Current act with better interest than savings act

dales1

Valiant, dear sir,

Your comments are often welcome.
But on this occasion you are not correct.
Please do some research, before pursuing this particular thread.

ValiantSon

dales1 wrote: »

Valiant, dear sir,

Your comments are often welcome.
But on this occasion you are not correct.
Please do some research, before pursuing this particular thread.

Really? How exactly am I wrong that the return on £3,000 is 2.69% in a 5% regular saver?

dales1

Hi Valiant,

Try modelling it in XIRR as recently discussed on another thread.

The monthly new money gradually increases the pot, which earns 5% AER on the running balance.
When the balance is varying with time, you need to use the AER (or IRR) and not the raw annual return on the closing balance.

aj23_2

ValiantSon wrote: »

Child.

It isn't stalking you to correct your mistakes and point out your oversights and errors. You will also notice that I am not the only person to do this, and I have repeatedly told you that if you continue to post inaccurate or misleading information then I will continue to correct it, as I would with anyone else.



Alternatively, if going for an easy access saver on the same amount, the OP could currently earn £270, which is more than £242.

You continue to post about the difficulties of opening current accounts to get the linked regular saver, but this is not difficult.

I posted to point out, as did another person, that recommending the ISA did not make sense.



Child.

You keep saying child, only makes you look like one. And it looks like two or three others are above realise this too... :rotfl:

IanManc

ValiantSon wrote: »

Really? How exactly am I wrong that the return on £3,000 is 2.69% in a 5% regular saver?

You're wrong because the £3000 final balance isn't in the account throughout the life of the regular saver, and you only get interest on any account for the time that your money is actually in the account.

I'm disappointed that you have started to call people things like "*******" and "*****" because I'd valued your contributions to other threads and I didn't think you were like that.

aj23_2

IanManc wrote: »

You're wrong because the £3000 final balance isn't in the account throughout the life of the regular saver, and you only get interest on any account for the time that your money is actually in the account.

I'm disappointed that you have started to call people things like "!!!!!!" and "child" because I'd valued your contributions to other threads and I didn't think you were like that.

Exactly. That's why people get confused about interest on Regular Savers. You can expect get the interest rate on half your end/closing balance, as that is the average.

And he's been doing to me for weeks, just looks like he's doing it to many others now too. Follows me wherever I post and has the audacity to call me a child when he keeps replying to me despite me asking him not to.

ValiantSon

dales1 wrote: »

Hi Valiant,

Try modelling it in XIRR as recently discussed on another thread.

The monthly new money gradually increases the pot, which earns 5% AER on the running balance.
When the balance is varying with time, you need to use the AER (or IRR) and not the raw annual return on the closing balance.

I understand this, but that isn't the point I am making. I have given a figure that shows the total return on a lump sum that is deposited into a regular saver. That return in a total of 2.69%. This is not the same as the AER. What is the actual return on the lump sum over one year? The answer is 2.69%. The whole point is that the OP has a lump sum of money. The return on that money in an easy access account would be whatever the AER is, but that would not be the return from a regular saver because they cannot put the lump sum n on day one. People are trying to argue a different point with me. I know that the AER is 5%, but that won't be the total return on a lump sum.

ValiantSon

IanManc wrote: »

You're wrong because the £3000 final balance isn't in the account throughout the life of the regular saver, and you only get interest on any account for the time that your money is actually in the account.

I know!

I keep saying that I am talking about what the total value of the return is on a lump sum.

If people don't like that then fine.

IanManc wrote: »

I'm disappointed that you have started to call people things like "!!!!!!" and "child" because I'd valued your contributions to other threads and I didn't think you were like that.

I'm sorry that you don't like that I have used either of those terms, but I speak as I find.

IanManc

ValiantSon wrote: »

I understand this, but that isn't the point I am making. I have given a figure that shows the total return on a lump sum that is deposited into a regular saver. That return in a total of 2.69%. This is not the same as the AER. What is the actual return on the lump sum over one year? The answer is 2.69%. The whole point is that the OP has a lump sum of money. The return on that money in an easy access account would be whatever the AER is, but that would not be the return from a regular saver because they cannot put the lump sum n on day one. People are trying to argue a different point with me. I know that the AER is 5%, but that won't be the total return on a lump sum.

The total return on the lump sum would be the interest on the money while it was in the regular saver plus the interest from when the money was in whatever feeder account you were using to pay into the regular saver from.

Your 2.69% figure is spurious - and people do understand the argument you are making, but they disagree with it.

ValiantSon

IanManc wrote: »

The total return on the lump sum would be the interest on the money while it was in the regular saver plus the interest from when the money was in whatever feeder account you were using to pay into the regular saver from.

Your 2.69% figure is spurious - and people do understand the argument you are making, but they disagree with it.

Okay. Whatever. I really have lost the will to live with all of this.

I was actually trying to show the OP that a regular saver was a better place to put their money, but I won't bother in future.