Skipton Building Society

ivormonee

colsten said:

Sometimes it feels there are far too many people on this forum who seem to feel they should be telling others what they should and shouldn't do with their own money.

I haven't picked up on that. Are there any particular comments that give that feeling? If it's true I certainly wouldn't agree with that at all; each person is responsible for their own choices. The only time people give their thoughts and opinions is when they are asked for. Additionally, if a theme becomes the subject of debate then, as a public forum, everyone is de facto invited to contribute their views; it would be impossible for all views to mirror each other and the diversity of thought and opinion is, I think, what makes places like this an interesting platform for discussion.

gwapenut

             

RG2015

colsten said:

Sometimes it feels there are far too many people on this forum who seem to feel they should be telling others what they should and shouldn't do with their own money.

colsten said:

Also not entirely sure that I would keep money over and above emergency fund in cash. Obviously it depends on the plans for spending the money, but if it's not for a number of years, investing it seems a better alternative.

I agree that sometimes it feels like there are far too many people on this forum who seem to feel they should be telling others what they should and shouldn't do with their own money.

However, I am tired of the constant implied criticism of those saving rather than investing sums greater than their emergency funds.

ivormonee

RG2015 said:

Also not entirely sure that I would keep money over and above emergency fund in cash.

 those saving rather than investing sums greater than their emergency funds.

I keep hearing the phrase "emergency fund" but not really sure what people mean by this. Does it mean keep money to one side (ie. readily available in a savings account with instant access available) in case of "an emergency"?

I ask, because this doesn't make sense to me - an emergency could be a burst pipe (which might be covered by insurance and, if it isn't, might cost a couple of hundred pounds to fix) or it might be the fridge stops working (which might be covered by insurance or cost a bit more to replace) or something else.

Given that you can't know what emergency might occur, and whether you might be covered, and how many emergencies you might encounter, and what the financial scale might be, then I don't see any way of reaching any conclusion as to what an "emergency fund" might look like.

ivormonee

colsten said:

Sometimes it feels there are far too many people on this forum who seem to feel they should be telling others what they should and shouldn't do with their own money.

I will say though, that it does sometimes feel that some posters sometimes take on quite an "authoritative" tone; ie. they come across as they're right and we're wrong, almost dictatorial.

RG2015

ivormonee said:

RG2015 said:

Also not entirely sure that I would keep money over and above emergency fund in cash.

 those saving rather than investing sums greater than their emergency funds.

I keep hearing the phrase "emergency fund" but not really sure what people mean by this. Does it mean keep money to one side (ie. readily available in a savings account with instant access available) in case of "an emergency"?

I ask, because this doesn't make sense to me - an emergency could be a burst pipe (which might be covered by insurance and, if it isn't, might cost a couple of hundred pounds to fix) or it might be the fridge stops working (which might be covered by insurance or cost a bit more to replace) or something else.

Given that you can't know what emergency might occur, and whether you might be covered, and how many emergencies you might encounter, and what the financial scale might be, then I don't see any way of reaching any conclusion as to what an "emergency fund" might look like.

Yes it is for household emergencies. However, It is generally also taken to include three to six months income to fall back on in case of redundancy or other unexpected sudden loss of regular income.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/emergency-savings-how-much-is-enough

Sailtheworld

colsten said:

Not sure why waiting for 6 months to look for a better rate is 'acceptable' but doing it immediately is not? If you find a tenner in the road, do you first check your diary to see whether now would be a good time to pick it up?

Also not entirely sure that I would keep money over and above emergency fund in cash. Obviously it depends on the plans for spending the money, but if it's not for a number of years, investing it seems a better alternative.

Six months doesn't seem like an  unreasonable time to schedule in a review of savings rates. What's the worse that could happen? Someone misses out on 0.1% on their £10k emergency fund for a few months? The tenner in the street is a poor analogy - yes, if you saw one it's no effort to pick it up but you wouldn't spend time on a daily basis researching where the odd tenner might be found and go looking. 

My working assumption is that people must be keeping funds well in excess of emergency funds because otherwise it would be pointless doing a daily trawl of best buys, forums, researching the intricacies of the T&Cs and burning headspace keeping on top of feeder accounts and a multitude of savings accounts.

The irony is that a do nothing approach (an emergency fund in best buy instant access every 6 months and, anything above that, in time fixed accounts) performs better against rate tarting when rates are falling (as they have been doing since the '90s) because the amount in fixed rates is always doing better than current available rate. 

Interest rates are low and probably staying low; the days when a bit of research might yield full percentage point differences in rates are long gone and not coming back. It's not a case of telling people what to do but suggesting ways to make more money with less effort - isn't that what this site is about?

colsten

We are not talking about regular reviews of savings accounts but a known drop at a known date. To me, that's a trigger for a quick check whether there are better rates - takes 5 minutes at the most to check moneyfacts, Raisin and HL. Verifying that it's the right account for you and opening a savings account is in my experience not the chore that some describe it as but that may be because I am quite used to frequently opening accounts. My approach has left me with a 1.02% instant access account whilst everybody is scrambling to preserve a 0.75% one, or even a 0.4% one, so I am quite happy to continue with it. Who knows, perhaps some people will be glad in a few months time that they have put a quid into a 0.4% account, just in case the best rates then might be 0.01%. You are, of course, free not to value the odd tenner but I do.

Speculator

schiff said:

I'm keeping my 'waiting for the next RS SOs cash' in Lloyds (£5K - 0.78%), Skipton (0.65%) and Marcus (0.50%).
Not unhappy with that in the circs.

If you have the old Clydedale Direct current account, they are still paying 0.85% on £3K until 19th of may when it converts into a Virgin M Plus account paying £2.02% on £1000.

veryintrigued

Just a reminder that both the interest is payable and interest drops this week on the Online Bonus Saver Issue 7.