Our latest episode of the Investing Matters Podcast, featuring Janet Mui, award-winning investment industry commentator, has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
"You didnt appear to understand that you disposed of your 'primary' residence, yet, presumably as you didnt say otherwise, had another residence that you clearly lived in."
You misunderstood what I was saying, me and my wife were living in Cornwall when we sold the MCR house, we'd previously lived in, to our son. If we'd sold the house in Manchester as a primary residence, then there'd have been no CGT to pay anyway. Since we'd lived in the house in Manchester, before moving to Cornwall, the years accrued living there was included in the calculation toward reducing our CGT bill. That's why we employed an accountant, as I wanted the calculation to be correct.
We sold the house in Manchester as a non primary residence and payed the required CGT. As our Son was purchasing his first home, which then became his main residence, and owning no other property, there'll be no CGT when he sells at some point in the future, under the current rules.
"Super fit healthy non smoker me developed a cancer generally found in old people aged 70+ @ 48 years old. It happens you know and your no more ondestructable than me."
I understand what your saying, but I've read the guidance and it states that someone healthy, with no underlying health condition, wouldn't be subject to Deprvation of Assets should they later become ill; Also the guidance talks in terms of months, and it's been four years since we sold the house to our Son.
Someone who's healthy at the point they gift money, or assets, can't be accused of Deprivation of assets, especially years later.
Obviously if someone dies the 7 year gift rule applies, as far as the HMRC are concerned, but that's tapered and the tax liability reduces to zero after year 7.
You will find the local authority take a polar opposite view to you on deprivation.
clearly you didnt consider it by your rather silly dismissal. It is very much frowned upon.
And you may be in great health today, but tomorrow can always be different.
Super fit healthy non smoker me developed a cancer generally found in old people aged 70+ @ 48 years old. It happens you know and your no more ondestructable than me.
You didnt get the point on CGT either. You didnt appear to understand that you disposed of your 'primary' residence, yet, presumably as you didnt say otherwise, had another residence that you clearly lived in. Therefore your 'pr8mary' residence was not the property you sold your son cheaply, it was a surplus second home, and as such would be liable for tax. As you indeed posted about yourself earlier.
Forgot the link:
"Case study: Yusuf
Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer 10 years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings. Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends 8 years living at the residential home. Yusuf’s care home costs £700 per week.
Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £35,000 left in assets. This does not factor in any additional income he may receive from state benefits, such as Attendance Allowance, which he may be entitled to.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after 3 years and 5 months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £152,000, or 61% of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £118,000 less than under the current system.
Case study: Mary and Bob
Mary is a pensioner living in Burnley with her husband, Bob. Together, they own a home worth £90,000 and have joint savings of £10,000. They both worked hard throughout their lives, planned carefully for their retirement and have a joint weekly income from pensions of £470. Mary has dementia and receives care in their home, but Bob is her main carer. Sadly, after a year Bob suffers a severe stroke and both Bob and Mary need to enter residential care.
Under the current system, if they both stayed in residential care for 2 years, Mary and Bob would have spent around £105,000 in total towards their care. They wouldn’t have got any state support until right at the end when they individually reached the UCL of £23,250, which would be based on half of their shared assets. They would be left with around £43,000 in assets between them.
Under the new system, once they both enter a care home, they immediately become eligible for some state support due to each of their £50,000 share of their wealth being below the new £100,000 UCL. Under the new system, they spend £68,000 in total for their care from their income and assets.
Over their combined care journeys, Mary and Bob save £37,000 from their assets and their income in the new system compared to the current system."
Just to add to my last post, the way things currently stand for care costs:
"From October 2023, the government will introduce a new £86,000 cap on the amount anyone in England will need to spend on their personal care over their lifetime."
There's also a daily living cost to consider, which would probably be around £200 a week, from Oct 2023.
"The concept of DLCs is not meant to be a precise science. Local authorities and providers are not required to calculate actual daily living costs for each person in a care home progressing towards the cap. Instead, daily living cost will be set as a national, notional amount of £200 per week (in 2021 to 2022 prices), which will apply to anyone who receives care in a care home. Local authority financial support will remain available to people who cannot meet – in full or in part – their DLCs."
By my reckoning, someone going into care from Oct 2023 will have a care cost cap of £86,000, but will also have daily living costs adding up to around £11,000 a year. I'm not sure if the £86,000 would be an upfront payment, or spread out by adding it to the daily living costs. Obviously for a couple, with both needing to go into care, the CAP and DLC's will be double.
"I take it you also examined and learnt about the deprivation and CGT rules at the same time?"
Lol. Selling a house to our son below market value, at 56 years old, could hardly be described as Deprivation of assets. No I didn't see the need to look at deprivation of assets, since I don't see it as an issue at our age; If we were 80 and in bad health, I may have looked into it, but we're both active gym goers and keen walkers, so it isn't an issue. CGT isn't an issue either, since the property is his main and only residence, and there's no Capital Gains payable on the sale of your main residence. CGT on the sale of a property, is only payable if you own multiple properties.
"You do not pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if all of the following apply:
you have one home and you’ve lived in it as your main home for all the time you’ve owned it
you have not let part of it out - this does not include having a lodger
you have not used a part of your home exclusively for business purposes (using a room as a temporary or occasional office does not count as exclusive business use) the grounds, including all buildings, are less than 5,000 square metres (just over an acre) in total
you did not buy it just to make a gain"
I take it you also examined and learnt about the deprivation and CGT rules at the same time?
The second of those is the one that may f your son over big style when he eventually sells the place. Assume you moved from the 'primary residence' into rented to circumvent that?
Also hope you never need care at local authority expense (having a few quid separately tucked away elsewhere soon gets eaten by private costs).
That taxman is ruthless, has a very long memory and a superb brand new computer system to track assets across linked parties, proper scary what that can do.
"Well you will have to hope that you live another 7 years else hmrc will be looking at IHT for the 'gifted' undervalue amount and will present the son with a substantial bill."
I knew about all that. The house was in joint names, between me and my wife; It's been about 4 years already, and since we're only 60 hopefully time wont be an issue. It was all done above board with the solictors aware of the situation, and using an accountant recommended by our Conveyancer. As I said, i'm really careful with tax matters. I've known people who've fallen foul of VAT, and income tax, issues. One of my ex collegues, from many years back, was previously employed on commercial ships, the Tax man came after him years later and hit him with a massive tax bill, arguing that the ship he was employed on had entered the UK 12 mile limit during a voyage; He employed a solicitor, and tried fighting it, but got hammered in the end anyway. I've never been self employed, always PAYE, but a relative lost his house when the VAT man went after him, and I know of another ex collegue who ran a business on the side and the VAT man got him too; The HMRC appear to be really aggressive on VAT, and efficient at catching businesses who cheat on it, scary stuff.
Well you will have to hope that you live another 7 years else hmrc will be looking at IHT for the 'gifted' undervalue amount and will present the son with a substantial bill.
Local authority would be interested to if you end up needing any form of social care, deprivation of assets i think is their phrase.
Then of course the CGT provision and whether the property was your 'main residence' gets involved, if you'd moved elsewhere into a purchased house then transferred it you'll likely fall foul of that as the original house would no longer be primary residence.
Sounds full of financial holes to me (although legal).
"P.s. selling at below market value (we looked into doing this with the tenant who wished to remain for a fast deal) is very much frowned upon by HMRC. Watch your back here."
The accountant was supplied with our Son's mortgage valuation, done as part of his mortgage application, so the tax return was based on the full market value of the property. He got a good deal on his mortgage, since his mortgage was for less than 50% of the value of the property. Not bad owning a 4 bed detached, with a 70 foot double width drive leading to a double garage, at 27. His mortgage is around the same as renting a 3 bed terraced. My sister and brother in law couldn't believe we'd done it, but I pointed out to them that you can't take it with you; And what's the point of money, later in life, if you can't give your kids a leg up.
The first few were not to bad if i remember correctly, they were sold a while back mind. The last one had pretty much doubled in value and fell into the recentish 28% bracket so whilst we had two allowances as joint owners to use the tax was still high, despite ditching a couple of small investments i had losses on at the time as well to knock it down.
Adding in the rent over the 12 years to the eventual gain it was a real money spinner, but with the talk around section 21 notices being removed at that time and my cancer diagnosis the year before it had to go to simply our estate, just in case.
P.s. selling at below market value (we looked into doing this with the tenant who wished to remain for a fast deal) is very much frowned upon by HMRC. Watch your back here.
HMRC came back to us some 20 years after we copied the MP's and flipped a 'doer upper' year and years before. Trust me you or your accountant DONT want that scenario.
"Slowly sold the BTL's as that market became more heavily taxed, got rid of last one about 2 years back"
When we moved to Cornwall, our Son stayed in the house in Manchester, and we eventually sold it to him for less than half its market value. Because it wasn't our main residence, and the tax calculation takes into account various factors, we employed an accountant to submit the tax return on our behalf; There were reductions for things like the number of years we'd lived in the property, the final bill wasn't that much, and since we'd never rented it to our son that wasn't a variable. We could have declared the Manchester house as our main residence, but I've seen what happened to some friends and family when they tried it on, with the HMRC coming after them years later. Was the capital gains on your BTL's excessive, or not too bad? I believe the capital gains tax on property is now 18% for basic rate earners, and 28% for higher rate earners.
Yes, she earned a pretty penny, but it was at least a 60-70 hour week with all the add ons. I was running my plumbing company, working a fulltime paye and flipping houses at the same time working 7/7. We earnt a tidy enough pile to set ourselves up for life. Sold my business both quit work and retired to the coast at 42 & 43, with our house here practically paid for and four fully paid for BTL's in Solihull. Both got bored with the sudden change from 'hero to zero' so both went back to work parttime eventually for the social aspects. I started back fulltime first, for a year, as an operator on call 24/7. Standby every fifth week for 7 days/nights - worst week i worked a total of 115 hours out of 168 total. Was like a zomby for days after but operational emergencies neccesitated it. Slowly sold the BTL's as that market became more heavily taxed, got rid of last one about 2 years back and both back to easy peasy 3 days a week for the social interaction, but could quit whenever we wanted in reality but dont fancy the 'zero' spare time again.
Agree on the % wage claims, it will damage the economy when everyone jumps on the band wagon and demands the same for no increase in productivity/efficency, but you can hardly blame people looking out for themselves and their own interests. I couldnt care less what we end up getting personally, we live comfortably on half our wages (which are cr@p now compared to years ago) and never have to touch the savings/shares, so the excess just gets added to the pot. But am fully aware others are not so lucky so would wish them luck with a decent increase.
Looking at a nice big loft conversion (cira 125m2) to the current pad however or, more preferably, a move away to a small holding in Wales for a bit more of the country life permament retirement and outdoor space, whichever comes along first.
"My wife was deputy head at a rather large primary in Solihull for years, worked her ar5e off."
I would think she'd have been in the higher leadership bands as a deputy Head, so quite well paid?
The reason I don't have sympathy, as far as pay is concerned, for Teachers, Doctors, Nurses, etc, is because there are a lot of jobs that are as hard, possibly more stressful, and less well paid. I'm not complaining about my experience in Field Engineering, as we all make our choices, but it was really hard work at times, especially when on call; The overtime was great, but the hours were gruelling, with many weekends often worked day and night. Some on call weekends I clocked up between 40 and 50 hours overtime, between 17:00 on Friday and 08:00 on Monday, which was tortuous as there was no working time directive back then, and when W.T.D. did come in there were opt-outs anyway. My basic was less than a teacher, but I earned a lot more with my overtime. Not sure what you do for a job DT, but I used to dread getting a call at 3am, when I'd just returned home at 2am from another fault; And even though it was a common occurance, I never got used to it.
My issue with the current wage demands, and strike threats, is the consequences of large pay rises across the board. Using BT as an example, the CWU are asking for 10%; If BT give in and award a 10% pay rise, then every other UK company will be hit with the same pay demands, potentially leading to a wage-price inflationary spiral. In the event of a wage-price inflationary spiral, pensioners with capped pensions, Gig economy workers, and any other minimum wage worker not covered by collective bargaining, will see a real drop in living standards. The Government, and BOE, have been advising companies against offering inflation based pay increases, since the BOE will have to raise interest rates dramatically, to head off inflation, should it get out of hand, so anyone with a large mortgage, or debt, will get hammered under those circumstances. A sensible pay policy is to smooth out wage increases over a number of years, so award below inflation pay increases in high inflation periods, and above inflation pay rises in periods of low inflation, based on a formula; What the formula would be, I have no idea, but big wage increases chasing high inflation would be ruinous for the economy.
Blimey, im having to have a sit down to type this, but i can confirm that I am currently in the very very VERY rare position of agreeing with EVERYTHING the doomster has uttered below regards schools/teachers..
I know, imagine my own surprise at such a first. Had to pinch myself.
My wife was deputy head at a rather large primary in Solihull for years, worked her ar5e off. She and The head teacher constantly nagged at me to become a Governor, i attended a few meetings as an observer and it put me off the idea for life, although i did quite a lot of 'unofficial' volunteering there over the years. Organised and managed a full refurb of a few acres of 'wildlife' area with a team of 60 colleagues from work, newly built footpaths, ponds, fencing clearance landscaping etc, well when your a "gas meter reader" you do have access to a lot of mechanical plant and labour, afterall.
Dont do marking or planning though, but do keep an eye on the professionally qualified teaching staff, despite no formal allied qualifications being required for themselves, always strikes me as a bit odd that - just the risk that you end up with a right busybody aboard.
"When I was a school governor in England (a few years ago) in both primary and secondary there was no extra allowance for playground duty, canteen duty nor parents evenings - they were expected to do these extra jobs as part of the role. They also have to ring parents, do sports/plays/revision sessions etc, meetings after school, marking and planning. Not to mention the almost annual changes to school policies and national curriculum. People think they have great holidays but those are usually people that have no idea what the job entails.
Teachers, in my opinion, are underpaid in UK which is one reason why there is always a massive shortage of teachers and such a high level of churn. I would fully support it if the teachers went on strike. If I remember correctly I think they've had a real terms pay cut of 20% since 2010 under the Tories. Compared to average earnings across the economy teacher salaries are at their lowest for 40 years."
When I was a school governor in England (a few years ago) in both primary and secondary there was no extra allowance for playground duty, canteen duty nor parents evenings - they were expected to do these extra jobs as part of the role. They also have to ring parents, do sports/plays/revision sessions etc, meetings after school, marking and planning. Not to mention the almost annual changes to school policies and national curriculum. People think they have great holidays but those are usually people that have no idea what the job entails.
Teachers, in my opinion, are underpaid in UK which is one reason why there is always a massive shortage of teachers and such a high level of churn. I would fully support it if the teachers went on strike. If I remember correctly I think they've had a real terms pay cut of 20% since 2010 under the Tories. Compared to average earnings across the economy teacher salaries are at their lowest for 40 years.
"10% at least can be added to basic salary to allow for allowances -Does this apply in UK."
I have no idea, other than searching Google. I found these, not sure if they answer your question.
thanks for comprehensive info. To say the teachers scales are convoluted is an understatement - a statistician's dream.
strikes me pay scales are are about 10-15% less than ROI before allowances taken nto account. No question but 10% at least can be added to basic salary to allow for allowances -Does this apply in UK.
Similarly, police salary levels about 10-15% less than ROI before allowances.
Another big difference is that uk constables contribute over 13% towards cost of their pension scheme whereas in ROI they contribute 5% - huge difference. All Public sector workers retire on 2/3 final salary with option to commute part of pension for lump sum to result in pension of 1/2 salary and lump sum which could equate to 1-1.5 years salary.
"Out of interest can you educate me on salary levels with teachers (primary) and police in the UK"
I have no idea about the retirement benefits for Police Officers in Ireland, but they're quite generous in the UK. I have recently retired relatives who were in the Police Force, and they seem happy enough.
Out of interest can you educate me on salary levels with teachers (primary) and police in the UK as the following applies in Ireland, these being the most basic levels exclusive of promotion etc.
Primary teacher - c. €25,000 to €50,000 over say 15 increment periods. this is exclusive of about 15 different allowances such as playground supervision,parents meetings. I understand they get an allowance for turning up for work.
Garda - entry level c 25,000 again to c 50,000. 15 allowances such as Bicycle/shoe/unsociable hours etc etc. Plus lenty of o/time.
I recall a position being advertised in Queens university about 10 years ago for assistant lecturer at £18,000pa. Could not believe it as they would not get out of bed in Dublin for that.
Also recall reading local paper in Spain 3 years ago where Local Autorities staff secured 2.5% increase to bring pay level to €1,025 PER MONTH. They expect that weekly here.
See that Ireland have now unenviable reputation with Denmark of being ost expensive Country in EU,40% above EU average. When we joined were the poorest
.I believe Public Sector in UK dramatically underpaid vis a vis Ireland where they are now ahead of the Private Sector.when historically they were 10/12% less. Bertie Ahear changed all that when he introduced so called "Benchmarking" in early noughties. As trade union leader said at the time "it was like walking into an ATM outlet.
I'm invested in Vodafone because of their international assets, and my belief that the market is undervaluing the Telecom sector in general. I believe the market giants see value locked up within Telecom infrastructure, otherwise why would the likes of Goldman Sachs invest in Altnet CityFibre, or all the other investments into other Altnet rollouts, or KKR bid for Telcom Italia? Probably because they see the hidden value, and future revenue potential, of Telecom infrastructure assets. In summary, I believe that Telcoms is being purposely underated, while big players mop up shares on the quiet.
"Just curious, why you blab on about BT being such a good investment (even though underwater), when you said you never actually worked for them?"
I suppose it's because I saw the advantage of being an incumbant provider. I was in the Royal Signals, and started out at Mercury Communications in the 1980's, upon leaving the Forces. I watched the struggles hitting the Cable Companies, and had a front row seat when Mercury's parent company (C&W) took over three of them in 1997. For a brief time they started to merge Mercury with the Cable companies, with some cross training between the Engineers, but C&W decided to sell the Cable companies, around 2000, to NTL. I was a Field Engineer at Cable & Wireless, and worked Customer and Network sites; Working on everything from changing a telephone on a desk, Cisco Router/Switches, Microwave Radio, DSLAMS in BT Colocation areas, smartboxes before Carrier pre-select, to Backbone DWDM systems, and in the last 10 years I worked in Submarine Cable and Network Operations, where I was working when Vodafone took over Cable & Wireless Worldwide. I think I have a pretty good idea of the struggles other companies have had in trying to compete against BT, and directly seen the results.
When BT took over EE, I was working at Vodafone, and I remember thinking that BT owning a mobile company sealed their dominant position, and always wondered why they demerged Cellnet around 2000. BT/Openreach's advantage comes from their geographic coverage, and although OFCOM have done a lot to level the playing field, it doesn't take away the value held within BT's Cable infrastruture assets, or the Engineering revenue capacity of the Openreach workforce.
BT's advantage comes from their capacity to massively reduce costs, compete across the whole of the UK, rollout FTTP across all areas cheaper than rivals, and their Geographic scale allowing them to rollout 5G more densly and cheaper than the competition. I think the competition will do ok, but I believe the market narrative has led to an undervaluation of BT, and Telecoms in general. In my opinion, the pension deficit isn't the issue many articles would have us believe, I think it will diminish and move to surplus in the coming years anyway. BT's move to Passive Optical Networking, PSTN switch off, Exchange closure program, and Cloud convergence, is the components adding to the massive cost savings I mentioned above. Of course all this is my opinion, but they're the reasons I'm happy with my BT investment, and why I've topped up during Covid to bring down my average cost per share significantly.
Well it was clearly clear enough if you actually read it properly.
Like John did.
Your problem is you didnt and is why you went into 'rant' 'im always right, divi divi divi' mode. Quite silly really, but dont worry wont be expecting an apology, that should have been in the last post. you just keep up the nonsense.
Happy you seem to think teachers nurses doctors etc are on good pay. My wife, oddly a teacher, disagrees. As do i given the hours of work she does each evening, and throughout the 'holidays'. Im quite happy to give up some of my spare time for free maintaining the school building and making resources as well, due to school being cash strapped. Your wifes friends sons teacher friend, who you have "direct knowledge of" should maybe work harder if being paid so 'well'.
I suppose when working for BT competitors as you state you did, the pay must have been worse, touch of the green eyed lesser paid monster maybe?, but at least you made it to retirement and are now able to happily post the divi gospel on all these boards each day.
My wife meanwhile left home at 6.50am today to teach the little cherrubs, back home just before 6pm tonight. Takes her job very seriously and works damn hard.
Just curious, why you blab on about BT being such a good investment (even though underwater), when you said you never actually worked for them?
you appear to be under the mistaken impression that you are 1 of the 2 incredibly dumb people that DT mentioned ."
Well he did start a paragraph talking about me, immediately following the mention of two dummies in the first paragraph, maybe he should have made it more clear who he was referring to; And the only reason I came on this forum was due to DT expressing an opinion about a conversation I'd had on the BT forum, implying that I didn't know what I was talking about; Actually if anyone reads the posts, I explained that my wife's friend has a Son who's a teacher, who's married to an Accident & Emergency nurse. Not only did I refer to people I have direct knowledge of, but I also backed up everything I said with links to pay scales, etc. In this country, nobody's forced to work in a particular industry, or profession, etc, we have choices; If someone chooses to become a Nurse, Fireman, Doctor, Rocket Scientist, etc,and they have the ability to achieve their career goals, then that is their choice. I expressed the opinion that Nurses and teachers are paid well enough, which is my honest opinion, if people disagree with my view then that's their choice.
What part of your underwater and im in profit (still) dont you understand?"
If you class sitting on a paper loss as "underwater", then I can't argue with the terminology, but there's nothing to say my stocks wont float to the surface, grow wings and take off in the future. There are a few ways of looking at Paper (unrealised) losses, and paper (unrealised) gains. I'd argue that in the case of a non dividend paying (Growth) investment, then unrealised losses, and unrealised gains are far more relevant, since you're relying on all your profit coming from a capital gain when you sell; Your cash is tied up with no return until you sell, and no way of growing your holding without fresh capital. If you invest in a dividend stock, assuming the dividend continues when the price drops, you can buy more stock through dividend reinvestment, increasing your holding, and the size of your next dividend.
We could go around in circles discussing paper losses/gains, Dividend reinvestment, income, etc, and you'd argue black is white with me since we're at that stage. You should check out this youtube video responding to Dividend Haters.
"Its really very simple, maybe thats the problem? as you clearly see yourself as some form of interlect with superior intelligence to the rest of us, yet fail to see the blindingly obvious right under your own nose because you are too blinkered and cannot EVER see yourself as wrong."
I don't see myself as being anything more than average intelligence, what I'm stating is common sense in my opinion. As far as carrying risk, I view my investments as safe as you view your Ryanair investment, so I'm happy to keep topping up while the prices are low, and watching my holding's grow with each dividend.
Indeed, it would appear that you can read far far better than our 'divi fanatic' friend (a clue there Fleccy). However it has always been clear that the 'divi fanatic' (a second clue) is a little lacking in the comprehension dept.
If he wants to wear the aformentioned hat however, so be it eh! :)
you appear to be under the mistaken impression that you are 1 of the 2 incredibly dumb people that DT mentioned .
You couldn't be as dumb as the 2 DT and I are addressing. Believe or not both begin with a capital "D".