Special Investment Accounts limits announced in Budget

It’s slow to wait for the generations to turn over but just think trying to teach a 50 year old who’s spent their whole life thinking investing = buying bank of Ireland shares and risk = bad is unlikely to bare much fruit.
I couldn't convince my mother to move her savings out of measly Irish deposit rates into something better on Raisin because it's too risky, so there's even less chance of her moving to this PIA.
 
but one should not be confused with the other.
Savings often means that regular payments are put away for use at some point in the future. Look at the SSIA for example, the second S stand for savings. The pillar banks all offer regular saver accounts, but their other products are called term deposits, instant access deposits, or some such, and never savings accounts.
 
Yes Corola, that’s it, I thought it was a savings scheme, until today. Now I know it’s an investment scheme. Nothing wrong with either, but one should not be confused with the other.

Yes, the usage and meaning of terms can sometimes be confusing.

I work in economics, where saving is the flow of unspent income.


Disposable income = consumption + savings

Savings are just any income left unspent

In economics, we say that savings become investment by flowing through financial markets / intermediares

So in economics, saving = investment (in a closed economy)

Investment is defined very specifically as expenditure on new capital stock, e.g factories, plant, equipment, etc.

If a nation saves €10bn, then the nation invests €10bn.

Households save the 10bn into banks, PO, CU, pensions, funds, etc., and those savings become investment expenditure by firms.




HOWEVER,
the general public think as follows:

saving = holding cash deposits in banks
investing = holding savings in any other financial asset
 
Heck Duke, I only looked at it properly today after I read this thread, there was a load of kite flying before the budget and I just assumed it was a savings scheme. It’s not. It’s an investment vehicle, of unknown returns, with risk, no guarantees, unknown costs and the only thing we actually know is you can out in 12k a year, and if you go above 50k your max tax is 1%% of the excess. Which makes it marvellous somehow.

Yes, correct.

I would use the phrase: a scheme to encourage people to move their savings out of bank deposits and into other financial assets

Unknown returns = yes, although we know that over the long-run, the S&P 500 has returned 10% to 10.5% since 1957
No guaranatees = correct, to get higher returns, one must accept some risk
With risk = yes
Unknown costs = hopefully DeGiro and other online platforms will offer these account with low costs
 
There is no tax on any holdings worth under €50,000.
When they say 'your 36k is worth double' I assume they mean that it doubled to 72k so in year 3 they would pay a tax of 220 euro. Then in year 4 their investments collapse and are worth only 20k. This is all correct and it is a downside of the account but @Bronte - I would say if that puts someone off then that is just how investing in more volatile assets like shares works. It should always be seen as a long term investment where the bad years will be more than made up for with the good years. Also, you can invest in funds that invest in lots of shares which should be less volatile.

It is actually part of the reason why I wish we had gone with and UK style ISA instead. I think if someone does end up paying tax in a year where they lost money it could put them off investing.
 
Investment is defined very specifically as expenditure on new capital stock, e.g factories, plant, equipment, etc.
And lots more such as employment and working capital to enable quoted and even private companies to grow or sustain them through down times. If more of the SIA nay saying politicians, so called financial experts and media commentators could comprehend the basics of this I'm sure they would be on the other side of the fence. I imagine the existing brokers and fund managers will resist, turkeys and christmas, they have their own reasons of course.
 
So in economics, saving = investment (in a closed economy)
Indeed and we are very much an open economy. The vast bulk of the savings generated by Simonsaver will be used to buy foreign assets off foreign investors on the second hand market. Might be good for the savers but bad macro economically
 
You are right though, "savings" should not have been used in the coverage about this scheme. Savings means zero-risk cash/deposits.
My background is Life Assurance. Savings meant relatively small regular premiums and Investment meant large single premiums but both were invested in the same “real” assets.
In this framework the PIA is a savings plan.
 
Last edited:
So is the money I transfer each month to my trading account not an investment?

These are accounts for the general public:
HOWEVER,
the general public think as follows:

saving = holding cash deposits in banks
investing = holding savings in any other financial asset
 
a nation saves €10bn, then the nation invests €10bn.

Households save the 10bn into banks, PO, CU, pensions, funds, etc., and those savings become investment expenditure by firms.
What about government borrowing, alot of those bank deposits end up as government bonds. Ive long suspected that the irish treasury have ulterior motives in maintaining high bank deposits. It creates a large reserve for them to borrow from at low interest rates. If banks were lending out more money for businesses or if depositers were investing more of their money rather than depositing it with banks then the interest rates that the government had to issue their bonds at would be higher.
 
Assuming you have maxed the tax free portion of this scheme, I think CGT wins for periods < 5 years and > 30 years for me.

Periods < 5 years: My main thinking here is this is too short a timeframe to be very confident of equity growth and also the 1% is too harsh for fixed interest assets. If equities drop or trade sideways, you still have to liquidate each year and pay the 1% tax. For example a 100k investment would end up at 95k in this scheme if the market remains level. But the main penalty is if you actually realise a large loss, you can't use this loss to offset any future gains. At least with cgt your loss is capped at 69% of the decrease because you will get credit for 31% of your loss in future.

Periods > 30 years: The 1% drag on returns is more costly than the CGT bill. Compounding is hella powerful at long return periods so you are actually better off just paying the 31% on exit.

But to be fair, all this comes after maxing your pension and hitting the 50k limit in this scheme. I personally am not sure yet whether I will take full advantage of the scheme for all my investments or leave it at 46k or so every year to tax harvest. If they get rid of deemed disposal I will give this more thought
 
I personally am not sure yet whether I will take full advantage of the scheme for all my investments or leave it at 46k or so every year to tax harvest.
I wonder if low cost providers will put a cap on the amount in the fund, so they don't have deal with tax.

They could implement a 40k or 45k max limit. You can't deposit into the account if it will lift it over 45k.

Has there been any indication on how the taxable amount will be calculated. There was some talk of taking the max for each quarter.

Balance = (Q1 + Q2 + Q3 + Q4) / 4
Taxable = Balance - 50k
Due: taxable * 1%

It could just be value at end of quarter or max value in each quarter.
 
Average daily NAV.
That is crazy. The whole point was to keep it simple.

That pretty much forces it to be calculated by the provider. Though I suppose they were doing that anyway.

They may be enough to push low cost platforms to not bother. Though I guess it's not that complex.

Though, summing up every day in the year for every customer is much more load on the system than just checking close of business for each quarter.
 
Back
Top