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

clairec666

Chaykin said:

I'm not entirely convinced on including accounts belonging to partners/spouses. What about if someone has accounts they administer (for their own purposes) belonging to their siblings/parents/kids/other relatives/friends etc.?... I think we should only count single accounts in your name only. Maybe also joint accounts with your name being one of them, but rather not to keep it simple. What do others think?

Well I'm biased as I don't have a partner who I can use to boost my account numbers!

I reckon people should only include their partners accounts if they themselves are solely responsible for all the admin and funding, i.e. their partner has no interest in the regular saver game themselves.

Still, it's all a bit of fun, and nobody is scrutinising anyone's numbers. For all we know, all those people at the top of the table could be making it all up!

guli

clairec666 said:

Chaykin said:

I'm not entirely convinced on including accounts belonging to partners/spouses. What about if someone has accounts they administer (for their own purposes) belonging to their siblings/parents/kids/other relatives/friends etc.?... I think we should only count single accounts in your name only. Maybe also joint accounts with your name being one of them, but rather not to keep it simple. What do others think?

Well I'm biased as I don't have a partner who I can use to boost my account numbers!

I reckon people should only include their partners accounts if they themselves are solely responsible for all the admin and funding, i.e. their partner has no interest in the regular saver game themselves.

Still, it's all a bit of fun, and nobody is scrutinising anyone's numbers. For all we know, all those people at the top of the table could be making it all up!

Why would we be making it up? 

arthurdick

clairec666 said:

Chaykin said:

I'm not entirely convinced on including accounts belonging to partners/spouses. What about if someone has accounts they administer (for their own purposes) belonging to their siblings/parents/kids/other relatives/friends etc.?... I think we should only count single accounts in your name only. Maybe also joint accounts with your name being one of them, but rather not to keep it simple. What do others think?

Well I'm biased as I don't have a partner who I can use to boost my account numbers!

I reckon people should only include their partners accounts if they themselves are solely responsible for all the admin and funding, i.e. their partner has no interest in the regular saver game themselves.

Still, it's all a bit of fun, and nobody is scrutinising anyone's numbers. For all we know, all those people at the top of the table could be making it all up!

I'm making it up the wrong way, slipping down the charts at rapid speed.

Eco_Miser

guli said:

Why would we be making it up? 

Most people wouldn't, but some can get over-competitive. There have been posts on other subjects which certainly appear to be complete fantasy.

Bobblehat

clairec666 said:

Chaykin said:

I'm not entirely convinced on including accounts belonging to partners/spouses. What about if someone has accounts they administer (for their own purposes) belonging to their siblings/parents/kids/other relatives/friends etc.?... I think we should only count single accounts in your name only. Maybe also joint accounts with your name being one of them, but rather not to keep it simple. What do others think?

Well I'm biased as I don't have a partner who I can use to boost my account numbers!

I reckon people should only include their partners accounts if they themselves are solely responsible for all the admin and funding, i.e. their partner has no interest in the regular saver game themselves.

Still, it's all a bit of fun, and nobody is scrutinising anyone's numbers. For all we know, all those people at the top of the table could be making it all up!

I think you've got the balance just right! Mrs Bobblehat dives for cover if I mention Banking! It's like a "swear word" to her ears   

clairec666 said:

Chaykin said:

I'm not entirely convinced on including accounts belonging to partners/spouses. What about if someone has accounts they administer (for their own purposes) belonging to their siblings/parents/kids/other relatives/friends etc.?... I think we should only count single accounts in your name only. Maybe also joint accounts with your name being one of them, but rather not to keep it simple. What do others think?

Well I'm biased as I don't have a partner who I can use to boost my account numbers!

I reckon people should only include their partners accounts if they themselves are solely responsible for all the admin and funding, i.e. their partner has no interest in the regular saver game themselves.

Still, it's all a bit of fun, and nobody is scrutinising anyone's numbers. For all we know, all those people at the top of the table could be making it all up!

I guess we all could be making it up! Highly unlikely! I think more important than an individual's (or couple's!) position in the league are the range of figures and the banter that goes with those figures. It's been a very informative thread!

s71hj

I think you've got the balance just right! Mrs Bobblehat dives for cover if I mention Banking! It's like a "swear word" 

Every so often Mrs HJ has to go on a call re an RS eg re a password or locked account issue and it's like I'm coaching for an interview when it comes to  prep! The reverse is true if I try and do any gardening 

RosieRooBear

s71hj said:

I think you've got the balance just right! Mrs Bobblehat dives for cover if I mention Banking! It's like a "swear word" 

Every so often Mrs HJ has to go on a call re an RS eg re a password or locked account issue and it's like I'm coaching for an interview when it comes to  prep! The reverse is true if I try and do any gardening 

I agree that partners/spouses should be included if one of the couple is doing all the admin and funding. 

If my hubby has to make a call he first says to me “you and your flipping regular savers”. I usually make the call, get him to go through security and authorise me to speak, and then he passes the phone back to me asap so I can deal with it 😂.

There could be other differences too such as some people will hold lots of RS’s but not funding many of them or only minimum funding and some people with fewer RS’s but putting the maximum in every month. I/We personally fund the majority of ours as I use all the money held in flexible ISA’s to fund the regular savers. I hold the bulk of them as I’m able to use all my allowances including the starting rate so I don’t have to worry about paying tax on any interest earned, which is why I have so many.

nigelholl2

Other Half's account numbers

My view is that if you fully manage the RS's, and they are only called on when you need to talk to a human being at the BS, then that should count.

I look at the number of accounts as your ability or comfort factor managing multiple accounts, scheduling payments & accounting for interest when it is received, so that any HRMC numbers can be checked.

Once I started looking down this rabbit hole in August I had 2, this grew to 10 in September, now up to 12 in October, with the Hanley one earmarked for November.

Current standing
12 RS's all fully funded
£3000 monthly funding, with an additional £250/300 going into the Nwest one with top-ups, so say £3300 total monthly funding
73% savings can be treated as an instant access account
The uplift on interest is c50% & equates to an extra £800 per year, but this doesn't include any possibility or additional Principality RS's at maturity/roll over
So well worth the effort, slowly moving IA acc's over to RS's & living the dream

clairec666

nigelholl2 said:

I look at the number of accounts as your ability or comfort factor managing multiple accounts, scheduling payments & accounting for interest when it is received, so that any HRMC numbers can be checked.

Very good point. I reckon even if I had someone else's money to play around with, and could feasibly double up on all the accounts I already have, I would start finding it a bit of a chore. I reckon I'm at a sweet spot with 18-ish at the moment. A lot of respect for anyone who's fully funding 30+.

Kim_13

clairec666 said:

nigelholl2 said:

I look at the number of accounts as your ability or comfort factor managing multiple accounts, scheduling payments & accounting for interest when it is received, so that any HRMC numbers can be checked.

Very good point. I reckon even if I had someone else's money to play around with, and could feasibly double up on all the accounts I already have, I would start finding it a bit of a chore. I reckon I'm at a sweet spot with 18-ish at the moment. A lot of respect for anyone who's fully funding 30+.

My soon to be 21 are not fully funded unless there is a sufficient maturity, but enough that when there is one, I don't have to leave too much at EA rates. I haven't funded anything below 6.5% this month except where it was required or earned a prize draw entry, and could save another £400 in my recently applied for Scottish and Hanley if I had the funds.