controversial dig at savers

Bazn

ok everyone. this is a bit controversial, but i'm gonna say it anyway.

there has been much public criticism of large financial institutions for being short-sighted and miscalculating risk, and public opinion is that they only have themselves to blame for behaving in a way that would eventually cause their revenue to come crashing down.

as a side-effect of agressive rate-cutting to rvive the financial system, many savers are screaming about their rates being cut and therefore losing their income.

well, haven't they got themselves to blame? savings interest is a short-sighted and overall poor choice if you want a sustainable income. it is variable in nature and is eroded by inflation. perhaps savings-for-income people should look at where their own financial planning went wrong rather than complaining about rate cuts?

doire_2

What about those not using savings for income?

MM46

So what else do you suggest? If pension is topped up as much as possible, and there is inherent risk with equities or shares, I don't see any other sensible alternative once you reach retirement age.

Bazn

doire wrote: »

What about those not using savings for income?

ok fair enough, but the bulk of the complaining is coming for those hit worst - ie those reliant on the income. in any case, many of those not saving for income will have mortgage/debts, so they might acually benefit (unless the lender is being stingy about passing on the cuts of course)

sabretoothtigger

They are right to complain, right now they deserve 10% and might end up getting it

Bazn

MM46 wrote: »

So what else do you suggest? If pension is topped up as much as possible, and there is inherent risk with equities or shares, I don't see any other sensible alternative once you reach retirement age.

ok lets look at the main aim of someone saving for income. i take it that the income stream is the vital part. the capital is simply a means to that end. obviously one would not want to risk much of it on the stockmarket, but small fluctuations in the capital would not really be a big deal. the fixed income should be paramount.

and that comes to my suggestion as a far superior source of income. FIXED income, that will reliably keep coming in. Such as from Gilts or top-rated corporate bonds.

Maisie11

I saw one of the news channels interviewing an 85 year old women who was complaining that the savings rates were going down and she was losing out. She had over £300k in savings and didnt see why she had to dip into the income.

Well at the risk of also being slapped down. I think she should have to dip into her savings. We are all hit in a recession. My husband and I are dipping into our savings. They were for a rainy day and that day is here. The government is likely to get some of this when she passes on. With savings like that I suspect she will have a substantial house with no mortgage. You cannot have low borrowing rates and high savings rates. It doesnt work like that. We are all in this together!

ScarletBea

I am completely averse to risk, so I don't want to go near the stockmarket (except through my pension plan at work, and even there, the percentage is low). So where should I put my money?

tonygee_3

Those who rely on savings income really should have set up fixed rates months ago,everone could see this coming

tradetime

doire wrote: »

What about those not using savings for income?

Personally I would say the same thing applies, interest rates go up and down, that's the way it is, savings have never been an efficient use of capital, and never will be.

KorkyKat

I take it that this is the nomination for the Daft Post Of The Year award in April?

The average saver - especially the retired - don't have access to the money markets nor have any control over the greedy b******ds that got us into this mess. Because the banks and the international capitalist robbed people blind why should savers be punished for their actions? What ever happened to that old banking principle (as used by the likes of Beverly Building Society) where your expenditure ratio is matched by your income and by the security of your loans.

We have a right to scream from the rooftops and where possible give the banks a good screwing as it was they who screwed others and abused the trust of their customers.

Take RBS as an example. One of the oldest banks with a solid reputation decides to get greedy with that piece of s***t Fred Goodwin. First they try to take over ABN then a Chinese Bank and give out money to wasters and mortgage ninjas and hey, they are almost bankrupt. "Please help us Mr. Darling as our Fred The Shred as runaway with his money after turning us over."

And you wonder why savers shouldn't be angry as Goodwin and his ilk walk away with millions of depositors money?

Darling and Brown made one big mistake. They should have nationalised the lot of them and imprisoned the likes of Goodwin for malfeasance.