Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • fly-catchers
    • By fly-catchers 11th Feb 18, 11:21 AM
    • 165Posts
    • 318Thanks
    fly-catchers
    Online Premium Bond account
    • #1
    • 11th Feb 18, 11:21 AM
    Online Premium Bond account 11th Feb 18 at 11:21 AM
    I recently opened up an online NS&I account and brought £1000 worth of premium bonds. I have a few ancient bonds going back to 1958, can I add these to my online account and keep them all in one place. I do have two different holders numbers. The new online one and a paper one which I was issued with from NS&I in the early 90's.

    Also since getting my first RM NRA60 pension alongside my wages while I still carry on working. I have upped my S&S ISA monthly payments from £300 to £600 from this month. Given the current correction on the stock market is that a good or bad move? As I don't intend cashing my ISA anytime soon I guess it's a ok move! I have maxed out on my various higher interest current accounts and any saving accounts connected to them. Which is why I thought I would put some into premium bonds as well.
Page 2
    • PeacefulWaters
    • By PeacefulWaters 12th Feb 18, 2:54 PM
    • 7,738 Posts
    • 9,700 Thanks
    PeacefulWaters
    Premium bonds do not pay 1.4% interest! They pay no interest at all. You have the possibility of winning prizes, but you could get nothing.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    Any reasonable probability distribution curve will see a prize pot paying out pretty close to that 1.40% number, notwithstanding a range either side. For a £50k saver a prize or more a month is more likely than none.

    With the maximum £50,000 in premium bonds and average luck you could expect to win £500 in a year, which is 1% and, of course, half of all people will, by definition, have worse luck. In a savings account paying 1.35% (available from an FSCS protected bank) you would be guaranteed a return of £675.
    I believe the average return without jackpot is still well over your 1% claim. Ready to be shown wrong. I make it 1.36%. Give me 1.36% variable plus a chance of £1m rather than 1.30% cash in hand.

    You cannot exclude FSCS protected banks because they are not household names. Your money is just as safe with them. However, if you want to play that silly game then Tesco will pay 1.3% interest, which would be £650.
    The reality is most people open their savings account with a known brand paying a poor rate.

    The probability is that you will get a smaller return from premium bonds.
    Based on 1.3% being less than 1.4%?

    I'll say it again, you are talking utter rubbish.
    I've given my reasons clearly. Surely you can do better than repeat a nonsensical insult.

    If you want to put your money in premium bonds then that is your own foolish choice, but it is not a better option for the majority of people than using savings accounts.
    Even when "most" use terrible savings accounts?
    Last edited by PeacefulWaters; 12-02-2018 at 3:11 PM.
    • firestone
    • By firestone 12th Feb 18, 3:18 PM
    • 146 Posts
    • 54 Thanks
    firestone
    would guess most people have bonds after sorting out a savings account and want a bit of fun.Would also say that the average person unlike the majority on here are either not bothered or unaware of savings rates hence the "i can't be bothered for an extra half percent" that you often hear.
    If my Uncle came on here and asked for advice of what to do with his bonds someone would point him to a good paying account.Then someone would say leave that low paying account and put it in a fund and then so on & so forth.Its horses for courses in the end
    • fly-catchers
    • By fly-catchers 12th Feb 18, 3:21 PM
    • 165 Posts
    • 318 Thanks
    fly-catchers
    Which is one of the criteria that might suggest it is worth an individual considering using premium bonds, but even then it is by no means an obvious choice.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    That guy on my round who regularly wins got 4 wins today! And 3 last month.. Always seems grumpy though!
    • firestone
    • By firestone 12th Feb 18, 4:33 PM
    • 146 Posts
    • 54 Thanks
    firestone
    That guy on my round who regularly wins got 4 wins today! And 3 last month.. Always seems grumpy though!
    Originally posted by fly-catchers
    guessing he will cheer up if you stop giving him only £25 a time
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th Feb 18, 6:01 PM
    • 858 Posts
    • 695 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    Any reasonable probability distribution curve will see a prize pot paying out pretty close to that 1.40% number, notwithstanding a range either side. For a £50k saver a prize or more a month is more likely than none.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    No it isn't. I have already explained to you what the probability is. Perhaps you'd like to re-read my posts.

    The average return on £50,000 is £500 per year, which is 1%.

    I believe the average return without jackpot is still well over your 1% claim. Ready to be shown wrong. I make it 1.36%. Give me 1.36% variable plus a chance of £1m rather than 1.30% cash in hand.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    How have you worked that out? Try this: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/premium-bonds-calculator/

    https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/premium-bonds-calculator/The reality is most people open their savings account with a known brand paying a poor rate.[/QUOTE]

    I'm sorry, but you are trying to pick and choose. I have said that an easy access savings account will pay more than 1% and there are plenty that do. You cannot limit this to just the banks you want to. All of the savings accounts I have included in this are FSCS protected, and all are highlighted on MSE. Trying to argue that only high street banks count for comparison is utterly disingenuous, and designed to try and bolster your (fallacious) argument. I call straw man.

    Based on 1.3% being less than 1.4%?
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    No, based on the statistical probability that you won't actually get 1.4%.

    I'm not sure whether you genuinely don't understand this, or whether you are being deliberately obtuse.

    I've given my reasons clearly. Surely you can do better than repeat a nonsensical insult.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    I have given you clear evidence to support what I have said (you haven't for your contention).

    I say you are talking rubbish because, as I have demonstrated, you are talking rubbish (and continue to do so). It isn't nonsensical, indeed, it is completely sensical, because I have demonstarted how what you keep saying is wrong.

    Even when "most" use terrible savings accounts?
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    There's that straw man again!

    It is entirely possible to open a savings account paying above the selective rates that you have quoted from a small sample of the retail banks licensed by the FCA and offering FSCS protection.

    https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/savings-accounts-best-interest

    You continue to be wrong, despite the evidence that you are. I'm starting to feel that I am feeding a troll.
    Last edited by ValiantSon; 12-02-2018 at 6:04 PM. Reason: Adding savings links
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th Feb 18, 6:03 PM
    • 858 Posts
    • 695 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    That guy on my round who regularly wins got 4 wins today! And 3 last month.. Always seems grumpy though!
    Originally posted by fly-catchers
    Statistically, he is an outlier. A very lucky one, but still an outlier!
    • PeacefulWaters
    • By PeacefulWaters 12th Feb 18, 6:18 PM
    • 7,738 Posts
    • 9,700 Thanks
    PeacefulWaters
    No it isn't. I have already explained to you what the probability is. Perhaps you'd like to re-read my posts.

    The average return on £50,000 is £500 per year, which is 1%.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    Only if you strip out high value prizes. But the reality is they get paid. So you're distorting reality.

    I'm sorry, but you are trying to pick and choose. I have said that an easy access savings account will pay more than 1% and there are plenty that do. You cannot limit this to just the banks you want to.
    I highlighted those with over 85% of the easy access savings market.

    All of the savings accounts I have included in this are FSCS protected, and all are highlighted on MSE. Trying to argue that only high street banks count for comparison is utterly disingenuous, and designed to try and bolster your (fallacious) argument. I call straw man.
    You missed the bit where I honestly highlighted the best buys.

    No, based on the statistical probability that you won't actually get 1.4%.
    The prize pot is 1.40%. It may be distorted by the big money, but the amount paid out is that sum.

    I'm not sure whether you genuinely don't understand this, or whether you are being deliberately obtuse.
    That argument is a two way street.

    I say you are talking rubbish because, as I have demonstrated, you are talking rubbish (and continue to do so). It isn't nonsensical, indeed, it is completely sensical, because I have demonstarted how what you keep saying is wrong.
    If you choose selective weightings it is.

    It is entirely possible to open a savings account paying above the selective rates that you have quoted from a small sample of the retail banks licensed by the FCA and offering FSCS protection.
    A matter I haven't ignored.

    You continue to be wrong, despite the evidence that you are. I'm starting to feel that I am feeding a troll.
    You are simply choosing to interpret the numbers in a narrow minded manner.
    • glider3560
    • By glider3560 12th Feb 18, 6:29 PM
    • 3,443 Posts
    • 2,159 Thanks
    glider3560
    I recently opened up an online NS&I account and brought £1000 worth of premium bonds. I have a few ancient bonds going back to 1958, can I add these to my online account and keep them all in one place. I do have two different holders numbers. The new online one and a paper one which I was issued with from NS&I in the early 90's.
    Originally posted by fly-catchers
    I don't think anyone actually answered this question.

    You can't add Premium Bonds to an online account yourself. Everything assigned to your holder's number is automatically shown, however old (I believe they did a name/address matching exercise in the 1980s/1990s to allocate a holder's number to each old bond). What you need to do is contact NS&I and ask for both holder's numbers to be merged into one number. Make sure you register online with that holder's number, then everything will magically show online.

    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th Feb 18, 6:53 PM
    • 858 Posts
    • 695 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    Only if you strip out high value prizes. But the reality is they get paid. So you're distorting reality.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    No. That is the statistical average return!

    I am not the one who is "distorting reality". Have you recently met the black kettle?

    I highlighted those with over 85% of the easy access savings market.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    Straw man.

    You missed the bit where I honestly highlighted the best buys.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    Where was that then?

    The prize pot is 1.40%. It may be distorted by the big money, but the amount paid out is that sum.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    Yes, the annual amount in total, not the annual amount to each bond holder.

    That argument is a two way street.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    No it isn't. I have demonstrated that you are wrong. You keep repeating your errors.

    If you choose selective weightings it is.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    No. See above. You are the one who is selective with their evidence!

    A matter I haven't ignored.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    You have deliberately misrepresented the interest rates available to bolster your own fallacious argument.

    You are simply choosing to interpret the numbers in a narrow minded manner.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    No, that would be you.

    I am interpreting them correctly, you are interpreting them incorrectly.

    One of the following three options applies:

    1) You really just don't understand the maths.
    2) You are the kind of person who can just never admit that they are wrong about something.
    3) You are a troll.
    • dawyldthing
    • By dawyldthing 12th Feb 18, 6:58 PM
    • 2,813 Posts
    • 2,744 Thanks
    dawyldthing
    I have quite a bit of my money in them and I just see it as a way of keeping money safe and any winnings is a bonus. Yeah I could jump between accounts to get more but I'm happy as its like doing the lottery without losing money really
    My targets to end 2018:
    1) To get down to 11 stone then treat to a safari. At start 17 stone 7 lbs *60lbs lost* *31lbs to go*
    Started SW16st13lbs tues11/7/17 - 32 weeks in -52lbs
    -> target 11 st 13lbs by mid June -> 15 weeks & 18lbs to go
    2) to find new challenges
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th Feb 18, 7:07 PM
    • 858 Posts
    • 695 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    I have quite a bit of my money in them and I just see it as a way of keeping money safe and any winnings is a bonus. Yeah I could jump between accounts to get more but I'm happy as its like doing the lottery without losing money really
    Originally posted by dawyldthing
    If you are happy in the knowledge that inflation is eroding the value of your deposits at a faster rate than in an interest bearing account, and you just like having the chance of winning some money, then that's fine. What i object to is people being advised or encouraged to put their savings into premium bonds without any consideration of whether it is actually a suitable product.

    By the way, your money is just as safe in any FSCS covered bank (or in an NS&I savings account or bond).
    • PeacefulWaters
    • By PeacefulWaters 12th Feb 18, 7:12 PM
    • 7,738 Posts
    • 9,700 Thanks
    PeacefulWaters

    1) You really just don't understand the maths.
    2) You are the kind of person who can just never admit that they are wrong about something.
    3) You are a troll.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    Wrong on all three. But I think we're done for the sake of others reading the thread.
    • firestone
    • By firestone 12th Feb 18, 7:47 PM
    • 146 Posts
    • 54 Thanks
    firestone
    If you are happy in the knowledge that inflation is eroding the value of your deposits at a faster rate than in an interest bearing account, and you just like having the chance of winning some money, then that's fine. What i object to is people being advised or encouraged to put their savings into premium bonds without any consideration of whether it is actually a suitable product.

    By the way, your money is just as safe in any FSCS covered bank (or in an NS&I savings account or bond).
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    assume most people have given them consideration and decided they are worth the gamble as that is what they are a gamble not a savings product.Or you could end up telling someone who spends £5 a week on the lottery about regular savings products next(but yes that might be a better choice as well)
    • dawyldthing
    • By dawyldthing 12th Feb 18, 7:52 PM
    • 2,813 Posts
    • 2,744 Thanks
    dawyldthing
    If you are happy in the knowledge that inflation is eroding the value of your deposits at a faster rate than in an interest bearing account, and you just like having the chance of winning some money, then that's fine. What i object to is people being advised or encouraged to put their savings into premium bonds without any consideration of whether it is actually a suitable product.

    By the way, your money is just as safe in any FSCS covered bank (or in an NS&I savings account or bond).
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    I'm not too fussed. It's there for emergencies. It takes a few days to access so makes you think twice if you need the money out. Last year I got near the 'interest rate', for me it's just free fun as its not wasting money rather than doing the lottery like many folk (there was a guy I was recently dating wasting £60 a week on lotteries - to me that's a waste. My money is there if I need it, theirs just goes to the bookies/ Canadian pensioners
    My targets to end 2018:
    1) To get down to 11 stone then treat to a safari. At start 17 stone 7 lbs *60lbs lost* *31lbs to go*
    Started SW16st13lbs tues11/7/17 - 32 weeks in -52lbs
    -> target 11 st 13lbs by mid June -> 15 weeks & 18lbs to go
    2) to find new challenges
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th Feb 18, 8:04 PM
    • 858 Posts
    • 695 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    Wrong on all three. But I think we're done for the sake of others reading the thread.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    Has to be one of the three, but doubt you have the courage to admit any of them. Your reply suggests strongly which of the three it is.
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th Feb 18, 8:06 PM
    • 858 Posts
    • 695 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    assume most people have given them consideration and decided they are worth the gamble as that is what they are a gamble not a savings product.Or you could end up telling someone who spends £5 a week on the lottery about regular savings products next(but yes that might be a better choice as well)
    Originally posted by firestone
    I wasn't preaching. I was acknowledging that some people are happy with the product knowing that it is not a savings product.
    • IanSt
    • By IanSt 13th Feb 18, 10:28 AM
    • 246 Posts
    • 184 Thanks
    IanSt
    The average return on £50,000 is £500 per year, which is 1%.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    Not taking sides, but https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/premium-bonds does seem to show % values greater than that for £15,000 (£200, 1.33%) and £31,000 (£400, 1.29%).

    You'll need to read the article to see the full reason why you get a lower rate (1.29%) for the higher sum (£31,000) - the quick read is that it's to do with lumpy £25 prizes
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 13th Feb 18, 11:49 AM
    • 858 Posts
    • 695 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    Not taking sides, but https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/premium-bonds does seem to show % values greater than that for £15,000 (£200, 1.33%) and £31,000 (£400, 1.29%).

    You'll need to read the article to see the full reason why you get a lower rate (1.29%) for the higher sum (£31,000) - the quick read is that it's to do with lumpy £25 prizes
    Originally posted by IanSt
    Thanks. I obviously didn't include all possible sums as that would be a very long post!

    Those return rates may well be true, but of course those returns are just in the region of the better paying savings accounts, and are for the median average return, so half of all bond owners won't actually get that.
    • eskbanker
    • By eskbanker 13th Feb 18, 12:55 PM
    • 6,305 Posts
    • 6,371 Thanks
    eskbanker
    Those return rates may well be true, but of course those returns are just in the region of the better paying savings accounts, and are for the median average return, so half of all bond owners won't actually get that.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    £500 being the median return doesn't mean that half won't get it, that's not how medians work (it's closer to how the mean behaves though)! The same calculator gives the odds of winning at least £500 as 87% not 50%....

    To take a more extreme example of lumpy statistics, the mean number of legs per human is 1.99999.... but the median will be 2 and it would clearly be untrue to claim that half the population would be less than the median!
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 13th Feb 18, 1:23 PM
    • 858 Posts
    • 695 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    £500 being the median return doesn't mean that half won't get it, that's not how medians work (it's closer to how the mean behaves though)! The same calculator gives the odds of winning at least £500 as 87% not 50%....
    Originally posted by eskbanker
    Yes, okay, poor choice of words. I actually meant to say that many would not get that.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,445Posts Today

7,638Users online

Martin's Twitter