Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - yossarian

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
31
Shares / Re: STX40 vs RMBT40 (read this before you buy Satrix 40)
« on: October 04, 2013, 09:36:35 am »
Mind if I ask where you got the TER numbers from?

Exactly the sort of question I would have asked!  I definitely don't mind!

There is some sort of standard as to how they report TER.  Whilst past performance doesn't guarantee future performance I can only see RMBT40's expenses going down as they scale up and their Scrip lending income increases.  Satrix looks a bit fat and lazy.

Update:  RMB's fee outline:

  • A management fee of 0.1% per annum, is payable to the Manager monthly.
  • The manager must give not less than three months’ written notice to investors of any change in the manager’s fee or any change in the method of calculation thereof that could result in a change in fees.
  • An upfront fee may be charged in connection with the expenditure incurred and administration performed in respect of the creation, issue and sale of Securities. Such fees will be expressed as a percentage of the consideration received from an investor and charged on a sliding scale dependent on the size of the
    investment.
  • An exit fee may be charged in connection with the expenditure incurred and administration performed in respect of the repurchase of Securities. These fees will be expressed as a percentage of the proceeds from the sale by the investor of Bips TOP 40 Securities and charged on a sliding scale.

(ref http://www.rmb.co.za/PDFs/etfs/BipsTop40Supplement20081002.pdf)

Update 2:

According to Satrix's 2012 financial statements:

  • A management fee of 34.7m on average assests of 7.38b (0.47%)
  • A management fee of 34.7m on income of 191m (18%)

Update 3:

Similar calc done to RMB T40's financials:

  • Total fees of 1.3m on average assests of 543m (0.24%)
  • Total fees of 1.3m on income of 16m (8%)

Please check my assumptions and calculations!

32
Shares / Re: STX40 vs RMBT40 (read this before you buy Satrix 40)
« on: October 03, 2013, 03:06:42 pm »
R100 000 invested in STX40 or RMB40 for 10 years with an annual return of 15%

Year
STX40
RMBT40
ROE S40
ROE RMB40
Delta
0   100 000   100 000
1   114 483   114 770   14.5%   14.8%   0.3%
2   131 062   131 722   31.1%   31.7%   0.7%
3   150 044   151 177   50.0%   51.2%   1.1%
4   171 774   173 506   71.8%   73.5%   1.7%
5   196 651   199 132   96.7%   99.1%   2.5%
6   225 131   228 544   125.1%   128.5%   3.4%
7   257 735   262 300   157.7%   162.3%   4.6%
8   295 062   301 042   195.1%   201.0%   6.0%
9   337 794   345 506   237.8%   245.5%   7.7%
10   386 715   396 537   286.7%   296.5%   9.8%
               
               

33
Shares / STX40 vs RMBT40 (read this before you buy Satrix 40)
« on: October 03, 2013, 12:31:23 pm »
Seems like a no brainer?  STX40 has a TER of (at least) 0.45% while RMBT40 runs at 0.2%.  Am I missing something here?

34
Shares / Re: Living off Dividends.
« on: October 02, 2013, 05:26:47 pm »
Perhaps SARS would ... reset the date to zero.

OK, I'll bite.  Where did you get the idea that SARS can reset the date to [a new date]?  Post the source please.

35
Shares / Re: Living off Dividends.
« on: October 02, 2013, 04:13:38 pm »


Umm. Not quite, thank you for asking. My next prob now is this.
I have 3 shares that I have held for 1.5 years and 1 of them has grown overweight compared to the other 2. Now if I sell some of the overweight one and add to the other 2, does my "Purchase Date" start all over again?

The one you sell is up for debate between you and SARS as to whether it's income or CGT based on your intention etc.

Let's to simplify things say that you only buy one type of share instead of two.

You used to hold x shares.
You now hold x + y shares.

x shares are considered by SARS to be 1.5 years old.
y shares are considered by SARS to be 0 years old.

In other words you hold shares in a single company whose constituents are two different ages.  In 1.5 years time you could sell x shares and pay only CGT.  But if you sold x+y shares in 1.5 years time you'd pay CGT on x shares and would have to argue with SARS if your proceeds on y shares were CGT or income.

36
Shares / Re: Living off Dividends.
« on: October 02, 2013, 02:21:15 pm »
Quote from: orca on Pulverized sandbox
I normally would have sold all by now but cannot as my gains have been too high and I still have a year and a half left to pay CGT instead of normal tax.

So, I guess you now agree with the various people on this thread?

37
Shares / Re: Living off Dividends.
« on: September 29, 2013, 09:04:26 pm »
Post # 16 is an extract from the Income Tax Act 1962 (amended).  It's law it's not an interpretation.

38
Shares / Re: Living off Dividends.
« on: September 29, 2013, 08:14:01 am »
From the SARS note that moonraker posted :
Quote
19. Conclusion

Section 9C provides taxpayers with certainty that if they hold equity shares for at
least three continuous years the gains and losses on disposal will be of a capital
nature regardless of the intention
with which the shares were originally acquired. The
section has a much wider application than its predecessor (section 9B) in that it
covers unlisted shares and a member’s interest in a close corporation instead of only
JSE-listed shares. But not all types of shares qualify under section 9C; for example,
non-participating preference shares, shares in foreign companies (other than JSE-
listed shares) and participatory interests in portfolios of collective investment
schemes in property fall outside section 9C. Its provisions are now mandatory and no
election is required or even possible. The wider ambit of section 9C has necessitated
the inclusion of a number of anti-avoidance measures. The capital or revenue nature
of shares disposed of within three years of acquisition will continue to be determined
according to principles laid down by case law.

I suspect you are conflating the issue of having to declare your shares as trading stock.

39
Shares / Re: Living off Dividends.
« on: September 28, 2013, 07:57:01 pm »
I don't see, or can't find, any changes when compared to the pdf attached. Section 4.1. What exactly is 'the brand new law' ?

My mistake.  It's been in its current form since 1 Oct 2007.  I was side-tracked by this line in the current Act: Subsection (1) comes into operation on 1 January 2013 and applies in respect of years of assessment commencing on or after that date.

The note you posted indicates that disposals of shares held for more than 3 years is capital.  Less than that is up for debate.  So my original calc is accurate...

40
Shares / Re: Living off Dividends.
« on: September 28, 2013, 03:29:28 pm »
And bear in mind that this is brand new law
Quote from: act
Subsection (1) comes into operation on 1 January 2013 and applies in respect of years of assessment commencing on or after that date.

So whatever happened in the past is irrelevant really.  And I think the case law is probably superseded by the new provision in the Act.

The new law introduces a simple objective test to determine if a share disposal is of a capital nature.  If it's capital then the calculation I posted earlier demonstrating a selling R350k of shares (2/3 capital gains) tax free holds...

41
Shares / Re: Living off Dividends.
« on: September 28, 2013, 03:18:56 pm »
I think the crux of the matter is does a "qualifying share" (section 9C) override the other factors in determining if a disposal is of a capital or income nature.  A job for some tax expert to explain to us.

In simple terms Section 9C is the "three year holding period law"

42
Shares / Re: Living off Dividends.
« on: September 27, 2013, 03:14:01 pm »
Quote from: act
1) For the purposes of this section—

"connected person" means a connected person as defined in section 1, provided that the expression 'and no shareholder holds the majority voting rights of such company' in paragraph (d)(v) of that definition shall be disregarded;

"equity share" includes a participatory interest in a portfolio of a collective investment scheme in securities;

"qualifying share", in relation to any taxpayer, means an equity share, which has been disposed of by the taxpayer or which is treated as having been disposed of by the taxpayer in terms of paragraph 12 of the Eighth Schedule, if the taxpayer immediately prior to such disposal had been the owner of that share for a continuous period of at least three years excluding a share which at any time during that period was-

     a) a share in a share block company as defined in section 1 of the Share Blocks Control Act, 1980 (Act No. 59
         of 1980);

     b) a share in a company which, was not a resident, other than a company contemplated in paragraph (a) of
         the definition of "listed company"; or

     c) a hybrid equity instrument as defined in section 8E.


 

2) Any amount other than a dividend or foreign dividend received by or accrued to a taxpayer in respect of a
qualifying share
shall be deemed to be of a capital nature.

 

2A)Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of so much of the amount received or accrued in respect of the disposal
of a qualifying share contemplated in that subsection as does not exceed the expenditure allowed in respect of that share in terms of section 12J(2).[Venture capital exclusion]

 

3)The provisions of this section shall not apply to any qualifying share if at the time of the disposal of that share the
taxpayer was a connected person in relation to the company that issued that share and-

a)more than 50 per cent of the market value of the equity shares of that company was attributable directly or
indirectly to immovable property other than—

i)immovable property held directly or indirectly by a person that is not a connected person to the
taxpayer; or

ii)immovable property held directly or indirectly for a continuous period of more than three years
immediately prior to that disposal; or

b)that company acquired any asset during the period of three years immediately prior to that disposal and
amounts were paid or payable by any person to any person other than that company for the use of that asset while that asset was held by that company during that period.

 

4)For purposes of this section, where—

a)any share has been lent by a lender to a borrower in terms of a securities lending arrangement, such
share shall for the purposes of the lender be deemed not to have been disposed of by the lender; and

b)any other share of the same kind and of the same or equivalent quantity and quality has been returned by
the borrower to the lender, such share and such other share shall be deemed to be one and the same share in the hands of the lender.

 

5)There shall in the year of assessment in which any qualifying share is disposed of by the taxpayer be included in
the taxpayer's income any expenditure or losses incurred in respect of such qualifying share and allowed as a deduction from the income of the taxpayer during that or any previous year of assessment in terms of section 11. Provided that this subsection must not apply in respect of any expenditure or loss to the extent that the amount of that expenditure or loss is taken into account in terms of section 8(4)(a) or section 19.

 

6)Where the taxpayer holds identical shares in the same company which were acquired by the taxpayer on
different dates and the taxpayer has disposed of any of those shares, the taxpayer shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to have disposed of the shares held by the taxpayer for the longest period of time.

 

7)The provisions of section 22(8 ) shall not apply as a result of the disposal of any qualifying share.

 

8)For the purposes of this section, where a company issues shares to a person in substitution of previously held
shares in that company by reason of a subdivision, consolidation or similar arrangement or a conversion contemplated in section 40A or 40B, such share and such previously held shares shall be deemed to be one and the same share if—

i)the participation rights and interests of that person in that company remain unaltered; and

ii)no consideration whatsoever passes directly or indirectly from that person to that company in relation
to the issued shares.

 

Subsection (1) comes into operation on 1 January 2013 and applies in respect of years of assessment commencing on or after that date.

The provision in the Act seems to post-date most of the court rulings.

43
Shares / Re: Living off Dividends.
« on: September 27, 2013, 02:37:53 pm »
The rates in the linked document are out of date. But it's well written and presented.

Quote
Shares bought for the dominant, main and overriding purpose of securing the highest
dividend income possible will be of a capital nature when the profit motive is incidental
(CIR v Middelman supra).

Quote
3.2.1 Intention - the most important factor

The most important factor in determining whether a profit is of a capital or revenue
nature is your intention at the time when you bought and sold your shares
(Elandsheuwel Farming (Edms) Bpk v SBI 1978 (1) SA 101 (A), 39 SATC 163). If they
were bought as a long-term investment to produce dividend income the profit is likely to
be of a capital nature. But if you bought the shares for the purpose of resale at a profit,
the profit will be of a revenue nature.

In order for a profit to be of a capital nature you need not exclude the “slightest
contemplation of a profitable resale” (SIR v The Trust Bank of Africa Ltd 1975 (2) SA 652
(A), 37 SATC 87).

In general, in order to qualify as capital gains, you need to invest in shares that you could conceivably have lived off for their dividends.   If at some later stage you need to sell some shares for an incidental reason then that sale is very possibly "capital gains".  You can obtain an advance ruling from SARS if you want and if it's unfavourable take them to court.

LAPD-IT-G11 - Tax Guide for Share Owners

[updated link -- Yossarian]

44
Shares / Re: Living off Dividends.
« on: September 27, 2013, 02:18:06 pm »

Well, that now sadly changes to this.
Gain = R233 275
Less Rebate of R12 080 = R221 195
Tax = R31 627

Not too bad considering that normal tax on your R350 000 would have been R70 060

I think you deduct the rebate from your *tax* (after applying tax to the whole income).  Or you deduct the threshold from your income.  Not the rebate from your income.

45
Shares / Re: Living off Dividends.
« on: September 26, 2013, 10:51:54 pm »
Pretty spot on yossa. Now I wonder if that Taxable R67 690.60 can be reduced by the rebate of R12 080.00 plus the 7.5% Medical expenses plus other expenses.

No, I think the rebate is the same as the threshold.  IE 67 000 tax free equals a "rebate" of 12060 at the 18% tax rate.  So they are two different ways of looking at the same thing: either a threshold of 67 000 or a rebate of 12 080.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4