Age discrimination - is this correct?

Onawingandaprayer

dunstonh wrote: »

It is well known that the term "bond" is one of the most misused terms out there. So, I dont know why you are taking such a stand against that.

I wasn't taken any sort of a stand until you told me I'd got things mixed up by thinking a post about a fixed rate bond was about a fixed rate bond.

Silly me. Now I know it wasn't.

gozomark

Hang around here long enough, and you soon realise that whenever anybody mentions investments, its 50:50 they mean savings, and when anyone mentions bonds it 50:50 they mean fixed rate savings. If they say fixed rate bonds is 99:1 they don't mean fixed rate bonds, but fixed rate savings :-)

Most of the time this misuse of words doesn't matter, but in the OP it probably lead to the confusion. The bank rep presumably heard the word bond, and assumed it was a "proper" bond, and thus regulated, and not available to someone over 70 under their guidlines.

I'm interested in investing in a bond

to some is the same as

I'm interested in saving at a fixed interest rate

margaretclare

Dunston, could you please explain what you mean by the 'over-70s rules'?

The title of this thread is 'Age discrimination - is this correct?'

I would ask - is it not age discrimination to treat over-70s differently just because of age? Is it assumed that we're all stupid, ga-ga, or what?

Francesanne

That's outrageous! I've heard of people in their 80's getting loans so why shouldn't you be able to purchase savings bonds for 2 years or more when you're over 70. Think I'd take my money elsewhere.

dunstonh

margaretclare wrote: »

Dunston, could you please explain what you mean by the 'over-70s rules'?

The title of this thread is 'Age discrimination - is this correct?'

I would ask - is it not age discrimination to treat over-70s differently just because of age? Is it assumed that we're all stupid, ga-ga, or what?

Its an internal rule to prevent people over a certain age being put in inappropriate products. When I was at Lloyds, it used to be age 75 there. Barclays have it at 70. IFAs, tend to set it at 80 but discretionary on the individual (depends on the individual and their health, ability to understand and background etc and if you are talking new money for investment rather than existing).

The general view is that someone of a certain age shouldnt really be looking at long term investments when they may not be round for the long term. There are exceptions to that an independents can work that but salesforces tend to draw a line in the sand for everyone as its a sales process that needs to be followed. The age may vary with but the princple is the same. Some 70 year olds are healthier and more active than a 50 year old but on rules set for saleforces tend to be lines drawn in the sand rather than personal circumstances.

Remember that the banks supply restricted advice (as it will be called soon). So, its just another restriction they work under.

Its not really discrimination but common sense. However, a flat rule really indicates that the bank doesnt trust its salesforce to use it's own discretion on a case by case basis. Probably a small handful of individuals have abused it over the years and the minority spoil it for the majority. Also, Barclays were hit with quite a few high profile cases recently with inappropriate risks for people.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/investing/article.html?in_article_id=484863&in_page_id=166

That's outrageous! I've heard of people in their 80's getting loans so why shouldn't you be able to purchase savings bonds for 2 years or more when you're over 70. Think I'd take my money elsewhere.

Its not outrageous. Its not the fixed term deposits that they cant buy. Its the structured products that Barclays wont sell. If they really wanted a Barclays structured product then they can always buy one via an IFA on advice or on execution only/direct offer basis. The fixed term deposit is available to them. The fixed term deposits are savings/deposit based. The structured products are investment products with an element of risk.

Jake'sGran

margaretclare wrote: »

I thought the general advice was to move money from 'more risky' to 'less risky' as you get older. I would have looked with great suspicion at any such 'advice' as the article describes. 'Buyer beware' applies just as much in the areas of banking and investing as in anything else,
maybe more so!!
To the OP, your Mum could look at bonds offered by other providers - Barclays is not the only one out there! I know the Yorkshire Building Society has one, for instance, and there are others. http://www.ybs.co.uk/?.com
HTH

Hi,Margaret, Some people, especially in our age group, do tend to stick with the same bank if they have been with them a long time. A few people I know would never dream of changing...from mainly Barclays and NatWest.

I have just transferred an ISA from cash to the stock market but am aware of the risks and have done my homework. The current savings rates are so low that I decided I'd take a chance with this one cash ISA. Also, I did have the idea that my heirs would be able to switch certain investments from my name to their's. Am I wrong here?

Re Bonds: I always think of these as stock market investments that do well in certain times - as now, and not so well when the
markets are booming. They are selling well at the moment to people who want a fixed income as the Trustnet site shows. But, confusingly, I talk about bonds when referring to my fixed rate savings accounts. The best I could find was finalised last week at 3.87% for twelve months.

margaretclare

I have just transferred an ISA from cash to the stock market but am aware of the risks and have done my homework. The current savings rates are so low that I decided I'd take a chance with this one cash ISA.

I did the same with 2 cash ISAs just at the end of last tax year/start of this one, so I have £7,200 in a S&S ISA with Hargreaves Lansdown. The beauty of it is, you can choose your own funds and don't need to be 'sold' or 'advised' anything.

DH has done the same with his cash ISA.

Jake'sGran

Mine was two years worth of cash ISAs and I chose four funds to put it into. I had a look at my portfolio this morning and was pleased to see I had gained approx £75 already. Of course, they may go down next week. I have diversified from my usual choices and on TV last night in a programme about savings an adviser often seen on Working Lunch was advising that this was the way to go.