NS&I Investment Bond

G6JPG

bowlhead99 wrote: »

[]
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.

Such as? That give 2.2% or more?

jimjames

G6JPG wrote: »

Such as? That give 2.2% or more?

Such as current accounts that have been mentioned endlessly on here for the last 3 years or so

bowlhead99

jimjames wrote: »

G6JPG wrote: »

bowlhead99 wrote:

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.

Such as? That give 2.2% or more?

Such as current accounts that have been mentioned endlessly on here for the last 3 years or so

His or her point is presumably that you can't cram £100k in an account that pays 2.2%.

Whereas my point is that if you have £100k you are not in dire need of government support to get a slightly better rate on it; we're not very concerned about how much you do or don't get on it - because you already have 50x the average household savings and way more than most people would keep in cash in their "just in case" fund.

Once you have a few tens of thousands stashed in decent bank accounts you can do whatever you like with the rest for all I care, but if you are at £50k of spare money you can run the whole spectrum of opportunities from terrible 0.05% cash accounts to 50% profit or loss potential equity funds; and pick some sort of p2p, bond, property, equity or mixed investment fund if you want or need a better long term return than you get on a cash deposit.

There's certainly no need for the government to pay you over the odds to hold your money when there are less fortunate people that can't dream of that sort of balance.

bigfreddiel

dunstonh wrote: »

Oh great. What an awful name for the product.

Investment bonds are life assurance investment products that can be held in an offshore arrangement on onshore. It is a risk based investment product.

So, when the NS&I and Treasury were sitting there thinking what name they should use for this fixed term deposit and thinking what would stand out and avoid confusion, they came up with a name that is already used for a risk based investment product.

Like IFAs don't use confusing terms and descriptions along with the entire finance industry.

Kettle black springs to mind, but that's what MSE is for, to explain things in plain English.

Cheers fj

joe134

ns/i are going to bring a few more products out.
I have just rolled my IL,s over for another 3 years.
They won,t bring them back I doubt.
As a General Election is likely soon, there will be more sprats coming.
My 65+ bonds are half way to ending.
I won,t be using the new BONDS .
£3k:rotfl:

veryintrigued

joe134 wrote: »

ns/i are going to bring a few more products out.

Go on - what are these?

joe134 wrote: »

As a General Election is likely soon:

You seem to know more than most. The PM has stated there wont be.

What info have you got?

joe134

veryintrigued wrote: »

Go on - what are these?





You seem to know more than most. The PM has stated there wont be.

What info have you got?

1;; NS&I require more funds, already been announced, in all the financials .
2>3 billion pounds.
Not a Coincidence in the Autumn statement;
2; May doesn,t have a big enough majority to deal with the brexit, a few more Zacs, and then an Election, before March.
That's my prediction.I voted Brexit, this time and 75
Not rocket Science.The PM, has said a few things and amended them.
A weeks a long time in Politics:-)
Ans as Mac said, " Events dear boy"
Watch this space.
See how Yon judges vote today.

veryintrigued

joe134 wrote: »

.. an Election, before March.
That's my prediction.....

I just spat my soup out reading that.

Keep taking the tablets....

polymaff

veryintrigued wrote: »

I just spat my soup out reading that.

Keep taking the tablets....

You obviously weren't listening to Radio 4 at that time. Synopsis of news interview held at Junction of M1 and A50 (geddit?)

What do you think of Article 50?

Whats that?

The process by which we leave the EU

I don't know anything about any of that

Did you vote in the referendum?

Oh yes, I voted Brexit.

Next punter - just about the same.

I would have thought that that would have emptied your mouth, not to say stomach well ahead of MSE.

Dumb Britain

G6JPG

bowlhead99 wrote: »

His or her point is presumably that you can't cram £100k in an account that pays 2.2%.

Exactly.

Whereas my point is that if you have £100k you are not in dire need of government support to get a slightly better rate on it; we're not very concerned about how much you do or don't get on it - because you already have 50x the average household savings and way more than most people would keep in cash in their "just in case" fund.

Yes, someone with £50k is indeed fortunate.

Once you have a few tens of thousands stashed in decent bank accounts you can do whatever you like with the rest for all I care, but if you are at £50k of spare money you can run the whole spectrum of opportunities from terrible 0.05% cash accounts to 50% profit or loss potential equity funds; and pick some sort of p2p, bond, property, equity or mixed investment fund if you want or need a better long term return than you get on a cash deposit.

Consider someone in their mid- to early fifties, who through thrift etc. has managed to save £50k - or, maybe, £49k. S/he's not at all confident their job is secure (or indeed have just lost it). They know that it is quite likely that they're unlikely, at their age, to get another job at much above the minimum wage for the rest of their life: many employers are still reluctant to take on an older person (legislation notwithstanding), and even if they were, the skills of our candidate are likely to be out of date, and it may be possible that they're less able to retrain than a younger person is - although there are plenty of exceptions, we do get less flexible as we age, on the whole. So this person is looking at ten or more years until they reach the receding pension age, during which their income may not be much above the minimum. (Worse if they have a dependent spouse.) [And we hope they've got a reasonable pension set up - by no means definite these days.]

Granted, there's no argument: someone in such a situation with their 49 or 50 £k is in a far better position than many others - but, they probably are not willing to risk it on anything high-risk: it's their difference between minimum-wage misery and not-quite-so-misery. (Not a very big difference either - less than £5k a year, assuming they do have a oension after the 10+ years.)

There's certainly no need for the government to pay you over the odds to hold your money when there are less fortunate people that can't dream of that sort of balance.

I don't disagree with you there. It was only the "I don't care" that rankled a bit: it implied that someone with £50k is rich, and although they obviously are richer than many, I hope I've shown that they'renot really rich.