7.0% actually 3.69%?

flaneurs_lobster

Albermarle said:

anakeimai said:

At the risk of re-entering the fray...  Thanks everyone for your comments and especially the meaningful answers, though - as a newbie to this - I'm a little surprised at some of the critical/disparaging comments in some of the replies.  My understanding was that Martin's MoneySavingExpert site was designed for people who don't understand things and come here to find answers (which by the way it is brilliant at), so contributors having a right old go at ones for being stupid, or not being able to add up seems a bit of a disappointing paraodox...

I can understand your comment. Some threads can go a bit off topic.
However your comment about the offer being designed to deceive, probably sparked off more of a reaction than your post would have done otherwise.

I can understand it too, especially when even (once) august publications like The Sunday Times were making similar insinuations about "deceptive" headline APRs on regular savers back in March. 

I agree with you that some of the comments here were less than kind.

anakeimai

Apologies if I caused offence - I'm obviously not as informed as the Sunday Times (see: newbie), and clearly wasn't aware (actually, baffled) about the sensitive politics on here...  

Beddie

anakeimai said:

Apologies if I caused offence - I'm obviously not as informed as the Sunday Times (see: newbie), and clearly wasn't aware (actually, baffled) about the sensitive politics on here...  

You caused no offence, plenty of people love to argue online about the tiniest details, so you probably made their day!

I like to hear the opinions of others and am not set in my ways, we can always learn new things. It's a useful place, so do hang around.

eskbanker

anakeimai said:

Apologies if I caused offence - I'm obviously not as informed as the Sunday Times (see: newbie), and clearly wasn't aware (actually, baffled) about the sensitive politics on here...  

I don't think anyone is being sensitive or rude (although you did get quite a lot of repetitive variations of the same answer) but don't see anyone taking offence either - the point being made above was that you weren't simply asking an open and neutral question looking for an explanation but chose to load your post with (a) the implication that those understanding the subject aren't 'normal' and (b) an accusation that the institution was deliberately trying to deceive:

anakeimai said:

Can anyone explain this to a normal, non-accounts expert, please?  This seems designed to deceive to me 😔

alternate

Very typical MSE thread.

Question asked and answered on first page.  OP thanks for response on second page.  Seven further pages of people arguing over semantics

RG2015

alternate said:

Very typical MSE thread.

Question asked and answered on first page.  OP thanks for response on second page.  Seven further pages of people arguing over semantics

And that is why we love the MSE forum. 

PS: You forget to mention the incessant, yet highly entertaining petty bickering. 

zagfles

Malthusian said:

zagfles said:

But you do get calculators telling you 1 + 2 x 3 = 9 when the correct answer is 7. Try the Windows calculator in standard mode, then try it in scientific mode.

Anyone with a C in IT will tell you that you asked the calculator what (1 + 2) x 3 is and it answered correctly. Not the computer's fault that your input wasn't the same as the question you wanted to ask.
You don't need to be Einstein to understand that the "standard mode" executes each operation as it goes along.

No, I asked 1 + 2 x 3. I used no brackets in my question.

The correct answer to the question I asked is 7. I asked both calculators the exact same question and got different answers. Anyone with a C in both IT and maths will tell you that the IT is rubbish as it doesn't understand the rules of maths. The answer to a simple sum like 1+2x3 isn't "well it depends if you're a scientist or not"

RG2015

I asked Jeff Bezos and he said 7.

He is worth USD 137.5 billion so I ain’t arguing with him.

Then again, guess who I asked about his net worth?

zagfles

Malthusian said:

Exodi said:

I think it should be just as embarrassing for someone to say "oh I'm no good at Maths" as it is to say "oh I can't read".

Those aren't equivalent statements though. One says not being good at something and the other says total inability. 
Equivalent statements would be "I can't count" and "I can't read". And most adults would be embarrassed to admit they can't count.
If someone says "I'm no good at maths" they mean they struggle to do subtraction, multiplication etc, not that they don't know which coins to take out of their purse or where to find Aisle 7. "I can't read" means illiteracy.
Someone who does know which letter means which sound but finds it frustratingly slow or struggles to write a grammatically correct email would say "I'm not great with spelling" or "I'm not a big reader". Or "I'm dyslexic". None of those carry much stigma. 

You're being a bit pedantic here, I think the point was being "bad at maths" isn't something people feel embarrassed about, so don't feel the need to do anything about, or investigate why, even wear it as a badge of honour, it proves they're not a boring geek. Whereas if they were "bad at reading", they'd probably try to do something about it, or at least establish an underlying cause, eg dyslexia.

Maths, like anything, is a skill. Some people are more able than others, some people are more interested than others, and some people have a disability which hinders their ability. But with maths a lot of people who are capable simply CBA because they think it's "boring" and so is anyone good at maths.

I knew a girl at school who failed nearly all her exams, including maths. She thought she was rubbish at maths. But she got a job as a barmaid, and this was in the 80's when bar staff had to add up prices in their heads, she was brilliant at it because she had to learn to do it. It's not something people are born with, it's a skill that can be learnt, and put someone in an environment when it's needed and most people are capable of learning.

AmityNeon

zagfles said:

AmityNeon said:

zagfles said:

Beddie said:

Millyonare said:

The UK should really make all pupils 14-16yo do a GCSE in Arithmetic -- and not leave school until they achieve grade 4 / C or better.

For the vast majority of employees and employers, simple arithmetic is all the maths they will mostly ever need to use in work or home or for personal finances.

Mandatory GCSE Arithmetic would noticeably improve UK productivity.

I get your point, but not everyone is capable of being good at arithmetic. In the same way I cannot draw or paint, others cannot work with numbers. And just forcing them will put them off for life. There should be plenty of encouraging, yes, and also schools should do realistic scenarios e.g. wages, tax, renting, buying a house etc. instead of the "dry" maths mostly taught. Have it as a project, not just a lesson.

Yes, stuff like algebra is a good example. It can be used for all sorts of useful things, I've just used it to work out how much I should be spending on my Barclaycard to get best value from the balance transfer I've just done. But most people just learn it at school then forget about it because they don't see the practical use for it, because it was never taught in the context of real life scenarios.

Basic algebra is wonderfully applicable as it only requires logic. Recently we wanted to determine whether it was worth 'renewing' LBG Regular Savers to their higher rates, which resulted in generic formulas. Simplifying can take a bit of arithmetic training and perhaps an affinity for numbers, but simplifying isn't strictly necessary with calculators doing the heavy lifting.

Not sure about only logic, you do need a bit of arithmetric training. Rearranging an equation is usually as hard or harder than "simplifying", and you can't use a (normal) calculator for that, and you do need to rearrange when the value you're resolving for is on both sides of the equation. That doesn't seem to be the case with your regular saver formula, so although it looks complicated it is probably simpler in that the value you are calculating is only on one side of the formula, so no rearranging is necessary.

Basic rearranging only requires an elementary understanding of arithmetic, and the rest is logic; if an operation is performed on one side of an equation, it must also be performed on the other for logical consistency. Simplifying a more complicated formula often requires expansion and factoring, which I wouldn't expect the average person to easily perform unless they were already doing so somewhat regularly in their daily life (e.g. when studying or working).

The full formula was:

mrn(n+1)/24 + m(r+x)(12-n)(12-n+1)/24 + m(r-y)n(12-n)/12 > mr6.5

The necessary values (monthly contribution, number of months, and the three interest rates) can be plugged into a calculator/spreadsheet for the desired result, i.e. to determine whether the left side generates more interest than the right.

It simplifies (eliminating the unnecessary m and r) to:

(n − 12) * [(n − 13) * x + (2 * n * y)] > 0