Potential Brexit risk to ETFs in ISAs?

[hiriskpaul]

This is not something I have seen crop up yet anywhere, but I think there is a risk that ETFs may not be allowed in ISAs post Brexit. The popular LSE listed ETFs are mostly domiciled in Ireland and as such are considered overseas funds by the HMRC and FSA. The current ISA rules do not allow overseas collectives to be held in an ISA unless they are both recognised by the FSA and are UCITS compliant. UCITS funds are allowed because of passporting rights. If passporting rights are lost as part of Brexit, which currently looks likely to me, that would put into question the eligibility of ETFs in ISAs. A simple solution would be to change the ISA rules, dropping the UCITS requirement. Personally I would like to see that go anyway along with the FSA approval and allow any foreign funds to be allowed (US ETFs for example).

Has anyone read anything about this potential issue? If not, then perhaps a bit of lobbying may be in order so this is sorted out pre-Brexit.

[Lootman]

You can probably rely on the ETF providers to do the lobbying. It's a big business these days and Blackrock etc. have influence, and probably run a few public sector pension funds.

I suspect changing the ISA rules is the simplest solution. In fact the scope of what you can invest in has changed constantly since PEPs were introduced over 30 years ago, and the trend has been to liberalise what can be held. Orinally it was designed only for UK shares - the idea was to encourage ownership of individual British companies. Even investment trusts, which otherwise are shares, were restricted. And insofar as you could hold collectives, the subscription limit was much lower.

Over the years, and especially after the transition to ISAs, the universe of securities you can hold broadened to include funds, bonds and quite a few overseas securities. As long as that principle is maintained, it would not be a huge deal to carve out ETFs - at least those domiciled in Ireland. And the Irish government itself would presumably want some kind of bilateral deal to ensure its big fund management business can continue to be marketed here.

I worry more about the tax benefits of ISAs being restricted, especially if we get a Labour government, than I do about ETFs becoming unavailable, but it's certainly worth keeping an eye on.

[hiriskpaul]

I think you are right about the providers doing the lobbying. I will email iShares and Vanguard and ask if they are aware of the potential problem. It will not do any harm to email my MP either and ask her to ask the treasury to apply the same set of rules to ISA investments as they do to SIPPs. It is fairly ridiculous now that the rules are different, especially as ISAs provide an increasingly important part of pensioners income. Osborne's LISA really is another pensions savings vehicle with the quirk that early access is allowed for a house deposit. I am sure the brokers would welcome a single set of rules covering both SIPPs And ISAs.

I fear taxes or restrictions coming on ISAs as well. There has been so much talk about intergenerational fairness and which age group are currently receiving the lions share of tax savings from ISAs?

[Lootman]

I should add AIM shares and of course cash to the list of assets that have also been made available within ISAs over the years. So there has been a clear trend towards making ISAs a more universal home for all types of investments and savings.

There is no reason to believe that will continue, let alone not be reversed, under a future government with a very different agenda from what we have known since the 1980's. But that's really just speculation - the history of ISAs so far indicates that ETFs would continue to be able to be held as they are increasingly becoming a core part of many investors' portfolios.

ETFs could also be brought back onshore, over Dublin's dead body, if it was beneficial to do so.

More generally the hope has to be that future governments want to preserve ISAs as is, partly because they encourage saving and investment, reducing the potential future burden on the state that we otherwise might be. And partly because it saves HMRC having to oversee the tax situation of millions of savers with relatively small amounts invested.

[Muddywaters]

If it came to it, which I seriously doubt, then Irish domiciles ETFs would likely just be brought back onshore. Wasn’t the original issue stamp duty which the government then removed from onshore domiciled ETFs?

[Alaric]

Without a deal they'll fall into being foreign non registered status which would mean all of gains retrospectively being taxed as income (even a brief lapse in reporting registered status ... means the entire holding period gains fall into non-reporting-registered).

I think you are making that up. Surely the key point for UK taxation is "reporting" status? In other words that income is reported to the UK holder and HMRC. That's not dependent on the EU as various "tax haven" funds also have reporting status.

[hiriskpaul]

Without a deal they'll fall into being foreign non registered status which would mean all of gains retrospectively being taxed as income (even a brief lapse in reporting registered status ... means the entire holding period gains fall into non-reporting-registered).

I think you are making that up. Surely the key point for UK taxation is "reporting" status? In other words that income is reported to the UK holder and HMRC. That's not dependent on the EU as various "tax haven" funds also have reporting status.

Correct, what matters is reporting status, not where a fund/ETF is domiciled. Many US funds and ETFs have reporting status. Hard to see why reporting status would change just because of Brexit.

The larger ETFs tend to me managed globally as well, so for example when the Vanguard World ETF needs rebalancing, the deals for the US market will be done in New York, Europe, probably in the UK or maybe Ireland, China probably in HK, etc.