Big banks 'ignoring' the new isa 2024 rules , does it matter?

simonsmithsays

Quite a bit on this in the ISA section of this forum.

Possibly could do with a mod 'move and merge' with this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/401374/cash-isas-the-best-currently-available-list#latest

eskbanker

simonsmithsays said:

Quite a bit on this in the ISA section of this forum.

Possibly could do with a mod 'move and merge' with this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/401374/cash-isas-the-best-currently-available-list#latest

If there was to be a merge, I'd suggest that the main cash ISA thread (with its hundreds of pages) wouldn't be the most obvious location, but one of the threads specifically about adoption of the new rules, such as:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6514005/new-isa-rules-april-2024

Rich2808

That table is the article is interesting!

Skipton is the only institution out of the 16 listed that will allow you to do a partial transfer out of 2024-25 isa funds to another provider. By contrast it is of course the only institution - as far as I am aware - that doesn't allow you to do partial transfers between its own isas. You must either move the full amount internally to your second Skipton account (and close the other one) or do a partial transfer out to another provider and then back in again. Bizarre!

Paragon, Barclays and Aldermore also suggest (based on the table) that if you open an isa with new funds in 2024-25 they 'will not allow' you to open and invest new 2024-25 funds in an isa with another provider. With all due respect they can Foxtrot Oscar. They have no business demanding that - and no right to. The law/ISA rules approved by parliament allow you to invest with multiple providers - they can merely dictate the cash isa accounts you open with them and no one else. My view is - what they won't know (as they won't) won't hurt them - so just ignore this stipulation cos the law overrides their 'rules'. I have checked on the Paragon site - and their isa application pages - and it says nothing to this effect anywhere - so is this correct?!

Most providers (including all the big high street banks plus Yorkshire BS) will only let you open fixed rate or instant access isas with them but not both with 2024-25 funds. Paragon, Nationwide and Aldermore will though as split isa providers - as will  Shawbrook, Zopa, Charter and Skipton.

Obviously the table may be wrong in some cases - but what an inconsistent shambles! 

poseidon1

Actually eskbanker I would be happy for this thread to close.

I don't believe any of the subsequent posts grasped any of the key points raised intially. The other threads you mentioned are far more appropriate for the discourse that has developed here. 

eskbanker

poseidon1 said:

Actually eskbanker I would be happy for this thread to close.

I don't believe any of the subsequent posts grasped any of the key points raised intially. The other threads you mentioned are far more appropriate for the discourse that has developed here. 

Yes, reading it back, I do see your point that the thread doesn't really address the simple question raised in the thread title, although perhaps that was inevitable given the extensive content of the opening post.

'Does it matter' is really a personal opinion, but if you're effectively questioning the amount of angst on here about this, I'd have to agree that it clearly seems to matter more to some than others!

InvesterJones

So if I read it right, the question is does it matter that there are changes to rules and regulations (or that these changes are not implemented) if the majority of people are, in your view, not engaged with them?

In my opinion, yes, the regulation change does matter - partly that's because you don't need to wait for everyone to be negatively affected by an issue before improving it, and partly because they wouldn't have announced it if they didn't believe there were a significant enough number of voting public that would be influenced more favourably by the decision or it's consequences.

That market and other forces haven't delivered a change yet for all big banks doesn't reflect on the value of the change to regulation, merely the cost/benefit for them to do so.

poseidon1

InvesterJones said:

So if I read it right, the question is does it matter that there are changes to rules and regulations (or that these changes are not implemented) if the majority of people are, in your view, not engaged with them?

In my opinion, yes, the regulation change does matter - partly that's because you don't need to wait for everyone to be negatively affected by an issue before improving it, and partly because they wouldn't have announced it if they didn't believe there were a significant enough number of voting public that would be influenced more favourably by the decision or it's consequences.

That market and other forces haven't delivered a change yet for all big banks doesn't reflect on the value of the change to regulation, merely the cost/benefit for them to do so.

Thanks for actually reading my post ( for which i am grateful), and venturing your view as to whether it is appropriate for large organisations to subvert the intentions of the legislature in seeking to improve  access by the masses to the benefits of  Isas.

 Given my own stance, I naturally query your confidence that the Tories genuinely believed multiple accessed isas would transpire to be a real vote winner. 

My contention is this 'improvement' to the accessibility of better Isa rates ( together with the highly dubious Brit Isa ),  are rather pointless in the big scheme of things if only a tiny committed minority of the investing public are ever going to take advantage.  

I see these fiddling changes as putting the cart before the horse. Isas were originally designed specifically to encourage the mass of basic rate tax payers to save and invest. In my view  they have failed in this regard mostly because the general populace remains stubbornly financially illiterate.

Those of us on this and similar forums are not indicative of the mindset of general population who in my view really do not understand the basic premise of isas and therefore are not sufficiently engaged to utilise them as a means of wealth building. 

 A serious  educational drive is badly overdue, fiddling with retail saving and investment products is pointless without that.

masonic

poseidon1 said:

I see these fiddling changes as putting the cart before the horse. Isas were originally designed specifically to encourage the mass of basic rate tax payers to save and invest. In my view  they have failed in this regard mostly because the general populace remains stubbornly financially illiterate.

Those of us on this and similar forums are not indicative of the mindset of general population who in my view really do not understand the basic premise of isas and therefore are not sufficiently engaged to utilise them as a means of wealth building. 

 A serious  educational drive is badly overdue, fiddling with retail saving and investment products is pointless without that.

If you tried to encourage the mass of basic rate taxpayers to save and invest at the moment, the response your most likely to hear is "with what?"

But the appeal of these reforms is likely to be greater for target voters.