EXTENDED: You've got another week to add your travel & holiday deals questions for expert MSE Oli as part of the latest Ask An Expert event.
'The AER interest rate:a blunt, flaccid tool' blog discussion
Former_MSE_Penelope
Former MSE 536 Posts
This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.
Read Martin's "The AER interest rate: a blunt, flaccid tool" Blog.
Please click reply to discuss below.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
Mike
You could say in the second one that if you leave the money in the account for a whole year the AER would be x.
But it's still pretty meaningless.
The beauty of AER/APR is that it is a way of being able to compare like with like. But if on both of these products the idea is to ditch and switch then they cannot be compared like for like because they are different products. Someone who wants their savings in 12 months time isn't going to bother to ditch and switch after 9 months. But equally someone who wants their savings in 15 months time may d&s after 9 months but not after 12 months. All you can do is give the info and let people decide which is right for them.
The only alternative would be to establish what the average (median, I think) length of time a reader holds a savings account for. Then give the AER for this time period. For example, if the average reader will keep an account for 5 years both of the options given would be beaten by a 2.5% account with no bonus.
Are _you_ restricted by what you have to say? A loan company must give the APR, however meaningless. Do you have to do the same? (Does this depend on whether you offer a referal link or not?)
Is there a rule for how long an AER should be given for? For example on a 25 year mortgage the APR given will be for 25 years (I believe).
Basically, I think I'm saying that where the policy is to ditch and switch then AER and APR are meaningless.
It would be better if APRs had to be published for what would be expected over 5 years. Obviously fixed bonds have to be as along as they are. But with a 6 month bonus, a current high earner of say 4%, for 6 months drops down to 3%, the after 5 years is probably in the 0.1-1% pile.
There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies
Why on Earth the powers that be feel the average interest rate over the life of the mortgage assuming:
-the rate never changes on a tracker product for the time you are on the product (unlikely!)
-the rate never changes on the SVR after the product expires for the whole rest of the mortgage (as if!)
-everyone has the same term
-everyone has a repayment mortgage (and the same repayment profile because the rates never change)
-everyone has the same mortgage size
could be useful, is anyone's guess!
Say there was no bonus rate. You'd say it was 3% AER (variable) - they can still cut the rate at the end of March.
I don't see a problem, really. The AER is what you would get over a year, it doesn't mean the AER will apply for a whole year.
As both DarkConvict and VT82 have said, the way APRs are commonly used to describe hybrid products with short period low starts/trackers/bonuses is utterly meaningless, and the banks know it.
I think the banks should instead of being allowed to use the terms AER and APR in relation to such products, be forced to in every sale of such a product to declare instead, in dirty great black letters "Hybrid Banking Products Can Seriously Damage Your Wealth" and obtain the customer's signature to confirm that they have had a worked example explained to them and that they have understood a comparison with a level interest product where the AER/APR can be more simply comprehended. There should also be maths question that the customer must answer correctly unaided that is linked to the explained comparison.
I think the banks might soon get tired of pulling the wool over customers eyes if they were forced to stop abusing APR/AER in this way.
I would also stop credit card issuers from advertising 0% APR or 0% anything if there is a mandatory handling charge linked to the same transaction.
In my view, the difficulty MSE Martin has highlighted arises solely out of the concious abuse and exploitation of the 'once upon a time' perfectly useful concepts of APR/AER by the banks.
I'm not actually convinced that this is the case. Generally with a "hybrid" product there is an introductory period with a good rate followed by a lifetime or near-lifetime of a poorer rate. The banks want to highlight the short-term rate to attract customers but if anything an AER/APR forces them to highlight beyond this.
A case in point. They can't call this 0% APR.
If you go to http://www.santander.co.uk/creditcards as an example you'll see various 0%s being mentioned but the APR figure, the only figure in bold, shows much higher percentages.
Why not just tell people how much interest they will get over the relevant periods in pounds?
No wriggling then!
How many actuaries does it take to count to three? Those that can count and those that can't. :eek:
One year ISA,s tend to do this so savers end up on 0.1/0.25% rate
I have recently puchased the max index linked certificates in the belief that at the moment they will deliver 1% plus RPI ie around 6.1% tax free as is being stated by many including you!
However,I have just been told by a financial adviser that this is not true and that the marketing for this is deceptive ! What you actually get is the DIFFERENCE between RPI when you buy them and the anniversary date +1%, so if inflation stays at 5.1% for next 12 months I will only get 1% !!!
please confirm if this is correct as you have been quoting that you get 6.3% tax free, which does not appear to be the case. The Fin advisor said it does not clarify this on line and you need to read the printed literature from the PO. I welcome your comments and clarification.