Being nosey... How many Regular Saver accounts do you have?

UKX69

Bobblehat said:

Ch1ll1Phlakes said:

Also don't want to step on anyone's toes but here's an example.



Not perfect saying I downloaded the most up to date pic but works ok. Hope this helps.

Yes ... it does help. Saved me from trying what you just did ... so big thanks.

How do people like this solution? Better than "Divisions"?

I like it. I think we don’t want it to get too complicated, as it is just a bit of fun after all. It’s just nice to see where other enthusiasts are at. For myself, with just 2 RS at the moment ( Monmouth/ Principality), I fully fund them @ 1200 pm, but expect that and the number of RS to rise in the future as more funds become available. 

Bobblehat’s efforts are very much appreciated.

poolboy

The only thing I miss seeing is people's min %, mines 5.0.  There's a few below it but I can't see the value.  My feeders chase 4.75 so I want 0.25% premium for my efforts.

UKX69

poolboy said:

The only thing I miss seeing is people's min %, mines 5.0.  There's a few below it but I can't see the value.  My feeders chase 4.75 so I want 0.25% premium for my efforts.

For me, I’m working from the top down with the aim of best % with max funding.

n15h

clairec666 said:

Here's a simplified version of mine that I shared earlier in the year:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qAg4gDqIIuX9YO7JG7uHY5nggL90aUQMqrhUtn3JHPo/edit?usp=sharing

To extend it to the following months, select cells J3 to L15 (i.e. the June columns) and drag into July.
I highlight the "deposit" cells for a particular month and un-highlight them when I've made the deposit.
Interest calculations assume that you're depositing at the start of the month.
Columns AP-AR do nothing, they're just for your own personal reference.

@clairec666
thanks for sharing which will no doubt help manage multiple RSs once they start accumulating (I'm only at a modest 4 RSs but this will grow in the coming years, no doubt!)

n15h

Bobblehat said:

Yes ... it does help. Saved me from trying what you just did ... so big thanks.

How do people like this solution? Better than "Divisions"?

Honestly, I'm grateful for the work you and other people put into running/maintaining the thread.
I'm good with whichever solution makes your life easier

trickydicky14

I don't want to upset anyone, but why include folks that don't actually have any regular savers?
And thankyou Bobblehat  for all your hard work.

Bobblehat

trickydicky14 said:

I don't want to upset anyone, but why include folks that don't actually have any regular savers?
And thankyou Bobblehat  for all your hard work.

Out of courtesy for replying to the thread even if it's zero RS's. Even zero holdings might be interesting to some folk, e.g. the reason they hold zero 

saverkev

Bobblehat said:

After Ch1ll1Phlakes experiment, I thought I'd see what the table would look like being generated directly from the spreadsheet (instead of coped from the forum) ....



Edit: Apart from the gap (which is not a blank line), I'd say this simple solution does the job! If the table were to expand to 3 figures of contributors in the future, I'd say this method will cope and provide a perfectly readable table.

p.s. Sorry Ch1lliPhlakes, it's pure coincidence that the split put you at the bottom of section 1. I feel slightly guilty about this after your help   

Looks good.
I aalso liked poolboy's idea of including peoples min % - atm I am going for above 6%

And thanks for your hard work @Bobblehat

Kim_13

saverkev said:

Bobblehat said:

After Ch1ll1Phlakes experiment, I thought I'd see what the table would look like being generated directly from the spreadsheet (instead of coped from the forum) ....



Edit: Apart from the gap (which is not a blank line), I'd say this simple solution does the job! If the table were to expand to 3 figures of contributors in the future, I'd say this method will cope and provide a perfectly readable table.

p.s. Sorry Ch1lliPhlakes, it's pure coincidence that the split put you at the bottom of section 1. I feel slightly guilty about this after your help   

Looks good.
I aalso liked poolboy's idea of including peoples min % - atm I am going for above 6%

And thanks for your hard work @Bobblehat

To open currently, 6% fixed or 6.5% variable, although funding Stafford at £25 (4.4% - open ended) and Coventry Sunny Day at £10 (4.3% - prize draws.) The lowest receiving any significant funding is 5.5% (NatWest.) 

Bobblehat

Kim_13 said:

saverkev said:

Bobblehat said:

After Ch1ll1Phlakes experiment, I thought I'd see what the table would look like being generated directly from the spreadsheet (instead of coped from the forum) ....



Edit: Apart from the gap (which is not a blank line), I'd say this simple solution does the job! If the table were to expand to 3 figures of contributors in the future, I'd say this method will cope and provide a perfectly readable table.

p.s. Sorry Ch1lliPhlakes, it's pure coincidence that the split put you at the bottom of section 1. I feel slightly guilty about this after your help   

Looks good.
I aalso liked poolboy's idea of including peoples min % - atm I am going for above 6%

And thanks for your hard work @Bobblehat

To open currently, 6% fixed or 6.5% variable, although funding Stafford at £25 (4.4% - open ended) and Coventry Sunny Day at £10 (4.3% - prize draws.) The lowest receiving any significant funding is 5.5% (NatWest.) 

An interesting and detailed presentation of strategy, and perfectly understandable too.

I don't mean to sound particularly negative, but if I introduced another column pertaining to min%, as suggested by a few contributors, I'd be at a loss as how to summarise the strategy above into a single field! There lies my slight hesitance to expand the columns.

No offence meant to any individual contributor, but it might only be viable if a single % figure was posted. This does not stop contributors from explaining their strategy in a post, as Kim_13 has, which can be viewed in detail and applied by others who like the plan either wholly or in part 

If enough people indicated a single simple minimum percentage figure would be useful, I'd be happy to document it as and when contributors supplied it