2013-06-19T23:27:48-04:00 Greg Secker http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=greg-secker Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Greg Secker Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1550076 2012-05-28T19:00:00-04:00 2012-07-28T05:12:10-04:00

Greg Secker http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-secker/
Far from being an honorable confession or something that I can be proud of, thanks to the government, the term "philanthropist" has become a dirty word. For, according to the government, philanthropists are all tax-dodgers who only donate money to charity in order to lower their tax bracket and minimise the amount of funds they are giving to the government.

Starting in April 2013, the government is introducing a new limit on the amount of income tax relief an individual can claim by donating money to charity. The cap is being set at £50,000 or a quarter of an individual's income - whichever is greater.

According to the government, this cap is being applied because the richest people in society are abusing the current tax relief system by making donations to charity to avoid their tax bills. Indeed, they claim that as the system stands many of the country's wealthiest inhabitants are paying less tax than their poorer counterparts by choosing to make large donations. At an extreme, it is even possible to bring tax down to zero. In a recent survey, they even found that 12 people in the country who earn more than £10m pay less than 10% tax due to their donations and tax relief.

These comments are not only insulting, but dangerous. Charities across the country are dependent upon the generosity of their supporters, and without large gifts, the majority of them couldn't function at all. What is it going to take for the government to see sense? How many charities will have to shut down before they realize the gravity of their actions?

Charities have already been hard hit by the recession and the current financial climate. Charities are now expecting to lose further millions of pounds from donations - money they cannot afford to lose.

There are a number of reasons people donate their money to charity. They may have personal motivations or they may simply want to give something back to their community. Personally, I set up the Knowledge To Action Foundation along with my partner Katherine as I wanted to use my success to make a difference and help build a compelling future for those who need support the most. It is clear to see, however, that tax avoidance is not a key reason for why the majority of philanthropists donate to charities.

It is important to note however, that donors do not gain or benefit from donating their money. They do not end up with more money in the bank. The simple difference is, that when they give money to charities, the donors can choose where their funds go, which is not an option when you pay tax.

Naturally, charities and philanthropists alike are objecting to the new cap as it is putting the wealthiest people off donating to charity. Last year over £11 billion was donated to charity, and of this staggering amount, 45% came from just 7% of donors. These donors are the very people who are likely to be affected by the cap.

Amidst public backlash, the government are hinting that a compromise may be struck and are promising that talks have begun. In a recent survey by the Charities Aid Foundation, 55% of voters want the government to rethink the cap. A number of mitigating measures have been discussed in the press from raising the cap to 50% of their salary to allowing donors to roll their unused allowance from one year to the next, and the government are claiming that they want to take time considering the situation, listening to the people and ensuring their decision is right. Surely this is too little too late? Now the government have condemned philanthropists as tax avoiders, it is too late to take this back and change their minds!

Ultimately, the tax cap itself, which could naturally have a detrimental affect on charities, is going to be less detrimental than the effect caused by the attitude the government have shown to philanthropists. Demonising philanthropists and suggesting they are only in it to dodge tax rather than that they are genuinely passionate about the cause, is corrosive, and British philanthropists, although generally more reserved than their American counterparts, need to feel that their deeds are encouraged and supported.

If the government takes this away from philanthropists, and turns philanthropy into a selfish rather than selfless act, then the effect of the tax cap could be far greater than anyone is predicting, and that is when charities will really begin to lose out.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1414248 2012-04-10T07:30:39-04:00 2012-06-10T05:12:01-04:00

Greg Secker http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-secker/
Last summer I took to the skies above London and the City - the heart of the world's financial district - in my helicopter and began to trade the foreign exchange markets live from 1,000 feet. I've traded all over the world and flown my helicopter many times, but combining the two was a completely new experience and one I won't forget, and am excited to do again this year.

Using my laptop and a live video feed, I called down my positions and moves to my team and clients on the ground, around 500 people around the world, and together we traded the currency markets. In the process we raised over £150,000 for charity; this year we intend to raise £250,000.

The day worked largely in part to our broker ETX Capital, who donated all their brokerage profits to the Knowledge to Action Foundation - a charitable organisation I set up with my girlfriend Katherine Scott two years ago.

Last Christmas Katherine and I saw first hand how the money helped the charities we chose to support; Barnardo's and Ubuntu Education Fund in South Africa. Ubuntu used the money raised to help launch their Early Childhood Development Programme (ECD), a project aimed at enabling South African children under five to enter primary schools with the same skills as their peers in London and New York.

The ECD launched in February 2012 and has already given almost 50 children the opportunity to be involved with reading, writing, singing, art, movement and story-time, three days per week.

This year we will also be working with Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Unite and Pride 'n Purpose charities, helping disadvantaged communities around South Africa's Sabi Sand Reserve, and improving their access to food, water, health and education services.

In partnership with these charities, the money raised through the days will go towards building a new crèche in one of the rural villages just outside Ulusaba; the goal being to complete the new school by the end of the year.

In 2011 Katherine and I established the Knowledge to Action Foundation to help improve the quality of life for disadvantaged children around the world, both home and abroad. For the last year we have organised a variety of events raising money to support the Foundation and the Flying Trader is the pinnacle in the fundraising process. This year there will be six Flying Trader events throughout summer, starting on April 26th, as we look to raise as much money as possible.

Proceeds raised will be tracked daily on the Flying Trader website barometer and participants will be able to follow stories online of how the money helps each charity's chosen project. Go to www.theflyingtrader.org to join in and trade with us or just to watch as I trade from the skies above London as the Flying Trader.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1363366 2012-04-03T19:00:00-04:00 2012-06-03T05:12:01-04:00

Greg Secker http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-secker/
The City was forced to bat aside accusations from across the Channel at the start of the year as we watched our French neighbours lose their top rating along with Austria and several of the debt-ridden southern European countries. The move by S&P's left the UK standing alongside Germany - the benchmark of a recovering economy - and assured the markets that the Chancellor's budget deficit programme was slowly repairing the damage.

But the revelry didn't last long. Moody's announcement has put the City on alert and the possibility of a downgrade is now not so unlikely. But how much will it actually affect the UK's recovery if we do lose the prized AAA? Looking at America and France, neither seems to have been knocked off their resurgent paths - after all the French downgrade was only from one agency, the other two have maintained their top ratings.

Both S&P's and Moody's announcements though have reaffirmed a view held by many in the City that the ratings agencies are a law unto themselves and need to be reined in; timely then that the Commons Treasury Select Committee begun an investigation into their activity earlier this month.

The problem on the face of it is the lack of competition. The 'big three' - Fitch, Moody's and S&P's - answer to no one and have no other peers. In recent months negative warnings and hints of downgrades have become far too regular and at times the feeling of superiority and omnipotence has reeked from all three of them.

More serious is the belief of many within the financial sector that the original blame for the global financial crisis lies at the collective doorstep of the agencies. After all they were at the heart of the shambles of the toxic mortgage-backed securities that triggered the global recession. It was their AAA ratings awarded to ambiguous financial products backed by risky sub-prime mortgages that helped send markets around the world into freefall.

Yet without any commercial or high-street arms the ratings agencies have escaped largely unscathed and with many of the wider public none the wiser as to their actions - unlike the banks. The calls for stricter regulations on the banking and trading sector have been universal as have the demands to cut bonuses and reduce pay. It's gone so far that Fred Goodwin lost his title. But there has been little to no action against the ratings agencies and certainly no public outcry - not even a protest.

But that shouldn't mean they go unpunished. So what is needed? A complaints commission, an ombudsman maybe; something or someone to oversee the actions of the Big Three and for rules and regulations to be adhered to when issuing downgrades and negative outlooks. This is a great opportunity to implement change, to impose new restrictions on the agencies, and if the Common's Treasury Select Committee doesn't take action then they will have missed a great opportunity.

The European Commission's reform package is a promising start. If successful the new regulation will enforce accountability on the agencies, provide more information to investors and will attempt to reduce conflicts within the ratings process. It will also promote routine swapping of agencies with the purpose of encouraging competition and improving a level playing field.

It all sounds very promising but I can't help but feel what's really required is a public backlash - a larger voice to demand change. Unfortunately while the agencies remain an unknown quantity to many not in the profession, a community outcry seems unlikely, and the agencies will continue to run free.]]>