Category Archives: Finance

Get Approved for Tire Financing Even if you Have Bad Credit

Are looking for tire financing? Be sure you can find a solution to financing your tires even if you don’t have good credit scores. With bad credit, you may be required to pay higher rates and the rates will definitely go up if you miss a payment, but there are lenders who take into account things like your earning potential at work and your job history when making a decision to approve you or not for a loan.

So, poor credit can make it difficult for you to find a loan with a low interest rate or even a high interest rate. One of the options to try is to ask someone to co-sign on your loan. Lenders are more likely to give their approval to those who have someone with good credit to help out. If you have bad credit, you’ll see interest rates ranging from about 30-80%. There are some lenders that require even higher interest rates.

Another option is to use property as collateral if you have bad credit. This is also a way to improve your chances of getting a loan. Remember that if you fail to make your payments and have a co-signer, the latter person must be on the hook for paying back the money to the lender.

The most important thing to remember is that little or no credit or even bad credit doesn’t mean you have no chances of getting tire financing. All you need is just to look in a few more places before getting the best for your business needs.

Consider turning to a reputable business loan provider and award-winning high risk processor like First American Merchant for tire financing. Bad credit isn’t a problem for FAM. First American Merchant boasts an A+ rating with the BBB and offers exceptional business funding opportunities to merchants of any type. With FAM, you won’t be required to provide lots of paperwork and you’ll get approved without major difficulties.

The higher your credit score, the lower your interest payments and the more chances you have to get approved for larger amounts for a loan. Average or low credit means your interest rate will be higher and the amount of the loan will be for less money upfront. Proving yourself to a lender will increase your chances of enjoying a better rate on future purchases or lower your rates for the terms of the loan. With First American Merchant, you can get the best rates and terms in the industry.

Put money into your bond

Q: I have R100 000 in a unit trust. At the same time I have an outstanding bond. Would it be better to remove the funds from the Investment and offset part of the home loan?

Advisors are frequently asked this question. This often has more to do with personal risk preference than with economic rationality. To answer this question, however, certain assumptions must be made, and I specifically won’t look at tax to keep the answer succinct.

The rational answer

Let us assume that the interest rate on the bond is at the prime lending rate. That is currently 10.50%

The second assumption we need to make is about what the risk level of the unit trust in question is. A money market unit trust has a very different risk and associated return goal than an equity unit trust.

A low-risk money market or income fund aims to beat inflation and offer a real return of 1% per annum. Thus, if the R100 000 is in an income unit trust only yielding 7% to 8%, it would be rational to secure the higher guaranteed return of 10.5% and transfer the funds into the bond.

However, if the money is in a balanced fund which generally targets a 5% real return, it would be more rational to remain invested as the real return is in excess of the bond interest rate.

It is also important not to fall into the trap of looking at the short-term underperformance of equity linked funds in a time like now and compare this to a resilient prime rate. This may result in the wrong decision to sell out at the wrong time. Every situation is unique and the best course of action is to get advice from a financial advisor who will look at the big picture and your individual circumstances.

The subjective answer

The other way I would advise a client on this is a more subjective approach – the sleep test. Quite simply, what makes you sleep better at night? Would that be a bond balance of R100 000 lower than it is now with no funds invested, or the same outstanding bond balance but R100 000 invested?

The answer will be different for each individual and there are a lot of factors that influence one’s financial decision making such as your view of debt as either toxic or as an enabler. For some people having R100 000 invested offshore, for example, gives them comfort. Therefore, because the economic rationality argument is often such a close contest, considering the subjective approach may help make the final decision easier.

Save up for retirement

Q: I am 56 years old, healthy, have a reasonable job and presume I can work for the next 10 years.

I have a home which is worth about R2.5 million, with a relatively small bond. However, apart from an annuity worth about R300 000 I have no other savings.

My youngest child is almost independent, and in a couple of months time I will be able to save R10 000 per month. This amount can increase to R20 000 in the next 18 months.

How should I invest this money and how much trouble am I in?

The really important question here is the last one. In our view, any investor currently requires approximately R1 million for every R4 200 of monthly income they want before tax and after costs.

This yield is specifically constructed to provide an escalating income that keeps up with inflation. We are aware that an investor can source a fixed yield that is higher, but that would mean that it doesn’t increase in the future and progressively becomes worth less.

This also assumes that your capital will be maintained and over occasional periods will grow faster than inflation. This is important, because if you don’t have to use up your capital, how long you live and how long you need an income for become inconsequential. You could live beyond 100 and still have a secure income.

This is obviously the optimum position.

The next important question is then what to invest in to give you the best chance of building a retirement pot. The table below will demonstrate a value in today’s money of what your savings could be worth in ten years’ time. This is based on 18 months of investing R10 000 and then 102 months of putting aside R20 000 per month.

When looking at this table you have to consider that there are two key drivers that affect the investment return.

The first is cost. It may seem intuitive but it is amazing how investors are so easily duped. Costs reduce returns, and the higher the costs, the bigger their impact.

Where investors are usually fooled is that they are led to believe that their provider is somehow 25% to 30% better than the rest over a longer period. We are not so sure anyone can consistently claim that. There are good value options out there, so be cost conscious.

The second consideration is your choice of asset class. Investors hate volatility, but growth assets come with volatility. As a result, most dilute their returns with stabilising asset classes that have no track record of beating inflation over longer periods.

If you want to achieve returns of well above inflation, you therefore have to be prepared to live with short-term volatility. That means investing in products that predominantly hold growth assets such as equity and listed property.

Finally, something the reader has not specified is their expectations in retirement. Probably the biggest hurdle we face with individuals about to retire, is that they want to continue their current lifestyle with very limited resources.

In this particular instance, you should consider the possibility of downscaling and modifying your lifestyle to unlock the capital in your home. This will both provide more capital and potentially lower your required income.

If we use the example above and assume that you do successfully build up R3.2 million, your retirement fund grows to R425 000 (in today’s money), and that you downsize and release a sum of R500 000 from the property, then your wealth pool would be around R4.125 million. We could therefore advise taking an income of R17 325 per month before tax as prudent.

The options at retirement

Q: I will retire at the end of October 2016 from government service. I have the option of a retirement gratuity of R1.2 million plus a monthly pension of R 27 414 for life, or a resignation benefit of R5 047 648.

The downsides of taking the annuity option are that when I die the monthly pension that will go to my wife will halve; and that when she dies, the pension stops altogether and nothing will go to our children. I’m also worried by the current political landscape in South Africa whether I can have peace of mind with regard to how the GEPF will be managed in future.

My question is this: If I rather take the resignation benefit of R5 047 648, can I obtain a monthly income comparable to the monthly pension of R27 000 plus the yield on the investment of the R1.2 million gratuity through investing this amount?

The reader belongs to the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF), which is what is called a defined benefit fund. The retirement benefits are therefore defined with regard to the reader’s salary at retirement and the length of service at their employer.

Let us consider the two options that the reader has presented in more detail:

Receiving an annuity for life

The reader will receive an annuity, for life, which begins at R27 414 per month. On death, the spouse would continue to receive 50% of this annuity for the remainder of her life.

Pension increases are also usually granted annually by the GEPF in line with their policy which targets 100% of CPI. The reader is also entitled to a gratuity lump sum at retirement of R1.2 million.

Under this scenario, the GEPF, assumes the investment risk. In other words, the member will continue to receive their pension, irrespective of how the underlying investments perform.

The GEPF also assumes the longevity risk, or the risk of the member and their spouse living longer than expected. As an extreme example, if they both lived to 120 years, they will continue to receive their pension. On the other side of the coin though, if they both pass away shortly after retirement, no further payments will be made and any children dependants will not receive any lump sum payment.

Taking the lump sum and investing it

The reader states that they are entitled to R5 047 648 as a resignation benefit. For purposes of this comparison, the impact of tax on this amount has not been considered as this could vary by individual.

Let us assume that this money will be invested into a living annuity-type structure in order to provide a retirement pension. Under this scenario, the lump sum is invested and a pension is drawn from this balance for as long as the balance is positive.

To put it simply, this operates similar to a bank account. The account increases with investment returns and reduces by any amount that the reader withdraws in the form of a pension.

It is important to realise that the reader will be assuming both the investment and longevity risk under this scenario. Poor investment performance will impact on the amount of pension that the reader may be able to withdraw. Additionally, if the capital is fully eroded while the reader is alive, no further pension will be payable. However, on death, the balance of the account can be paid out to the spouse or other dependants.

Withdraw your retirement benefit

Q: I am 39 years old and have worked for the public service for just over 11 years. I am considering resigning because I want to further my studies for the next three years.

My current retirement fund value is R947 113.

How much will they tax me if I take this out and how best can I invest it?

The short answer to your question is that you will be paying R191 820.51 tax on a retirement fund value of R947 113. In other words, 20.25% of your retirement benefit will be paid to the South African Revenue Service (Sars).

How this is calculated is that your capital will be taxed on a sliding scale. The first R25 000 is tax free, the next R635 000 will be taxed at 18% and the balance will be taxed at 27%. Although not relevant in this instance, any amount over R990 000 would be taxed at 36%.

However, you can avoid this tax entirely by transferring the benefit to a preservation fund. This is an option you should seriously consider.

A preservation fund works in the same way as a retirement fund, except that you don’t have to keep contributing to it. You will be able to make one withdrawal from this fund before your retirement date, but otherwise you won’t be able to access the money until you turn 55.

Once you retire from the fund, the first R500 000, less any amount you have already withdrawn, will be paid out tax free. At this point you can withdraw up to one third of the capital as a lump sum if you like, but the rest must be used to arrange a monthly income during retirement. You will be taxed on your monthly income according to Sars income tax tables.

Why this is particularly important is because if you withdraw your retirement capital now, the R500 000 tax-free benefit that you would receive when you actually retire will fall away. So you will be suffering a double tax penalty.

Apart from the tax you will have to pay now, you should also consider the important differences between putting the money into a preservation fund and taking it out to invest yourself.

  1. Income tax paid on your investment

In any retirement product, no annual taxes are paid on interest or dividends. When it comes to discretionary investments, however, the interest you receive on your investment during any tax year will be taxed and you will liable for dividend withholding tax. You will also pay capital gains tax should you withdraw money from your discretionary investment for any reason, including switching funds.

  1. Liquidity

If you withdraw the funds now and invest the after tax amount, you will have easy access to your money. However, if you transfer it to a preservation fund, you could only make one withdrawal from the fund before retirement.

  1. Underlying investment funds

The Pension Funds Act has prescribed limits for different asset classes which are the building blocks of the underlying investments funds. The purpose of the limits is to contain the investment risk of the underlying investment funds.

However, by doing this, the Act also limits the potential upside of your investment. A discretionary investment can be 100% invested in equities (shares) and also 100% offshore, whereas any investment that falls under the Pension Funds Act can have a maximum of 75% in equities and 25% offshore.

what it means for your financial plan

Traditionally, the focus of every financial plan was retirement. Everything was built around the day that you have to leave formal employment at the age of 60 or 65.

However, more and more people are having to ask what happens next. In a time when life expectancy is steadily increasing, the idea of throwing away your briefcase and putting your feet up to live out your ‘golden years’ in peace and quiet is looking increasingly less appealing, and less practical.

For a start, there is little point in retiring ‘to do nothing’. Many retirees find that they are actually busier than they were during the working lives, but the difference is that they can do what they enjoy.

“We are finding more and more people who are re-thinking retirement,” says Kirsty Scully from CoreWealth Managers. “In most cases, they have been professionals in their careers and they want to stay employed to continue with their personal and professional growth and development, yet they don’t want a typical work schedule. They are looking for flexible working arrangements so as to have a good balance between work and leisure.”

Wouter Dalhouzie from Verso Wealth says that from both a mental and physical well-being point of view, it is important for retirees to keep themselves occupied.

“I had a client whose health started failing shortly after retirement,” he says. “He started a little side-line business and his health immediately improved. When he retired from doing that, his health went downhill and he passed away within a matter of months.”

Verso Wealth’s Allison Harrison adds that she recently attended a presentation that discussed how important it is for people to remain active. “The speaker explained that if we don’t continue using our faculties, we lose them as part of the normal ageing process,” Harrison says. “The expression she used was ‘use it, or lose it’!”

She relates the story of a retiree who had been in construction his entire working life.

“After a year in retirement, he decided to buy a second home, renovate it and sell it,” Harrison says. “This was very successful, so he decided to repeat the exercise using his primary residence.  This yielded a bigger return than the first one and thereafter then moved from house to house, renovating, selling and moving on.”

This way he ended up making more money in his 20 years of retirement then he did in his 40 year building career.

Data burning a deeper hole in the pockets of South Africans

In the wake of the #DataMustFall campaign, it seems that the data revolution might have a valid and legitimate plea. The campaign founders made a presentation before the Parliamentary Communications and Postal Committee on September 21 on the costs of data in the country. According to the soon-to-be launched findings of the FinScope South Africa 2016 consumer survey, the results show that the average South African spends about 9% of their purse on airtime and data recharge, cellphone contracts, telephone lines and internet payments. The average person spends approximately R700 a month for communication-related expenses.

Parallel to the #DataMustFall campaign, which is gaining traction, is the #FeesMustFall (reloaded) campaign, which is also resurfacing in light of the announcement of an up to 8% fee increase made by the Higher Education Minister Blade Nzimande. While university students would like to see a 0% increase, universities are requesting increases to sustain operations and fund research.

Therefore, in light of these developments and expenses, how does the purse of the South African consumer fair? The preliminary results of the FinScope 2016 survey shows that South Africans spend R688 per month on average on education.

The FinScope findings further show that South Africa’s total personal monthly consumption (PMC) expenditure in 2016 is estimated at R220 billion (monthly). On a monthly basis, the average individual spent approximately R5 400 during the period of conducting the FinScope 2016 survey. The results show that the main components of expenditure are on food (21%), transport (11%), utilities (11%) and communication, which amount to 9% of the spending purse.

Overall, individuals’ spending on education is 6% of their purse (estimated monthly spend of R12.2 billion). Further demographic analysis of the data per race showed that black communities still bear the greatest brunt of the education costs. For the average black South African, education expenses constitute 7% of their purse – this is higher compared to other races for which the purse composition for coloured, Asian, Indian and whites are at an average of 4.3% of their purse.

Furthermore, as one analyses the data further, it shows that nearly 12 million black South Africans spend more than 10% of their purse on education-related expenses. This is further exacerbated when noting that the average income per month is R4 723, R6 294, R12 265 and R17 123 for black, coloured, Indian and white South Africans respectively. As such, the cost of education places a heavier burden on black South Africans.

Save up to buy a second car

Q: I would like to start saving for a second motor vehicle. My current car is paid off and still in very good condition, so I don’t think I will need to replace it within the next five years.

I would therefore like to save the money that I was paying towards my monthly instalments to eventually buy a second motor vehicle for cash. Therefore, my savings term would be at least five years.

I have a money market fund with Allan Gray at the moment, but I find it difficult not to use these savings for other larger expenses. I would therefore prefer to use something that does not allow immediate and easy access to my savings. What would be best for this purpose?

The first step one should take is to identify the investment objective. In this case that is a car, with an assumed cost of R300 000 at the end of a five-year term horizon. It is important to understand this time horizon as well as your appetite for risk to decide on the most suitable investment vehicle.

Some of the most popular after-tax investment vehicles include endowments, unit trusts and the tax free savings accounts. These vary in terms of accessibility and tax implications and we would need to know the clients full financial situation before recommending a suitable product.

For a client who wants to lock their investment for a five-year period, an endowment would be a vehicle to consider. We do, however, have to take into account their marginal tax rate when making this decision.

This is because endowments are taxed within the fund at a set rate of 30%. This benefits investors who have a marginal tax rate greater than that, but can be prejudicial if their tax rate is lower.

Because the money in an endowment is taxed within the fund, your withdrawals are tax free. In order to get this benefit, however, endowments have a minimum investment time horizon of five years. At that point the money can be accessed or the investor can choose to extend the policy term.

You would be able to choose different underlying investments within the endowment, and given your time horizon, a moderate-to-balanced portfolio will most likely be appropriate. It is, however, important to take your risk appetite into account.

Property and tax

In this advice column, Wendy Foley from Citadel answers questions from a reader who is selling a house that he was renting out.

 

Q: I bought a house in Pretoria in December 2011 for around R1.1 million. I lived there until October 2013 but then moved to Johannesburg and decided to rent it out.

I did not buy a new place in Johannesburg as I intended to move back to Pretoria eventually. With the monthly rental income I received on my Pretoria property, I paid rates and levies of around R2 000 per month, although I did not pay any municipal rates.

In time, I realised that I was not going to move back to Pretoria again and decided in February 2015 that I wanted to sell my house and found a buyer for it.

My questions relate to how all of this should be reflected in my tax return.

For the last two years I have included the rental income in my return, whilst deducting items such as interest and levies. I paid the full outstanding municipal rates of around R30 000 when I sold my house in June 2015. For the 2016 tax year, can I deduct all of the rates for the period that I was renting out the property, which is about 18 months?

Secondly, when it comes to the proceeds of the sale, am I eligible for the R2 million exemption on capital gains tax for a primary residence?

 

To answer all of your questions, let us first consider the tax treatment of rental income. Any rental income you receive should be added to any other taxable income you may have, and assessed in its entirety.

The taxable amount of rental income may, however, be reduced, as you may incur expenses during the period that the property was let. Only expenses incurred in the production of that rental income can be claimed. Any capital and/or private expenses won’t be allowed as a deduction.

Expenses that may be deducted from taxable income are your rates and taxes, interest on the bond, advertisements, fees paid to estate agents, homeowners insurance (not household contents), garden services, repairs in respect of the area let, and security and property levies.

It is important that maintenance and repairs should be noted as specific costs and not confused with improvement costs. Improvements are a capital expense and cannot be claimed as an expense. They can, however, be included in the base cost of the property to effectively reduce the capital gain (or loss) on the disposal of the property, for capital gains tax (CGT) purposes.

To answer your first question then, the municipal rates were paid as a lump sum amount of R30 000 in June 2015 on the sale of the house. Assuming that the property was still being let during the 2016 tax year that runs from March 2015 until February 2016, the seller would be able to deduct the full amount of R30 000 in the 2016 tax year.

On the second question, current legislation entitles individuals to disregard any capital gain on the disposal of their primary residence if the proceeds do not exceed R2 million. In such event the individual does not need to determine the base cost of the residence.

In order to claim this exclusion we need to determine what qualifies as a primary residence.

To meet the requirements, it must be a structure (including a boat, caravan or mobile home) which is used as a place of residence by an individual. An individual or special trust must own an interest in the residence. And the individual with an interest in the residence, beneficiary of the special trust, or spouse of that person or beneficiary must ordinarily reside in the home and use it mainly for domestic purposes as his or her ordinary residence.

The challenges of financial inclusion

Relative to its peers in the SADC region, South Africa has a high percentage of people with formal bank accounts. While 94% of the adult population in the Seychelles has a bank account, and 85% do so in Mauritius, South Africa’s banked adult population stands at 77%.

This contrasts starkly with the likes of Madagascar or the Democratic Republic of Congo, where only 12% of adults have bank accounts. In Angola, the ratio is 20%.

These are figures produced by the Finmark Trust, an organisation set up more than a decade ago to promote financial inclusion. And at face value, they may appear to suggest that South Africa is measuring up reasonably well.

However, the Trusts’s Dr Prega Ramsamy says that there is a lot more to financial inclusion than whether or not someone has a bank account.

“It’s a multi-dimensional problem,” he told the Actuarial Society 2016 Convention in Cape Town. “There is an element of access, but there is also an element of affordability, an element of proximity, and most importantly an element of quality. We might have huge access in terms of people having bank accounts, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are financially included because the quality of such access might not be there.”

He pointed out that often products are inappropriate or inaccessible.

“At the moment there are about 20.9 million people in South Africa with access to insurance,” he pointed out, “and of those, 18.9 million have funeral cover. So funeral insurance completely dominates the sector.”

He acknowledged that there is a cultural aspect to why this is such a popular product, but he questioned why so many people are able to afford funeral policies but don’t have any other long term risk cover or savings.

Ramsamy pointed out that ten years ago, about one million South Africans had multiple cover, in that they held more than one funeral policy. That number has grown to five million. Yet the penetration of other risk products has remained very low.

“We sit in an office and think we can provide insurance, but we don’t really know if this kind of insurance fits the needs of the people we are selling it to,” he argued. “Agents are also just interested in selling numbers for commissions, but don’t ask if what they’re selling is the type of insurance or product that their customers need.”

Speaking at the same event, Ruth Benjamin Swales of the Asisa Foundation acknowledged that there is a real challenge for financial services companies to design more relevant offerings.

“For instance we have many people in South Africa who work intermittently,” Swales said. “But most savings and investment or insurance products require monthly contributions. Just that minimum requirement excludes many people from being able to access relevant products that could improve their financial well-being.”

It is obvious that product providers need to find different models, both in terms of the products they are offering and how they are distributed. For instance, if funeral cover has such wide reach, might it not be possible to attach other products to these policies, such as savings accounts or retirement annuities.