Regular savers

surreysaver

eskbanker said:

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.

Agreed - its not half the interest rate people should be using to make a quick calculation, its half the final balance. Although the answer will be the same, it will pervade the confusion 

tightfist8art

Read through the comments ,  just to add a couple of points especially regarding the ' uneducated ' accusation .

You may well be right ,  I left school at 16 with 2 GSCE's , neither of them in maths , no further education . At 57 spent my working life in a poorly respected industry. So , yes I'll conceed in the purest form I am uneducated .

I have however lived through all the ups and downs of personal finance from high  interest rates on mortgages in the 90's , to receiving the ' red ' letter saying our endowments weren't sufficient , remortgaging to repayment , being £25,000 in debt and paying it off , to finally recently being mortgage and debt free . 

I've juggled credit cards from the 90's shifting debt to get zero % deals so many times that most cards turn me down now on balance transfers . Played the bouncing funds across different bank accounts for years to make a few quid to pay for Xmas . 

So I don't consider myself  ' uneducated ' in personal finance . Yes , made a lot of mistakes over the years , but information and advice was in short supply years back .

Coming back to my initial post and my impression of the forum in general , I am surprised at the strength of the replies . Having followed Martin Lewis for donkeys years and his amiable approach and advice to the great ' uneducated ' public , I assumed the forum would have the same easy going approach ; judging by a few replies seems anything but . 

 ' Coldiron '  accuses me of coming on here and  ' manufacturing ' figures : again why the hard line approach ? I asked a genuine question and used the figures from the MSE article and the figure quoted by First Direct . To me at face value the £136 interest from FD at 7% was about the same as just leaving it in the Saga at 3.75% . Thats the nub of it , no ' manufacturing ' or other malicious acts intended . Just a bit of confusion , that's all , thankfully explained now .

dealyboy

tightfist8art said:

Read through the comments ,  just to add a couple of points especially regarding the ' uneducated ' accusation .

You may well be right ,  I left school at 16 with 2 GSCE's , neither of them in maths , no further education . At 57 spent my working life in a poorly respected industry. So , yes I'll conceed in the purest form I am uneducated .

I have however lived through all the ups and downs of personal finance from high  interest rates on mortgages in the 90's , to receiving the ' red ' letter saying our endowments weren't sufficient , remortgaging to repayment , being £25,000 in debt and paying it off , to finally recently being mortgage and debt free . 

I've juggled credit cards from the 90's shifting debt to get zero % deals so many times that most cards turn me down now on balance transfers . Played the bouncing funds across different bank accounts for years to make a few quid to pay for Xmas . 

So I don't consider myself  ' uneducated ' in personal finance . Yes , made a lot of mistakes over the years , but information and advice was in short supply years back .

Coming back to my initial post and my impression of the forum in general , I am surprised at the strength of the replies . Having followed Martin Lewis for donkeys years and his amiable approach and advice to the great ' uneducated ' public , I assumed the forum would have the same easy going approach ; judging by a few replies seems anything but . 

 ' Coldiron '  accuses me of coming on here and  ' manufacturing ' figures : again why the hard line approach ? I asked a genuine question and used the figures from the MSE article and the figure quoted by First Direct . To me at face value the £136 interest from FD at 7% was about the same as just leaving it in the Saga at 3.75% . Thats the nub of it , no ' manufacturing ' or other malicious acts intended . Just a bit of confusion , that's all , thankfully explained now .

I'm sorry you experienced this ... and I don't think anybody welcomed you to the forum did they. Actually I am surprised in one sense but not in another.

People here are invariably very courteous any rudeness being picked up by others immediately, you should have been cut some slack. You were polite and asked for some consideration as a first poster.

Whatever the question or point a poster makes, they should be treated with respect even when the post itself is nonsense, arrogant or blatantly insulting. I have to own up I have posted some rather simplistic or ill-informed comments and sometimes I've been told in no uncertain terms and sometimes gently told I'm mistaken. I have to also own up to posting this same comment about the FD RS myself, as have a few others, you're in a special club.

I'm pleased that at times we have robust debates but always with sincerity and an overwhelming desire to inform.

And welcome to the forum  .

Bigwheels1111

People did not like my comment, Well I class myself as one of the uneducated.
If it was not for my phone, iPad or Google with auto correct etc I would struggle to even write these posts.
I have No real school qualifications, But I can drive anything with wheels.
I’m great with figures, they just work in my head.
If shown how to do something once I can repeat it.
I struggle to write and don’t even know my times tables.
School and I did not work.

I spend a lot of time and effort trying to understand basic things in life.
My Mum and Dad found a house for me, sorted everything to do with paperwork and solicitors.
Then explained it to me so I could understand.
All I did was sign the paperwork and move in and pay the mortgage every month.

Beyond that everything I know has been learned by doing it.
I function well enough day to day, but struggle with anything new I need to learn.

My Dad taught me about money, never spend more than you have etc.
Pay your bills on time and never miss a payment. Save as much as you can.

With regular savings and fixed rate accounts, take my time and never sign up to anything I don’t understand.
If your not sure ask for help.

I just get frustrated reading the same comments every time a regular savers rate goes up or new one is offered.
It pays half the advertised rate, it’s not 7% etc etc etc.
just read the comments from the last 10 posts about it over the last year.

Sorry if my comment was taken the wrong way by some.
Thats just life, I can’t change it.

katejo

wiseonesomeofthetime said:

katejo said:

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.

I was in Asda years ago, Dolmio sauce was £1.30.
The offer was 2 for £1.
I pointed this out to a lady who picked up just one.
She said I only need one.
I said but 2 will save you £0.30p and you can put 1 in the donations trolley.
But I only need one she said agin.
I gave up.

I don't buy such sauces but did you consider how much else she was buying and whether she could carry 2 bottles home. Not everyone has car transport. 2 for 1 offers are unfair to solo customers. Why can't we buy just 1 for half the price?

They didn't say take two bottles home. They suggested getting one for 30p cheaper and putting the second in the donations trolley in store 🤷‍♂️

I agree with your final question though, as a solo customer.

OK I missed the bit about the donations trolley!

Nebulous2

I've said something similar to this before, but can't find it, so I'll try again. This isn't referring to anyone in this thread - before anyone thinks I'm pointing fingers. 

MSE is an interesting forum. It collectively has more financial knowledge than you will find anywhere, which is willingly and freely shared. 

It is a paradox to me that some of the most helpful and knowledgeable posters can also be short and abrupt with people, particularly when answering often repeated questions. We also have some empathic, warm and fuzzy people with limited financial knowledge, who feel obliged to answer questions on subjects they know little about. 

A friend told me that their company makes everyone complete a personality test, and depending on their results they are assigned one of four colours. Emails have a coloured dot to show which personality type you are. If you get an email from someone you don't know very well, which is short and to the point, you can recognise he is a blue, and wont do any of the social courtesies we often expect, but will be abrupt and efficient.

I liked that idea, as emails, like posts, are often susceptible to misunderstandings.  

You hit on a subject that has been asked several times recently, with a suspicion that some of the questions have not been asked in good faith. Unfortunately that means the question itself is a red flag for some people. 

As for the calculation, it is the same issue in reverse, as people believing they should have paid half the interest at the halfway point in their loan.

I must admit to having been there myself many years ago. We borrowed to buy a car. The loan annoyed me, I hated the monthly payment, and I resolved to repay it as soon as possible. By dint of a second job and saving hard we scraped the money together. I calculated what we needed to pay, based on level interest all the way through, and sent my wife off to the bank with cash to pay it off.  She came back saying she didn't have enough money and the bank staff had been very condescending towards her.

I quickly realised the mistake I had made, but by that point the damage was done. 

Bridlington1

Nebulous2 said:

It is a paradox to me that some of the most helpful and knowledgeable posters can also be short and abrupt with people, particularly when answering often repeated questions. We also have some empathic, warm and fuzzy people with limited financial knowledge, who feel obliged to answer questions on subjects they know little about. 

In some ways though I find it makes sense. Many of the most knowledgeable people I've come across, mainly lecturers in my case, will answer the more basic questions in a very abrupt, almost irritated manner. I imagine part of the reason for this would be that generally sympathy comes more naturally than empathy to most people.

If you are someone who has found a concept difficult to learn/understand but have understood it in the end after much effort you are likely to be able to show sympathy towards someone who is currently struggling to understand a particular concept since you've been in the same boat yourself so know how it feels to not know the answer to that question. You will also be more likely to recall which explanation helped you to understand the concept the most so may answer the question in a way that is easier to understand even if you don't have as deeper knowledge as somebody else.

If on the other hand you were able to understand something very quickly without giving it a second thought you are more inclined to regard the answer as being obvious and that the person asking the question would be able to get the answer if they simply put a bit more effort into it and/or the person asking the question is simply being lazy. Also they may consider answering the question to be somewhat tedious and get no pleasure from it so may be more inclined to give shorter and less detailed answer. I've found if you ask the same people a more complex question though, particularly if they have to think carefully about what the answer would be, they are usually far less abrupt, seem to go into greater detail and show more interest when answering it.

I know I'm guilty of this myself, e.g. I tend to show little sympathy towards those who have run up large debts through spending lots of money on things they don't really need since saving has always come very naturally to me and I typically avoid spending money if I have to. Someone who has been in persistent debt before but managed to pull themselves out debt and become debt free will be far more likely to offer a sympathetic response and more helpful and practical ways for the poster to become debt free than I would even though I may have been the more successful in staying debt free myself.

If on the other hand someone was spending virtually nothing and was choosing living in poverty despite having living well within their means and could afford to live a comfortable lifestyle, I imagine I would be more likely to provide the sympathetic and more helpful response since I can see myself ending up in that position myself. The person who had been in persistent debt before and for whom spending comes more naturally to them may be more likely to think it obvious that if someone needs to buy something that they should go ahead and buy it if they can afford it so may be more abrupt.

I think it's also worth noting that whilst some may be very intelligent in the traditional sense, i.e. know/understand a lot of information, this does not necessarily mean that they have a high level of emotional intelligence. Someone may know a lot of information but may also struggle to understand people's feelings and vice versa.

I appreciate I've generalised a bit here but hopefully you can see my point.

dealyboy

@Bridlington1 said:

... hopefully you can see my point.

Yes .........

RG2015

People are different. In fact I behave quite differently dependent on context or even my mood.

Whilst not awarding a colour scheme to those displaying different characteristics, my company did a Myers Briggs personality analysis of all of the staff in my department.

It suddenly made sense of my colleagues' behaviour, in some cases over the previous 20 years.



To some, the following statement is unacceptable on this site and to others it is simply a statement of fact. 

"The average person is obviously uneducated"

I also note that this was in response to the following question, which does qualify it significantly compared to the statement in isolation. It is only by inference that it could be extended to the OP.

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



@Bigwheels , I accept that you meant no disrespect to anyone and, as a result of this conversation, will refrain from judging my fellow forum members. 

Nebulous2

Bridlington1 said:

Nebulous2 said:

It is a paradox to me that some of the most helpful and knowledgeable posters can also be short and abrupt with people, particularly when answering often repeated questions. We also have some empathic, warm and fuzzy people with limited financial knowledge, who feel obliged to answer questions on subjects they know little about. 

In some ways though I find it makes sense. Many of the most knowledgeable people I've come across, mainly lecturers in my case, will answer the more basic questions in a very abrupt, almost irritated manner. I imagine part of the reason for this would be that generally sympathy comes more naturally than empathy to most people.

If you are someone who has found a concept difficult to learn/understand but have understood it in the end after much effort you are likely to be able to show sympathy towards someone who is currently struggling to understand a particular concept since you've been in the same boat yourself so know how it feels to not know the answer to that question. You will also be more likely to recall which explanation helped you to understand the concept the most so may answer the question in a way that is easier to understand even if you don't have as deeper knowledge as somebody else.

If on the other hand you were able to understand something very quickly without giving it a second thought you are more inclined to regard the answer as being obvious and that the person asking the question would be able to get the answer if they simply put a bit more effort into it and/or the person asking the question is simply being lazy. Also they may consider answering the question to be somewhat tedious and get no pleasure from it so may be more inclined to give shorter and less detailed answer. I've found if you ask the same people a more complex question though, particularly if they have to think carefully about what the answer would be, they are usually far less abrupt, seem to go into greater detail and show more interest when answering it.

I know I'm guilty of this myself, e.g. I tend to show little sympathy towards those who have run up large debts through spending lots of money on things they don't really need since saving has always come very naturally to me and I typically avoid spending money if I have to. Someone who has been in persistent debt before but managed to pull themselves out debt and become debt free will be far more likely to offer a sympathetic response and more helpful and practical ways for the poster to become debt free than I would even though I may have been the more successful in staying debt free myself.

If on the other hand someone was spending virtually nothing and was choosing living in poverty despite having living well within their means and could afford to live a comfortable lifestyle, I imagine I would be more likely to provide the sympathetic and more helpful response since I can see myself ending up in that position myself. The person who had been in persistent debt before and for whom spending comes more naturally to them may be more likely to think it obvious that if someone needs to buy something that they should go ahead and buy it if they can afford it so may be more abrupt.

I think it's also worth noting that whilst some may be very intelligent in the traditional sense, i.e. know/understand a lot of information, this does not necessarily mean that they have a high level of emotional intelligence. Someone may know a lot of information but may also struggle to understand people's feelings and vice versa.

I appreciate I've generalised a bit here but hopefully you can see my point.

I agree it makes sense, and can see why a lecturer might find a question self-evident and not worthy of attention, but they have some obligation to respond to you. 

MSE isn't like that. If a question is frustrating there is no obligation to answer it at all. Surely it would be better to move on and ignore, rather than make a snappy response. In recent times we have lost some very knowledgeable people, I presume banned because of the way they have responded on the forum. 

I also agree that the same people will give very thoughtful rewarding responses if a question does tickle their interest. 

I've spent my life working in care, and have a long-term habit of trying to see things from the other side, attempting with various degrees of success to see things from the other person's point of view.