I give up....

bowlhead99

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

Indeed. They're not very bright. Must be Labour voters.

Isn't it great when a perfectly innocent thread turns political?

What?? It isn't? How strange! Because that's what seems to happen all the time round here...

masonic

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

Indeed. They're not very bright. Must be Labour voters.

I hope nobody makes derisory comments about you because of your nationality like you seem to do to others because of their politics.

masonic

Broken_Biscuits wrote: »

a lot of pensioners have not had the same exposure to internet banking and shopping around that is now the norm, particularly to users of this site. My parents and countless people like them want the security ( in their mind) of having one account even if it pays slightly less.

That's the beauty of being in a marketplace with a wide range of options, where people can choose an account that gives them the services that they need. Problems only start to creep in when those who pick the more expensive or bespoke options feel that they are entitled to the same returns as those who pick the budget, no frills options, where costs are lower and/or subsidised to encourage people to take them up.

bowlhead99

masonic wrote: »

That's the beauty of being in a marketplace with a wide range of options, where people can choose an account that gives them the services that they need. Problems only start to creep in when those who pick the more expensive or bespoke options feel that they are entitled to the same returns as those who pick the budget, no frills options, where costs are lower and/or subsidised to encourage people to take them up.

I agree with that. If you want a passbook, and want someone to rent or buy a building on a high street and fill it with staff employed to physically write in your book each week and hand you individual ten pound notes after you stand in a queue delaying the other customers who might be trying to do more lucrative banking business, you are not the cheapest or most desirable customer.

Of course, if you're willing to give them 200k in cash, barely touch it and accept only 0.1-0.5% interest rate on it, then they might be perfectly happy to have you as a passbook customer. Counter-intuitively they may be happy sometimes to make their very highest customer savings rate offer a 'branch - only' account because that will help win the hearts and minds of a certain demographic and allow them to publish a headline-grabbing rate which in practice they don't have to pay out to many people.

Banks will do what they can to make the most profits for their owners. Savers should do what they can to make the most profits for themselves. Nobody owes the other party a living, so we and the banks are all free agents.

alanq

ChesterDog wrote: »

It's because people can infer "6%" without the addition of "APR" or "per annum" as "6% return".

I agree (apart from the typo previously pointed out re AER rather than APR).

One post I saw thought that x% interest credited monthly equated to annual interest of 12 * x%. Doubtless there are others who read that x% interest is calculated daily and expect 365 * x% interest.

kidmugsy

veryintrigued wrote: »

Now am confused....

Maybe the bit above is just badly worded but...the later contributions DO earn 6%. They just earn it over a shorter period.

No they don't earn 6%. They earn 6% p.a. As has already been explained.

veryintrigued

kidmugsy wrote: »

No they don't earn 6%. They earn 6% p.a. As has already been explained.

Granted.

Am well happy that the FD R.S account that lots of us have mean that we're getting the equivalent of a 12% return over the last two years.

Archi_Bald

veryintrigued wrote: »

Granted.

Am well happy that the FD R.S account that lots of us have mean that we're getting the equivalent of a 12% return over the last two years.

12% return on what? A monster box of smarties that none of you liked eating?

Talking about a return on an asset needs a concise definition of the asset to start with.

veryintrigued

Archi_Bald wrote: »

12% return on what? A monster box of smarties that none of you liked eating?

Talking about a return on an asset needs a concise definition of the asset to start with.

12% return on all the £7200 over two years (whether deposited or not) - thats how these R.S work isnt it?

Although this would buy a lot of smarties they couldnt be classed as assets - well not in our house anyway!

masonic

veryintrigued wrote: »

12% return on all the £7200 over two years (whether deposited or not) - thats how these R.S work isnt it?

There are enough people going around peddling that sort of nonsense through ignorance, without people being facetious.