Funding school fees and retirement from an uncertain business exit
Paul is 56 and owns 70% of a specialist engineering business; his wife Nina is 53 and teaches part-time. Their children, 13 and 15, are at private school with fees of £46,000 a year for the next five years. They have an interest-only mortgage of £310,000 due in 2030 and only £90,000 in cash. Paul's defined contribution pension is £740,000 and Nina's is £180,000. Paul plans to sell his shares in three to four years for an estimated £2.2m before tax, but the sale depends on him remaining with the business and could fail. He wants to retire at 60, repay the mortgage, cover school fees and give each child £100,000 towards a home. He has no life or critical illness cover. He is risk-averse in investments yet treats the sale as certain; Nina wants the family less exposed to the business. The couple ask whether they can afford Paul's plan.
1. Identify the main tensions between Paul's objectives and the family's resources and constraints, and explain what further analysis you would complete before advising.
Read the worked answer
The core tension is that the plan relies on a single, uncertain, illiquid event-the business sale-while several obligations are fixed and near-term. School fees total about £230,000 over five years, the mortgage is £310,000 in 2030, and the £200,000 children's gifts are aspirational. Against this, liquid cash is only £90,000 and Paul has no protection cover, so death or incapacity before sale would leave Nina exposed.
Further analysis should include: a year-by-year cash-flow projection to age 70 under sale, delay and no-sale scenarios; a business valuation and due-diligence review, including dependence on Paul and any earn-out or deferred consideration; pension projections and the normal minimum pension age rules; mortgage repayment options and early repayment charges; and a formal risk-capacity assessment, because Paul's tolerance is low but his capacity to bear loss may be higher if the sale completes.
I would also quantify the protection gap-life cover, income protection and key-person cover-and establish an emergency reserve of at least 12 months' fixed outgoings. The advice should separate essential objectives from discretionary ones and make clear that the sale is a potential accelerant, not the funding plan.
2. Recommend a funding hierarchy for the next five years that does not rely on the sale completing, and explain the risks you are managing.
Read the worked answer
First, build liquidity: retain or increase cash to cover at least 12 months of fixed costs, including mortgage interest and school fees, and arrange protection cover before relying on future earnings. Second, fund school fees from current income plus cash/ISA withdrawals, with a sinking fund for each year's fees so that equity investments are not forced to sell at a bad time. Third, address the mortgage: obtain a repayment strategy for the £310,000 interest-only loan, such as monthly overpayments into a designated ISA or pension contributions intended to repay capital, rather than assuming the sale will do it.
Fourth, use tax-efficient savings: maximise ISAs for flexible access and consider pension contributions within the annual allowance and carry-forward rules, but do not lock up money needed for fees. Fifth, treat the children's £100,000 gifts as discretionary and fund them only after the mortgage and retirement are secure.
Risks being managed are liquidity risk, concentration risk, mortality/incapacity risk, interest-rate risk on the mortgage, and sequencing risk if markets fall while withdrawals are needed. The plan should be stress-tested for a 30% equity fall and a two-year sale delay.
3. If the sale is delayed by two years, how should the plan change?
Read the worked answer
A two-year delay pushes the sale to around Paul's 61st birthday, so retirement at 60 should be reframed as a phased transition rather than a fixed date. The cash-flow model should show the gap between stopping work and receiving proceeds, and the plan should preserve liquidity for that period.
Options include: extending Paul's working involvement on a reduced basis; deferring retirement or drawing only Nina's pension/ISA income; refinancing the mortgage to a repayment basis or extending the term if affordable; reducing school fee pressure by using capital rather than income; and postponing the children's gifts. If the delay is due to buyer due diligence, Paul should review the sale contract for exclusivity, break fees and management retention terms.
I would also revisit protection cover, because the longer the dependence on Paul's role, the greater the key-person and income risk. The advice should not promise the same retirement date; it should set decision triggers-for example, if no binding sale is agreed by a certain date, cut discretionary spending and revise the retirement age.