SUB 3% Regular savings accounts

Snipz1989

Am I missing something here?

Wouldn’t a Marcus account or something similar provide better returns than multiple lower interest RS’s?

If so why do people use them or am i really missing a trick?

Cheers in advance
S

Zanderman

If they're saving regularly in a 3% reg saver then it's as good as Marcus at 1.5%. Much more so if they can only put in the max in the initial few months but only the minimum later.

Sea_Shell

Depends where your money is before you put it into RS's. Or if new earned money, if your other accounts ( earning more) are maxed out.

Duckyduck

3% is higher than 1.5% so it’s more interest.

If the cash for the regular saving was sitting earning nothing waiting to cycle into the account then yes might as well go to Marcus.

However if it’s new savings then 3% wins. Alternatively hold the savings in Marcus and then cycle into the regular saver, though with low rates and low limits it’s barely worth the effort.

fun4everyone

I use any regular savers I can get my hands on at 2% or higher. That's better than Marcus at 1.5%, which is for any excess.

planteria

i'd go along with all of the above, but i don't look at any accounts sub-3%. 3 RegSavs available: Nationwide, HSBC and M&S Bank all suit me nicely. and those 3 lots of £3,000 become useful lump sums when each mature each year.

veryintrigued

Get a couple of 1.5% accounts and you're already making 3%.

Pretty good really

planteria

extraordinary stuff.. surely not:D.

Snipz1989

Yes slight miscalculation.

I took both lump sum amounts and calculated the interest as such. Forgot to take into account any money accrued via holding accounts.

I should lay off Saturday night alcohol

Bobblehat

fun4everyone wrote: »

I use any regular savers I can get my hands on at 2% or higher. That's better than Marcus at 1.5%, which is for any excess.

Isn't a 2% RS only equivalent to about 1.08% over a year? Must be my turn to be missing something! I'd like someone to put me straight if I am.

eskbanker

Bobblehat wrote: »

Isn't a 2% RS only equivalent to about 1.08% over a year? Must be my turn to be missing something! I'd like someone to put me straight if I am.

A 2% RS pays 2%, no more and no less, based on the balance in the account at any point in time.

While you're far from the first to perceive this as half the quoted interest rate but on the full final balance, it's much more realistic and accurate to see it as the full interest rate but on half the final balance (as this is the average over the year), even though both come to the same figure....