Consolidating company pensions
Have you shopped around?  I would agree that the fees seem high.   The first question I would ask if if the .75% management fee is per year or per month?  If it is per month, you will almost certainly lose money each year.   A quick search shows that Fidelity will allow one to transfer their pensions into a self directed account.  Here in the US, where we have 401Ks, it is almost always better to transfer them into something self directed once you leave an employer.  Fidelity makes it really easy, and I always recommend them.  (No affiliation.) Here in the US they actually pay you for you transferring money into your account.  This can come in the form of free stock trades or money added to your account. I would encourage you to give them or their competitors a look in order to make an informed decision.  Often times, a person with lowish balances, can't really afford to pay those high management fees.  You might need in the 10s of millions before something like that makes sense. "I've been down the consolidation route too (of a handful of DC pensions; the DB ones I've not touched, and you would indeed need advice to move those around). What you should be comparing against is: what's the cheapest possible thing you could be doing?  Monevators' online platform list will give you an idea of SIPP costs (if your pot is big enough and you're a buy-and-hold person, ATS' flat-fee model means costs can become arbitrarily close to zero percent), and if you're happy to be invested in something like Vanguard Lifestrategy, Target Retirement or vanilla index trackers then charges on those will be something like 0.1%-0.4%.  Savings of 0.5-1.0% per year add up over pension saving timescales, but only you can decide whether whatever extra the adviser is offering vs. a more DIY approach is worth it for you. Are you absolutely sure that 0.75% pa fee isn't on top of whatever charges are built into the funds he'll invest you in?  For the £1000 fee, advisers claim to have high costs per customer because of ""regulatory burdens""; this is why there's talk of an ""advice gap"" these days: if you only have a small sum to invest, the fixed costs of advice become intolerable.  IMHO, nutmeg are still quite expensive for what they offer too (although still probably cheaper than any ""advised"" route)."
I guess you are making quite a bit of assumptions without clarifying what you are trying to achieve. As a non-resident you cannot incorporate a sole proprietorship in Singapore. You have to be citizen. Alternatively you can register a company that has its own norms like minimum number of directors and some being Singapore national, etc. As you are paying dividend and not salary to yourself, the company will be required to pay taxes on gains. So all consulting money is gain as there is no expense. The balance when you transfer to Spain would potentially get taxed as income to you subject to DTAA "I'm assuming that all the savings are of 'defined contribution' type, and not 'defined benefit' as per marktristan's comment to the original question. Aside from convenience of having all the pension money in one place, which may or may not be something you care about, there may be a benefit associated with being able to rebalance your portfolio when you need do. Say you invest your pension pot in a 60%/40% of equities and bonds respectively. Due higher risk/reward ratio of the equities part, in the long run equities tend to get 'overweight' turning your mix into 70%/30% or even 80%/20%, therefore raising your overall exposure to equities. General practice is to rebalance your portfolio every now and then, in this case, by selling some equities and buying more bonds (""sell high, buy low""). Now if you have few small pockets of pension money, it makes it harder to keep track of the overall asset allocation and actually do the rebalancing as you cannot see and trade everything from one place." "Are you not allowed the y5 option?   I'm no guru, but one thing that sticks out to me in that plan is the vesting period of 5yrs as opposed to 10, so the money is ""yours"" in half the time....so if after 5yrs, you find a better gig, you can roll those benefits into another account and manage them on your own (or just leave and draw on them when you are eligible)  Then again, knowing that many municipalities are in shit shape due to their pension benefit liabilities, they may be pushing to the longer vesting period to a) encourage you to stay employed there and/or b) allow them to keep the money should you leave before that 10yr period  Like I said, though- I'm def no guru, and that is only one aspect of these plans.  I'd personally reach out to a financial planner so they can game it all out for you and equip you with the info to make the best choice" You need a find a financial planner that will create a plan for you for a fixed fee. They will help you determine the best course of action taking into account the pension, the 403B, and any other sources of income you have, or will have. They will know how to address the risk that you have that that particular pension.  They will help you determine how to invest your money to produce the type of retirement you want, while making sure you are likely to not outlive your portfolio. From my memory of CFA Level 2 accounting:  * If Company A buys 50% or more of company B, they must consolidate 100% of Company B on their financial statements. The % of the business they don't own is multiplied by net income every year, and the resulting number is added to minority interest on the balance sheet. * If Company A buys more than 20% but less than 50%, use the equity method of accounting. This involves creating an asset for the purchase price paid for the stake in Company B. The asset increases in value by dividends received, that's it. * If Company A buys 20% or less, the investment is held in Marketable securities or something similar on the balance, and is marked-to-market. I will never understand the logic behind this. If you buyback shares instead of funding pension liabilities... those liabilities are still there and any serious investor will factor that into the companies stock price.   I guess it's just easier to be a consistent dividend grower and cater to that audience if your outstanding shares decrease. the pots will be negligible, however this capital could be used better elsewhere if I was to withdraw them. You won't be able to withdraw the money. Notwithstanding the recent 'pension freedom' changes, money put into a pension is still inaccessible until age 55 at the very earliest, and probably later by the time you get there. You should have been Advised of this every time you enrolled into a scheme, although it may well have been buried in something you were given to read. The best you can do (and what I would recommend, although of course this post isn't Advice) is to transfer the pensions to a personal pension, for example a SIPP, wherein you will be able to control where the money is invested. Most SIPP providers will gladly help you with such transfers. Would it be beneficial to keep these smaller pots with their respected schemes The reason I suggest transferring is that leaving the funds in workplace schemes that are no longer being contributed to is a surefire way of finding yourself invested in poorly-performing neglected funds, earning money for no one beyond the scheme provider. In the case you mentioned, where a private company owners will take debt with the purpose of  buying out other owners, is this done through a share repurchases program (I understand private companies issue them, even though it's rare)? Thank you for the insights. On my quarterly statement and the 401K plan website I can see the vesting for various categories. They total all these up and report the total balance and the vested balance. If I do the math I discover that the vested balance is equal to A + B + D + (60% of C) For my company at least, if I was to leave now I would get 60% of the Company match, which does include significant gains. This document for the Department of Labor discuss many aspects of 401K plans including vesting. In a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k) plan, you are always   100 percent vested in your own contributions to a plan, and in any   subsequent earnings from your contributions. However, in most defined   contribution plans you may have to work several years before you are   vested in the employer’s matching contributions. (There are   exceptions, such as the SIMPLE 401(k) and safe harbor 401(k), in which   you are immediately vested in all required employer contributions. You   also vest immediately in the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP.) Currently, employers have a choice of two different vesting schedules   for employer matching 401(k) contributions, which are shown in Table   2. Your employer may use a schedule in which employees are 100 percent vested in employer contributions after 3 years of service (cliff   vesting). Under graduated vesting, an employee must be at least 20   percent vested after 2 years, 40 percent after 3 years, 60 percent   after 4 years, 80 percent after 5 years, and 100 percent after 6   years. If your automatic enrollment 401(k) plan requires employer   contributions, you vest in those contributions after 2 years.   Automatic enrollment 401(k) plans with optional matching contributions   follow one of the vesting schedules noted above. The straight math might favor leaving it, but I'd personally prefer to have it in my control in an IRA. My own employer offered a buyout on the pension program, and the choice between a nice lump sum vs some fixed number 20 years hence was a simple one for me. Both my wife and I (same company) took the lump sum, and never regretted it. The benefit of paying into a pension is that the payment is effectively made from pre-tax money. Either you pay from your own pocket and then you get income tax relief on the payment, i.e. your gross salary is reduced by the gross pension contribution and income tax is recalculated with the excess either refunded to you or put in your pension (the details are a bit more complicated depending on your marginal tax rate, but the end result is the same). Or your company pays, and then you are never charged tax on the payment in the first place. From the company's point of view, the two are roughly the same. Either it pays you who then pays into your pension, or it pays straight into your pension. Either way the money going out from the company is treated as a cost that is offset against the company's revenue, reducing the amount of corporation tax the company has to pay. There are some National Insurance advantages to paying directly into the pension; neither you nor the company gets relief on NI if the payment goes via you, but no NI is paid in the first place if it goes direct from the company. [EDIT: your question is actually worded to suggest that you want to lend your company money from your own pocket, and then have that loan directly discharged by the company paying into your pension. That's no different to you just paying into your pension directly, and wouldn't have any better tax implications. For the rest of my answer, I assume that the idea is actually to lend your company money that it uses to make an immediate contribution to your pension (as part of your pay from that company), and then the company will repay the loan later by returning the money to you personally. Your pension and you are two separate entities legally.] However, in your case, what you're proposing is that the company should effectively make a loss paying into your pension: it's going to end up with more costs than revenue. So, there won't be any immediate tax saving because there wasn't revenue to pay corporation tax on in the first place. You also won't save tax because the loan will be made from previously taxed income or whatever.  However, there will be a tax loss that can be carried forward and offset against future profits, so if you expect the company to make money in future to repay the loan, you might end up saving some corporation tax. You can also sometimes carry a tax loss back one year, so if your company had profits last year you could get some corporation tax back immediately. The repayment of the loan itself won't be subject to income tax as it's not income. So unless you can carry the loss back, you won't get any immediate tax relief by doing this, but it might give you a way to carry forward your annual allowance to future years, i.e. use it now and get the tax advantage later. However, the annual allowance can already be carried forward by up to three years, so this is only worthwhile if you expect that future revenue to repay the loan to arrive more than three years later. Also, this is only worthwhile if you'll continue to max out the annual allowance for paying into your pension in future years, otherwise you might as well just make the pension payment using that same revenue in future years. However, even if this beneficial tax-wise, I'm not sure if it's actually allowed; this might be viewed as an artificial transaction to avoid tax, and that could lead to HMRC disallowing the future tax relief. You might need to ask HMRC or an accountant about that. If you do make the loan, make sure it's clearly documented so you can show in future why the repayment shouldn't be treated as income. Stephen G. Price is knowledgeable in handling asset division issues while ensuring that you meet all legal obligations. Allow us to assist you in going through the complex financial issues you will have to face, such as pension entitlements and capital gains. http://stephengprice.com/divorce-separation/ I certainly do not agree and you are making some sweeping statements without backing them up. What I am saying is that a company cannot make a promise of credit to an employee without having something to back that up. If you don't have that then you cannot offer pensions or other futures that you cannot ensure are going to be properly funded. No one forces a company to offer pensions in this day and age (there are exceptions of course) so they do not need to offer it at all.   Things like pensions are often used as incentives that can be provided in lieu of cash payments to the employee. If we are going to make cash like exchanges of value then that value should be just as guaranteed as it is when the company promises to pay back a loan.   In short you should not be able to hire employees on a financial promise you cannot keep in good faith. If for some reason you cannot keep that promise, just like with standard credit it should hurt you.   Or you know, as a company don't make BS promises and just pay people what they are worth. "I'm not personally familiar with this, but I had a look at the Companies House guidance. Unfortunately, it seems you've done things in the wrong order. You should have first got the funds out, distributed them to yourself as a dividend or salary, and then closed the account, and then wound up the company. Legally speaking, the remaining funds now belong to the government (""bona vacantia""). It's possible you could apply to have the company restored, but I think that might be difficult; I don't think the administrative restoration procedure applies in your situation. Given the amount involved, I'd suggest just forgetting about it." "Nothing ""happens"" to it. It works the same way regardless of whether you are a U.S. citizen or resident or not. Taxes and penalties work the same way on withdrawal. That said, if you are not in the U.S. and don't have any income in the U.S. in a particular year in the future, you can take advantage of the fact that your U.S. tax that year will probably be zero. Then, if you withdraw a little bit, even if they count as taxable income, your U.S. income will still be so low that it may be under your personal exemption, or if not at least it will be taxed in the lowest tax bracket."