The Top Regular Savers Discussion Thread

trickydicky14

where_are_we said:

trickydicky14 - "Do me a favour, PBS have fed us so many carrots over the past few years you should be able to see in the dark. Just take on board the party is over and move on. It was great whilst it lasted thanks PBS."
As a mutual Leonard Cohen fan, perhaps his song "Closing time"  is appropriate!

And it's hell to pay when the fiddler stops.

jameseonline

Cweb said:

dcs34 said:

Principality
… would it be reasonable for Principality to say that customer was knowingly trying to circumnavigate the rules - and might risk having all open duplicate accounts closed?

Previous actions would suggest not. Those who deliberately manipulated URLs to open long since publicly closed issues just had those closed (with interest paid) and didn’t have their multiple issues of the current versions open touched.

Whose to say future stances they take with any bending of the rules posses a risk.

Manipulated URLs?, erm nope, people just went through maturity options given by Principality through the website when logged in 

jameseonline

Stargunner said:

It was only a matter of time before Principality became aware of this.
It is quite possible that a report highlighted that they have 3 or 4 times as many active RS accounts than they have members.
it is also possible that a member of their staff could browse this forum.

Doubt they've suddenly became aware of the multiple issue issue, they just probably thought something along the lines of can we actually afford to keep letting people have multiple accounts?, that &/or it's taken them a while to close the loophole 

jameseonline

cricidmuslibale said:

Assuming Principality are going to remain very strict in preventing any of their savers from having more than one Regular Saver of the same issue from now onwards, it would be very helpful if the ‘entirely legitimate’ maturity options that the saver is allowed to choose from were more attractive in terms of their interest rates, please!

At present, the currently available maturity fixed rate bonds are paying only c. 3.70% gross AER and the current standard Regular Saver (Issue 36) is paying a mediocre 4.85% fixed gross annual interest. This latter interest rate, although not nearly as dire as the current 4.15% & 4.25% annual interest rates payed by the standard regular savers of Coventry BS and Yorkshire BS respectively, is still rather unappealing right now when the standard regular savers of all the big banks and a good number of building societies pay annual interest rates of 5% or more. (Although quite a lot of the rates above 5% are variable to be fair.)

Just at the moment Principality seems to be applying a lot of stick and not giving a lot of carrot(s)! Their visiting Christmas reindeer are not going to be well fed this year, it appears!

Given the current state of the market why would you expect a building society to put up rates?

jameseonline

shirley999 said:

Principality

They would make it more manageable for themselves if they cut renewals in half by having 12-month terms instead of 6 months.  Might also halve the number of posts on here.

Cutting in half?, but half of 6 is 3, maths is so confusing 

clairec666

jameseonline said:

Cweb said:

dcs34 said:

Principality
… would it be reasonable for Principality to say that customer was knowingly trying to circumnavigate the rules - and might risk having all open duplicate accounts closed?

Previous actions would suggest not. Those who deliberately manipulated URLs to open long since publicly closed issues just had those closed (with interest paid) and didn’t have their multiple issues of the current versions open touched.

Whose to say future stances they take with any bending of the rules posses a risk.

Manipulated URLs?, erm nope, people just went through maturity options given by Principality through the website when logged in 

Manipulating URLs was something completely different - it was possible (and possibly still is) to open accounts which are no longer available by tweaking the URL. Somewhat naughtier than clicking on a maturity option.

GetRichOrDieSaving

jameseonline said:

Cweb said:

dcs34 said:

Principality
… would it be reasonable for Principality to say that customer was knowingly trying to circumnavigate the rules - and might risk having all open duplicate accounts closed?

Previous actions would suggest not. Those who deliberately manipulated URLs to open long since publicly closed issues just had those closed (with interest paid) and didn’t have their multiple issues of the current versions open touched.

Whose to say future stances they take with any bending of the rules posses a risk.

Manipulated URLs?, erm nope, people just went through maturity options given by Principality through the website when logged in 

This has been done in the past but the original
comment was not in relation to the Principality renewal options. 

GetRichOrDieSaving

I currently have 4x issue 4 RS with Principality and this obviously equals £800 per month deposits totalling £4,800 total over the duration of all 6-month terms. By taking away the ability to renew a second, third or even fourth issue at maturity means that deposits will drop to just £200 a month and £1,200 in total for each issue I own. 

Principality make money off my money and
I can get a little cut of the pie for my saving efforts. Other than the issue of ‘rule breaking’ why would they not want my money? It’s just going to go to another bank or building society. Or are they expecting us to renew into a poor offering account, which none of us are going to do…. 

Am I being naive to think that Principality are going to miss out as just as much as us over this? 

cricidmuslibale

jameseonline said:

cricidmuslibale said:

Assuming Principality are going to remain very strict in preventing any of their savers from having more than one Regular Saver of the same issue from now onwards, it would be very helpful if the ‘entirely legitimate’ maturity options that the saver is allowed to choose from were more attractive in terms of their interest rates, please!

At present, the currently available maturity fixed rate bonds are paying only c. 3.70% gross AER and the current standard Regular Saver (Issue 36) is paying a mediocre 4.85% fixed gross annual interest. This latter interest rate, although not nearly as dire as the current 4.15% & 4.25% annual interest rates payed by the standard regular savers of Coventry BS and Yorkshire BS respectively, is still rather unappealing right now when the standard regular savers of all the big banks and a good number of building societies pay annual interest rates of 5% or more. (Although quite a lot of the rates above 5% are variable to be fair.)

Just at the moment Principality seems to be applying a lot of stick and not giving a lot of carrot(s)! Their visiting Christmas reindeer are not going to be well fed this year, it appears!

Given the current state of the market why would you expect a building society to put up rates?

I’m not in any way expecting PBS to put up their rates! I specifically mentioned that the currently available maturity fixed rate bonds are not paying particularly attractive interest rates at c. 3.75% AER which is clearly true at this moment in time when you can find a lot of non-maturity fixed rate savings accounts elsewhere paying between 4.20% and 4.50% AER, depending on the length of the fixed term.

I also pointed out that PBS’s current standard Regular Saver bond (Issue 36) is paying a mediocre fixed annual interest rate of 4.85% gross. I then explained why 4.85% is quite an unappealing interest rate for a standard regular saver at the moment; if PBS’s next standard Regular Saver retains the same fixed rate, it may be a more attractive interest rate by then.

Please could I gently and politely ask that my posts, which I generally put a lot of thought into, be read more carefully in future than the one referred to above seems to have been so that they are less likely to be misunderstood?

It’s all too easy to respond in a ‘clever’ and ‘witty’ manner but sometimes this type of response can also be rather unkind to the poster to whom you are replying!

Section62

jameseonline said:

shirley999 said:

Principality

They would make it more manageable for themselves if they cut renewals in half by having 12-month terms instead of 6 months.  Might also halve the number of posts on here.

Cutting in half?, but half of 6 is 3, maths is so confusing 

If their accounts last twice as long then they will have half the number of maturities/renewals to process. (roughly)