Premium Bond Winner ?

Bravepants

polymaff said:

eskbanker said:

polymaff said:

Not to mention the totally immoral NS&I assertion:

"with the odds remaining at 22,000 to 1."

Go on then, I'll bite - in what way do you consider that to be a "totally immoral" assertion?

" the odds remaining [the same]" - the odds of what?  NS&I don't say - that's immoral.  Immoral also to hint at 'so don't worry' - an exact match for Wilson's 1967 attempt to deceive the public.

“From now on, the pound abroad is worth 14% or so less in terms of other currencies. That doesn’t mean, of course, that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse or in your bank, has been devalued.”

RPI bumped up by over 2% around November 1967. Your income from PBs will fall as a result of the upcoming  changes.  ANY attempt to not tell it as it is is immoral.

I believe eskbanker's earlier post tells it as it is from freely available information from the NS&I website:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81301914/#Comment_81301914

It should be relatively easy to calculate your odds of winning each prize level from the the number of bonds you hold and the number of bonds in issue.

There's no smoke and mirrors as far as I can see.

polymaff

Bravepants said:

polymaff said:

eskbanker said:

polymaff said:

Not to mention the totally immoral NS&I assertion:

"with the odds remaining at 22,000 to 1."

Go on then, I'll bite - in what way do you consider that to be a "totally immoral" assertion?

" the odds remaining [the same]" - the odds of what?  NS&I don't say - that's immoral.  Immoral also to hint at 'so don't worry' - an exact match for Wilson's 1967 attempt to deceive the public.

“From now on, the pound abroad is worth 14% or so less in terms of other currencies. That doesn’t mean, of course, that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse or in your bank, has been devalued.”

RPI bumped up by over 2% around November 1967. Your income from PBs will fall as a result of the upcoming  changes.  ANY attempt to not tell it as it is is immoral.

There's no smoke and mirrors as far as I can see.

WHOOSH..........

Podseas

The chance of winning a prize is 1 in 22,000 for every £1 bond that exists.
NS&I have been clear about that.

The distribution of prize values has altered such that expected return has dropped.
NS&I have been clear about that too.

eskbanker

polymaff said:

eskbanker said:

polymaff said:

Not to mention the totally immoral NS&I assertion:

"with the odds remaining at 22,000 to 1."

Go on then, I'll bite - in what way do you consider that to be a "totally immoral" assertion?

" the odds remaining [the same]" - the odds of what?  NS&I don't say - that's immoral.  Immoral also to hint at 'so don't worry' - an exact match for Wilson's 1967 attempt to deceive the public.

Seems to me that there's only one party indulging in any misrepresentation here - anything can be made to look misleading if selectively quoted and stripped of context!  The NS&I announcement clearly prefaces the reference to static odds with the reduction in prize rate, so it's inappropriate to extract part of the wording in isolation.  Do you really believe that anyone interprets "odds of winning" as anything other than "odds of winning a prize" in the relevant section of the announcement (i.e. the main body rather than the precis)?

From the April 2025 draw, the prize fund rate for Premium Bonds will change to 3.80%, down from 4.00%. The odds of winning will remain the same at 22,000 to 1.

polymaff said:
RPI bumped up by over 2% around November 1967. Your income from PBs will fall as a result of the upcoming  changes.  ANY attempt to not tell it as it is is immoral.

That's a pretty bizarre position to take - are you planning to lobby the FCA to mandate that every financial institution should factor in inflation when announcing rates?!

polymaff

Podseas said:

The chance of winning a prize is 1 in 22,000 for every £1 bond that exists.
NS&I have been clear about that.

The distribution of prize values has altered such that expected return has dropped.
NS&I have been clear about that too.

You, plural, are missing the point, entirely.  The press release - and the web-site - will actively misinform the man in the street about the forthcoming regime.  It is not all about you and what you think that you know.  Some of the newspapers have noticed this bias in the press release and have "BUTted" NS&I's tripe with the truth, the whole truth and something approaching nothing but the truth.  Good for them.

A quote from an NS&I Director: “Even with the change to the Premium Bonds prize fund rate, we are expecting more than 5.9 million tax-free prizes worth over £411 million to be won in the April 2025 draw.”  So What?  As against what?  Again, biassed immorality

And where have NS&I "been clear" about the two points you mention?

eskbanker

polymaff said:

A quote from an NS&I Director: “Even with the change to the Premium Bonds prize fund rate, we are expecting more than 5.9 million tax-free prizes worth over £411 million to be won in the April 2025 draw.”  So What?  As against what?  Again, biassed immorality

You're being selective with your quotes again!

That quote is followed by the statistical detail for those wanting more than soundbites (or who might choose to misinterpret them), and it's clearly stated that the equivalent figures under the pre-change regime in February were 5,864,354 prizes, totalling £430,052,425.

polymaff

eskbanker said:

polymaff said:

eskbanker said:

polymaff said:

Not to mention the totally immoral NS&I assertion:

"with the odds remaining at 22,000 to 1."

Go on then, I'll bite - in what way do you consider that to be a "totally immoral" assertion?

" the odds remaining [the same]" - the odds of what?  NS&I don't say - that's immoral.  Immoral also to hint at 'so don't worry' - an exact match for Wilson's 1967 attempt to deceive the public.

Seems to me that there's only one party indulging in any misrepresentation here - anything can be made to look misleading if selectively quoted and stripped of context!  The NS&I announcement clearly prefaces the reference to static odds with the reduction in prize rate, so it's inappropriate to extract part of the wording in isolation.  Do you really believe that anyone interprets "odds of winning" as anything other than "odds of winning a prize" in the relevant section of the announcement (i.e. the main body rather than the precis)?

Yes, but you clearly know better

eskbanker said:

polymaff said:
RPI bumped up by over 2% around November 1967. Your income from PBs will fall as a result of the upcoming  changes.  ANY attempt to not tell it as it is is immoral.

That's a pretty bizarre position to take - are you planning to lobby the FCA to mandate that every financial institution should factor in inflation when announcing rates?!

Not at all - but you clearly can already read my mind - NOT. 

eskbanker

polymaff said:

eskbanker said:

polymaff said:

eskbanker said:

polymaff said:

Not to mention the totally immoral NS&I assertion:

"with the odds remaining at 22,000 to 1."

Go on then, I'll bite - in what way do you consider that to be a "totally immoral" assertion?

" the odds remaining [the same]" - the odds of what?  NS&I don't say - that's immoral.  Immoral also to hint at 'so don't worry' - an exact match for Wilson's 1967 attempt to deceive the public.

Seems to me that there's only one party indulging in any misrepresentation here - anything can be made to look misleading if selectively quoted and stripped of context!  The NS&I announcement clearly prefaces the reference to static odds with the reduction in prize rate, so it's inappropriate to extract part of the wording in isolation.  Do you really believe that anyone interprets "odds of winning" as anything other than "odds of winning a prize" in the relevant section of the announcement (i.e. the main body rather than the precis)?

Yes, but you clearly know better

Apparently so, if understanding that "odds of winning" means "odds of winning a prize" sets me apart from others!  MENSA here we come....

polymaff said:

eskbanker said:

polymaff said:
RPI bumped up by over 2% around November 1967. Your income from PBs will fall as a result of the upcoming  changes.  ANY attempt to not tell it as it is is immoral.

That's a pretty bizarre position to take - are you planning to lobby the FCA to mandate that every financial institution should factor in inflation when announcing rates?!

Not at all - but you clearly can already read my miind - NOT. 

No mind-reading claimed or needed, just making the point that NS&I's publication of rates is consistent with standard practice across the industry - I don't recall any bank caveatting the stated interest rate of savings products with "ah, but you need to remember that inflation may reduce the real-terms value of your returns", so why would you expect NS&I to do so?

polymaff

eskbanker said:

polymaff said:

A quote from an NS&I Director: “Even with the change to the Premium Bonds prize fund rate, we are expecting more than 5.9 million tax-free prizes worth over £411 million to be won in the April 2025 draw.”  So What?  As against what?  Again, biassed immorality

You're being selective with your quotes again!

That quote is followed by the statistical detail for those wanting more than soundbites (or who might choose to misinterpret them), and it's clearly stated that the equivalent figures under the pre-change regime in February were 5,864,354 prizes, totalling £430,052,425.

I'm quite shocked to see you move from the curious to the jeering; from the self-questioning to the insulting.

In my opinion it is totally inappropriate to suggest that additional data should relieve an NS&I Director of the duty to make statements which are stand-alone balanced. The truth, the whole truth etc.

eskbanker

polymaff said:

eskbanker said:

polymaff said:

A quote from an NS&I Director: “Even with the change to the Premium Bonds prize fund rate, we are expecting more than 5.9 million tax-free prizes worth over £411 million to be won in the April 2025 draw.”  So What?  As against what?  Again, biassed immorality

You're being selective with your quotes again!

That quote is followed by the statistical detail for those wanting more than soundbites (or who might choose to misinterpret them), and it's clearly stated that the equivalent figures under the pre-change regime in February were 5,864,354 prizes, totalling £430,052,425.

I'm quite shocked to see you move from the curious to the jeering; from the self-questioning to the insulting.

In my opinion it is totally inappropriate to suggest that additional data should relieve an NS&I Director of the duty to make statements which are stand-alone balanced. The truth, the whole truth etc.

Again, if you choose to isolate one sentence within an announcement and ignore its context, it's hardly surprising that it won't paint the full picture!

I don't actually see anything wrong with what he said anyway - sure, it's emphasising the positive but is hardly egregious spin and to my mind is comparable with the sort of pronouncements that will generally be seen across all similar press releases.  If it was standalone, and not accompanied by the relevant factual data, that might have been different....