John Bercow now backing wto
You must be pissed off that the Tory leadership are preparing to hand over all our trade decisions to unelected European bureaucrats in the WTO in Geneva?
Time is running out for remainers (who I feel sorry for you poor little things).
Tory leaders have realised the mood of the country has changed, yes even the remainer Hunt is ahead of the II remainers bubble and is now trying to re-connect with the country and attempt to convince the mass electorate he is on the button.
Don’t be so silly Swampie. The only people Hunt is trying to impress are the Tory party nutjobs. Where is your link to support you claim that Bercow is now supporting a WTO deal?
Google it Frog, I’m not your researcher.
Thing is, Farage has taught the disconnected mp’s not to carry on listening to the far left. They’ve cost us dearly and wasted time.
Every man and his dog knows we voted leave and be it right or be it wrong, it must be delivered or the skies implode kid.
So Swampy… you reckon the UK will be leaving EU on 31st Oct 2019?
Yes or No?
It’s not 100% in either direction, to many sore losers still cant eat humble pie.
OK. Yes, the Executor should setup asap a shardealing account with some broker.
For the paper certs you do have you can then convert to electronic form.
If there is a belief there are more shares owned where the paper cert has been lost then your new broker should provide a duplicate certificate… and the Executor will need to complete and return a Letter of Indemnity form for those.
Yes, I know, yet they keep throwing it back to the executors. Its very frustrating. It looks like I’m going to have to ring up, pretend to be an executor and demand they issue a new certificate.
I don’t actually want them to, I want them to issue an electronic holding for the correct amount and under one shareholder reference only - they’ve somehow come up with 2 references, even though the LLOY holding only ever came about from a single holding in TSB originally.
This is what makes me think they’ve messed up at their end. If so, we’ve paid 40% IHT on the value of the extra shares assigned to us, so god know where that will end up if they discover a problem eventually.
Anyway, the executors have already paid a load of cash getting all the other shares moved into their name. Now it looks like we’ll be paying again to get them transferred to another broker.
OR, sales are made by filling out forms to the registrars. I think that is another way to go, but again it looks like I’m going to have to speak with them directly.
My involvement is supposed to be advisory only, NOT actually dealing with all this, but the executors have told me they need me to do it and I don’t actually have any legal powers to deal with it.
Executors can take share certificates to the bank to sell them, which is what i think was in my father’s mind (it is how he always bought and very occasionally sold shares), but it is hard to get those sorts of services in bank branches anymore, and the one executor who has the certificates is at least 30 miles away from any bank branch that provides such a service - and from where I am at the moment.
Your claim that Bercow is supporting a WTO exit is obviously a lie otherwise you would have provided the evidence. Perhaps you have been fooled by “fake news”?
It is a lie. He’s been fed fake news and believed it.
FIAT - hi,
Seems he isn’t strictly ‘supporting no deal’, but reportedly (DT yesterday) , to have prevented Domenic Grieve’s amendment that would have restricted some departmental funding.
It would have stopped the country spending to prop-up the economy in the event of No Deal, and was designed to make No Deal less likely.
Bercow’s decision appears to have not allowed the amendment as in the event of No Deal, being unable to spend to prop up the economy will only make things worse and the extreme Breiteers have said they are quite happy to destroy the economy just so long as they leave the EU.
A very far cry from saying he supports No Deal - which we know he, and other sane people, do not.
I would not agree with your statement, it just depends how things are set up. My wife’s Aunt died in 2013 leaving a £1.7m share potfolio spread across a trading account and an ISA, with a total of 66 holdings. The two accounts were with Charles Stanley and were fully electronic, i.e. no share certificates to bother with.
There was no problem disposing of shares to settle the Estate, and once everything had been sorted from a probate point-of-view the residual portfolio was divided between the Beneficiaries, with each portion being transferred to a share trading account in each of their names. This occurred seamlessly.
In this case the death occurred in October 2013, probate granted in March 2014 and the transfer to the Beneficiaries happened in July 2014. The inability to do much with the holdings whilst they were in the deceased Estate was worrying, although we were fortunate that market conditions were favourable. It all comes down to luck.
The death occurred as a result of an accident, although the Aunt in question was over 80. Elderly people cannot and do not arrange their financial affairs on the off-chance they might die tomorrow. There is nothing wrong with holding a large portfolio, it just depends on how it is set up.
I do have to concede that in our case we had a very helpful, pro-active, Executor, who did what was agreed by the Beneficiaries efficiently, although I co-ordinated getting the relevant agreements for him. All main communications were made using email, with all the relevant documents being transferred electronically, since the Beneficiaries were spread across the Country. There was no need to have any direct face-to-face meetings with the Executor, and we did not actually meet with him once the Funeral and the physical division of the Chattels from the Aunt’s house had been distributed after Probate had been obtained.
Most financial advisors would say that as you get older you should have less in risky assets.
As you say you got lucky with the market. You might have paid IHT on £1.7m and then found the market crashed 20-30% quite feasibly. You then have beneficiaries who may not be qualified trying to decide whether they should open up broker accounts to have their shares transferred to them or to take the loss. (I believe there is a 3 year time limit on how long the executors can hold the stocks for - I could be wrong on that).
You were also lucky that the stocks were all held electronically and with one broker. I haven’t even managed to get the executors close to that state yet. In fact 10 months after probate we still don’t have all share certificates in hand, let alone be in a position to then transfer all to a broker.
So I stand by what I said, if anyone is getting older and holding stocks in the old paper format you’ll do your executors and beneficiaries a great favour if you at least ensure they are all held electronically.
You should also consider what portion of your estate you wish to remain in higher risk assets as you get older and the fact that they could drop in value AFTER IHT has been paid on them. If you do hold stocks you need to consider that there will be a longish period when no one can sell them, no matter what is happening in the market, until probate is granted.
But thats not Swampie said. He was lying if that was the source of his info. It was a very idiotic thing to say as it didn’t have a shred of credibility.
Now that I totally agree with. It does seem that in your case this is the main stumbling block.
The issue of the level of risk is subjective and personal, and this is totally different to holding a large and diverse Portfolio. In the current housng environment, holding a portfiolio of properties, rather than having the funds in shares, might be considered considerably more risky when considering what your Beneficiaries might get, although in the case of proprty one can obtain a refund of IHT if the property sells for less than the Probate value. The drop in value after the Probate values have been determined only means that the inheritance is smaller than expected, which is annoying, but not really a problem. One should be grateful that one gets anything at all, since it could have been the case that the person who died might have blown everything on loose women and fast cars, or in incoming administration might have decided that it was immoral to pass anything on to the next generation and imposed a 95% wealth tax!
In our case I monitored the Estate Portfolio, and made recommendations on what to dispose of and when (to realise funds to pay Estate expenses including IHT). These recommendations involved assessing the CGT implications and optimising the activities to take advantage of the Estate CGT allowance. The biggest headache was the dividend and interest income that was generated, and trying to get the relevant transfers/payments made in the “correct” tax year for each Beneficiary, since this income was only deemed to have been received by the Beneficiary when the distribution was made, not when the actual dividend or interest was paid.
I was in the fortunate position of being able to manipulate my wife’s other income to ensure that she was not pushed into a higher tax bracket when the distribution was made. I could only warn the other Beneficiaries of the extra income that had to be accounted for and that they should scrutinise their own tax affairs accordingly.
I should have made the extra statement, that in our case the dividend income was received under the old tax arrangements. The current separation of incomes into different categories and the very small allownace on dividends before an extra tax is payable makes the situation worse. The longer it takes to get a distribution made the larger the dividend income becomes, and there is no way to avoid this, so an extra tax bill is almost inevitable for the Beneficiary once the distribution is made.
This would be amplified if the person who died had arranged for the Portfolio to be highly income generative, and then amplified again if it took a long time to settle the Estate.
One lesson from all this is when selecting executors is to choose people with appropriate knowledge and experience for the tasks involved. There should be no need for elderly people to disinvest for so long as they are able to manage their investments. When that becomes too taxing then moving investments into investment or unit trusts should be reasonably safe (Woodford notwithstanding!) and allow the invested amount to keep growing.
Frog in a tree