We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capital Gearing Trust Plc | CGT | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10.00 | 0.21% | 4,715.00 | 16:35:08 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4,740.00 | 4,705.00 | 4,740.00 | 4,715.00 | 4,705.00 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| EQUITY INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 31/10/2023 10:24 by topvest Blimey - didn't see this coming! Lucky escape as I was thinking of increasing my position size. They are going to have a problem with the discount for a while then. This could be a massive error as once the discount opens up it will be difficult to reign it back in without buying most of the shares. Interesting that c40 years of capital gains and revenue reserves have been burnt through. As often is the case, the late investors to a successful trust have not done as well as the early birds!It looks like they have been caught out by the scale of the buy-backs needed over the last 6 months. A bit of an unforced error. It will definitely be very interesting to see what the discount expands to in the run up to Christmas. |
Posted at 30/9/2021 16:43 by gengulphus zangdook,A couple of years ago ERET decided to wind itself up and as part of the process it delisted. My shares were therefore moved out of my ISA. As this took place after the delisting, there was no market price on the day they were de-ISAed. If I now receive money from the liquidation, what is the cost price of my shares for the purpose of CGT? Is it the actual cost, or the value on the last day of listing, or nil? I'm afraid I don't really know. The things I do know are: From : "Where the new investments are not qualifying investments, managers must, within 30 calendar days of the date on which they became non-qualifying investments, either: * sell them (in which case the proceeds can remain in the stocks and shares ISA) * transfer them to the investor to be held outside the ISA." From : "On the transfer to an investor of an investment, the manager must provide the investor with details in writing of the market value of the investment as at the date of withdrawal." followed by a lot of detailed rules about what the "market value" is. The cases covered make it clear that "market value" does not simply mean "market price on the day of withdrawal, or zero if there is no such market price" - it does mean market price (determined by various detailed rules) on the day of withdrawal if there is such a market price, but there are other detailed rules to cover at least some cases where there isn't one. The following might be regarded as covering the case of a share voluntarily delisting on the basis that the Stock Exchange is closed for trading that particular share on the day of withdrawal: "Where the date of valuation falls on or after 6 April 2015, the market value of shares, qualifying securities or strips included in the official UK list is the lower of the two prices shown as the closing price in the Stock Exchange Daily Official List for that day plus one half of the difference between those two figures. If the Stock Exchange is closed, the value is that value on the latest previous day on which it was open." If so, the answer would be the market price on the last day of trading - but that way of regarding the phrase "Stock Exchange is closed" does seem a bit contrived, so I'm not at all confident about that answer! Otherwise, the next bit: "This doesn’t apply to determine the market value of shares or securities where in consequence of special circumstances the closing prices quoted in the Stock Exchange Daily Official List are by themselves not a proper measure of market value of the shares or securities. In that case the market value is determined under section 272 of Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 as the price shares might reasonably be expected to fetch on a sale in the open market." gives a sort of answer, but as that answer essentially involves using a professional valuer, it's probably not at all satisfactory... Incidentally, did your ISA manager send you a market value of nil, based on there being no market price on the day of transfer? Or did they not send you a market value at all, either stating the same reason for their failure to do so or just failing to do so without giving any reason for the failure? I ask because one thing you might consider doing is tackling your ISA manager about the issue, and it makes a difference to whether they've failed to meet their obligation to provide you with a market value, or whether it's only a matter of whether you think they've given you a reasonable market value. One other thing I'll mention is 'post transaction valuation checks' ( ). They look designed to check valuations being used in a CGT computation, so may not be usable until you dispose of the ERET shares and have a CGT computation to submit - which might take some time. But if for instance you think the share price on the last day of trading is a more reasonable estimate of the market value on the day of transfer than nil, submitting a post transaction valuation check when the time comes would be a reasonable way to demonstrate good faith. And finally, the lesson to learn is that if the situation of a company you own in your ISA decides to delist comes up again, then: * if you don't want to still own the shares afterwards, sell them from the ISA while you still can; * if you do want to still own the shares afterwards and have the cash to repurchase them outside the ISA, sell them from the ISA while you still can and repurchase them outside - you'll lose a bit on trading costs, but you'll keep their value inside the tax shelter of the ISA; * if you do want to still own the shares afterwards and don't have the cash to repurchase them outside the ISA, withdraw them from the ISA before they delist - you won't keep their value inside the ISA, but at least there will be an easily-determined market value on the day they're withdrawn. Gengulphus |
Posted at 29/7/2021 23:37 by gengulphus squidd,... in recent years, as I aged (now 90), I greatly simplified my affairs to only pension and ISA investments only, so had to do no tax return for about 6 years. But one of my ISA investments has turned sour, and prompted me to look again to this site, where I'm delighted to find you still at it, and hopeful that you can advise. I held MESH shares in an ISA, but a couple of years ago, pending reorganisation and transformation, they delisted from AIM. Then a couple of months ago my brokers, EQi (formerly Selftrade) wrote telling me that MESH were no longer eligible for an ISA listing and they transferred my holding to a Dealing Account at zero value and zero cost. Thus exposing me to CGT etc at any valuation above zero. To further complicate matters, EQi are themselves reorganising, and they transferred my account to Interactive Investor. Meanwhile MESH have announced that reorganisation is nearing completion, and they hope to transform the shares into another company AAQA, by way of a special one for one dividend, which will then be listed on an exchange. I assume that this is the deal described in . It's a messy situation that I don't completely understand, and neither do the authors of that document, judging by its statement that "When the title of an investment in an ISA is transferred from an ISA manager to an investor, the investor is deemed to have sold the investment for a market value sum and immediately reacquired it for the same amount. Any notional gain on the deemed sale is exempt from charge. Any future capital gains or losses are calculated by reference to the value of the shares when they left the ISA. This is the combined effect of regulation 22 and 34 of the Individual Savings Account Regulations 1998. It is not, however, clear how this general tax treatment applies when shares are transferred out of an ISA after a delisting." I'm a bit surprised that EQi decided that the transfer-out-of-ISA happened at zero value, given that it appears that the shares still have some value - I rather suspect that they took the view that shares which cannot be sold in a stockmarket have zero market value, when "market value" is supposed to be what one can reasonably expect to sell an asset for to a willing buyer. However, that might not result in a "market value" which is all that much more than zero - i.e. it may not make all that much difference to CGT calculations, and so EQi's zero valuation at the time of the transfer out of the ISA may not be worth fighting... And there's another point: if you sell no more than a CGT allowance's worth of shares in a tax year, then unless you realise some other gain in the tax year (which your post suggests is most unlikely!), then your total realised gains in that tax year cannot be more than the CGT allowance - so you won't have any CGT to pay, and even if HMRC require you to fill in a tax return, you won't have to fill in its capital gains section or submit any capital gains computations. So the way I would be inclined to deal with the situation is to sell your MESH shares as soon as you can, except don't sell more than £12,300 worth in this tax year or the relevant year's CGT allowance worth in any future tax year. I.e. basically absorb this messy CGT situation harmlessly in your CGT allowances as soon as it's possible to do so... Having said that, I'm not clear whether any opportunity to sell your MESH shares will arise - the MESH announcement might mean that MESH ends up winding itself up with a distribution of about 2p per share without ever being able to be sold on a market. If so, I believe that would basically be treated like a forced sale for about 2p per share for CGT - so it shouldn't be a CGT problem unless you have more than about 615,000 MESH shares. If the AAQA shares (which I assume the "AAA shares" in the MESH announcement) are distributed as a special dividend, I believe the tax treatment is that they count as dividend income equal to their value when distributed, and their base cost for CGT purposes is that same value. So I think the CGT position on them will be clear, and you should be able to avoid any CGT needing to be paid on them by selling them before their price rises enough to create a gain of more than £12,300. But Income Tax will probably have to be paid on the special dividend if it plus any other non-ISAed dividends you receive are more than your dividend allowance of £2,000. But I'm afraid you can't take any of what I say above as a definite answer - the documents I'm basing it on simply contain too many uncertainties for definite answers to exist at this stage (e.g. the "It is currently envisaged that, subject to further tax, legal and other considerations, ..." at the start of the sentence about the special dividend in the MESH announcement pretty clearly indicates that what is envisaged might change if those considerations don't work out well). Hopefully things will become more definite in the future. Gengulphus |
Posted at 10/7/2021 14:02 by squidd Hi Gengulphus: I last visited this site about 8 years ago and was amazed at the detail and quality of your posts, which were very helpful to me, But in recent years, as I aged (now 90), I greatly simplified my affairs to only pension and ISA investments only, so had to do no tax return for about 6 years. But one of my ISA investments has turned sour, and prompted me to look again to this site, where I'm delighted to find you still at it, and hopeful that you can advise.I held MESH shares in an ISA, but a couple of years ago, pending reorganisation and transformation, they delisted from AIM. Then a couple of months ago my brokers, EQi (formerly Selftrade) wrote telling me that MESH were no longer eligible for an ISA listing and they transferred my holding to a Dealing Account at zero value and zero cost. Thus exposing me to CGT etc at any valuation above zero. To further complicate matters, EQi are themselves reorganising, and they transferred my account to Interactive Investor. Meanwhile MESH have announced that reorganisation is nearing completion, and they hope to transform the shares into another company AAQA, by way of a special one for one dividend, which will then be listed on an exchange. Any advice greatly welcomed. s£d. |
Posted at 13/6/2021 20:12 by topvest OutlookThe term “the Great Moderation” was popularised by Ben Bernanke to describe the twenty years following the mid-1980’s. This period was characterised by the extending length of the business cycle and the absence of significant recessions. The last 12 months has seemed to us the opposite, a Great Acceleration, containing a recession of historical proportions and an astonishingly rapid rebound. The change in investor sentiment has been even more precipitate leaving equities, most notably in the US, at valuations that suggest moderate prospective returns. Valuations in UK equities look more attractive but it seems unlikely any regional market can deliver strong returns whilst a bubble in US equities deflates. Returns from conventional bonds seem certain to endure a poor decade. The pandemic response programmes have involved fiscal and monetary intervention on a mind blowing scale. There is no meaningful political constituency anywhere arguing for sustainable fiscal policies; austerity is dead. The demands to build back better and to fund green infrastructure will ensure vast government deficits for years to come. If bond holders try to push up yields to compensate for increased risks it seems likely central banks will cap the process by increasing their bond buying programmes. Over the last decade the primary objectives of central banks have migrated from inflation targeting to social and environmental goals. These broader societal goals are best advanced through monetising government deficit spending. This leaves resurgent inflation as the most likely mechanism by which conventional bond holders will see their savings eroded, and equity markets will be simultaneously undermined. If these risks transpire then the returns on a conventional 60 : 40 (equity : bond) portfolio will significantly disappoint. That process will help to reduce the wealth inequalities that have become an increasingly prominent feature of western societies over recent decades. Whilst potentially desirable on a societal level, the aim of this Company is to protect its shareholders from this process. In our view a defensively oriented portfolio emphasising inflation protected bonds, broadly spread value-biased equities and some ‘dry powder’ set aside seems prudent positioning for an uncertain future. If we are in a Great Acceleration we will not need to wait long for the next chapter of this fascinating story to unfold. |
Posted at 14/11/2020 14:16 by thamestrader Threats to GCT rates and exempt allowances have raised their ugly heads again! This from Interactive Investor (a similar item in today's Daily Mail (my friend says)):----- The Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) today released a report suggesting 9changes to CGT) could raise £14 billion. .... Currently, basic-rate taxpayers pay 10% tax on capital gains, above a £12,300 a year threshold. Higher-rate taxpayers pay 20%. ... The OTS suggested doubling this to bring CGT more in line with income tax. ... The (OTS) also suggested lowering the CGT threshold to as little as £1,000 to increase the number of people paying it. ----- No mention of timing, and if the Autumn budget/statement is cancelled, maybe it won't apply from April 2021, but the year after? |
Posted at 23/9/2020 19:00 by gengulphus Does anyone else out there think CGT might be an easy target for the chancellor in his quest to fill the financial black hole caused by Covid?I don't. A target, quite possibly - but not an easy target... It's not easy because to a large extent, CGT is a voluntary tax - make changes designed to raise more CGT from investors, and investors are likely to respond by changing their strategies to be more likely to hold on to investments carrying a large unrealised capital gain rather than selling them and realising the gain... Doing that won't always be possible - sometimes people need the cash or the sale is compulsory for one reason or another - but I suspect there will be plenty who shift to a long-term buy & hold strategy if CGT becomes a serious burden... Also, the investors most likely to want not to do that are those who use shorter-term 'trading' strategies. But many of them will have bought their shares last year and so will be sitting on plenty of unrealised losses, not gains... He might remove the £12300 allowance, he might increase rates, he might do both. Removing the CGT allowance strikes me as very unlikely, at least as things stand. Why? Because then everybody who makes even a small capital gain becomes liable to account for CGT, either in a tax return or using some sort of adjustment to their tax code - but that adjustment is likely to change every year, in a hard-to-predict way, so would require some sort of annual return from the taxpayer anyway. Either way, there would be a big increase in the number of CGT returns HMRC would need to process, quite often for very small amounts of tax collected - so removing the CGT allowance entirely would probably not be cost-effective because of high collection costs relative to the amount of tax collected. And in addition, it would also have high political costs for the government - a CGT return is a distinctly user-unfriendly bit of bureaucracy and making large numbers of voters do them who hadn't had to before is likely to alienate a considerable number of voters! That said, I do think reducing the CGT allowance might be an option for the Chancellor. E.g. halving it rather than removing it entirely would affect far fewer taxpayers and would tend to be focussed on those with the largest capital gains among those who currently don't pay CGT, as well as producing a substantial increase in CGT collected from those who do currently pay CGT. That's more likely to be cost-effective from the Chancellor's point of view, both with regard to collection costs and political costs. And increasing CGT rates is also an option. But both reducing the allowance and increasing rates are going to be limited in terms of how much they're likely to raise, due to the 'largely a voluntary tax' nature of CGT mentioned above. Various parts of that assume that the structure of CGT and collecting it remain largely as they are at present, and there are possibilities available for more fundamental revisions of CGT that would change the argument. For instance, brokers cannot currently give definitive statements about what capital gains and losses have been realised by sales in a broker account they provide, because if the accountholder has other holdings of a share (either certificated or held with another broker), CGT rules require the capital gains and losses to be calculated from the merged transaction record for all the holdings, not separately for each holding and the results added together. If CGT were revised to work on a 'separately on each holding and add together' basis, it would become possible for brokers to produce definitive CGT statements, and therefore for the government to require them to do so. And if that were done, CGT returns by individual taxpayers could become just a matter of taking the figures from each broker they use and adding them up - much as they handle dividends at present. That would be likely to reduce the costs significantly, both collection costs and political costs. Another example of a fundamental revision that might be attractive to the Chancellor is finding some way to tax all gains, whether realised or not (though the attractiveness of that might not be all that high at present, given recent losses...). But both of these fundamental revisions have a whole mass of practical detail to be designed - for example, how are transfers from one broker to another handled? how are certificated holdings handled? what happens if someone has big unrealised gains on shares that for some reason they cannot sell? and many others... So while fundamental reform of the CGT system might be a way for the Chancellor to effectively target CGT as a source of significant extra tax revenues, I'm pretty sure it's not an easy way for him to do so. Gengulphus |
Posted at 14/6/2020 13:48 by gengulphus jeffian,I have just had a rather unpleasant shock, although this may come as no surprise to the thread experts. My wife held shares in a family company from way before 1982. That company was taken over in 1998 for shares and cash and the acquiring company has itself now been taken over in a cash-only bid. We had constructed a spreadsheet in 1998 to establish the base cost of the shares, starting with the known March 1982 value and adjusting for various transactions - additions, disposals, Rights issues and so on - including, of course, indexation. I am aware that indexation was frozen at 1998 and removed in 2008 but, having had the calculations back from my accountant, I wasn't aware that the indexation element of the 1998 cost was actually withdrawn and the base cost for CGT purposes goes back to the cost of the original holding. This smacks of retrospective taxation, surely? This change took effect in April 2008, as part of a package of CGT simplifications that came into effect then. Basically, that package almost entirely (*) got rid of indexation and taper relief, and reduced the CGT rates from the individual's marginal Income Tax rate to the current 10% up to one's unused basic-rate Income Tax band, 20% above that (a few years later, an extra 8% was added to both of those rates if the asset is residential property, and that remains the case today). So basically, the simplifications increased gains by removing the inflation/long-holdi But as far as individuals are concerned, yes, those changes in 2008 acted retrospectively, and the effects were definitely not guaranteed to cancel out: typically, someone who made massive gains over a period of less than three years benefited greatly from the rate cuts and wouldn't anything to lose from the abolition of indexation and taper relief (unless they could count the asset as a 'business asset'). Whereas someone who made modest, roughly inflation-equalling gains over many years might well have had gains before 1998 cancelled out by indexation and gains after 1998 reduced to below the CGT allowance, for no CGT to pay before the changes, and have found themselves liable to CGT on a gain that exceeded the CGT allowance after it... (It does incidentally seem particularly perverse that a Labour government made tax changes that benefited speculators who got rich quick and penalised steady long-term investors!) Anyway, people did make a bit of a fuss about the retrospective-taxati (*) There is a case in which indexation can still affect calculations of capital gains and losses - IIRC it's when an asset was transferred between spouses before the simplifications came into effect: the indexation got 'frozen' into the transferee spouse's base cost at the time of the transfer, and that doesn't get retrospectively reversed. (But if this situation does apply to anyone, just take it as an indication that you need to check the exact rules, because I am not certain I remember the treatment accurately!) Gengulphus |
Posted at 12/5/2020 08:38 by gengulphus zangdook,That reminds me of something which happened to me a couple of years ago: A company in my ISA was delisted and its shares were transferred out to my non-ISA account, and the broker simply listed the entire shareholding at a purchase cost of 1p (without explanation - when I queried it they asked me "what price do you want us to put?"). Is that correct practice when a delisted company is de-ISAed, or would the cost be the closing price on the last day of listing, or something else? I doubt there's been any sort of regular trade in the shares since delisting. I don't know exactly how the delisted company is supposed to be valued in those circumstances. But what I do know is the following link: It starts: "On the transfer to an investor of an investment, the manager must provide the investor with details in writing of the market value of the investment as at the date of withdrawal." and it goes on to give some details of how the ISA manager should determine that market value in various circumstances. I.e. it's the ISA manager's responsibility to determine the market value as at the date of withdrawal and to tell you what it is - not your responsibility to tell the ISA manager what it is! So their "what price do you want us to put?" rather smacks of them shirking their job... However, I should also note the following link: A few paragraphs in, it says: "Where the new investments are not qualifying investments, managers must, within 30 calendar days of the date on which they became non-qualifying investments, either: * sell them (in which case the proceeds can remain in the stocks and shares ISA) * transfer them to the investor to be held outside the ISA." The point that strikes me about that is that the date of the transfer out is up to 30 days after the delisting. So it can have happened on a date when there was no longer any market for the shares, and I would guess it almost certainly did. That obviously makes the market value of the shares much harder to determine - though it will probably be considerably lower than the last market price before the shares were delisted simply as a result of unlisted shares being much harder to market. So assuming you've been given the figure of 1p/share in writing (which I believe covers emailed documents as well as those printed on paper), the way I would treat the situation depends on whether that seems at all realistic as a share valuation, bearing in mind the fact that as an unlisted share, its valuation could be several times less than it was as a listed share. If it does, I would simply use it, make certain that I keep that valuation among my records so that if HMRC question it, you have evidence that that's the valuation the ISA manager gave you. If it doesn't seem to be a realistic valuation, then I would be inclined to raise the question again with the ISA manager, pointing out that HMRC say the obligation to provide it is on them, not you - and be prepared to raise the issue to a formal complaint or even to the Financial Ombudsman if they refuse. But I say that I would be inclined to do that, not that I would definitely do it, because even if 1p/share is clearly far too low (making the eventual gain and the CGT payable too high), the amount of money involved might not be worth the potential hassle. That depends on the number of shares involved, how big the undervaluation is, and how much money you feel is worth making a fuss about - not matters I can judge for you! Gengulphus |
Posted at 24/6/2019 22:43 by gengulphus finkwot,I'm afraid I can't really help with questions about the 31 March 1982 rule - it predates all my experience with shares (though only by a few years in the case of my small number of BT shares held ever since the first round of privatisation). On historical prices, I do have copies of the CGNU annual reports for 2000 and 2001 - I've never owned CGNU shares, but I downloaded them from Aviva's archived reports page years ago when they were still there. (now the only trace left of that on seems to be the statement "Please note that all presentations before the Group's name change to Aviva plc on July 1, 2002 will be branded CGNU plc." at the bottom of a list whose earliest entry is dated in 2004...). Unfortunately, they don't contain anything about CGT - some companies make a habit of putting CGT information into an end-of-report "Shareholder information" section, but apparent not CGNU/Aviva. Apart from that, the only thing I can suggest for a share price that long back is that I know that years ago, the London Stock Exchange ran a paid-for service called something like the Historic(al) Price(s) Service - I've used it once around 15 years ago. Whether they still do, whether its charges are reasonable if it does, etc, I'll have to leave you to investigate. Gengulphus |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
