Chess and Pension Fraud - allegation

[Roger de Coverly]

What has caused this to be headline news? It all seems to have been some while ago, before even Gary Quillan's involvement with sponsorship for the British Championship. The Companies named, Imperium etc already appear to have been liquidated.

Perhaps I should have more respect, but I would not have seen Simon Williams as a financial mastermind and expert at playing winning games aimed at thwarting pension legislation. He says so himself, about being unaware of the age 55 rules on releasing funds held as pensions.

[JustinHorton]

What has caused this to be headline news?

Do you mean the wider issue, or why Quillan/Williams was settled on as a case study?

[Matt Bridgeman]

.

[Roger de Coverly]

Do you mean the wider issue, or why Quillan/Williams was settled on as a case study?

Both really.

Whilst searching for "interesting" material, Google seemed to like showing me this sponsored content.

https://windsormanor.co.uk

Their "get out of jail" on advice is

In accordance with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Windsor Manor, do not provide any financial advice. We are lead generators and will introduce you to pension experts. We always advise that you take independent advice.

It's a bit of an irony that it's "The Times" doing the investigation. If you wanted to investigate a chess Grandmaster for dubious financial activity, there is another target.

[JustinHorton]

Do you mean the wider issue, or why Quillan/Williams was settled on as a case study?

Both really.

Well they seem to have been running an investigation for a while into the (predictable) consequences of the 2015 pension changes, and they reached the point where rhey were ready to publish. There's in fact several different case studies in the investigation, Williams/Quillan being just one of them.

[Roger Lancaster]

Well they seem to have been running an investigation for a while into the (predictable) consequences of the 2015 pension changes, and they reached the point where rhey were ready to publish. There's in fact several different case studies in the investigation, Williams/Quillan being just one of them.

For most people, who utilised the greater freedom conferred by George Osborne's pension changes wisely, these changes were entirely beneficial - I can say this from personal experience. Unfortunately, the greater freedom also extended to the financially illiterate - some of whom were preyed upon by so-called professionals with outcomes that have been well-publicised. There's an old adage that a fool and his money are soon parted and, unfortunately, there's no lack of third parties prepared to assist in this process.

[Matt Bridgeman]

.

[JustinHorton]

Well they seem to have been running an investigation for a while into the (predictable) consequences of the 2015 pension changes, and they reached the point where rhey were ready to publish. There's in fact several different case studies in the investigation, Williams/Quillan being just one of them.

For most people, who utilised the greater freedom conferred by George Osborne's pension changes wisely, these changes were entirely beneficial

For them, maybe.

[John McKenna]

"For most people, who utilised the greater freedom conferred by George Osborne's pension changes wisely, these changes were entirely beneficial - I can say this from personal experience."

Unfortunately, for future tax payers, Roger L's "personal experience" that "the changes were entirely beneficial" may not stand the test of time.

In Australia such changes resulted not only in fools and their money being parted by scammers but also other slightly cleverer fools frittering their liberated pension funds away years (that should have been covered by their pension funds) before their deaths and then having to resort to falling back on state support at the taxpayers' expense.

The same may well begin to happen in the UK in the not too distant future.

So much for the changes being "entirely beneficial."

A couple of reasons why the stories alluded to above might be hitting the headlines now - in the final Tory leadership election hustings Jeremy Hunt was asked what he would do about HMRC's back taxing salary loan schemes that (like the, above, liberated pension loan scheme) were sold to the beneficiaries as being tax-free. Also, Rausis being rumbled seems to have shone a media spotlight on the general public's traditional image of the devious scheming chess player.

[JustinHorton]

Also, Rausis being rumbled seems to have shone a media spotlight on the general public's traditional image of the devious scheming chess player.

I'd doubt the research for the piece began late enough for that to be of any influence, though.

(One other potential consequence of the changes I recall being discussed at the time was that if lots of people take their money out of schemes, the benfits fo those who remain may be reduced, thereby providing an incentive torisky or reckless conduct and a disincentive to prudence. You'd think we'd had enough warning by now where this kind of thing may lead, but it would appear not.)

[Roger Lancaster]

Unfortunately, for future tax payers, Roger L's "personal experience" that "the changes were entirely beneficial" may not stand the test of time.

True but who can predict the future? It's all rather detached from chess, so I'll be brief, but one longstanding criticism of the pre-Osborne situation was that it obliged everyone to use 75% or thereabouts of their pension fund to buy an annuity. This wasn't universally beneficial either.

[And I would point out that the reference to "the changes were entirely beneficial" omits my words "for most people"].

[John McKenna]

You may well be right, Justin, about the media timeline in respect of the Rausis revelations but they now dovetail nicely in to the story.

And, to Roger L, I'd say - the freewheeling-market antidote to Gordon B's labourious fiscal prudence was George O's financial liberation

Although annuities may have been becoming no longer entirely fit for purpose Osborne's pension liberation was not the right answer to the problem.

[John McKenna]

Most people are not beneficiaries of pension liberation. Most people are taxpayers.

[Mick Norris]

Unfortunately, for future tax payers, Roger L's "personal experience" that "the changes were entirely beneficial" may not stand the test of time.

True but who can predict the future? It's all rather detached from chess, so I'll be brief, but one longstanding criticism of the pre-Osborne situation was that it obliged everyone to use 75% or thereabouts of their pension fund to buy an annuity. This wasn't universally beneficial either.

That's bo**ocks though, annuities ceased to be compulsory in 1996

[Roger Lancaster]

That's bo**ocks though, annuities ceased to be compulsory in 1996

Sorry, memory faulty, although it doesn't alter my point that previous pensions regimes had drawbacks too. Situation immediately prior to Osborne reforms was that annuities could be avoided through income drawdowns which, again, weren't the ideal solution for everyone.