SASS pension - why do I need a platform provider?
Discussion
Just wondering about SASS pensions.
Let's say I setup a SASS from someone like these guys.
https://ssaspractitioner.com/
From my understanding it would be effectively be a trust, with my wife and I as the trustees. We would be responsible for complying with HMRC pension rules. I realise we wouldn't get some of the FCA protections available in a personal pension.
I also realise many people who setup a SASS do so for some of the additional flexibility they offer in terms of company lending and property purchases.
But in terms of making an investment into for example index ETF's, why do I need to use a platform provider to act as an intermediary to make the investment on my behalf?
I realise for a SIPP/PP, it might be necessary due to the liability held by the platform provider. But in the case of the SASS mentioned above, those responsibilities would be with me as the trustee. So in that scenario, could I bypass the platform provider in order to obtain the lowest possible fees?
Let's say I setup a SASS from someone like these guys.
https://ssaspractitioner.com/
From my understanding it would be effectively be a trust, with my wife and I as the trustees. We would be responsible for complying with HMRC pension rules. I realise we wouldn't get some of the FCA protections available in a personal pension.
I also realise many people who setup a SASS do so for some of the additional flexibility they offer in terms of company lending and property purchases.
But in terms of making an investment into for example index ETF's, why do I need to use a platform provider to act as an intermediary to make the investment on my behalf?
I realise for a SIPP/PP, it might be necessary due to the liability held by the platform provider. But in the case of the SASS mentioned above, those responsibilities would be with me as the trustee. So in that scenario, could I bypass the platform provider in order to obtain the lowest possible fees?
You don’t. Although I don’t have a view about any of the parties involved, I’m aware of many circumstances where the ‘process’ is superficially legit, but where there are so many bottom-feeding blood-suckers in the food chain, the net result is the same as a obscenely high dodgy investment anyway.
Many of the more, shall we say, ‘exciting and imaginative’ SIPP providers are being squeezed out of the sector. So SSAS is the new black. Be very, very careful. I would ask why you need a SSAS in the first place. If Index ETF is what you’re after, there are many simpler, ‘safer’ and more transparent and cheaper ways of achieving the objective.
The individuals involved with that website have no pedigree or involvement with financial services (some would argue that’s a positive) *that I can immediately see*. In itself no bad thing automatically. Just be incredibly careful.
Many of the more, shall we say, ‘exciting and imaginative’ SIPP providers are being squeezed out of the sector. So SSAS is the new black. Be very, very careful. I would ask why you need a SSAS in the first place. If Index ETF is what you’re after, there are many simpler, ‘safer’ and more transparent and cheaper ways of achieving the objective.
The individuals involved with that website have no pedigree or involvement with financial services (some would argue that’s a positive) *that I can immediately see*. In itself no bad thing automatically. Just be incredibly careful.
Ginge R said:
You don’t. Although I don’t have a view about any of the parties involved, I’m aware of many circumstances where the ‘process’ is superficially legit, but where there are so many bottom-feeding blood-suckers in the food chain, the net result is the same as a obscenely high dodgy investment anyway.
Many of the more, shall we say, ‘exciting and imaginative’ SIPP providers are being squeezed out of the sector. So SSAS is the new black. Be very, very careful. I would ask why you need a SSAS in the first place. If Index ETF is what you’re after, there are many simpler, ‘safer’ and more transparent and cheaper ways of achieving the objective.
The individuals involved with that website have no pedigree or involvement with financial services (some would argue that’s a positive) *that I can immediately see*. In itself no bad thing automatically. Just be incredibly careful.
Interesting - thanks GingeR. Many of the more, shall we say, ‘exciting and imaginative’ SIPP providers are being squeezed out of the sector. So SSAS is the new black. Be very, very careful. I would ask why you need a SSAS in the first place. If Index ETF is what you’re after, there are many simpler, ‘safer’ and more transparent and cheaper ways of achieving the objective.
The individuals involved with that website have no pedigree or involvement with financial services (some would argue that’s a positive) *that I can immediately see*. In itself no bad thing automatically. Just be incredibly careful.
The reason I initially looked at SASS pensions was they allowed a 'General Unallocated Fund' so you could exceed individual pension limits in one year (paid by a company) whilst still getting corporation tax relief as well as also still getting the benefit from any growth. The money would then just be moved from the unallocated portion of the fund using future annual allowance limits.
Effectively it allowed more money to be paid into a pension earlier circumventing the annual limits, even though it doesn't change the total amount which can be paid in.
But in practise in seems to make an actual investment from the SASS into a fund I would need to use a platform provider rather than being able to purchase them directly from the SASS.
This is an example of a number of documents which says it is possible with a SASS.
http://ssasco.co.uk/sme/wp-content/uploads/2014/11...
http://ssasco.co.uk/sme/wp-content/uploads/2014/11...
I’ll preface this with a caveat. I am not a SSAS practitioner - my clients have never needed them, and I have never had cause to reccomend one. But I am intimately familiar with how they can evolve, and the pitfalls and characteristics.
My first point is to take as much genuinely good, high quality specialist advice as you can stomach. I have no skin in this game, but this much I know - whatever you pay for in good face to face advice might well pale into insignificance when you start to realise or be faced with the consequences of a facet that you weren’t familiar with, or were left with the responsibility for. They are more expensive and in a product inherrant risk way, they do carry nuance that you need to be aware of.
In terms of the specifics, I’d agree with PM, but that doesn’t seem to be the extent of the issue. If you chuck 500k into that unallocated fund, I’d be soooooo wary of how it’s invested. I know investors who have been stung with annual costs and charges of c5%. Many ‘EXCITING AND INNOVATIVE!’ products might hit you with an initial cost.. your 500k is the baby gazelle and they’re the lions. If you didn’t end up paying at the very least, £25k in year one, you’d be very lucky and I’d be very amazed.
Secondly, are you on a wind down? Can you warrant the beefy contributions in the years ahead? I’m not saying SSAS are bad, I’m just saying bad SSAS are bad, and there is a proliferation of incredibly dodgy operators out there who skirt around the edges, looking for prey. Seriously, take properly authorised and regulated advice that you trust. Take your time on this one, don’t be shy of spending a few grand on decent financial and accounting advice. It’s going to be priceless.
My immediate concern would be the cost of ‘advice’, implementation and ongoing operation in the GAU, and the layers of folk taking a slice of the action, and that’s aside from the SSAS costs. Take regulated advice.
My first point is to take as much genuinely good, high quality specialist advice as you can stomach. I have no skin in this game, but this much I know - whatever you pay for in good face to face advice might well pale into insignificance when you start to realise or be faced with the consequences of a facet that you weren’t familiar with, or were left with the responsibility for. They are more expensive and in a product inherrant risk way, they do carry nuance that you need to be aware of.
In terms of the specifics, I’d agree with PM, but that doesn’t seem to be the extent of the issue. If you chuck 500k into that unallocated fund, I’d be soooooo wary of how it’s invested. I know investors who have been stung with annual costs and charges of c5%. Many ‘EXCITING AND INNOVATIVE!’ products might hit you with an initial cost.. your 500k is the baby gazelle and they’re the lions. If you didn’t end up paying at the very least, £25k in year one, you’d be very lucky and I’d be very amazed.
Secondly, are you on a wind down? Can you warrant the beefy contributions in the years ahead? I’m not saying SSAS are bad, I’m just saying bad SSAS are bad, and there is a proliferation of incredibly dodgy operators out there who skirt around the edges, looking for prey. Seriously, take properly authorised and regulated advice that you trust. Take your time on this one, don’t be shy of spending a few grand on decent financial and accounting advice. It’s going to be priceless.
My immediate concern would be the cost of ‘advice’, implementation and ongoing operation in the GAU, and the layers of folk taking a slice of the action, and that’s aside from the SSAS costs. Take regulated advice.
The unallocated/genreal fund isn't an issue, any decent SSAS will facilitate that, and I can't see why the investment of it would incur any additional charges.
It's the CT that would worry me the most.
A SSAS can have members other than those employed by the contributing employer. Once in the general fund it would usually be the trustees' discretion to allocate it to the members fund.
How can the employer argue 'wholly and exclusively' when they have no idea or control who will benefit from the contribution?
It's the CT that would worry me the most.
A SSAS can have members other than those employed by the contributing employer. Once in the general fund it would usually be the trustees' discretion to allocate it to the members fund.
How can the employer argue 'wholly and exclusively' when they have no idea or control who will benefit from the contribution?
PurpleMoonlight said:
The unallocated/genreal fund isn't an issue, any decent SSAS will facilitate that, and I can't see why the investment of it would incur any additional charges.
It's the CT that would worry me the most.
A SSAS can have members other than those employed by the contributing employer. Once in the general fund it would usually be the trustees' discretion to allocate it to the members fund.
How can the employer argue 'wholly and exclusively' when they have no idea or control who will benefit from the contribution?
Agree with your final points. Also, posthumous allocations. An uncrystallised funds lump sum death benefit is defined as “such uncrystallised sums and assets held for the purposes of the arrangement at the members death”. It seems that any allocation must take place whilst a member is still alive if utilising the fund to pay an uncrystallised lump sum death benefit. It's the CT that would worry me the most.
A SSAS can have members other than those employed by the contributing employer. Once in the general fund it would usually be the trustees' discretion to allocate it to the members fund.
How can the employer argue 'wholly and exclusively' when they have no idea or control who will benefit from the contribution?
I’ve seen too many instances this past year of charges hammering allocated/unallocated funds. To this day, one lady I know, who invested into Cape Verde via her SSAS, remains resolute that funds did not draw any charges for the three years that her flat was being built. I estimated (fag packet calc) that her annual costs and charges were c6%.
Surprise surprise, it was a ‘standard’ fund domiciled in Ireland.
https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/n...
I think it is a massive understatement to say you have overstepped the line this time Al.
Despite saying:
Good luck wriggling out of this one...
I won't even bother to quote from your further posts on this thread where you recommend the OP takes regulated advice (from someone such as yourself, perchance?) for which the cost of will be "priceless" (try telling that to the countless people who have been ripped of after taking regulated financial advice).
I shall, however, mention your post regarding what you claim to be a "Standard" fund. This was actually a UCIS and therefore automatically a Non-Standard fund. If you don't know the difference between the two then perhaps you shouldn't be vocalising about them (let alone advising on them).
Despite saying:
Ginge R said:
Although I don’t have a view about any of the parties involved
You then go on to express your views...Ginge R said:
The individuals involved with that website have no pedigree or involvement with financial services... that I can immediately see... Just be incredibly careful.
Thereby using PistonHeads to publicly make libellous comments about a company running over £200m of asset that has independent five star Defaqto and Moneyfacts ratings (as shown on its home page), whilst adding to this earlier in the same post by stating:Ginge R said:
I’m aware of many circumstances where the ‘process’ is superficially legit, but where there are so many bottom-feeding blood-suckers in the food chain, the net result is the same as a obscenely high dodgy investment anyway.
So, a company director opening such a company pension scheme with this firm (as is not only categorically implied, but stated by you) would up with a net result that is "the same as a obscenely high dodgy investment" due to "bottom-feeding blood-suckers" and a process that is only "superficially legit"?Good luck wriggling out of this one...
I won't even bother to quote from your further posts on this thread where you recommend the OP takes regulated advice (from someone such as yourself, perchance?) for which the cost of will be "priceless" (try telling that to the countless people who have been ripped of after taking regulated financial advice).
I shall, however, mention your post regarding what you claim to be a "Standard" fund. This was actually a UCIS and therefore automatically a Non-Standard fund. If you don't know the difference between the two then perhaps you shouldn't be vocalising about them (let alone advising on them).
With regard to the company I linked to, I spent an hour on the phone with them today to get an understanding of the basics. As far as I could tell, they seemed competent and highly knowledgeable.
It might be worth GingeR editing his direct criticism of them, to save the thread being deleted.
What I quite liked about their SASS is they were just selling the wrapper. They didn't include themselves as trustees, nor did they have access to the SASS bank account.
If I wanted to continue the low cost logic though, the problem seems to be when the SASS wanted to be buy a standard investment. It seems hard to "go direct" to a provider. The market seems setup to work via intermediary platform providers.
As I mentioned earlier, I am sure that platforms have an important role to play in terms of regulation and compliance in terms of personal pensions. But with regards to a SASS most of this wouldn't be applicable. So I am wondering if it is possible to "go direct", but I just don't yet know the right providers to ask?
It might be worth GingeR editing his direct criticism of them, to save the thread being deleted.
What I quite liked about their SASS is they were just selling the wrapper. They didn't include themselves as trustees, nor did they have access to the SASS bank account.
If I wanted to continue the low cost logic though, the problem seems to be when the SASS wanted to be buy a standard investment. It seems hard to "go direct" to a provider. The market seems setup to work via intermediary platform providers.
As I mentioned earlier, I am sure that platforms have an important role to play in terms of regulation and compliance in terms of personal pensions. But with regards to a SASS most of this wouldn't be applicable. So I am wondering if it is possible to "go direct", but I just don't yet know the right providers to ask?
JulianPH said:
I think it is a massive understatement to say you have overstepped the line this time Al.
Despite saying:
Good luck wriggling out of this one...
I won't even bother to quote from your further posts on this thread where you recommend the OP takes regulated advice (from someone such as yourself, perchance?) for which the cost of will be "priceless" (try telling that to the countless people who have been ripped of after taking regulated financial advice).
I shall, however, mention your post regarding what you claim to be a "Standard" fund. This was actually a UCIS and therefore automatically a Non-Standard fund. If you don't know the difference between the two then perhaps you shouldn't be vocalising about them (let alone advising on them).
You missed a few key parts out. “The individuals involved with that website have no pedigree or involvement with financial services (some would argue that’s a positive) *that I can immediately see*. In itself no bad thing automatically. Just be incredibly careful.” I would say that to anyone about anyone embarking on a SSAS endeavour. I was objective, balanced and accurate. When you’ve been on the receipt of as many solicitor’s letters as I have, this year, alleging all manner of defamation, you tend to know when you’re on solid ground. I’m referring to Hughes Vs Royal London of course. Despite saying:
Ginge R said:
Although I don’t have a view about any of the parties involved
You then go on to express your views...Ginge R said:
The individuals involved with that website have no pedigree or involvement with financial services... that I can immediately see... Just be incredibly careful.
Thereby using PistonHeads to publicly make libellous comments about a company running over £200m of asset that has independent five star Defaqto and Moneyfacts ratings (as shown on its home page), whilst adding to this earlier in the same post by stating:Ginge R said:
I’m aware of many circumstances where the ‘process’ is superficially legit, but where there are so many bottom-feeding blood-suckers in the food chain, the net result is the same as a obscenely high dodgy investment anyway.
So, a company director opening such a company pension scheme with this firm (as is not only categorically implied, but stated by you) would up with a net result that is "the same as a obscenely high dodgy investment" due to "bottom-feeding blood-suckers" and a process that is only "superficially legit"?Good luck wriggling out of this one...
I won't even bother to quote from your further posts on this thread where you recommend the OP takes regulated advice (from someone such as yourself, perchance?) for which the cost of will be "priceless" (try telling that to the countless people who have been ripped of after taking regulated financial advice).
I shall, however, mention your post regarding what you claim to be a "Standard" fund. This was actually a UCIS and therefore automatically a Non-Standard fund. If you don't know the difference between the two then perhaps you shouldn't be vocalising about them (let alone advising on them).
Their assets under management is immaterial, as is their Defacto rating. But, an unregulated firm ‘running’ over £200m of assets? Are you sure? To use their own words.. “we strongly suggest that you seek advice before you establish a SSAS with us, transfer any existing pensions or make any investments”.
If I’m referring to bottom feeders along the food chain, I can’t be referring to that company. If a SSAS is, by its definition, self indulged, and if that company only charges a set fee, for the life of me, I can’t see how you think there’s a connection between my words and that company. Surely it’s up to the individual to check the investment, not the unregulated SSAS establisher?
I declared myself out at outset ‘I have no skin in the game’. But you’re right. There are far too many shysters and villains in this game - you’re not one of them, this much I do know. You’re a legend, mate, and I doff my cap to you.
Finally, the funds in question were UCITS, I don’t understand your point. The issue was/is "approximately 10% of the sample of UCITS sub-funds, instances of non-compliance with the guidance". The Irish regulator wrote to some Dublin based UCITS, advising them of the potential snag.
It seems to have identified cases where performance fees were calculated based on Gross Asset Value contrary to the Guidance to pay UCITS performance fees based on Net Asset Value (“NAV”). UCITS performance fees must only be calculated based on NAV, of course, as I’m sure you’ll know. I imagine you would have written to anyone invested in an Irish UCITS, and to the UCITS itself, to see if this applied to them, and that’s hugely to your credit.
Notwithstanding that, the issue pertained to a Cape Verde racket, as clearly mentioned. Not the company I mentioned. You can of course, confirm your point by writing to :
themedinspections@centralbank.ie. You’re a cracking lad, and we’ve always got on well. It lowers my mood to see you like this. Take it easy old friend, and let’s try not to ruin any more threads with what must look like the most unedifying of behaviour.
EddieSteadyGo said:
It might be worth GingeR editing his direct criticism of them, to save the thread being deleted.
I didn’t criticise them. I stated some objective facts - you’re coming on to an automotive website asking for help about investing half a million quid into an unregulated wrapper and I advised you to be very careful. I advised you to take regulated advice. SSAS complaints fall to the Pension Ombudsman as SSASs are not regulated by the FCA and both the FCA and Pension Regulator are concerned that SSASs are a weaker/more obvious target for frauds. If you go down that route, I’m not saying you’ll be destitute - I’m saying be careful. I wish you well. Ginge R said:
I didn’t criticise them. I stated some objective facts - you’re coming on to an automotive website asking for help about investing half a million quid into an unregulated wrapper and I advised you to be very careful. I advised you to take regulated advice. SSAS complaints fall to the Pension Ombudsman as SSASs are not regulated by the FCA and both the FCA and Pension Regulator are concerned that SSASs are a weaker/more obvious target for frauds. If you go down that route, I’m not saying you’ll be destitute - I’m saying be careful. I wish you well.
Fair enough GingeR. I'm not looking for an argument Sounds like I need to do a bit more legwork!
EddieSteadyGo said:
Fair enough GingeR. I'm not looking for an argument
Sounds like I need to do a bit more legwork!
Sorry mate, I didn’t mean to be punchy. Call TPAS, it’s an excellent free service. It might be that a SSAS with those guys is perfect for you, I’m just wary of folk jumping in. I have spent the past 12 months extricating savers from really bad pensions though, and I’m probably a little more frayed and weary than most. Sounds like I need to do a bit more legwork!
Apologies if I was punchy, once more.
https://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk
Ginge R said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
Fair enough GingeR. I'm not looking for an argument
Sounds like I need to do a bit more legwork!
Sorry mate, I didn’t mean to be punchy. Call TPAS, it’s an excellent free service. It might be that a SSAS with those guys is perfect for you, I’m just wary of folk jumping in. I have spent the past 12 months extricating savers from really bad pensions though, and I’m probably a little more frayed and weary than most. Sounds like I need to do a bit more legwork!
Apologies if I was punchy, once more.
https://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk
I'm afraid it's in my nature to dig into things - and I quite like learning new things. But if I sound a little gun-ho, it isn't the case. I'm quite cautious before I actually spend proper money
That SSAS provider does not have any funds under management. They just provide a third party SSAS administration service. They are not authorised to provide financial advice. I would be amazed if they had over 1000 clients. The business works out of a residential home and in my opinion they would need a lot more than the staff stated on their website to manage that number properly.
I am not aware of any adverse reports on them.
I am not aware of any adverse reports on them.
JulianPH said:
Thereby using PistonHeads to publicly make libellous comments about a company running over £200m of asset that has independent five star Defaqto and Moneyfacts ratings (as shown on its home page), whilst adding to this earlier in the same post by stating:
I think I would take those star rating with the proverbial pinch.James Hay have five stars and in my experience it takes them six weeks to respond to an email!
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Wednesday 12th September 02:48
Maybe I shouldn't have linked to a particular provider, as I'm not at this stage worried if 'SSAS Practitioner.com' is the best company to use to create a SSAS.
I believe there are several companies I could use, some of whom are very well known. Some cost a bit more than others, but most seem to be the same ball-park.
Originally I was interested in SSAS because of the unallocated fund option. I appreciate the point made above regarding the need to verify with my accountant that any money contributed can still qualify for corp tax relief.
I believe there are several companies I could use, some of whom are very well known. Some cost a bit more than others, but most seem to be the same ball-park.
Originally I was interested in SSAS because of the unallocated fund option. I appreciate the point made above regarding the need to verify with my accountant that any money contributed can still qualify for corp tax relief.
As a warning, it's currently taking HMRC upwards of six months now to Register a new SSAS. You cannot make any contributions to it until it is.
I am seriously wondering if they have unofficially stopped doing so altogether, as nothing appears to have happened there for almost two months.
I am seriously wondering if they have unofficially stopped doing so altogether, as nothing appears to have happened there for almost two months.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff