controversial dig at savers

tradetime

I'm afraid I too would have to see the OP's point, with however a few caveats, good financial planning skills, or even awareness is not something people are born with, and whilst there is far less excuse today for not researching it, those people in pension now often had no awareness of the need, no information on the subject, it was a different world back then, so I do have a degree of empathy for anyone on pension and requiring income support of savings. If the rest of the people who jump up and down about their poor interest rates put as much effort into doing something constructive about it for themselves, then maybe they wouldn't feel so hard done by. Savings have and always will be a poor use of capital, somewhere just above a hole in the ground.

tradetime

jon3001 wrote: »

The intention is to give them food for thought. Not become engaged in semantics.

Ooooooohh!!!! :eek: Point taken, my apologies

KorkyKat

IFA's are a waste of time and space. The gilt question to any IFA is:

If you are such a smart dude with money why are you having to work?

:rotfl:

Lokolo

KorkyKat wrote: »

IFA's are a waste of time and space. The gilt question to any IFA is:

If you are such a smart dude with money why are you having to work?

:rotfl:

So if you have lots of money you want to invest and have no interest in learning youself - do you go to a bank or an IFA? :rolleyes:

And why does Alan Sugar still work then? :rolleyes:

KorkyKat

Lokolo wrote: »

So if you have lots of money you want to invest and have no interest in learning youself - do you go to a bank or an IFA? :rolleyes:

And why does Alan Sugar still work then? :rolleyes:

Neither. You buy shares in an Australian Uranium Mining Company along with other selective mineral and metal commodities.

As for Alan Sugar. I guess he still works because he's a plonker. If he had any money and sense he would have a yacht next to mine with a bevvy of sun tanned beauties not mincing around on the BBC.

Amstrad anybody?

:rotfl:

Lokolo

KorkyKat wrote: »

Neither. You buy shares in an Australian Uranium Mining Company along with other selective mineral and metal commodities.

:rotfl:

Why would people just put money into it when they don't know what it is or understand it? Thats just a stupid as the people that click on the 'You've won the nigerian lottery' emails......

evenasus

Bazn wrote: »

obviously one would not want to risk much of it on the stock market

This 'one' would not want to risk 'any' of my savings on the stock market.
I am fortunate, in that I don't have to rely on savings interest in my retirement.
But does that mean I shouldn't receive a decent % for lending my money to the building societies/banks?

john_s_2

I'm probably being naive, especially as no one has mentioned it, but I've followed the threads and various news stories about people relying savings interest as a form of income with interest. (No pun intended!)

I thought that if you wanted to guarantee an income from a lump sum then an annuity was an option? My understanding of annuities is that you buy an income for the rest of your life. Obviously the return you get is determined by various factors, which boil down to how long they reckon you'll live - like age, health, and lifestyle (eg whether you smoke or not).

Of course, once you've bought your annuity, that's it. You don't get any money back once you die, and you can't swap it for a different one later on.

You don't get nothing for nothing. The risk with savings interest is that interest rates might go down. But at least you can get your capital back and spend it on something else if the return isn't to your liking.

But the income you get from your annuity is guaranteed for life. Unless the company goes bust? I'm not sure what safety-nets there are in that case.

Any comments on that? I've probably got some of the details wrong.

Lokolo

Yes. A lot of people don't like annuties. If you die at 60 you've lost a lot of money. At least with savings the majority of the money (I think?) goes to OH and they can have it as a little death present so they can afford to live when they are older.

john_s_2

Lokolo wrote: »

Yes. A lot of people don't like annuties. If you die at 60 you've lost a lot of money. At least with savings the majority of the money (I think?) goes to OH and they can have it as a little death present so they can afford to live when they are older.

Yes, that's the price you pay for annuities (the guaranteed income for life). If you have a significant other then you can get joint annuities (obviously the income is based on how long they think you'll both live, or rather, when they think the last one of you will die).

My understanding is they come in all sorts of flavours, such as index linked or fixed income (again there's a risk here - the index linked ones will pay a lower income at first, and you might die early. The fixed income ones will pay a higher amount at first but you might live for decades and inflation sky-rockets).

There's pros and cons with everything. What's it they say about certainties in life? Something about paying tax and dying?