The Top Regular Savers Discussion Thread

flaneurs_lobster

Next week in the Sunday Times - Why you should keep your money under your mattress

Nah, never turn down an opportunity for a listicle.

The top five mattresses when considering a home for your savings…

subjecttocontract

I don't normally read the Sunday Times but I do buy it when they publish the annual Rich List.

snookerloopy96

Ref : Sunday times article.

Not gone through the entire article but its astoundingly bad.

8% is 8%, they don't seem to grasp that.

Plus as we all know, renewing/starting another one means the 'only for 12 months' is not the case.

Then they compound it by 'recommending' accounts which are paying less than at least 2 or 3 instant access accounts I have, though in fairness they mention the Cahoot one.

Maybe they're thinking of people with gazillions who feel putting £200-500 a month away in 10/12/15 accounts either isn't worth the hassle or is beneath them.

But its pretty poor.

subjecttocontract

I suspect there are a lot of people including Sunday Times readers who have absolutely no interest in saving money in regular saver accounts.

Enzo_L

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82089160#Comment_82089160

It's estimated that the current number of online subscribers to the Sunday Times is 399k, and the print circulation 220-260k, so in terms of the population of the country hardly anyone is reading it, which is probably a good thing if this article is representative of its standard of journalism.

8% is always bigger than 5% is a concept that's not hard to grasp. The Sunday Times needs better journalists and "experts".

The_Groat_Counter

If the ST article had instead made the point that Regular Savers can be taken advantage of by those with lump sums via the drip-feed method, but for some people this is just a level of admin that's too much for them (and it does take a degree of admin) and so provided the best 'save and forget' alternatives that would have been fine. But as it is, it's just innumerate.

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82089183#Comment_82089183

Quite right, the accounts are intended for people who want to save towards some sort of goal out of their regular monthly income. The fact that most of them permit access without penalty is also an important benefit for those starting to save.

Using them with a lump sum falls more into unintended loophole territory, and requires a higher level of sophistication.

subjecttocontract

Every newspaper will/has published an article or story that doesn't stand up to scrutiny at some time. This week it happens to be The Sunday Times. When on the rare occasions that I have bought a copy I've always been impressed by its size not necessarily it's content.

EthicsGradient

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82089110#Comment_82089110

Yes, "now is an ideal time for savers to get a guaranteed inflation-busting return on their nest egg" from someone from Moneyfacts, no less, seems a remarkably misleading and untrue comment. I mean, that would be inflation-linked gilts, but they're not mentioned in the article at all - it's all about accounts. Since she says inflation might rise in the coming months, fixing now is not "a guaranteed inflation-busting return".

The 3 MPC members who didn't vote to hold the BoE rate at 3.75% voted to raise it, so it's not so "extraordinary" (that was from "the Private Office" advice firm) that some rates are going up. There was a roughly 0.5% jump in gilt yields of various lengths in March (start of the Iran war), that has not yet been reflected in the BoE rate, but is, I think, now showing in the retail lending rates.

All in all, a load of bad advice from people who are paid for it.

dcs34

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82089063#Comment_82089063

Now if only @Bridlington1 charged a commission on all his work on this thread, he'd probably now be in a position to need a private office to tell him 5% is actually bigger than 8%!

Also noted the article's url has 'advice' in it - surely the Times aren't actually offering financial advice? I can't see a disclaimer on the archived version…