We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
NS&I to cut premium bond rate and other accounts
Comments
-
It is correct to say that their decimated rates have been decimated though.polymaff said:bowlhead99 said:
You do realise that gross misunderstanding/misuse of the term "decimated" was the point I was making?
0 -
The 'correct' use of decimate is the reduction of a group by one tenth, not to one tenth. So decimation of a rate of 1% is 0.9%, not 0.1%. Decimation of 0.9% would be 0.81%.ffacoffipawb said:
It is correct to say that their decimated rates have been decimated though.polymaff said:bowlhead99 said:
You do realise that gross misunderstanding/misuse of the term "decimated" was the point I was making?
1 -
"Decimated" is a good word, and It is obvious that the Gov no longer need / want our money from these products. We will still maintain our premium bonds, and we also have some index linked bonds which we have been renewing at every opportunity and extended them all to 5 years.Would you assume that going forward they (gov) are unlikely to offer a renewal option on these products?.."It's everybody's fault but mine...."0
-
Yes, I would call that a "non-income" bond!ffacoffipawb said:
No way was I staying for 0.01% - that is a joke.
If you want to be rich, live like you're poor; if you want to be poor, live like you're rich.3 -
I suspect they wanted to reduce to zero. However that would not be an income bond and I suspect their systems probably couldn't cope with a zero interest rate either!Bravepants said:
Yes, I would call that a "non-income" bond!ffacoffipawb said:
No way was I staying for 0.01% - that is a joke.0 -
I find the semantics and schoolboy antics about the word "decimate" adds nothing to this very important thread.
I will be staying with NS&I out of necessity but I will not pass up moving some money up to £85,000 to the institutions which offer the best rates during the coming weeks.
The NS&I decision has flabbergasted me and I agree with the poster who suggested that the huge influx of savings into NS&I followed so soon by a huge loss of all that money will cause unnecessary trouble for the Govt.3 -
They go on late the next day. My withdrawals to Lloyds arrive about 2pm or 3pmwizdoc said:What are others' experiences in terms of the time taken for income bond withdrawals to hit their bank accounts? According to the NS&I website, withdrawals up to including £50,000 should clear by the next working day, but this doesn't always seem to be the case in my experience.1 -
ffacoffipawb said:
It is correct to say that their decimated rates have been decimated though.polymaff said:bowlhead99 said:
You do realise that gross misunderstanding/misuse of the term "decimated" was the point I was making?No it isn't. You would have to decimate 1.16% FORTY-FIVE times to end up with the interest rate proposed for Income Bonds.English Language teaching in the UK over the last FORTY-FIVE years has a lot to answer for.0 -
I thought it was a reduction to one tenth of the original value.grumiofoundation said:
The 'correct' use of decimate is the reduction of a group by one tenth, not to one tenth. So decimation of a rate of 1% is 0.9%, not 0.1%. Decimation of 0.9% would be 0.81%.ffacoffipawb said:
It is correct to say that their decimated rates have been decimated though.polymaff said:bowlhead99 said:
You do realise that gross misunderstanding/misuse of the term "decimated" was the point I was making?
Change that to Decimate ^ 45 then 1 -
ffacoffipawb said:
I thought it was a reduction to one tenth of the original value.grumiofoundation said:
The 'correct' use of decimate is the reduction of a group by one tenth, not to one tenth. So decimation of a rate of 1% is 0.9%, not 0.1%. Decimation of 0.9% would be 0.81%.ffacoffipawb said:
It is correct to say that their decimated rates have been decimated though.polymaff said:bowlhead99 said:
You do realise that gross misunderstanding/misuse of the term "decimated" was the point I was making?
Change that to Decimate ^ 45 then
Incidentally, 45 years ago was when I gave up trying to teach your nation's youth - must be a link there. ...
0
The income bonds have gone from paying over 10x base rate to 1/10th base rate, so have lost over 99/100ths of the rate they were paying, somewhat worse than just losing a tenth!
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards