NS&I Investment Bond

Glen_Clark

Castle wrote: »

Pensioner Bonds paid 4% over 3 years on a maximum of £10,000; so allowing for the 0.25% cut in the base rate, why isn't it 3.75%?

Pensioners always get the best deal because they are more likely to vote.
Fair? I dunno. If the young can't be bothered to vote perhaps they get the politicians they deserve

enthusiasticsaver

For £3k it is hardly worth it. We will stick to stocks and shares and current accounts

BarryBlue

Mr_K wrote: »

2.2% on £3k over 3 years ? So thats not much more than £180 (minus inflation) - hardly going to change anyone's life. Another pointless gimmick.

Absolutely right! Really, what on earth is the point of a savings bond where you can deposit a paltry £3k. Surely it should have been available in, say, £5k chunks up to £50k or even £100k. I suspect there will be a very low take-up from serious savers looking for a decent return as it pays such a piddling amount in total, just £66 a year.

J45 wrote: »

Oh come on £3k is an insult, this spending culture is what got a lot of people in trouble in the first place. The incentive for people to save is so low its defining a new culture.

I agree. If the government really wanted people to save, there would be some incentive to do so. Just something for a DM headline, I suppose.

talexuser

If you've got all the banks you can and still got cash at 1% in a building soc you may as well put 3 grand in this if you think the market might correct during that time, but surely it's a damp squib for the expectations raised about jam for the jams. If you are struggling to get by on low pay I don't think tying up money for three years is particularly helpful.

bowlhead99

Castle wrote: »

Pensioner Bonds paid 4% over 3 years on a maximum of £10,000; so allowing for the 0.25% cut in the base rate, why isn't it 3.75%?

The over 65s bonds paid 8x base rate, these are expected to pay in excess of 8x base rate. So a better deal on some measures.

These are targeted at people with modest savings rather than allowing the lion's share of the benefits (from paying in excess of market rates) go to OAPs with existing large savings balances. So a better deal for the average person, rather than for the class of savers most likely to vote in a forthcoming election.

As someone who doesn't have £10k to put into a fixed three year deposit, the terms are ok with me.

BarryBlue wrote: »

Surely it should have been available in, say, £5k chunks up to £50k or even £100k. I suspect there will be a very low take-up from serious savers

I don't need my taxes going to subsidise unearned income for someone sitting there with £100k of cash burning a hole in his bank account thanks very much.

If you have £50k or £100k that you are keeping for a rainy day you are one of the least in need of a government hand-out to make ends meet; you have a variety of savings and investment choices in the market.

Glen_Clark

BarryBlue wrote: »

Really, what on earth is the point of a savings bond where you can deposit a paltry £3k.

Cheap way of buying votes

BarryBlue

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The over 65s bonds paid 8x base rate, these are expected to pay in excess of 8x base rate. So a better deal on some measures.

These are targeted at people with modest savings rather than allowing the lion's share of the benefits (from paying in excess of market rates) go to OAPs with existing large savings balances. So a better deal for the average person, rather than for the class of savers most likely to vote in a forthcoming election.

As someone who doesn't have £10k to put into a fixed three year deposit, the terms are ok with me.

I don't need my taxes going to subsidise unearned income for someone sitting there with £100k of cash burning a hole in his bank account thanks very much.

If you have £50k or £100k that you are keeping for a rainy day you are one of the least in need of a government hand-out to make ends meet; you have a variety of savings and investment choices in the market.

Well, yes, I can't disagree with you. But my point is that £3k as a maximum is hardly worth setting the scheme up for. Do they want to encourage saving or not?

In my view the best investment is still property. My liquid capital is never tied up for more than a year or so, as who knows what is happening with the market. There are still current accounts which pay around 1.5% plus cashback for your everyday banking up to £20k, and you can have a couple of them. So the new scheme isn't worth the bother, frankly.

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Cheap way of buying votes

Would anyone really be gullible enough to fall for that?

Actually, thinking about it.....:think:

J45

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The over 65s bonds paid 8x base rate, these are expected to pay in excess of 8x base rate. So a better deal on some measures.

These are targeted at people with modest savings rather than allowing the lion's share of the benefits (from paying in excess of market rates) go to OAPs with existing large savings balances. So a better deal for the average person, rather than for the class of savers most likely to vote in a forthcoming election.

As someone who doesn't have £10k to put into a fixed three year deposit, the terms are ok with me.

I don't need my taxes going to subsidise unearned income for someone sitting there with £100k of cash burning a hole in his bank account thanks very much.

If you have £50k or £100k that you are keeping for a rainy day you are one of the least in need of a government hand-out to make ends meet; you have a variety of savings and investment choices in the market.

Well there has to be some balance here, I agree £50k-£100k savings is an extreme and not realistic for most people, but 3-5k per year would of helped people saving for first house deposits or just having a rainy day backup.

jimjames

J45 wrote: »

Oh come on £3k is an insult, this spending culture is what got a lot of people in trouble in the first place. The incentive for people to save is so low its defining a new culture.

It's low if you're determined to look at it that way. I agree it's pointless but that's because I can already get a lot more than 2% on £3000. Tesco offer 3% on that amount, TSB currently pay 5% as do Nationwide. Cast your net wider and you may be find something of use.

J45 wrote: »

Well there has to be some balance here, I agree £50k-£100k savings is an extreme and not realistic for most people, but 3-5k per year would of helped people saving for first house deposits or just having a rainy day backup.

Maybe you missed it but there is an account called Help to Buy ISA which does what you are suggesting. Most people who already have a house would be better off investing money in a S&S ISA or pension beyond their need for an emergency fund which can currently get a rate of 5%. It really isn't hard to find a decent rate for those amounts.

Reaper

dunstonh wrote: »

Oh great. What an awful name for the product.

Yup, it's not an "Investment", it's not a "Bond", and it's not an "Investment Bond". Apart from that it's spot on.