Index tracker products with CGT

No, the logic is actually reasonably straightforward. EU ETFs, including Irish ones, don’t have to pay dividends. So, in the absence of our 41% tax regime, wealthy people could park their money in such products to roll up tax-free for decades. US ETFs, on the other hand, have to distribute income each year so the investor doesn’t get gross-roll-up. Accordingly, the Irish tax authorities are more relaxed as they’re getting their pound of flesh on an ongoing basis.
 
joe sod said:
Its a wonder an irish financial institution cant construct a few ETFs themselves produce the PRIIP themselves and domicile them in the US for irish investors.
Click to expand...
It's no wonder at all.

Firstly, getting an US-domiciled ETF approved by the SEC is a very time-consuming and expensive process.

Secondly, there is a mismatch between the requisite disclosures in US offering documents and the requisite disclosures to EU investors.

The latter is the real reason why the big fund promoters (BlackRock, State Street, etc.) have separate US and EU-domiciled products.
 

So why not just tax the ones that don't pay dividends so!?

Not to treat them as a CGT item is an abomination imho.

(The dept of finance & revenue should hang their heads in shame for the inconsistent, contrived tax on EU based ETFs imho)
 

There are distribution versions of a lot of funds, where the dividends are taxed as income and the gain at 41%. It's an easy fix for the dept of finance but they choose not to. Higher taxation and in these days of socialist parties, politically loaded to do so as only rich people save...


Steven
http://www.bluewaterfp.ie (www.bluewaterfp.ie)
 
Playing devil’s advocate, what about the plus sides? 8 years of gross-roll-up and 41% on income is better than 52%.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
Playing devil’s advocate, what about the plus sides? 8 years of gross-roll-up and 41% on income is better than 52%.
Click to expand...
It entirely depends on the relative contribution of reinvested dividends and capital gains to the total return over the investment period.

Over the last 20 years, dividends accounted for roughly 70% of the total return on global equities (MSCI World) so an investor would actually have been far better off falling under the exit tax regime as opposed to the normal income tax/CGT regime (assuming a high marginal income tax rate).
 

And it depends what someone is invested in; something more income focussed like a bond fund could be more attractive in 41% world.
 

Is it a wonder? Let's do some maths. How much demand do you think a US domiciled ETF would have in Ireland (let's forget about legal issues in the US for the moment). €100mm might be a stretch.

Given most US tracker funds are charging management fees of 0.25bp that would be an annual management fee of €2,500. The annual review of the documents is going to cost €10k alone. Management and overheads maybe €500k even as part of a larger organisation - multiples of that if a standalone.

Funds and especially ETF's require scale
 

You’re correct that the demand is probably insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but it’d be a lot more than €100m in some cases. Closer to the billion territory I would reckon. Wealth managers invest in them for their client portfolios and my understanding is that Davy alone own manage around €12bn of client money. A good slug of that would be in one of the big S&P trackers, etc.
 
Last edited:
Qualified fund managers can still access US-domiciled ETFs - the PRIIPS KID is only required for retail investors.
 

A significant amount of products sold to retail in Ireland are repackaged offerings of larger asset managers - Blackrock, Vanguard etc. There are very local funds sold to the Irish retail market which have significant scale
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register