macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924 
Likes: 1,191
|
Post by macq on Apr 27, 2017 7:26:40 GMT
maybe a bit picky but the example of a £5000 bond @ 5% shows the fee and then the target return and then the total return with capital,but without the fee taken off,i am sure someone will claim they did not spot that in the future.Also says no fee if no profit which is good but next to the fee amount in the example it says fee on £5000 - £48.82 approx.Why the approx can something change?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Wombwell-Povey on Apr 27, 2017 8:25:29 GMT
Have from launch IRC, £1000 min. They said they were accepting, but weren't actually set up for the necessary admin Cavalier If I may, I will respond quite assertively to this as this something Goji builds our whole business around. The proof - we do the ISA administration for over 10 other P2P platforms (and counting) including Landbay, Downing, Assetz (when they launch) and in fact the opposite is true - our administration is a bespoke administration technology that has cost more than most platforms will spend on their entire platform. We handle ISAs for over 800 customers and have fully automated IFISA administration. Other platforms may well ask you for paper forms, where as we have developed proprietary web applications specifically for the IFISA. Many platforms may in fact say they do ISAs, but if you were to press them on how they handle some of the vagaries of the system, flexible ISAs, Additional Permitted Subscriptions etc....well, they may well pick up the phone to us to find out the answer. Furthermore, I'm the chairman of the TISA (Tax incentivised savings associations) P2P committee that is leading the charging on ISA and SIPP regulation in the sector. The reason we are not accepting transfers just yet, believe it or not, although we can administratively manage them, is because of cheques and old fashioned banks!!! The world of fintech humbled by the mighty cheque! The reality, that we are well aware of form our ISA administration experience, is that our client money service provider (ISAs require Client Money, not e-Money) won't accept cheques, neither will our e-money provider, and so we are finalising our intergration into MangoPay who can handle cheques. That will be live soon, but we need to ensure that all of these payment providers are working together correctly, compliantly and giving investors a great experience. We would rather wait and get it right hence the delay. As I hope I have communicated we're pretty alive to this issue, so if you would like to discuss this further I would be more than willing to answer any questions you may have. Jake
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Wombwell-Povey on Apr 27, 2017 8:28:59 GMT
maybe a bit picky but the example of a £5000 bond @ 5% shows the fee and then the target return and then the total return with capital,but without the fee taken off,i am sure someone will claim they did not spot that in the future.Also says no fee if no profit which is good but next to the fee amount in the example it says fee on £5000 - £48.82 approx.Why the approx can something change? Hi Macq, The reason the fee might change is because the bonds are not fixed rate bonds. If all of the underlying loans perform optimally, with no defaults and 100% cash deployment, then the return on the bonds will be closer to 7.2% gross, and so the fee could change. We anticipate and have modelled for some losses and cash drag and so the return to bondholders may decrease, in which case the value of the bonds will change, and therefore £ charged will vary very slight (obviously the % stays the same, but the £fee will change as an absolute figure). I hope that helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Jake
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Apr 27, 2017 8:57:27 GMT
They said they were accepting, but weren't actually set up for the necessary admin Cavalier If I may, I will respond quite assertively to this as this something Goji builds our whole business around. The proof - we do the ISA administration for over 10 other P2P platforms (and counting) including Landbay, Downing, Assetz (when they launch) and in fact the opposite is true - our administration is a bespoke administration technology that has cost more than most platforms will spend on their entire platform. We handle ISAs for over 800 customers and have fully automated IFISA administration. Other platforms may well ask you for paper forms, where as we have developed proprietary web applications specifically for the IFISA. Many platforms may in fact say they do ISAs, but if you were to press them on how they handle some of the vagaries of the system, flexible ISAs, Additional Permitted Subscriptions etc....well, they may well pick up the phone to us to find out the answer. Furthermore, I'm the chairman of the TISA (Tax incentivised savings associations) P2P committee that is leading the charging on ISA and SIPP regulation in the sector. The reason we are not accepting transfers just yet, believe it or not, although we can administratively manage them, is because of cheques and old fashioned banks!!! The world of fintech humbled by the mighty cheque! The reality, that we are well aware of form our ISA administration experience, is that our client money service provider (ISAs require Client Money, not e-Money) won't accept cheques, neither will our e-money provider, and so we are finalising our intergration into MangoPay who can handle cheques. That will be live soon, but we need to ensure that all of these payment providers are working together correctly, compliantly and giving investors a great experience. We would rather wait and get it right hence the delay. As I hope I have communicated we're pretty alive to this issue, so if you would like to discuss this further I would be more than willing to answer any questions you may have. Jake Thanks for the thorough response Jake.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 27, 2017 9:03:12 GMT
They said they were accepting, but weren't actually set up for the necessary admin Cavalier If I may, I will respond quite assertively to this as this something Goji builds our whole business around. The proof - we do the ISA administration for over 10 other P2P platforms (and counting) including Landbay, Downing, Assetz (when they launch) and in fact the opposite is true - our administration is a bespoke administration technology that has cost more than most platforms will spend on their entire platform. We handle ISAs for over 800 customers and have fully automated IFISA administration. Other platforms may well ask you for paper forms, where as we have developed proprietary web applications specifically for the IFISA. Many platforms may in fact say they do ISAs, but if you were to press them on how they handle some of the vagaries of the system, flexible ISAs, Additional Permitted Subscriptions etc....well, they may well pick up the phone to us to find out the answer. Furthermore, I'm the chairman of the TISA (Tax incentivised savings associations) P2P committee that is leading the charging on ISA and SIPP regulation in the sector. The reason we are not accepting transfers just yet, believe it or not, although we can administratively manage them, is because of cheques and old fashioned banks!!! The world of fintech humbled by the mighty cheque! The reality, that we are well aware of form our ISA administration experience, is that our client money service provider (ISAs require Client Money, not e-Money) won't accept cheques, neither will our e-money provider, and so we are finalising our intergration into MangoPay who can handle cheques. That will be live soon, but we need to ensure that all of these payment providers are working together correctly, compliantly and giving investors a great experience. We would rather wait and get it right hence the delay. As I hope I have communicated we're pretty alive to this issue, so if you would like to discuss this further I would be more than willing to answer any questions you may have. Jake Jake, it sounds like you probably know more about ISA regulations than most. What is your opinion on whether offering a loanpart you already hold (in a non-IFISA account) for sale on a platform's SM and then re-buying it with cash held in your IFISA account would breach the HMRC ISA rules? Does the answer change if the lender artificially lowers the price of the trade by listing it at a discount? As background, in case you've not seen the debate already: p2pindependentforum.com/post/183227/thread
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,836
Likes: 11,063
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 27, 2017 9:20:47 GMT
They said they were accepting, but weren't actually set up for the necessary admin Cavalier If I may, I will respond quite assertively to this as this something Goji builds our whole business around. The proof - we do the ISA administration for over 10 other P2P platforms (and counting) including Landbay, Downing, Assetz (when they launch) and in fact the opposite is true - our administration is a bespoke administration technology that has cost more than most platforms will spend on their entire platform. We handle ISAs for over 800 customers and have fully automated IFISA administration. Other platforms may well ask you for paper forms, where as we have developed proprietary web applications specifically for the IFISA. Many platforms may in fact say they do ISAs, but if you were to press them on how they handle some of the vagaries of the system, flexible ISAs, Additional Permitted Subscriptions etc....well, they may well pick up the phone to us to find out the answer. Furthermore, I'm the chairman of the TISA (Tax incentivised savings associations) P2P committee that is leading the charging on ISA and SIPP regulation in the sector. The reason we are not accepting transfers just yet, believe it or not, although we can administratively manage them, is because of cheques and old fashioned banks!!! The world of fintech humbled by the mighty cheque! The reality, that we are well aware of form our ISA administration experience, is that our client money service provider (ISAs require Client Money, not e-Money) won't accept cheques, neither will our e-money provider, and so we are finalising our intergration into MangoPay who can handle cheques. That will be live soon, but we need to ensure that all of these payment providers are working together correctly, compliantly and giving investors a great experience. We would rather wait and get it right hence the delay. As I hope I have communicated we're pretty alive to this issue, so if you would like to discuss this further I would be more than willing to answer any questions you may have. Jake From personal experience I can confirm this is an issue, though actually it was the other way round. A High St provider couldnt handle the concept of not receiving a cheque from an Innovative Finance provider for the transfer of an ISA to themsleves. Six weeks later, after a level of complete incompetence by the HO ISA department (clueless on IFISA & their own operations) the money was finally moved. The IF provider service was great.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Apr 27, 2017 9:26:04 GMT
Cavalier If I may, I will respond quite assertively to this as this something Goji builds our whole business around. The proof - we do the ISA administration for over 10 other P2P platforms (and counting) including Landbay, Downing, Assetz (when they launch) and in fact the opposite is true - our administration is a bespoke administration technology that has cost more than most platforms will spend on their entire platform. We handle ISAs for over 800 customers and have fully automated IFISA administration. Other platforms may well ask you for paper forms, where as we have developed proprietary web applications specifically for the IFISA. Many platforms may in fact say they do ISAs, but if you were to press them on how they handle some of the vagaries of the system, flexible ISAs, Additional Permitted Subscriptions etc....well, they may well pick up the phone to us to find out the answer. Furthermore, I'm the chairman of the TISA (Tax incentivised savings associations) P2P committee that is leading the charging on ISA and SIPP regulation in the sector. The reason we are not accepting transfers just yet, believe it or not, although we can administratively manage them, is because of cheques and old fashioned banks!!! The world of fintech humbled by the mighty cheque! The reality, that we are well aware of form our ISA administration experience, is that our client money service provider (ISAs require Client Money, not e-Money) won't accept cheques, neither will our e-money provider, and so we are finalising our intergration into MangoPay who can handle cheques. That will be live soon, but we need to ensure that all of these payment providers are working together correctly, compliantly and giving investors a great experience. We would rather wait and get it right hence the delay. As I hope I have communicated we're pretty alive to this issue, so if you would like to discuss this further I would be more than willing to answer any questions you may have. Jake From personal experience I can confirm this is an issue, though actually it was the other way round. A High St provider couldnt handle the concept of not receiving a cheque from an Innovative Finance provider for the transfer of an ISA to themsleves. Six weeks later, after a level of complete incompetence by the HO ISA department (clueless on IFISA & their own operations) the money was finally moved. The IF provider service was great. And the other way around in another way around, my experience was of an IFISA provider that couldn't handle the electronic bank transfer from my S&S ISA as they were expecting a cheque! They could see the money in their account but couldn't allocate it to me!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,836
Likes: 11,063
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 27, 2017 9:36:17 GMT
From personal experience I can confirm this is an issue, though actually it was the other way round. A High St provider couldnt handle the concept of not receiving a cheque from an Innovative Finance provider for the transfer of an ISA to themsleves. Six weeks later, after a level of complete incompetence by the HO ISA department (clueless on IFISA & their own operations) the money was finally moved. The IF provider service was great. And the other way around in another way around, my experience was of an IFISA provider that couldn't handle the electronic bank transfer from my S&S ISA as they were expecting a cheque! They could see the money in their account but couldn't allocate it to me! Ha ha. At least they could see the money, the bank couldnt, took them 2 weeks to find it even though they had told the IF platform the account to send it to electronically.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Wombwell-Povey on Apr 27, 2017 13:39:23 GMT
Cavalier If I may, I will respond quite assertively to this as this something Goji builds our whole business around. The proof - we do the ISA administration for over 10 other P2P platforms (and counting) including Landbay, Downing, Assetz (when they launch) and in fact the opposite is true - our administration is a bespoke administration technology that has cost more than most platforms will spend on their entire platform. We handle ISAs for over 800 customers and have fully automated IFISA administration. Other platforms may well ask you for paper forms, where as we have developed proprietary web applications specifically for the IFISA. Many platforms may in fact say they do ISAs, but if you were to press them on how they handle some of the vagaries of the system, flexible ISAs, Additional Permitted Subscriptions etc....well, they may well pick up the phone to us to find out the answer. Furthermore, I'm the chairman of the TISA (Tax incentivised savings associations) P2P committee that is leading the charging on ISA and SIPP regulation in the sector. The reason we are not accepting transfers just yet, believe it or not, although we can administratively manage them, is because of cheques and old fashioned banks!!! The world of fintech humbled by the mighty cheque! The reality, that we are well aware of form our ISA administration experience, is that our client money service provider (ISAs require Client Money, not e-Money) won't accept cheques, neither will our e-money provider, and so we are finalising our intergration into MangoPay who can handle cheques. That will be live soon, but we need to ensure that all of these payment providers are working together correctly, compliantly and giving investors a great experience. We would rather wait and get it right hence the delay. As I hope I have communicated we're pretty alive to this issue, so if you would like to discuss this further I would be more than willing to answer any questions you may have. Jake Jake, it sounds like you probably know more about ISA regulations than most. What is your opinion on whether offering a loanpart you already hold (in a non-IFISA account) for sale on a platform's SM and then re-buying it with cash held in your IFISA account would breach the HMRC ISA rules? Does the answer change if the lender artificially lowers the price of the trade by listing it at a discount? As background, in case you've not seen the debate already: p2pindependentforum.com/post/183227/threadThis is known as "Bed and ISA-ing" (about as sexy as it gets with ISAs). As long as there is an "Open Market Mechanism" this isn't a probably. In essence, as long as there is the possibility that you underlying risk could change (ie if another investor is quick on trigger), then it is considered an open market transaction. If the platform is offering some sort of discount I would be wary - I'm not saying it is wrong, but HMRC hasn't looked at this issue definitively yet (is they haven't, as far as we're aware, auditted any platforms). If they do, and your platform is on the wrong side of the line, then the platform will be liable to fines and your ISA will have to be voided/repaired. Whilst you will be owed any interest due, and therefore you won't lose out directly financially, the platform fines, operational strain, investor discomfort may not be worth the trouble. We've been trying to drive a high standard of IFISA administration across the industry and had several controls tests undertaken on our platform to ensure compliance - I can't vouch for anyone not using Goji technology. The best way to drive standards pre-emptively is obviously good old fashioned customer pressure so please do get in touch with your platform to ensure they really understand the rules. The devil is always in the detail. I trust that helps. If you have any other questions, our operations team would be delighted to assist at customersupport@gojip2p.com
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Apr 27, 2017 21:44:28 GMT
Jake, it sounds like you probably know more about ISA regulations than most. What is your opinion on whether offering a loanpart you already hold (in a non-IFISA account) for sale on a platform's SM and then re-buying it with cash held in your IFISA account would breach the HMRC ISA rules? Does the answer change if the lender artificially lowers the price of the trade by listing it at a discount? As background, in case you've not seen the debate already: p2pindependentforum.com/post/183227/threadThis is known as "Bed and ISA-ing" (about as sexy as it gets with ISAs). As long as there is an "Open Market Mechanism" this isn't a probably. In essence, as long as there is the possibility that you underlying risk could change (ie if another investor is quick on trigger), then it is considered an open market transaction. ... Hmmm. The law is explicit that the sales from an investor (or their spouse) to their ISA are prohibited. Bed and ISA-ing works with stocks and shares because both sides are with a broker, as a result of which there is never (as a matter of legal form) a sale from the investor to their ISA. Furthermore, for actively-traded shares anyway, there is a liquid market with a true market price and the separate purchase and sale transactions won't necessarily (or even usually?) be over the same shares. The letter of the law is respected and it is arguable that (because there is a true market price) the spirit is respected as well. Do HMRC understand that secondary markets on the p2p platforms (or at least the ones that I use) don't work like that? They are relatively illiquid, with no quoted market price, and all transactions are matched bargains between two parties, who on some platforms are identifiable (at least by their aliases) to both sides. On such markets, it seems to me that bed and ISA-ing is consistent with neither the letter nor the spirit of the law. I would add that the very expression "bed and ISA-ing" is misleading in this case. The expression derives from the practice of "bed and breakfasting" shares to crystallise capital gains. "Bed and breakfasting" is a metaphor for the shares spending some (albeit brief) time "away". On the p2p secondary markets that I use, the loan parts would spend no time "away".
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Wombwell-Povey on May 3, 2017 14:56:40 GMT
This is known as "Bed and ISA-ing" (about as sexy as it gets with ISAs). As long as there is an "Open Market Mechanism" this isn't a probably. In essence, as long as there is the possibility that you underlying risk could change (ie if another investor is quick on trigger), then it is considered an open market transaction. ... Hmmm. The law is explicit that the sales from an investor (or their spouse) to their ISA are prohibited. Bed and ISA-ing works with stocks and shares because both sides are with a broker, as a result of which there is never (as a matter of legal form) a sale from the investor to their ISA. Furthermore, for actively-traded shares anyway, there is a liquid market with a true market price and the separate purchase and sale transactions won't necessarily (or even usually?) be over the same shares. The letter of the law is respected and it is arguable that (because there is a true market price) the spirit is respected as well. Do HMRC understand that secondary markets on the p2p platforms (or at least the ones that I use) don't work like that? They are relatively illiquid, with no quoted market price, and all transactions are matched bargains between two parties, who on some platforms are identifiable (at least by their aliases) to both sides. On such markets, it seems to me that bed and ISA-ing is consistent with neither the letter nor the spirit of the law. I would add that the very expression "bed and ISA-ing" is misleading in this case. The expression derives from the practice of "bed and breakfasting" shares to crystallise capital gains. "Bed and breakfasting" is a metaphor for the shares spending some (albeit brief) time "away". On the p2p secondary markets that I use, the loan parts would spend no time "away". Pikestaff, Quite simply this is why we're consulting with HMRC on the matter through TISA. They have stated that an "Open Market Mechanism" will suffice as long as platforms are not guaranteeing that investors will go directly into the loans they have just sold. Our concern is that platforms aren't aware of this, and if that happens, then it will be platforms and investors who will feel this pain. The good news is this can't happen on our products as Goji does all of the investment management for investors so ultimately it's upto the investor as to whether they want a self-select or managed IFISA solution. We're obviously trying appealing to those who want a managed solution, like wealth managers, but also give investors access to platforms they otherwise wouldn't be able to get access to because the minimum's are too high. The value you place on that is obviously a personal choice. No doubt we'll have plenty more fun on issues like this when we launch a SIPP offering in Q3 when you have an absurdly different bunch of tax regulations to deal with.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on May 3, 2017 21:26:19 GMT
Hmmm. The law is explicit that the sales from an investor (or their spouse) to their ISA are prohibited. Bed and ISA-ing works with stocks and shares because both sides are with a broker, as a result of which there is never (as a matter of legal form) a sale from the investor to their ISA. Furthermore, for actively-traded shares anyway, there is a liquid market with a true market price and the separate purchase and sale transactions won't necessarily (or even usually?) be over the same shares. The letter of the law is respected and it is arguable that (because there is a true market price) the spirit is respected as well. Do HMRC understand that secondary markets on the p2p platforms (or at least the ones that I use) don't work like that? They are relatively illiquid, with no quoted market price, and all transactions are matched bargains between two parties, who on some platforms are identifiable (at least by their aliases) to both sides. On such markets, it seems to me that bed and ISA-ing is consistent with neither the letter nor the spirit of the law. I would add that the very expression "bed and ISA-ing" is misleading in this case. The expression derives from the practice of "bed and breakfasting" shares to crystallise capital gains. "Bed and breakfasting" is a metaphor for the shares spending some (albeit brief) time "away". On the p2p secondary markets that I use, the loan parts would spend no time "away". Pikestaff, Quite simply this is why we're consulting with HMRC on the matter through TISA. They have stated that an "Open Market Mechanism" will suffice as long as platforms are not guaranteeing that investors will go directly into the loans they have just sold. Our concern is that platforms aren't aware of this, and if that happens, then it will be platforms and investors who will feel this pain. The good news is this can't happen on our products as Goji does all of the investment management for investors so ultimately it's upto the investor as to whether they want a self-select or managed IFISA solution. We're obviously trying appealing to those who want a managed solution, like wealth managers, but also give investors access to platforms they otherwise wouldn't be able to get access to because the minimum's are too high. The value you place on that is obviously a personal choice. No doubt we'll have plenty more fun on issues like this when we launch a SIPP offering in Q3 when you have an absurdly different bunch of tax regulations to deal with. Can you tell us anymore about the SIPP?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Wombwell-Povey on May 4, 2017 7:22:34 GMT
Pikestaff, Quite simply this is why we're consulting with HMRC on the matter through TISA. They have stated that an "Open Market Mechanism" will suffice as long as platforms are not guaranteeing that investors will go directly into the loans they have just sold. Our concern is that platforms aren't aware of this, and if that happens, then it will be platforms and investors who will feel this pain. The good news is this can't happen on our products as Goji does all of the investment management for investors so ultimately it's upto the investor as to whether they want a self-select or managed IFISA solution. We're obviously trying appealing to those who want a managed solution, like wealth managers, but also give investors access to platforms they otherwise wouldn't be able to get access to because the minimum's are too high. The value you place on that is obviously a personal choice. No doubt we'll have plenty more fun on issues like this when we launch a SIPP offering in Q3 when you have an absurdly different bunch of tax regulations to deal with. Can you tell us anymore about the SIPP? Two things regarding SIPPs: - as the Chairman of TISA's Alternative Finance steering committee we are putting a strong technical argument to HMT, FCA, HMRC regarding the suitability of P2P and debt-based crowdfunding (ie bonds) as a standard asset and that it in fact satisfies other tax provisions (such as connected parties and taxable property) which will enable all SIPP platforms to find it easier to include P2P within their clients' SIPPs. This is important as this does not mean more single platform SIPPs (ie many platforms promote boutique SIPP providers where by investors can set up what are essentially single asset SIPPs to hold a single platforms loans in) but in fact we hope it will open up very large SIPP platforms that currently will only hold 'standard' assets (ie tradable stocks and funds) so that the masses and financial advisers can now hold P2P within a much larger portfolio at a very low cost. - secondly the Goji SIPP (the above not withstanding) is now getting a lot of interest, as has the SIPP from a similar investor focused platform, and so, to help Goji and our other whitelabel lending partners, we will be launching a relatively low cost SIPP offering later this year so that investors, and crucially for us financial advisers, can hold their Goji Bonds within a SIPP. If you would like to be kept in the loop regarding the SIPP can I please propose that you register your details on our website so that we can keep you updated? Please do let me know if you have any further questions. Many thanks
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on May 4, 2017 8:16:28 GMT
Can you tell us anymore about the SIPP? Two things regarding SIPPs: - as the Chairman of TISA's Alternative Finance steering committee we are putting a strong technical argument to HMT, FCA, HMRC regarding the suitability of P2P and debt-based crowdfunding (ie bonds) as a standard asset and that it in fact satisfies other tax provisions (such as connected parties and taxable property) which will enable all SIPP platforms to find it easier to include P2P within their clients' SIPPs. This is important as this does not mean more single platform SIPPs (ie many platforms promote boutique SIPP providers where by investors can set up what are essentially single asset SIPPs to hold a single platforms loans in) but in fact we hope it will open up very large SIPP platforms that currently will only hold 'standard' assets (ie tradable stocks and funds) so that the masses and financial advisers can now hold P2P within a much larger portfolio at a very low cost. - secondly the Goji SIPP (the above not withstanding) is now getting a lot of interest, as has the SIPP from a similar investor focused platform, and so, to help Goji and our other whitelabel lending partners, we will be launching a relatively low cost SIPP offering later this year so that investors, and crucially for us financial advisers, can hold their Goji Bonds within a SIPP. If you would like to be kept in the loop regarding the SIPP can I please propose that you register your details on our website so that we can keep you updated? Please do let me know if you have any further questions. Many thanks Good to hear and yes this would be of interest I would be interested to hear what are the arguments you are putting to HMRC and the regulators, as I have found other pension providers have shied away from P2P investments due to the potential tax implications and liability of hefty fines, potential classification as a pension liberation scheme and rather grey area of how P2P sits as an investment
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 8:50:54 GMT
If you would like to be kept in the loop regarding the SIPP can I please propose that you register your details on our website so that we can keep you updated? Please do let me know if you have any further questions. Many thanks could I ask you to notify us all (keep us in your loop) when IFISA transfers in become available? Do you have an approximate timescale when you expect this to be?
|
|
