Regular savers

RG2015

housebuyer143 said:

tightfist8art said:

Thank you for all the replies , some helpful some maybe less so......

To housebuyer143 : Yes as you say 7% is more then 3.75% . But at the end of the the year your 7% actually equates to 3.50 % . If you read the MSE article on regular savers this is explained in greater detail ; maybe help your understanding as to why the question is asked .

To Bigwheels111 : Not sure why you felt the need to imply a new member of the forum is in your word ' uneducated ' or why the Domino sauce scenario was relevant , but rest assured I don't need to take my socks and shoes off to count to 20 . I do hope though that  if one of my children who does struggle with maths and finance does ever ask a question on here she gets a reply from someone a bit more tolerant . 

To everyone else thank you for the advice . We've had regular savers with Hsbc and First Direct for years on and off , especially when interest rates on easy access rates were so poor . The gist of my question was that as saving rates are rising now , are regular savers still worth it ? 
Just looking at what First Direct quoted at the end of the 12 month period , there didn't seem a lot of difference in just leaving the money with Saga as the headline 7% actually is nearer half that at the end . 
What I hadn't factored in but has been pointed out here was the proportion of the money earning the higher rate while the bulk still  earned its own rate as well .

7% does not equate to 3.5%. You get 7% on the money you put in the account. If you put the same money in your regular saver at 3.75%, you would get 3.75% on it.
Lots of people ask this question and my response is still, "I don't know why". The MSE article should be removed if it's misleading people.

The MSE article is fine.

You cannot remove online information because some people are being mislead.

Perhaps we should remove bibles, the theory of relativity, government publications even?

housebuyer143

RG2015 said:

housebuyer143 said:

tightfist8art said:

Thank you for all the replies , some helpful some maybe less so......

To housebuyer143 : Yes as you say 7% is more then 3.75% . But at the end of the the year your 7% actually equates to 3.50 % . If you read the MSE article on regular savers this is explained in greater detail ; maybe help your understanding as to why the question is asked .

To Bigwheels111 : Not sure why you felt the need to imply a new member of the forum is in your word ' uneducated ' or why the Domino sauce scenario was relevant , but rest assured I don't need to take my socks and shoes off to count to 20 . I do hope though that  if one of my children who does struggle with maths and finance does ever ask a question on here she gets a reply from someone a bit more tolerant . 

To everyone else thank you for the advice . We've had regular savers with Hsbc and First Direct for years on and off , especially when interest rates on easy access rates were so poor . The gist of my question was that as saving rates are rising now , are regular savers still worth it ? 
Just looking at what First Direct quoted at the end of the 12 month period , there didn't seem a lot of difference in just leaving the money with Saga as the headline 7% actually is nearer half that at the end . 
What I hadn't factored in but has been pointed out here was the proportion of the money earning the higher rate while the bulk still  earned its own rate as well .

7% does not equate to 3.5%. You get 7% on the money you put in the account. If you put the same money in your regular saver at 3.75%, you would get 3.75% on it.
Lots of people ask this question and my response is still, "I don't know why". The MSE article should be removed if it's misleading people.

The MSE article is fine.

You cannot remove online information because some people are being mislead.

Perhaps we should remove bibles, the theory of relativity, government publications even?

I'm only saying that clearly a large amount of people are not understanding it so it can't be that clear 🤷‍♂️ might be worth them updating it to avoid the obvious confusion it's causing.

Bigwheels1111

housebuyer143 said:

RG2015 said:

housebuyer143 said:

tightfist8art said:

Thank you for all the replies , some helpful some maybe less so......

To housebuyer143 : Yes as you say 7% is more then 3.75% . But at the end of the the year your 7% actually equates to 3.50 % . If you read the MSE article on regular savers this is explained in greater detail ; maybe help your understanding as to why the question is asked .

To Bigwheels111 : Not sure why you felt the need to imply a new member of the forum is in your word ' uneducated ' or why the Domino sauce scenario was relevant , but rest assured I don't need to take my socks and shoes off to count to 20 . I do hope though that  if one of my children who does struggle with maths and finance does ever ask a question on here she gets a reply from someone a bit more tolerant . 

To everyone else thank you for the advice . We've had regular savers with Hsbc and First Direct for years on and off , especially when interest rates on easy access rates were so poor . The gist of my question was that as saving rates are rising now , are regular savers still worth it ? 
Just looking at what First Direct quoted at the end of the 12 month period , there didn't seem a lot of difference in just leaving the money with Saga as the headline 7% actually is nearer half that at the end . 
What I hadn't factored in but has been pointed out here was the proportion of the money earning the higher rate while the bulk still  earned its own rate as well .

7% does not equate to 3.5%. You get 7% on the money you put in the account. If you put the same money in your regular saver at 3.75%, you would get 3.75% on it.
Lots of people ask this question and my response is still, "I don't know why". The MSE article should be removed if it's misleading people.

The MSE article is fine.

You cannot remove online information because some people are being mislead.

Perhaps we should remove bibles, the theory of relativity, government publications even?

I'm only saying that clearly a large amount of people are not understanding it so it can't be that clear 🤷‍♂️ might be worth them updating it to avoid the obvious confusion it's causing.

It’s very clear, the first month you get 7% on £300, month 2 you get 7% on £600 and so on for 12 months.

If you have £3600 in one go you can get 6% for the year £216 great rate.
But you need the £3600 in your account at the start.

I like the middle ground, I leave the £3600 in Chip at 4.2% and once a month transfer the £300 to First Direct regular saver. Getting interest coming and going.

RG2015

housebuyer143 said:

RG2015 said:

housebuyer143 said:

tightfist8art said:

Thank you for all the replies , some helpful some maybe less so......

To housebuyer143 : Yes as you say 7% is more then 3.75% . But at the end of the the year your 7% actually equates to 3.50 % . If you read the MSE article on regular savers this is explained in greater detail ; maybe help your understanding as to why the question is asked .

To Bigwheels111 : Not sure why you felt the need to imply a new member of the forum is in your word ' uneducated ' or why the Domino sauce scenario was relevant , but rest assured I don't need to take my socks and shoes off to count to 20 . I do hope though that  if one of my children who does struggle with maths and finance does ever ask a question on here she gets a reply from someone a bit more tolerant . 

To everyone else thank you for the advice . We've had regular savers with Hsbc and First Direct for years on and off , especially when interest rates on easy access rates were so poor . The gist of my question was that as saving rates are rising now , are regular savers still worth it ? 
Just looking at what First Direct quoted at the end of the 12 month period , there didn't seem a lot of difference in just leaving the money with Saga as the headline 7% actually is nearer half that at the end . 
What I hadn't factored in but has been pointed out here was the proportion of the money earning the higher rate while the bulk still  earned its own rate as well .

7% does not equate to 3.5%. You get 7% on the money you put in the account. If you put the same money in your regular saver at 3.75%, you would get 3.75% on it.
Lots of people ask this question and my response is still, "I don't know why". The MSE article should be removed if it's misleading people.

The MSE article is fine.

You cannot remove online information because some people are being mislead.

Perhaps we should remove bibles, the theory of relativity, government publications even?

I'm only saying that clearly a large amount of people are not understanding it so it can't be that clear 🤷‍♂️ might be worth them updating it to avoid the obvious confusion it's causing.

Updating would be good.

It does though raise the spectre of intentional misinformation.

Education is obviously the answer, but even that is under threat from those with a propensity towards manipulation.

boingy

Bigwheels1111 said:

The average person is obviously uneducated.

I think that statement is unnecessarily rude and has no place on this forum.

Dazed_and_C0nfused

boingy said:

Bigwheels1111 said:

The average person is obviously uneducated.

I think that statement is unnecessarily rude and has no place on this forum.

It's incomplete but fairly accurate.

If it said "The average person is obviously uneducated in personal finance" it would be a fairer comment.

In the same way many of us are uneducated when it comes to installing my own boiler or rebuilding an engine.

RG2015

Dazed_and_C0nfused said:

boingy said:

Bigwheels1111 said:

The average person is obviously uneducated.

I think that statement is unnecessarily rude and has no place on this forum.

It's incomplete but fairly accurate.

If it said "The average person is obviously uneducated in personal finance" it would be a fairer comment.

In the same way many of us are uneducated when it comes to installing my own boiler or rebuilding an engine.

The veracity is the statement is irrelevant. There is still no place for it on this forum.

It was obviously directed at the OP which is an unwelcome contribution on a friendly forum. 
 

surreysaver

Bigwheels1111 said:

housebuyer143 said:

Why are people asking this? 7% is better than 4%... I don't understand why this gets asked over and over

The average person is obviously uneducated.

Its not that they're uneducated, its just a concept they're not familiar with as they're not dealing with it everyday unlike most of the people on this forum. Its obvious to the rest of us because we're all playing the game.
On the contrary, the fact that its not adding up for the OP shows they are educated, and they are trying to get their head around it 

soulsaver

Great thread!

eskbanker

housebuyer143 said:

RG2015 said:

housebuyer143 said:
The MSE article should be removed if it's misleading people.

The MSE article is fine.

You cannot remove online information because some people are being mislead.

Perhaps we should remove bibles, the theory of relativity, government publications even?

I'm only saying that clearly a large amount of people are not understanding it so it can't be that clear 🤷‍♂️ might be worth them updating it to avoid the obvious confusion it's causing.

I agree that the article should be updated, as it's very poorly worded and perpetuates the silly myth that savers only receive half the interest rate:

You'll earn what looks like half the headline interest rate

On regular savings, the interest you get will be about half the interest rate of the account. But don't worry, it's not a con – it's just how the maths works out. It's all down to the money being saved monthly rather than in one lump sum.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/best-regular-savings-accounts/#accordion-content-0230858920-4

To be fair, it does go on to use the style of explanation that always seems clear, logical and simple to me (albeit using an unrealistic interest rate not seen for many years), but IMHO this should be more prominent and preferably be used instead of the nonsense about 'half the rate':

How should Matt work it out? Over the year, his average balance was roughly half the £3,000, in other words £1,500... so Matt should expect to earn about 10% of £1,500 over the year, which is £150.