Woman gets her daisy-chain SOs wrong

Archi_Bald

adindas wrote: »

It shall read NOT ALL Banks allow four weekly standing order.

HSBC for instance does not allow this.

Please do stop posting incorrect information. HSBC does allow four weekly SOs.

adindas

masonic wrote: »

I've just logged in and checked and HSBC do indeed allow "Four weekly" standing orders to be set up.

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Please do stop posting incorrect information. HSBC does allow four weekly SOs.

Ok, TBH when I stated this I did not have the gadget to generate code, so just relying on my memory, so good to hear that it also works with HSBC and good that someone has corrected it. I have deleted this incorrect info to focus dicussion on four weekly SOs.

masonic

IanManc wrote: »

No it would not. And yes, it would definitely be a problem.


The date of a four weekly payment would change every month. So for example a first payment made on 15 May 2015 would be followed by a payment four weeks later on 12 June 2015, then 10 July 2015, then 7 August 2015, then 4 September 2015, then 2 October 2015, then 30 October 2015. And the next time it would happen in the cycle would then be 2 December 2016 and 30 December 2016.

No, four weeks from 30th October is 28th November. Similarly, four weeks from the 30th December 2016, would be 27th January 2016, so it doesn't skip a month in either case.

TheTracker

adindas wrote: »

It is a good idea if this method has been tested. Has anyone tested it for at least one year cycle and could confirm that it is bullet proof against the possiility of running into red ?

I've been doing it this way for a long time. It gets rid of 90-95% of the weekend issue. It does not rid you from the IT failure risk, which I consider low. I do maybe 30+ transfers each month by SO and they've always been correctly dated for years.

msallen

IanManc wrote: »

The point was being made about four weekly standing orders, which are of course repeat payments. So my argument about a four weekly standing order is correct.


And four weeks from 1st or 2nd of April, June, September and November: and 1st, 2nd or 3rd January, March, May July, August, October and December would be in the same month in every case. And from 1st February it would be within the same month in one out of four cases.

The point you were responding to, and ideed quoted, was ...

Four weeks from that second payment would always fall within the following month, would it not?

And indeed it does. In months where there are two payments under the 4 weekly cycle, then four weeks after the second one is always in the next month, therefore there is no risk of missing a month.

Jeez - between you and adindas

masonic

msallen wrote: »

Jeez - between you and adindas

If you're enjoying this discussion, you should really try out: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751&p=167255951&viewfull=1#post167255951
(and no, I am not suggesting anyone here is being this stupid)

Credit to InvestInPoker for originally sharing the link.

ceredigion

On the other hand it is all a lot easier to keep the balance high enough in the first place.

masonic

IanManc wrote: »

Seeing you're so superior would you like to explain to us all why on earth you would want to pay a standing order twice in a month every sixteen months?

The T&Cs do not require the money to be cycled around exactly once per month. You will meet the T&Cs of the account if the necessary credits are made one or more times. Perhaps you could explain why you believe having it occasionally happen more than once in the same month is a problem?

Yorkshire_Pud

I guess?:o having a 4 weekly money go round will garner one month in 12 where there will be a 'double' money go round month as 52 weeks divided by 4 weeks =13.


This may work for some but not those of us who rely on a salary or pension which is paid on a particular date each month which is the seed for the money go round.

Lucky I don't bank with Tesco:D

Now if you will excuse me I'm off down the gym for my 3.5 times a week work out, want to be in good shape for my weeks holiday in Tenerife fly out Saturday return following Saturday, that's er 8 days and I will be listening to The Beatles Eight Days a Week on my mp:p

Cheers
Josh:)

masonic

Yorkshire_Pud wrote: »

I guess?:o having a 4 weekly money go round will garner one month in 12 where there will be a 'double' money go round month as 52 weeks divided by 4 weeks =13.

This may work for some but not those of us who rely on a salary or pension which is paid on a particular date each month which is the seed for the money go round.

There would surely be enough money in one of the accounts, though. Suppose there are five accounts (as the woman in the article had), A, B, C, D and E, then the arrangement would be that every four weeks on a Wednesday, the following transactions would take place (for whatever amount meets the funding requirements of all accounts):

A --> B
B --> C
C --> D
D --> E
E --> A

If any one of the accounts has sufficient funds, then all of those transfers would be successful.

Net result every account has the same final balance as it started with and based on the T&Cs I've read for the accounts I hold, interest would be calculated on the same balance as any other day where the identical payments in and out were not made.

An extra transfer would result in no costs, no loss of interest and no disqualification from meeting the account terms. If I'm mistaken, please somebody let me know.

Cheers
Josh:)

:rotfl: