≡ Menu

The tax-free Lump Sum Allowance conundrum

Image of a man in a suit with ‘tax’ written over his head

In his debut article for Monevator, new contributor The Engineer ponders the imponderable: should he take his tax-free lump sum from his pension before the chancellor potentially takes the perk off him?

Hold onto your hats: it’s Budget season once more! Where will the tax axe will fall this time: rental income, pension tax relief, property, capital gains, or inheritance?

Pick your poison punters.

The contender that has generated the most column inches is the potential curbing or demise of the 25% tax-free pension lump sum – the beloved pot at the end of the long slog of a working life rainbow that is all yours to keep, unmolested by HMRC.

Generally, the advice from the experts is it’s foolish to second guess the chancellor and take drastic steps with your personal finances based on rumours. More specifically, it’s that you shouldn’t take your tax-free cash unless you already have a plan to spend it on something sensible like paying off the mortgage or giving it to your kids.

But ever more people are ignoring that advice. They are grabbing the tax-free cash while they can.

As This Is Money reports:

Mounting fears of further changes to pension rules in the upcoming Autumn Budget are pushing more savers to withdraw from their retirement pots, figures show.

The investment platform Bestinvest said it saw a 33% rise in withdrawal requests from customers with self-invested personal pensions or SIPPs in September […]

Bestinvest said the recent withdrawals were largely made up of those aged over 55 accessing their 25% tax-free cash lump sum, amid concerns that Chancellor Rachel Reeves may slash the tax-free withdrawal allowance.

I too am weighing up the pros and cons.

The media debate is mostly an emotional one. “The government’s going to rob me!” versus “Pensions are great! They’re tax-free!”

However I’m not sure either of those claims is true.

Monevator readers will demand a more sober analysis. Here is my attempt.

Wealth warning and disclaimer Everyone’s tax situation is famously individual, and your pension is a super-valuable and usually irreplaceable asset. This article is not personal financial advice – it’s just one man’s musings about his own situation. Seek professional advice as needed.

A sober analysis of the Lump Sum Allowance

The question under the microscope: in what circumstances would it make sense to take your tax-free lump sum out of your defined contribution (DC) pension and then invest it outside of the pension?

The crux? That future growth on my lump sum could be taxed outside of the pension – ISAs notwithstanding – but would compound tax-free while it’s still inside.

Then again, any growth inside a pension might still get taxed on withdrawal.

Hence we need to compare:

  • income tax on pension withdrawals at some unknown point many years in the future

against…

  • the compound effect of some combination of interest, dividend, and capital gains tax on my lump sum when it’s invested outside of my pension.

The sheer number of factors at play is mind-boggling. Any attempt at a general analysis is doomed to die in a morass of imponderables.

But maybe we can look at it one factor at a time? Then we can at least establish some guidelines that might help us reach a decision.

For a start, we’ll assume that all pension and tax rules remain unchanged for the duration. (Although we will come back to this.)

Effective tax rate INSIDE the pension

Let’s assume your pension has already reached the old Lifetime Allowance (£1,073,100) and therefore the maximum possible tax-free lump sum (£268,275), now known as the Lump Sum Allowance (LSA).

In this case all future growth inside the pension will be taxed on the way out. If you expect to be a basic-rate taxpayer at the point of withdrawal, say, then this will mean tax at 20%.

Remember this is the effective tax rate on the future growth in the pension. Not necessarily on the whole pension.

I’m assuming here that you don’t have any protected allowances.

Your going rate

It’s unlikely that your marginal tax rate will be lower than 20% later in retirement. The state pension is already using up pretty much all of the personal allowance, pushing most people into the basic-rate band on any additional income.

But it’s possible you expect to be a higher-rate or even additional-rate taxpayer in retirement.

Maybe you have a huge DC pension with protected allowances? Or a defined benefit pension (DB) as well as the DC pension. Or you’ll inherit a trust fund from great uncle Bertie.

In those cases the effective tax rate on growth inside your pension is going to be a lot higher.

Below the LSA

If you have yet to reach the LSA, then 25% of future growth will be tax-free (until you do hit the maximum).

For our analysis, we can think of this as two separate pots:

  • The 25% tax-free part on which future growth will be tax-free when withdrawn (at least while you’re still under the LSA)
  • The remaining 75% on which future growth will be taxed at your nominal tax rate on withdrawal

This approach reflects the fact that if you were to take out the tax-free lump sum, then the remaining 75% would be taken into drawdown and all subsequent withdrawals taxed at your nominal rate.

So, whilst the rate of tax on the growth of the pension as a whole would be 15% for a basic rate taxpayer (that is, 75% of 20%), the tax on the growth of the 25% lump sum can be considered as 0%.

And an effective tax rate of 0% is hard to beat!

Effective tax rate OUTSIDE the pension

The effective tax rate on growth of a lump sum held outside of a pension is even harder to tie down.

If you have spare ISA allowance, then the effective tax rate on the growth of whatever you manage to squirrel away into it would be zero.

Similarly, it would be zero if you have enough spare tax allowance to accommodate all the future growth, in whatever form.

As for tax rates:

  • If you keep the lump sum in cash, money markets, or bond funds, then you’ll pay your marginal rate of tax: 20%, 40%, or 45%.
  • Take your returns in dividends and it’s taxed at 8.75%, 33.75% or 39.35%.
  • As capital gains it’s 18% or 24%.
  • If you invest the lump sum in low-coupon gilts (directly held, not in a fund), then your effective tax rate would be very low, perhaps 1% or 2%.

Most probably your effective tax rate outside of a pension will be a combination of more than one of these, depending on your asset mix. In this case the rate will land somewhere in the middle.

Or perhaps it’ll be something very different if you’re prepared to take on truly esoteric tax planning.

What could be – ahem – simpler?

Comparing the tax rates

Obviously, if withdrawing the tax-free lump sum is going to work then I need to keep the effective tax rate on growth outside of the pension below the effective rate inside.

If you’re below the LSA, then you can’t beat the 0% effective tax inside a pension. The best you could do is match it with spare ISA and tax allowances.

If you’re above the LSA then some further thinking is needed.

The graph below shows the value of £1,000 lump sum invested outside a pension for 20 years (Y-axis), with a 7% growth rate, assuming varying effective tax rates on that growth (X-axis):

Here we’re comparing that lump sum growth (cyan line) against the same £1,000 tax-free lump sum held inside the pension and subject to a 20% tax on the growth when its withdrawn (pink line).

Again, note this is the tax rate on the growth only. The original sum is still tax-free whenever you decide to take it out. And we’re only thinking about the tax-free part of the current pension here.

So… eureka! With a lower tax rate the lump sum withdrawn will be worth more later!

“No shit, Sherlock“, I hear you cry.

Ah but it’s not quite that simple. You’ll see the lines in our graph don’t cross at 20%. Even if we have the same effective tax rate both inside and outside the pension, the lump sum outside the pension still loses.

Taxing matters

This is because there is a cost to paying tax as you go along, versus paying just once at the end. (It’s for the same reason that annual fees are so insidious.)

More graphs required, clearly.

Below the difference for the same £1,000 tax-free lump sum is illustrated for varying investment durations – that is, how long the money is invested for before being needed – and again assuming 7% growth and an effective tax rate of 20% both inside and outside the pension:

And now for a varying growth rate assuming a 20-year investment duration:

This shows that the damage done to your lump sum outside the pension grows with time and growth rate. It arguably suggests that high-growth long-duration investments are best left inside the pension.

But wait! That high growth and long duration might mean you end up paying a higher tax rate on withdrawal from the pension.

So perhaps it’s better to get it out early?

Also, I’ve assumed capital gains tax is paid each year. Whereas in fact it could be left to accumulate and be paid at the end of the period. Although that too might not be a good idea.

Enough! I have fallen into that morass of imponderables. Let’s just say that you’re going to need to see some clear daylight between the effective tax rates to make withdrawing fly.

Asset allocation

Some of this discussion on tax rates has implications for asset allocation.

If you have spare ISA or tax allowances, then the world is your oyster. Fill your boots with any asset class you fancy.

If, however, you’re trying to minimise your tax rate by allocating to higher dividend-paying assets or direct holdings in low coupon gilts, then you’re making decisions on asset allocation.

And it’s almost certainly not wise to change your asset allocation solely to get that clear daylight between effective tax rates.

If you were already planning to include higher dividend assets or gilts in your portfolio then great. Move that part outside of the pension.

Otherwise, best to knock the whole thing on the head. 

Inheritance

The tax-free inheritance of pensions will be gone by 2027.

This swings the pendulum a long way towards taking the lump sum sooner. Indeed it’s what has driven much of the increase in debate on this subject.

If you die before 75 then your heirs would currently inherit your pension tax-free. Any tax you’ve paid on a lump sum outside of the pension would have been wasted.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if this perk too is axed at some point. And in any case, you’ll be dead!

If you die after 75 then your heirs would pay tax on their inherited pension. In this case, if it made sense to take the lump sum when you were alive, then it will still make sense when you’re dead.

So not much to sway us either way here.

Known unknowns

Some things could change in future that would make me regret taking my lump sum early.

Such as:

  • The tax-free allowance is increased.
  • Tax-free inheritance of pensions gets a reprieve.
  • The tax rates on unwrapped investments are increased.
  • I am beset by riches from a burgeoning new career at Monevator and rocket up through the tax bands. [Um, take the lump sum if this is your concern – Ed]

Conversely, some things could change that would make me feel extra warm inside because I already have my lump sum tucked away in a GIA:

  • The tax-free allowance is reduced or axed.
  • The lifetime allowance is reintroduced.
  • Pension income is subjected to National Insurance or the equivalent in extra tax.

Our soaring national debt makes it hard to imagine that pension rules will get more generous. So on balance, the second set of risks seem more likely to materialise than the first.

That’s not to say that any of these will happen this November. It’s unlikely that the government would suddenly introduce a cliff edge cut to the tax-free allowance, say.

But neither do I think the issue will go away. Somehow, sometime, by a government of one colour or another, I believe it’s probable that pension tax relief will become less generous.

A tax increase on unwrapped assets would be a blow but it’s just as likely that the tax on pension income will be increased. Still, it’s another risk to keep in mind when looking at your relative effective tax rates.

The conclusion

If you think the government is out to get you then you should probably take the lump sum early.

Use it to buy gold bars and guns. To keep in your cabin in the woods.

Otherwise, if you’re still below the Lump Sum Allowance, then you should probably leave the lump sum in the pension, although you shouldn’t lose out if you take the cash and have enough spare ISA and/or tax allowances to accommodate it.

Even if you’re already over the LSA, in my opinion it would probably only make sense to take the lump sum early if:  

  • You have retired or have low earnings and therefore your future tax band is unlikely to be lower than your current one  
  • You have unused ISA or tax allowances and/or you plan to have higher dividend assets or gilts in your portfolio (as these would all enable you to keep your tax rate down)  
  • You don’t expect to die before 75  

This list is not definitive.

You don’t necessarily need all these to be true to make it worthwhile. Conversely, even if they are all true you might sensibly still not want to take the tax-free lump sum now.

You could wait a while and think about it later. The situation probably won’t change drastically in November.

(Probably.)

Decision time for yours truly

Of course it depends on your situation, but the arguments for withdrawal seem to stack up for me. That’s because I’m already at the maximum tax-free lump sum allowance and it makes sense for me to keep this part of my portfolio in gilts.

Even in the absence of any adverse tax changes, if I manage my tax carefully, I should still be up on the deal. And if – or more likely when – the pension tax axe falls then I’m supremely indifferent.

But before I push the Button of No Return, I’ll wait for any comments from you guys.

It’s quite possible the Monevator regulars will point out the flaws in my logic, and I will appear foolish.

Just as the experts in the media forewarned.

We’re certain to get new – even contrary – points raised by sharp Monevator readers in the comments. So even if you’re not a regular commenter, be sure to come back and check them out in a few days.

{ 77 comments }

What to do about extreme US market valuations [Members]

Many Monevator readers tell us they’re feeling nervous about the markets. Me too. The perils on my personal Venn diagram of risks seem to overlap like unattended coffee rings.

Notable brow-furrowers include:

This article can be read by selected Monevator members. Please see our membership plans and consider joining! Already a member? Sign in here.
{ 31 comments }
Our Weekend Reading logo: a bundle of newspaper mastheads

What caught my eye this week.

A new report from Goldman Sachs – the title riffs on the Everything, Everywhere, All at Once movie – is filled with enough graphs and factoids to drive a dozen Weekend Reading discussions.

But the crux is Goldman’s best attempt at a snapshot of an investable world portfolio today:

Study the chart. Do you think a 2% sliver allocated to real estate looks short a few thousand Knightsbridges and Mayfairs? Congratulations – collect your gold star.

This is – theoretically – an investable portfolio. So only real estate that’s listed or accessible via funds is in the mix. There’ll also be relatively little in the way of privately-owned businesses, or rolling arable fields in the Ukraine.

That might seem okay given this portfolio tries to represent what we can actually put into our ISAs and SIPPs. But it is a pretty limited view of global assets when you think about it.

Just consider what your own home is valued at, versus your investment portfolio. For most of us it’ll be a pretty hefty share of our net worth (even if you don’t like to think about it that way for reasons inexplicable). Scale that up to global proportions and you can see the issue.

Real estate and land alone represents a massive amount of global wealth. And while the US would still comprise a vast share of global assets, I doubt it would be quite so dominant if, say, Indian and Chinese farmland was in the mix – amongst much else.

Asset allocation by Mystic Meg

There’s plenty else to ponder in the report. Not least that it inevitably drifts into a discussion of what you can hold to do better than owning a 60/40 portfolio.

Passive purists will scoff – perhaps rightly so. This seems to me a particularly dangerous exhibit:

As I understand it the graphic shows what an investor would have been best holding at various points in history, based on the subsequent performance.

But of course that future performance is unknowable in advance.

Now you don’t get to work at Goldman without being smart enough to realise this. And to be fair to the report, it isn’t saying anyone could really have shifted around to track these allocations.

However it is sort of implying it.

True it couches things with talk of ‘strategic tilting’ and ‘structural macro regimes’. But the clear implication is that you can move away from owning a dumb world portfolio and towards investing in a more smartypants one.

The future ain’t what it used to be

That might sound reasonable to some. But any Here’s What You Could Have Won portfolio that falls out of such modelling is driven by data-mining historical returns. Not by using metrics to predict the future.

I don’t think the exercise is totally worthless. In as much as it makes the case for more diversification – such as holding gold – or de-weighting very expensive markets – such as the US – then those two links will take you to similar discussions here on Monevator.

My point isn’t that a keen investor can’t potentially take steps to improve their returns beyond just blindly following the market. It’s that very often such steps will and have led investors astray. Many will indeed do better to simply let the weight of the world’s money direct their actions.

But that’s unknowable, too! The AI sure-looks-like-a-bubble could pop on Monday, the US stock market could plunge, and in five years we might all wish we’d overweighted bonds and cash and British small caps.

Who knows? Not even Goldman Sachs. But its full report is still worth a read.

Have a great weekend.

[continue reading…]

{ 20 comments }

CAPE ratio by country: how to find and use global stock valuation data

The CAPE ratio is widely considered to be a useful stock market valuation signal. So if you own a globally diversified portfolio then you may well be interested in good CAPE ratio by country data that can help you understand which parts of the world are under- and overvalued.

To that end I’ve collated the best global CAPE ratio information I can find in the table below. 

CAPE ratio by country / region / world

Region / Country Research Affiliates (30/09/25) Barclays Research (30/09/25) Cambria Investment (08/10/25) Historical median (Research Affiliates)
Global 29.4 n/a 19 23
Developed markets 31.5 n/a n/a 24
Emerging markets 18.9 n/a 18 15.2
Europe ex UK 20.7 21.4 n/a 19.2
UK 16 17.6 15.9 14.8
US 39.3

39.1

38.1 16.5
Japan 23.4 25 23.5 31.1
Germany 18.8 24.5 19.3 17.4
China 16.2 18 16.5 14.9
India 34.6 31 36.2 22.7
Brazil 9.6 12 10.3 13.5
Australia 19.2 22.9 20.6 16.8
South Africa 19.6 22 19.7 17.9

Source: As indicated by column titles, compiled by Monevator

A country’s stock market is considered to be overvalued if its CAPE ratio is significantly above its historical average. The converse also holds. Meanwhile a CAPE reading close to the historical average could indicate the market is fairly valued.

You should only compare a country’s CAPE ratio with its own historical average. Inter-market comparisons are problematic.

There’s more countries and data to play with if you click through to the original sources linked in the table. All sources use MSCI indices. Cambria uses MSCI IMI (Investible Market Indices). Research Affiliates derives US CAPE from the S&P 500. You can also take the S&P 500’s daily Shiller P/E temperature.

But what exactly is the CAPE ratio, what does it tell us, and how credible is it?

What is the CAPE ratio?

The CAPE ratio or Shiller P/E stands for the cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio (CAPE).

CAPE is a stock market valuation signal. It is mildly predicative of long-term equity returns. (The CAPE ratio is even more predictive of furious debate about its accuracy).

In brief:

  • A high CAPE ratio correlates with lower average stock market returns over the next ten to 15 years.
  • A low CAPE ratio correlates to higher average stock market returns over the next ten to 15 years.

The CAPE ratio formula is:

Current stock prices / average real earnings over the last ten years.

To value a country’s stock market, the CAPE ratio compares stock prices and earnings numbers in proportion to each share’s weight in a representative index. (For example the S&P 500 or FTSE 100 indices).

But company profits constantly expand and contract in line with a firm’s fortunes. National and global economic tides ebb and flow, too.

So CAPE tries to clean up that noisy signal by looking at ten years’ worth of earnings data. For that reason CAPE is also known as the P/E 10 ratio.

What can I do with global and country CAPE ratios?

The CAPE ratio has three main uses:

  • Some wield it as a market-timing tool to spot trading opportunities. A low CAPE implies an undervalued market. One that could rebound into the higher return stratosphere. Conversely, a high CAPE ratio may signal an overbought market that’s destined for a fall.
  • Similarly, CAPE – and its inverse indicator the earnings yield (E/P) – may enable us to make more sensible future expected return projections.
  • High CAPE ratios are associated with lower sustainable withdrawal rates (SWR) and vice versa. So you might decide to adjust your retirement spending based on what CAPE is telling you.

But is CAPE really fit for these purposes?

Well I think you should be ready to ask for your money back (you won’t get it) if you try to use CAPE as a market-timing divining rod.

But optimising your SWR according to CAPE’s foretelling? There’s good evidence that can be worthwhile.

How accurate is CAPE?

It’s certainly more predictive of negative energy than being told by a woman in a wig that you’re a Pisces dealing with a heavy Saturn transit.

But the signal is as messy as mucking about with goat entrails.

The table below shows that higher CAPE ratios are correlated with worse ten-year returns. Notice there’s a wide range of outcomes:

A table showing that high and low CAPE ratios correlate with low and high future returns but there's still a wide dispersion of results within that trend

Source: Robert Shiller, Farouk Jivraj, The Many Colours Of CAPE

The overall trend is clear. But a market with a high starting CAPE ratio can still deliver decent 10-year returns. Equally, a low CAPE ratio might yet usher in a decade of disappointment.

When it comes to hitting the bullseye, therefore, the CAPE ratio looks like this:

The CAPE ratio envisaged as a target board shows that

Portfolio manager Norbert Keimling has dug deeper. His work showed that the CAPE ratio by country explained about 48% of subsequent 10-15 year returns for developed markets.

This graph shows a relationship between country CAPE ratios and subsequent returns

Source: Norbert Keimling, Predicting Stock Market Returns using the Shiller CAPE

You can see how lower CAPE ratios line up on the left of this graph with higher returns, like prom queens pairing off with jocks.

There’s no denying the trend.

Not all heroes wear a CAPE

Strip away the nuance and you could convert these results into an Animal Farm slogan: “Low CAPE good. High CAPE bad.”

However animal spirits aren’t so easily tamed!

Keimling says the explanatory power of CAPE varies by country and time period. For example: 

  • Japan = 90%
  • UK = 86%
  • Canada = 1%
  • US = 82% since 1970
  • US = 46% since 1881

Despite such variation, however, the findings are still good enough to put CAPE in the platinum club of stock market indicators. (It’s not a crowded field).

In his research paper Does the Shiller-PE Work In Emerging Markets, Joachim Klement states:

Most traditional stock market prediction models can explain less than 20% of the variation in future stock market returns. So we may consider the Shiller-PE one of the more reliable forecasting tools available to practitioners.

But I wouldn’t want to hang my investing hat on World CAPE’s 48% explanation of the future.

Nobody should bet the house on a fifty-fifty call.

Don’t use CAPE to predict the markets

Let’s consider a real world example. Klement used the CAPE ratio to predict various country’s cumulative five-year returns from July 2012 to 2017.

As a UK investor, the forecasts that caught my eye were:

  • UK cumulative five-year real return: 43.8%
  • US cumulative five-year real return: 24.5%

The UK was approximately fairly valued according to historical CAPE readings in 2012. The US seemed significantly overvalued. 

Yet if that signal caused you to overweight the UK vs the US in 2012, you’d have regretted it:

UK vs UK index returns show that CAPE ratio predictions were wrong from 2012 to 2017

Source: Trustnet Multi-plot Charting. S&P 500 vs FTSE All-Share cumulative returns July 2012-17 (nominal)

From these returns, we can see that the ‘overvalued’ S&P 500 proceeded to slaughter the FTSE All-Share for the next five years. (In fact it did so for the next ten.)

As a result, CAPE reminds me of my mum warning me that I was gonna hurt myself jumping off the furniture. 

In the end she was right. But it took reality a while to catch up.  

Using the global CAPE ratio to adjust your SWR

The CAPE ratio is best used as an SWR modifier.

Michael Kitces shows that a retiree’s initial SWR is strongly correlated to their starting CAPE ratio:

A retirees starting Shiller PE is strongly correlated to their sustainable withdrawal rate (SWR)

A high starting CAPE ratio1 maps on to low SWRs. When the red CAPE line peaks, the blue SWR line troughs and vice versa. 

William Bengen (the creator of the 4% rule) concurs with Kitces’ findings: 

And Early Retirement Now also believes a high CAPE is a cue to lower your SWR.

However all these experts base their conclusions on S&P 500 numbers. Can we assume that CAPE ratio by country data is relevant to UK retirees drawing on a globally diversified portfolio?

Yes, we can.

Keimling says:

In all countries a relationship between fundamental valuation and subsequent long‐term returns can be observed. With the exception of Denmark, a low CAPE of below 15 was always followed by greater returns than a high CAPE.

Likewise, Klement found:

Shiller-PE is a reliable indicator for future real stock market returns not only in the United States but also in developed and emerging markets in general.

Michael McClung, author of the excellent Living Off Your Money, also advises using global CAPE to adjust your SWR.

The spreadsheet that accompanies his retirement book does the calculation for you. You just need to supply the World CAPE ratio and an Emerging Markets CAPE figure. Our table above does that.

Incidentally, one reason I included three sources of CAPE ratio in my table is to show there’s no point getting hung up on the one, pure number. Because there’s no such thing.

Meanwhile, Big ERN has devised a dynamic withdrawal rate method based on CAPE.

Conquering the world

Finally, if you want to use Bengen’s more simplistic Rules For Adjusting Safe Withdrawal Rates table shown above, you’ll need to translate his work into global terms.

Bengen’s over/under/fairly valued categories assume an average US historical CAPE of around 16.

You can adapt those bands to suit your favourite average from our CAPE ratio by country table.

Bengen’s work suggests that a CAPE score 25% above / below the historic average is a useful rule-of-thumb guide to over or undervaluation.

A base SWR of 3% isn’t a bad place to start if you have a global portfolio. Check out this post to further finesse your SWR choice.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

 

  1. The CAPE ratio is labelled Shiller CAPE in the graph. []
{ 24 comments }