Premium Bond Winner ?

WorldTraveller_2

Another £50. Since March I've won £175, on a holding of £12k and now £17k as of this month.

CatLady13

£25 on £50k which I have held since February and apart from two months of £50, I have won £25 every month. Definitely not getting rich on Premium Bonds any time soon.

seven-day-weekend

Nothing on 10k. Added another 10k this month - but this amount is only there temporarily as I will have to spend it in a few months.

inflationbuster

Looking for another rate increase on these bonds now BoE has increased to 0.75%

[Deleted User]

£25 This Month on £30k.

Currently running at a total of £375 (1.25%) for the year.

polymaff

Annualised 1.275% here - just better than the nominal 1.26%

eskbanker

polymaff wrote: »

Annualised 1.275% here - just better than the nominal 1.26%

Pretty sure we've discussed this before but the nominal figure is 1.4% - the more realistic median expectations are indeed lower but are a continuum rather than a specific single figure, i.e.

98.20% of the prizes (the £25s) would return 1.20%
98.98% return 1.22%
99.77% return 1.26%
99.94% return 1.30%
99.99% return 1.33%
and then progressively smaller increments up to 100% = 1.4%

In other words, a return of 1.26% is more likely than 1.3% but less likely than 1.22%....

polymaff

We've debated this before. I don't dispute your technique - but it is over-complex. Mine is something anyone can understand - and it is fit for purpose:

1. The number of prizes each month varies but the three classes of prizes - high, medium and low value - each receive the same percentage of the prize funds.

2. It is pragmatic to regard the high and medium value prizes as "you die before you win".

3. The "you win before you die" low-value prizes are currently allocated 90% of the prize fund, so the expected return rate is 90% of the prize fund rate.

4. The prize fund rate is currently 1.4%, 90% of which is 1.26%

The weakness of this approach is granularity - the result of which is that the smaller the holding, the lower the rate holders can expect, but for five-figure holders, like Sleazy and the Polymaffs, this easy-to-understand approach is fit for purpose - as can be seen above.

eskbanker

Likewise I don't dispute your assessment of likelihoods (and granularity) either, but, as before, am just highlighting the fact that you're choosing an essentially arbitrary place to draw the line by deciding that the very low odds of a £100 prize are meaningful to your assessment but that the even lower odds of a £500 prize aren't.

So, yes, I do agree that an expectation of a return of 1.26% is a perfectly reasonable position to take if wanting to simplify down to a single number, but isn't actually a nominal figure as such, it's just a personal judgement call about where something is likely to be along a spectrum.

polymaff

A remarkable and comprehensive misunderstanding of the word nominal.

I put up post #4950 for the benefit of others. Please discontinue your strange crusade.