controversial dig at savers

tarotwoman_2

What exactly is at a five year low? Interest rates are already at an all time low (since 1600's I believe). The pound against the euro is at an all time low (since its inception in 1989), and as for unemployment, we don't yet know but everyday it seems to me there is at least one more business going bust (big, well known names at that) with the loss of hundreds sometimes thousands of jobs at a time.

cloud_dog

tarotwoman wrote: »

What exactly is at a five year low?

The article is stating that the average of all savings accounts is now at 0.81% - a five year low, not BoE interest rates etc.

tarotwoman_2

I've found the article giving the info about the 0.81% rate being the lowest for 5 years for instant access accounts. The same article states that 0.82% is the lowest for notice accounts since 1995 which was when they started to keep records on it. Perhaps the records for instant access accounts only started five years ago?

ES10

I'm a bit confused about the opinions regarding gilts and corporate bonds as a more reliable source of income than interest from savings.
I was looking at the gilts and they seem to be paying on average about 4 %.
Can someone explain to me why they are better for income than say a fixed rate savings account for 5 years at 6% ?
Perhaps you can get a better return on corporate bonds if you are willing to take some risk with the capital?

Bazn

i re-iterate my point today. more short-sighted savers whining about loss of income. these people are as guilty of short-termism as the bankers.

cash is not for income - it is a safe haven. the interest is nice, but anyone who actually relied on income from a variable rate cash account is pretty foolish.

if income was so paramount, gilts or other sources of FIXED income should have been utilised - then the income would be stable and predictable.

Stavros_3

Bazn wrote: »

i re-iterate my point today. more short-sighted savers whining about loss of income. these people are as guilty of short-termism as the bankers.

cash is not for income - it is a safe haven. the interest is nice, but anyone who actually relied on income from a variable rate cash account is pretty foolish.

if income was so paramount, gilts or other sources of FIXED income should have been utilised - then the income would be stable and predictable.

Tell that to the elderly pensioners on the news this morning. They have their life savings in cash deposits, when interest rates were 5% and they were getting a rate of 6% gross, giving them a return of £450 in monthly interest which they say helped with their miserly pensions. People like that don't want gilts or things they don't understand.

ScarletBea

Bazn wrote: »

i re-iterate my point today. more short-sighted savers whining about loss of income. these people are as guilty of short-termism as the bankers.

cash is not for income - it is a safe haven. the interest is nice, but anyone who actually relied on income from a variable rate cash account is pretty foolish.

if income was so paramount, gilts or other sources of FIXED income should have been utilised - then the income would be stable and predictable.

There we go again...:rolleyes:
People have different attitudes to risk, and even spreading savings through variable rates and fixed rates, once the fixed rates end, we still have the problem.