Understanding the legacy policy exemption in South African retirement annuities
Members of pension funds should be aware that legacy policies are exempt from the new two-component benefit system, as clarified by the pension funds adjudicator, Muvhango Lukhaimane.
Members of pension funds are advised to understand that a legacy policy, any policy in respect of a retirement annuity plan entered into before September 1, 2024, is exempted from the two-component benefit system, according to the pension funds adjudicator, Muvhango Lukhaimane.
She says the two-component pension system, implemented on September 1, 2024, was designed to offer greater flexibility to retirement fund members by splitting contributions into two distinct components.
One-third of the contributions are allocated to a Savings Component, which allows members to make withdrawals before retirement, while the remaining two-thirds go to the Retirement Component, which must be used to purchase a retirement income product upon reaching retirement age.
Recently, Lukhaimane ruled on a complaint from a fund member who was frustrated that the South African Retirement Annuity Fund denied his request to withdraw from his savings component.
According to case details, the complainant's policy commenced on February 1, 1998, with a contractual retirement date set for February 1, 2028. As of 15 June 2024, he had a fund credit of R63,134.74.
The fund explained that the Income Tax Act (ITA) excludes legacy policies—defined as pre-universal life and universal life policies—from the new two-component system. The complainant's policy falls within this category, meaning he is not entitled to the benefits of early withdrawals under the new system.
She says to ensure compliance with the Financial Services Conduct Authority (FSCA), the fund amended its rules to confirm that legacy retirement annuity policies remain unaffected by the regulatory changes. The fund further explained that the complainant had the opportunity to transfer his policy to a two-component compliant retirement annuity before the deadline of August 1, 2024.
Since he did not request a transfer, his policy remains under the legacy framework, making it ineligible for withdrawals. However, if he wishes to benefit from the new system, he would need to reinstate premium payments to start accumulating value in the savings component, allowing him to exercise withdrawals in the future, Lukhaimane says.
In her determination, Lukhaimane said it is clear from the fund's submissions that the complainant's policy is exempted from the two-component retirement system in terms of section 1 of the ITA and the fund rules.
She said she was satisfied that the fund acted lawfully in terms of its rules, the ITA, and the policy contract in refusing to pay the complainant the withdrawal he requested. The complaint was dismissed.
PERSONAL FINANCE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Bitcoin reaches fever pitch — but always know what you're buying, say experts
TikTok traders, crypto evangelists and Bitcoin havens paint a picture of quick wins and easy exits. On Daily Maverick's Decrypting Crypto webinar, experts reminded investors that volatility, risk and regulation are all part of the crypto package. At more than R1-million a coin, Bitcoin's latest bull run is once again flooding feeds with promises of overnight wealth. Amid the media noise, experts are stepping in, urging caution: don't buy into something you don't understand. That was the message at Daily Maverick's Decrypting Crypto webinar, hosted by senior journalist Lindsey Schutters, in conversation with Christo de Wit, country manager of Luno, and Diketso Mashigo, head of the Financial Sector Conduct Authority's (FSCA's) licensing department. 'There's obviously a lot of clamour in the market,' Schutters said. 'Bitcoin is at an all-time high, it's a lot of money and everyone's trying to get in.' Don't invest in what you don't understand 'It is very important that people really get to understand what it is that they're buying into, what they're investing in and understand what the risks are,' Mashigo said. He stressed that the regulator expected authorised providers to actively educate their clients, especially when it came to a volatile asset such as crypto. While that may sound obvious, the crypto space is designed to move fast, often faster than many retail investors can realistically follow. Goals before gains 'When it comes to any kind of investment, whether it's crypto or not, it's important to have understanding and a very clear idea what your financial goals are, both short term and long term,' De Wit said. Crypto is notorious for its wild swings. Bitcoin itself has gone from R300,000 to R1-million, with some stomach-churning dips in between. 'Crypto is a higher risk asset class, and there is a lot of volatility,' De Wit said. Having a fundamental understanding of this was crucial in informing oneself when investing in crypto. Fractional ownership, full exposure A common crypto myth is that one needs to own a full coin to get started; an idea De Wit was quick to dispel. 'I think it's important for new-time investors to understand that you don't have to purchase an entire Bitcoin. You can purchase a fraction of it,' he explained. 'Even though Luno or the centralised exchange custodies it and keeps it in safekeeping, you have immediate access to further trade it, to withdraw it, to convert it back to rands, to convert it to other currencies.' The trick is choosing a credible licensed provider. 'Very carefully select your centralised exchange,' De Wit said. 'You can verify that on the FSCA website as well, to make sure that you know this is a cryptocurrency exchange platform that is licensed.' If your slice of the coin gains value, so does your investment. 'Any growth or loss, depending on what the market does, is related to the percentage that you hold,' De Wit said. Users can convert crypto to rands, transfer between wallets and even send Bitcoin to friends, which are growing trends in parts of the country. 'The whole Garden Route is becoming a crypto haven,' Schutters said. 'A lot of [people] are using stablecoins because they're just easier to transact with.' What does it mean to 'own' crypto? Ownership in the crypto space doesn't always look like traditional finance, but it follows similar principles, Mashigo explained. 'If I purchase a financial product, my ownership in that asset is represented somehow,' he said. 'And in this space, you can look at tokens. That, proportionately, is what I'm holding in that particular asset.' But how do you know that ownership is real and respected? De Wit pointed out a crucial consumer safeguard: proof of reserve. An important aspect to look out for is whether an exchange showcases proof of reserve, which is an audited report that validates that all consumer crypto currencies are exactly where the platforms say they are, he said. It's one of the most transparent ways users can confirm their holdings exist and they're not being lent out or siphoned off without consent. The three golden rules Mashingo broke down FSCA's consumer guidance into three pillars for anyone considering a crypto investment: Understand the product. Know exactly what you're buying, how it works and if it addresses your needs. Know the risks. Volatility, market swings and speculation are part of crypto's nature. Be ready to stomach the sudden drops. Verify the platform. 'Understand the party or the platform or the venue or the provider that you're dealing with, whether they're licensed or not,' said Mashigo. 'That's simple. You come through us. You check on our website, pop us an email, and we can confirm.' Growing regulation Mashigo made it clear that the FSCA was here to make sure that people knew what they were getting themselves into. 'We make sure that … certain basic things are in place,' said Mashigo and specified that businesses had to be contactable, transparent and authorised to do what they claimed. With crypto asset providers (CASPs) now being brought under formal licensing and regulatory oversight in South Africa, the hope is that consumer protection will continue to improve. DM
IOL News
4 days ago
- IOL News
Navigating spousal status and marital regimes for better financial planning
Explore the critical aspects of spousal status and marital regimes in South Africa, and learn how these factors influence your financial and estate planning decisions. Determining whether a person is married for legal purposes and tax purposes is paramount in their financial or estate planning journey. Of further importance is whether a marriage is in or out of the community of property. The proprietary ownership of assets in marriages in South Africa is governed by the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984. The Act requires that people who wish to marry need to decide, before their marriage, whether they wish to enter into an ante-nuptial contract or not. In financial planning and estate planning, there are certain benefits that come with being a spouse, and because of this, the definition of 'spouse' is important. These benefits include: · Bequests (in terms of a will) to a spouse are free from estate duty in terms of the Estate Duty Act · Transfers of assets between spouses are free of capital gains tax in terms of the Income Tax Act · Donations to a spouse are free from donations tax in terms of the Income Tax Act. · Transfers of property between spouses are free from Transfer Duty With so many blurred areas on what exactly defines a spouse, let us have a look at what qualifies one as a spouse, specifically in the context of income tax, capital gains tax, estate duty, transfer duty, and donations tax. The following people are considered to be spouses: A partner in a marriage or customary union recognised in terms of South African law. A partner in a union recognised as a marriage in accordance with the requirements or practices of any religion. A partner in a same-sex or heterosexual union, which the Commissioner is satisfied is intended to be permanent. Partners, therefore, do not have to be married to enjoy the tax benefits of married spouses. There are, however, certain instances where these partners will not automatically benefit from the same protection that a married spouse has, for example, on death if there is no will. There are three marital regimes in the Matrimonial Property Act: Marriages without an antenuptial contract, called in community of property marriages Marriages with an ante-nuptial contract, with accrual Marriages with an antenuptial contract. without accrual Marriage in community of property A marriage is in community of property if no antenuptial contract is entered into by the spouses before marriage. On the date of marriage, the spouses' assets and liabilities are joined into one estate, with each spouse having an equal 50% claim to it. All assets and liabilities accumulated during the marriage will form part of the joint estate in the future and are shared equally between the spouses when the marriage ends, either at death or in divorce. Each spouse owns half of the joint estate, irrespective of how much they had at the beginning of the marriage or how much they each added during the marriage. On the first death, only half of the joint estate will be subject to estate duty. Any amount bequeathed to (left to) the surviving spouse is not subject to estate duty, and that spouse benefits from any unused estate allowance when they pass away. The full estate is subject to the executor's fees. Gifts or inheritances that are specifically stipulated to be excluded from the community of property estate do not form part of the joint estate. This is for example, if a spouse inherits a property, the other spouse will not be able to benefit from it at divorce, as it does not form part of the joint estate. The law also states that spouses married in community of property may not perform certain juristic acts without consent from both spouses. For example, one spouse cannot take on debt without the other's consent, as it affects their joint estate. Where this becomes important is when one spouse is sequestrated or becomes insolvent, the other immediately becomes sequestrated as well, and their joint estate becomes insolvent. If one spouse wants to set up a business when they get married, it might be prudent to set up an antenuptial contract when they get married to protect the other spouse's assets if the business fails. Marriage out of community of property The accrual system automatically applies to a marriage out of community of property after 1 November 1984 with an Ante Nuptial Contract (ANC). It can be excluded in terms of the antenuptial contract signed before the marriage. It is a document drawn up and signed in front of a notary public (such as an attorney) and is registered at the Deeds Office. A post-nuptial agreement can be entered into during the marriage, but there has to be a valid reason for this, and the application must be made to the High Court, showing that no creditors will be harmed or disadvantaged by this agreement. It is a costly application, and it is therefore easier to set it up from the start. Where there is an out-of-community property accrual system, each spouse's estate remains separate and will not require the other spouse's consent for transactions. When the marriage ends through death or divorce, the wealth acquired by the two spouses during the marriage is shared equally between the spouses. The additional value that each spouse brought into the marriage is considered, and the difference between the value gains is split so that each person's estate after marriage becomes equal. This way, a spouse who did not work and whose investments didn't grow as much will benefit from the other spouse's assets as an equal partner and is not left destitute when the marriage ends. The accrual claim by the surviving spouse reduces the value of the deceased's estate for Estate Duty purposes. If the antenuptial contract excludes accrual, there is no accrual claim. However, this is far less clear-cut these days as there are fairness issues that have come before the Constitutional Court. Amendments to the law might shortly be made to provide a sharing regime to spouses who had uneven bargaining power in marriage. Before getting married, it is essential to understand the legal and financial implications of the different marital regimes available in South Africa. The choice you make will significantly impact your future financial well-being, asset protection, and estate planning. Always consult a qualified financial adviser before entering into marriage to ensure your financial plan is aligned with your personal circumstances and goals. * Nxumalo is a financial planner at Alexforbes. PERSONAL FINANCE
IOL News
4 days ago
- IOL News
The legal implications of Buy Now, Pay Later services in South Africa
Explore the complexities of Buy Now, Pay Later services in South Africa, examining the legal challenges and regulatory uncertainties that could impact consumers and providers alike. Image: Shutterstock Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) payment options have strutted onto South Africa's financial runway with the swagger of innovation—offering interest-free instalments, bypassing traditional credit checks, and boasting sleek user interfaces that make old-school lay-bys look prehistoric. For consumers, it feels like a dream: swipe today, split it tomorrow. For platforms, it's fintech gold. But beneath the surface of this frictionless façade lies a regulatory grey zone thick with risk, ambiguity, and potential litigation. Is BNPL empowering consumers, or quietly indebting them? And when the legal hammer finally drops, who's left holding the bill? BNPL services allow consumers to make purchases immediately and pay for them in installments over a set period, usually without interest if payments are made on time. However, as BNPL usage increases, so do concerns around consumer debt, regulatory arbitrage, and financial exclusion. The central question in South Africa is whether BNPL products fall within the ambit of the National Credit Act (NCA) or the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act (FAIS Act). The National Credit Regulator is responsible for compliance with the NCA, while the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) is responsible for compliance with the FAIS Act. The South African BNLP landscape The consumer credit environment in South Africa is governed by the NCA, which regulates all credit providers and mandates affordability assessments along with other consumer protection mechanisms. BNPL providers often argue that they are not credit providers, as their terms and conditions do not constitute a credit agreement. This is because they charge no interest and operate within a very short payment cycle (e.g. 4 to 6 weeks). As a result, many BNPL firms claim exemption from NCA obligations. According to the Intergovernmental Fintech Working Group (IFWG), BNPL currently falls into a regulatory void. The NCR has taken limited action against providers, while the FSCA has yet to issue clear guidance. Consumers thus face reduced transparency, no guaranteed recourse mechanisms, and inconsistent contract terms. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ BNPL's legal classification determines the scope of regulatory obligations. If BNPL is credit, then the NCA mandates affordability checks, registration with the NCR, and extensive disclosures (amongst other things). However, most BNPL operators avoid these obligations by structuring their offerings as payment solutions or deferred billing. The FAIS Act regulates financial advice and intermediary services. BNPL providers rarely claim to offer financial advice, and as such, FAIS oversight is generally not invoked. This ambiguity causes a jurisdictional conflict between the NCR and FSCA, with little resolution. Moreover, South African consumers are often unaware of potential late fees, the implications of missed payments, or the lack of legal recourse, especially when providers collapse or change terms unilaterally. While legal classification remains unresolved, enforcement action against BNPL providers in South Africa has been minimal. In practice, the NCR's enforcement has focused largely on traditional credit providers, while the FSCA's mandate remains unclear in the absence of explicit statutory triggers. This lack of supervisory clarity raises risks of selective compliance, where only larger players seek legal advice or act preemptively, while smaller or offshore providers bypass South African oversight altogether. Moreover, without designated supervisory frameworks, enforcement becomes reactive, often occurring only after consumer harm has materialised. The Conduct of Financial Institutions Bill (COFI Bill) is envisaged to address these regulatory gaps. A modern regulatory regime must therefore address not only classification and jurisdiction, but also enforcement mechanisms, investigative powers, and co-ordinated oversight, possibly through inter-agency memoranda of understanding or joint supervisory task teams. Without this, regulatory gaps become systemic vulnerabilities. Global BNLP landscape United Kingdom: The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will regulate BNPL under new legislation taking effect in 2026. Providers will be required to conduct affordability checks, obtain FCA authorisation, and ensure clear disclosures. Consumers will be granted Section 75 protections under the Consumer Credit Act. Australia: The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has introduced legislation bringing BNPL under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. From mid-2025, providers must hold a credit license, conduct responsible lending assessments, and comply with disclosure obligations. These requirements are tailored to balance innovation with consumer protection. United States (US): The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has classified BNPL loans accessed via digital accounts as 'credit cards', triggering protections under Regulation Z. Dispute resolution, refunds, and chargeback rights are now part of BNPL transactions, although industry litigation may reverse this. These models demonstrate that proactive regulation, coupled with flexibility, is essential for managing BNPL risks. Comparative legal analysis of South Africa South Africa's current dual-regulator model (NCR and FSCA) is ill-equipped for the digital fragmentation of modern finance. The lack of a clear BNPL regulatory framework stands in contrast with jurisdictions where regulators have already expanded definitions of credit to include BNPL explicitly. Key takeaways include: The UK's reliance on disclosure and licensing. Australia's focus on credit licenses and suitability assessments. The US approach of function-over-form classification (if it behaves like a credit card, it is regulated like one). The hope is that the COFI Bill will reconcile its institutional gaps and avoid regulatory arbitrage by expanding statutory definitions and enforcing consistency. Fintech partnerships and platform liability BNPL services are frequently integrated directly into online retail platforms via Application Programming Interfaces (API) partnerships. This embedded finance model raises questions of liability, especially when the BNPL provider operates outside the regulatory net. In South Africa, it is unclear whether a platform offering BNPL at checkout could be deemed to be providing or facilitating credit under the NCA. Retailers and marketplaces must consider whether they are indirectly exposing themselves to liability or reputational risk, especially if their BNPL partners engage in misleading conduct, impose unlawful fees, or collapse without notice. Globally, regulators are beginning to scrutinise not just BNPL providers, but also the platforms and merchants who offer such services. The UK's FCA, for example, has signalled that contractual and operational accountability may extend beyond the primary credit provider. South African platforms should pre-emptively assess their BNPL partnerships through the lens of operational risk, consumer protection, and reputational resilience. Digital identity and affordability in a credit-light economy One major challenge for effective BNPL regulation in South Africa lies in consumer verification and affordability assessments. Without a robust credit history or consistent income documentation, many consumers who use BNPL services remain invisible to traditional risk models. This opens the door to over-indebtedness, particularly among the underbanked. Future BNPL regulation must therefore account for the reality of fragmented digital footprints and low formal credit participation. There is room for innovation: open banking frameworks, mobile payment data, and transactional analytics could support dynamic affordability models. However, this would require legal certainty around data access, privacy, and proportional use of financial profiling. BNPL operators who proactively invest in these tools, backed by transparent disclosures and consent practices, will likely be best positioned when regulation catches up. BNPL has redefined consumer finance by promising simplicity and speed, but the country risks repeating mistakes seen in unregulated microcredit booms if it fails to address its regulatory gaps. Global trends show that regulation can evolve in tandem with technology. By embracing reform and cross-sector collaboration, South Africa can lead in creating a safe, competitive digital finance ecosystem. * Lamola and De Meyer are partners at Webber Wentzel. PERSONAL FINANCE
