
It's a bit like saying that 91 teams failed to beat Man City over the past 4 years and then quote Charlton's record this season to show how bad other teams are.
And for the record I'm seeing a client tomorrow who has a Royal London pension, invested in around 12 funds. Return over the period 20/05/23 to 20/05/24 was 14.4%. I think that comfortably beats the FTSE All Share Index over that time period !
But it is interesting that 91% of UK funds can't beat the simple iShares tracker. Mirrors some of my experience in general that a lot of the time the trackers out perform (especially once you take into account the fund fee's) the managed funds.
Didn't Buffet basically say once upon a time, pick a low fee tracker fund and just stick with it. The majority of the time it'll outperform managed funds over a meaningful period?
For the last year, my tracker has done 20.4% which ain't too shabby.
Just wish I'd gone full on Buffet and put it all in the S&P :-)2 -
Little doubt US index trackers have been brilliant over almost any time scale. Looking at my ISA's the 2011/12 invested here (not sure offhand which index was up 426% at March 2024! Having said I'm not suggesting all in one basket, but wish I had more than 37% of my Share ISA's in US trackers (and less in UK!)1
-
I'm sorry I disagree....and 33 years in the industry I think I know the difference between the funds they are trying to measure against.cafcpolo said:
Yeah, I read it the same. Using bad examples maybe but bottom line is 9/10 managed funds don't beat the tracker.Rob7Lee said:
Not quite how I read the article - yes it quotes the Invesco Perp fund as being the lowest over the last 10 years at 13% compared to the iShares UK Equity index at 73%, but don't think it's basing everything on that one fund, it states 91% of UK funds have done worse than the iShares one above i.e. investment funds, not peoples individual pensions.golfaddick said:
Another story that appears to say something, but ultimately doesn't. It quotes just ONE fund that has performed very badly, and surprise surprise its Woodford's old Invesco High Income fund.Covered End said:
It's a bit like saying that 91 teams failed to beat Man City over the past 4 years and then quote Charlton's record this season to show how bad other teams are.
And for the record I'm seeing a client tomorrow who has a Royal London pension, invested in around 12 funds. Return over the period 20/05/23 to 20/05/24 was 14.4%. I think that comfortably beats the FTSE All Share Index over that time period !
But it is interesting that 91% of UK funds can't beat the simple iShares tracker. Mirrors some of my experience in general that a lot of the time the trackers out perform (especially once you take into account the fund fee's) the managed funds.
Didn't Buffet basically say once upon a time, pick a low fee tracker fund and just stick with it. The majority of the time it'll outperform managed funds over a meaningful period?
For the last year, my tracker has done 20.4% which ain't too shabby.
They are using the FTSE All Share as a base, which is daft as that Index is made up of all the shares listed on the UK stock exchange. I doubt whether even 1% of "pension funds" invest wholly in this Index and so, of course, some funds will perform better or worse than it. The "best performer" they use as a benchmark is the iShares UK Equity Index which tracks the FTSE Allshare. As I said, how many of the funds they are putting up against this benchmark invest solely in the UK stockmarket ? Not many I expect. The IP High Income fund used to invest in big dividend paying companies (until Woodford went rogue) and so, as I said, not measuring apples against apples.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
How robust are the banks nowadays as I noticed that my savings with Marcus have gone over the £85000.00 guarantee threshold is it worth moving some to get it below that amount0
-
Much, much stronger than they were and they're forced to have plans on how they would wind down in an orderly fashion, including their operations. But I'd still spread my money around.Valianterith said:How robust are the banks nowadays as I noticed that my savings with Marcus have gone over the £85000.00 guarantee threshold is it worth moving some to get it below that amount2 -
Valianterith said:How robust are the banks nowadays as I noticed that my savings with Marcus have gone over the £85000.00 guarantee threshold is it worth moving some to get it below that amountIf Goldman Sachs go pop then we are all in trouble!Sticking to larger financial organisations mitigates the risk (however small) rather than depositing with challenger banks. All deposits with NS&I are guaranteed but their rates are not the best (apart from the 6.2% that was available for a brief period last year).1
-
Might have been said about Lehmans ...bobmunro said:Valianterith said:How robust are the banks nowadays as I noticed that my savings with Marcus have gone over the £85000.00 guarantee threshold is it worth moving some to get it below that amountIf Goldman Sachs go pop then we are all in trouble!Sticking to larger financial organisations mitigates the risk (however small) rather than depositing with challenger banks. All deposits with NS&I are guaranteed but their rates are not the best (apart from the 6.2% that was available for a brief period last year).0 -
WishIdStayedinthePub said:
Might have been said about Lehmans ...bobmunro said:Valianterith said:How robust are the banks nowadays as I noticed that my savings with Marcus have gone over the £85000.00 guarantee threshold is it worth moving some to get it below that amountIf Goldman Sachs go pop then we are all in trouble!Sticking to larger financial organisations mitigates the risk (however small) rather than depositing with challenger banks. All deposits with NS&I are guaranteed but their rates are not the best (apart from the 6.2% that was available for a brief period last year).
True - but 17 years on the stress tests banks have to subject to should prevent a repeat (based on all known current factors).
1 -
That was my first point. But I wouldn't pick out Goldmans. Chase would be my pick for a rock solid bank from the digital banks.bobmunro said:WishIdStayedinthePub said:
Might have been said about Lehmans ...bobmunro said:Valianterith said:How robust are the banks nowadays as I noticed that my savings with Marcus have gone over the £85000.00 guarantee threshold is it worth moving some to get it below that amountIf Goldman Sachs go pop then we are all in trouble!Sticking to larger financial organisations mitigates the risk (however small) rather than depositing with challenger banks. All deposits with NS&I are guaranteed but their rates are not the best (apart from the 6.2% that was available for a brief period last year).
True - but 17 years on the stress tests banks have to subject to should prevent a repeat (based on all known current factors).1 -
WishIdStayedinthePub said:
That was my first point. But I wouldn't pick out Goldmans. Chase would be my pick for a rock solid bank from the digital banks.bobmunro said:WishIdStayedinthePub said:
Might have been said about Lehmans ...bobmunro said:Valianterith said:How robust are the banks nowadays as I noticed that my savings with Marcus have gone over the £85000.00 guarantee threshold is it worth moving some to get it below that amountIf Goldman Sachs go pop then we are all in trouble!Sticking to larger financial organisations mitigates the risk (however small) rather than depositing with challenger banks. All deposits with NS&I are guaranteed but their rates are not the best (apart from the 6.2% that was available for a brief period last year).
True - but 17 years on the stress tests banks have to subject to should prevent a repeat (based on all known current factors).
I agree - I only mentioned Goldmans because @Valianterith cited Marcus.
1 -
I've spread my savings around across about 6 banks - none of them very close to the £85k FSCS protection limit - but figure it's safer that way. I've often wondered where multi-millionaires that easily exceed the upper limit put their money, other thjan offshore of course!Valianterith said:How robust are the banks nowadays as I noticed that my savings with Marcus have gone over the £85000.00 guarantee threshold is it worth moving some to get it below that amount1 -
I always say the the UK Government will do all they can to shore up a UK registered bank, even going to the extremes of buying half of it & then selling it at a great loss. I wouldn't worry if I had £90k in a UK Bank. Maybe not wise having £200k in a single institution, but then again unless its there very short term its best to do something else with most of it.1
-
Or in the case of Halifax, not shoring it up, but conning Lloyds into buying it, and trying to shore it up for them. The worst decision ever made in British Financial history……golfaddick said:I always say the the UK Government will do all they can to shore up a UK registered bank, even going to the extremes of buying half of it & then selling it at a great loss. I wouldn't worry if I had £90k in a UK Bank. Maybe not wise having £200k in a single institution, but then again unless its there very short term its best to do something else with most of it.
Although ultimately had to shore up Lloyds, after the Halifax debts were sinking Lloyds. But, hey the government eventually made a profit. The Lloyds share holders were completely robbed and sent bust by Eric Daniel’s / Gordon Brown.3 - Sponsored links:
-
Precisely.RaplhMilne said:
Or in the case of Halifax, not shoring it up, but conning Lloyds into buying it, and trying to shore it up for them. The worst decision ever made in British Financial history……golfaddick said:I always say the the UK Government will do all they can to shore up a UK registered bank, even going to the extremes of buying half of it & then selling it at a great loss. I wouldn't worry if I had £90k in a UK Bank. Maybe not wise having £200k in a single institution, but then again unless its there very short term its best to do something else with most of it.
Although ultimately had to shore up Lloyds, after the Halifax debts were sinking Lloyds. But, hey the government eventually made a profit. The Lloyds share holders were completely robbed and sent bust by Eric Daniel’s / Gordon Brown.
Banks will always be shored up. To my mind they are like any other PLC and should be treated as such.0 -
I've got a fair amount (well to me it is) which I like everyone could take out 25% with the general election up, what are you expecting to happen re pension and there associated cash free lump sum after a change of government? Don’t want this to turn into a political debate, that’s why I didn’t ask in the election thread. Apparently there’s an article in either the times or Sunday times on this matter but it’s behind a pay wall.
I have asked my financial adviser this question and as yet he hasn’t responded.0 -
CharltonKerry said:I've got a fair amount (well to me it is) which I like everyone could take out 25% with the general election up, what are you expecting to happen re pension and there associated cash free lump sum after a change of government? Don’t want this to turn into a political debate, that’s why I didn’t ask in the election thread. Apparently there’s an article in either the times or Sunday times on this matter but it’s behind a pay wall.
I have asked my financial adviser this question and as yet he hasn’t responded.There's this from Bloomberg:https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-05-24/uk-election-protecting-your-assets-from-a-labour-government. Most of it is guess work of course but there will almost certainly be changes.
0 -
The plain answer.....no-one knows.CharltonKerry said:I've got a fair amount (well to me it is) which I like everyone could take out 25% with the general election up, what are you expecting to happen re pension and there associated cash free lump sum after a change of government? Don’t want this to turn into a political debate, that’s why I didn’t ask in the election thread. Apparently there’s an article in either the times or Sunday times on this matter but it’s behind a pay wall.
I have asked my financial adviser this question and as yet he hasn’t responded.
I very much doubt they would mess around with the 25% TFC allowance. It is now capped at £268, 275 so "25%" is a bit of a misnomer.
The Labour Party have said that they would re-introduce the Lifetime Allowance, but they've not announced at what amount. In any case, it is virtually unheard of changes to be applied retrospectively & in the past protections have been put in place to secure what you currently have.
The big question over the years is will tax relief be altered, and it has been mooted that even under the Tories it was going to be changed to a level figure for all.....either 25% or 30%.
The one thing I would ask any Labour campaigner who knocked on my door is.....why can't we all have our own individual tax unregistered scheme like Kier Starmer has. Look it up. Oh the hypocrisy.4 -
I can see them bringing back in the LTA, also reducing the Tax Free element (although like Golfie says it isn't really 25% anymore), the latter is an easy win for them. Moree tax collected on drawdown.
Tax relief on Pension is almost a given to change, I can see a flat rate for all, 25% I suspect. Although they'll have to untangle the salary sacrifice as well I presume.
Either way, I'm banking on being worse off. I'm still 5.5 years from being able to draw, if I was at that age now I'd likely take out the 25% now, in full.
On a brighter note, Premium bonds on Tuesday!0 -
Thanks for your input everyone. I suppose I’m in a slightly different predicament than most on here, in so much as my pension won’t get much higher than it is now as I can only pay a little amount in year as I’m retired, also if things go to plan I won’t need to raid my pension fund for around six to 7 years time (I’m 71 at the moment), I'm investing into our ISA’s to the maximum value I can as the company I owned are repaying a buy back loan for my shares which should be paid up in around 4 years, (I’ve already paid my entrepreneurs tax to the tax man in January).I have a considerable out lay in the next 18 months which my ISA’s were meant to be covering, but by luck the tax free money I can take out of my pension is roughly equivalent to my upcoming outlay. So it’s a case of deciding what is the best way for to go forward for me / us, think a phone call to financial advisor will be happening early next week.0
-
CafcWest said:
I've spread my savings around across about 6 banks - none of them very close to the £85k FSCS protection limit - but figure it's safer that way. I've often wondered where multi-millionaires that easily exceed the upper limit put their money, other thjan offshore of course!Valianterith said:How robust are the banks nowadays as I noticed that my savings with Marcus have gone over the £85000.00 guarantee threshold is it worth moving some to get it below that amount
The richest will often have a family office with people employed to manage and invest their wealth and a CFO that will have a Treasury policy. That typically means only placing money with institutions who are rated strongly and not having more than a certain % with any one institution.
The main UK banks are generally awash with cash currently given people saved lots through COVID and took things like bounce back loans they never used, plus at the same time banks did not lend as much. Add to that far more stringent stress testing and Tier One capital rules.
I would always still spread my cash around though!
1 -
The wealthy DID panic in the 2008 crash and many tried to withdraw cash funds - literally sometimes in cash.Athletico Charlton said:CafcWest said:
I've spread my savings around across about 6 banks - none of them very close to the £85k FSCS protection limit - but figure it's safer that way. I've often wondered where multi-millionaires that easily exceed the upper limit put their money, other thjan offshore of course!Valianterith said:How robust are the banks nowadays as I noticed that my savings with Marcus have gone over the £85000.00 guarantee threshold is it worth moving some to get it below that amount
The richest will often have a family office with people employed to manage and invest their wealth and a CFO that will have a Treasury policy. That typically means only placing money with institutions who are rated strongly and not having more than a certain % with any one institution.
The main UK banks are generally awash with cash currently given people saved lots through COVID and took things like bounce back loans they never used, plus at the same time banks did not lend as much. Add to that far more stringent stress testing and Tier One capital rules.
I would always still spread my cash around though!Of course ‘investments’ are not protected in the same way.0 -
Due to your age I'd definitely look at taking the money from your pension rather than your ISA.CharltonKerry said:Thanks for your input everyone. I suppose I’m in a slightly different predicament than most on here, in so much as my pension won’t get much higher than it is now as I can only pay a little amount in year as I’m retired, also if things go to plan I won’t need to raid my pension fund for around six to 7 years time (I’m 71 at the moment), I'm investing into our ISA’s to the maximum value I can as the company I owned are repaying a buy back loan for my shares which should be paid up in around 4 years, (I’ve already paid my entrepreneurs tax to the tax man in January).I have a considerable out lay in the next 18 months which my ISA’s were meant to be covering, but by luck the tax free money I can take out of my pension is roughly equivalent to my upcoming outlay. So it’s a case of deciding what is the best way for to go forward for me / us, think a phone call to financial advisor will be happening early next week.2 -
golfaddick said:
Due to your age I'd definitely look at taking the money from your pension rather than your ISACharltonKerry said:Thanks for your input everyone. I suppose I’m in a slightly different predicament than most on here, in so much as my pension won’t get much higher than it is now as I can only pay a little amount in year as I’m retired, also if things go to plan I won’t need to raid my pension fund for around six to 7 years time (I’m 71 at the moment), I'm investing into our ISA’s to the maximum value I can as the company I owned are repaying a buy back loan for my shares which should be paid up in around 4 years, (I’ve already paid my entrepreneurs tax to the tax man in January).I have a considerable out lay in the next 18 months which my ISA’s were meant to be covering, but by luck the tax free money I can take out of my pension is roughly equivalent to my upcoming outlay. So it’s a case of deciding what is the best way for to go forward for me / us, think a phone call to financial advisor will be happening early next week.
Why are you so firm on this advice? With money in a scheme protected from inheritance tax, the advice I received was to use all cash reserves and ISA's before withdrawing from your pension pot.0
