Subscribe
Call Us: 01902 863494

Archive for the ‘Protection’ Category

Equality for women…but will they pay the price for it ?

Equality for women...but will they pay the price for it ?

Last March the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that insurance  companies could no longer differentiate between male and female when calculating annuity rates and insurance  premiums.

We first commented on this in  No Sex Please We’re European !!  where within we also provided a link to a summary of the judgement .

The ruling comes into effect on the 21st December 2012 and in the run up to implementation we will be looking at how it will impact on different aspects of financial planning ~ firstly we will look at protection and in particular the impact upon females.

Women’s longer lifespans mean they currently pay less for life assurance than men, but this will change from the 21st December as the EU’s gender directive means that insurance companies won’t be able to charge men and women different amounts based on gender.

The reality at present is that women do tend to devalue what they are worth by placing a much lower monetary value on their lives compared to men ~ yet ~

More women nowadays run their own businesses or are in highly paid employment and as a result are the main breadwinner, moreover many women manage a home and look after a family whilst relying on just their own income.

Lest not forget also, the real value of all those women who work full time maintaining the family home whilst their partner generates the household income.

We have witnessed considerable social change over recent years, but the general reluctance of women to protect themselves and their families seems not to have kept pace and is rather worrying.

Back in December 2011, HM Treasury suggested that the consequences for women could be that they will be paying up to 15% more for their life assurance protection as a result of the EU directive…

Ironically, maybe this might be the call to action needed to encourage a review, to plan and protect what’s most important in their lives ?

 

 

 

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read more

Post Divorce Family Protection

Post Divorce Family Protection

Rarely it is the case that parents are financially better off after divorce and thus family protection needs after divorce are often more important than whilst married ~ should the payer of maintenance become too ill to work, how will they cope financially being faced with possibly providing for two families ~ something may just have to give !

Family lawyers tend not to highlight the importance of protection post-divorce and even where it is considered by divorcing parents, it is often decided against, being seen as an additional and unnecessary expense at a time when finances generally are stretched.

The reality, however, is that protection need not be expensive.

One of the cheapest forms of life assurance is the Family Income Benefit plan. These are ideal where a predefined term is required e.g. a child’s 18th birthday with a set amount of monthly income ~ the amount of maintenance ~ being the sum that needs to be insured.

Family Income Benefit plans will provide a basic income, yet there are many other forms of protection that can be bundled together to provide financial protection after divorce.

Protection against illness and accidents is perhaps more important as either event could cause financial hardship and statistically, the risk of being off work due to illness or accident is much greater than death before retirement age.

It is also worth considering whether any non-earning parents are insured against death or illness. If the parent who stays at home to look after the children could no longer do so due to death or illness, this could have significant financial implications for the working former spouse.

Even where the divorce has been finalised and maintenance payments have been agreed and in place, it is possible to take out life cover on your ex-spouse retrospectively to protect such payments, the key being that there has to be insurable interest and a financial interest.

All in all the options and choices are wide and varied ~ the starting point is to raise family protection post-divorce as a conversation piece and to work with an appropriately qualified financial planner  on a case by case basis.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read more

No Sex Please We’re European !!

No Sex Please We're European !!

Yesterday the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that insurance  companies can no longer take  into account someone’s sex when calculating annuity rates and insurance  premiums.

The big headlines in the media have largely revolved around car insurance and the impact upon young drivers. Certainly, we will see big changes here with younger females being the group to be hardest hit. But, the long term implications for personal financial planning will be far more widespread with particular impact upon pension planning and life assurance, critical illness and medical insurance.

Pensions:

As things stand, on a like for like basis, men can buy and secure a higher income at retirement than women, because their expected longevity is lower, so their pension savings can produce more income over a shorter period.

But when gender is no longer taken into account, and unisex rates are applied this will be bad news for men, and equally for women who rely upon their partners pension fund for the major proportion of household income in retirement – which remains the case for the majority.

Where a man looks to purchase an annuity – a guaranteed income for life – with his pension fund, predictions indicate a drop in annuity income of somewhere around 5%, logically, putting them closer to the current female rates. Based on current annuity rates, that would suggest a 65-year-old man, who is a non smoker and in good health, with a £100,000 pension fund being worse of by approximately £325 per annum, or £8125 if he were to live to the age of 90.

Now we have this ruling, the Government Actuary Department (GAD) can move ahead and review the rates that determine the level of income an individual can drawdown from their pension fund, should they decide an annuity is not for them. The maximum income that can be taken when in pension drawdown is set to fall anyway with this ruling adding to the drop expected.

Life Assurance:

Gender is an important factor in setting premiums for life assurance – and also critical illness and medical insurance – with premiums, all other things being equal, being cheaper for females than males. So, protection premiums for females are going to rise and  they will fall for men, with the Association of British Insurers predicting a 20% rise for women and a 10% fall for men.

I’ve seen comments like “bonkers” “madness” and “seismic” used to express feelings about this ruling and yes it does seem to defy the law of common sense, but moreover, where is it leading and where will it end. If insurers and annuity providers cannot differentiate on the grounds of sex, how long will it be before there is a prohibition on using age to set annuity income or life assurance premiums, will a smoker be able to secure the same terms as non smoker or will someone with limited life expectancy be able to get protection on the same terms as a fit and healthy individual…

The fact is we are seeing yet more change and it will prove even more crucial for people to shop around and find the best solution for them and their particular situation.

The prohibition is effective from the 21st December 2012. Here is a handy summary of the judgement should you wish to read it.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read more

Are your savings at risk ?

If you have an account with a bank or building society and it becomes insolvent do you know if you will be covered under the terms of the financial services compensation scheme (fscs) ?

The fscs covers banks and building societies that are authorised by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The FSA regularly update the list of authorised firms and the most recent can be found here. If a bank you have an account with is not on the list it may be because it falls under a group authorisation.

The fscs will pay compensation up to a limit of £85000 for sole accounts and up to £170000 for a joint account. This is generally well known by savers, but what can catch savers out, however, is that these limits apply to all accounts held with institutions who operate under the same banking licence.

For example, Bank of Scotland, Halifax, Birmingham Midshires, Intelligent Finance, SAGA and The AA all operate under the same banking licence, as do Nationwide, Derbyshire, Dunfermline & Cheshire Building Societies.

You can find out if the institutions you have your savings with are considered part of the same bank for compensation purposes here

 

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read more

Great news for business owners, not so good for the taxman

Great news for business owners, not so good for the taxman

Are you a company director?

Do you have life insurance in place to protect your family?

If so you could be paying an unnecessary tax penalty. If you pay for this cover from your own bank account you will be paying from after tax income, and if you are paying from the business account you will probably be taxed on the payment as if it were income.

Recent changes in legislation now allow small companies to benefit from an arrangement that only used to be available to large companies.  They can do this by taking out ‘relevant life policies’.  These policies are particularly suitable for small businesses that do not have enough eligible employees to warrant a group life scheme. They can be written on an individual basis so are available to all companies no matter how small.

The tax benefits are:

  • Payments are made by the company with no benefit-in-kind charge back
  • No National Insurance implications
  • Possible tax relief as a business expense
  • Tax-free benefits to dependants in the event of a claim

Additionally, these policies can be particularly appealing to high-earning employees who have substantial pension funds and do not want their death in service benefits to form part of their lifetime allowance.

A “relevant life policy” is defined in subsection 393B(4) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003.

So for anyone who can get the premium paid for by the Company (i.e. owner/directors) there is a possible and significant saving.

The only small problem is that only a couple of life companies offer policies through this legislation. However, these are companies with generally competitive premiums so the cost saving can still be there and significant.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
Read more

Latest Articles