The 4.2% one year bond rate offered by @bobmunro Secure Trust has already been withdrawn. Pity, nice clean and simple website. Might move some easy access cash there in the meantime, they offer 2% compared with Chase 1.5% and NSI 1.2%
Santandar have just introduced a one year, instant access account paying 2.75% with unlimited withdrawals.
The 4.2% one year bond rate offered by @bobmunro Secure Trust has already been withdrawn. Pity, nice clean and simple website. Might move some easy access cash there in the meantime, they offer 2% compared with Chase 1.5% and NSI 1.2%
Santandar have just introduced a one year, instant access account paying 2.75% with unlimited withdrawals.
The 4.2% one year bond rate offered by @bobmunro Secure Trust has already been withdrawn. Pity, nice clean and simple website. Might move some easy access cash there in the meantime, they offer 2% compared with Chase 1.5% and NSI 1.2%
Santandar have just introduced a one year, instant access account paying 2.75% with unlimited withdrawals.
Just sent in application. Need to open by 1st Nov
Just applied online. For some reason I have to wait up to three working days for final steps in the opening process.
Secure Trust was a much faster and more efficient process.
Edit: the Santander welcome e-mail has popped into my box already, just two hours later. I think that's what you call "expectation management"
No great surprise as Truss ruled out public spending cuts at PMQs.
So tax cuts funded by increased borrowing alone - the City were never going to welcome that news.
Having said that she will likely U-turn several times in the next few days leading up to the Chancellor's budget. It amazes me how she doesn't get giddy.
No great surprise as Truss ruled out public spending cuts at PMQs.
So tax cuts funded by increased borrowing alone - the City were never going to welcome that news.
Having said that she will likely U-turn several times in the next few days leading up to the Chancellor's budget. It amazes me how she doesn't get giddy.
Can anyone give me a good reason why UK banks believe they can slap a limit - £25,000 - on their customers' ability to move money via online banking in a single day? My Czech banks (not generally noted for their service levels) have no such restrictions, and most of them are branches of or owned by big Western European banks.
And if you believe there is a good reason, do you think this applies to the personal bank account of, oh, I dunno, Jacob Rees-Mogg?
Can anyone give me a good reason why UK banks believe they can slap a limit - £25,000 - on their customers' ability to move money via online banking in a single day? My Czech banks (not generally noted for their service levels) have no such restrictions, and most of them are branches of or owned by big Western European banks.
And if you believe there is a good reason, do you think this applies to the personal bank account of, oh, I dunno, Jacob Rees-Mogg?
It varies by bank and account and how you do it.
Most seem to have an online limit of £25k for faster payments but some go lower down to £10k, some go much much higher in branch or by phone (for instance Metro Bank I know do £250k by branch or phone).
The highest I know of, online, is starling at £1m.
Can anyone give me a good reason why UK banks believe they can slap a limit - £25,000 - on their customers' ability to move money via online banking in a single day? My Czech banks (not generally noted for their service levels) have no such restrictions, and most of them are branches of or owned by big Western European banks.
And if you believe there is a good reason, do you think this applies to the personal bank account of, oh, I dunno, Jacob Rees-Mogg?
It is for AML and the prevention of fraud (maybe the Czech banks are a bit more lax in their interpretation). A phone call to the bank if you want to move more is not that onerous a task!
Can anyone give me a good reason why UK banks believe they can slap a limit - £25,000 - on their customers' ability to move money via online banking in a single day? My Czech banks (not generally noted for their service levels) have no such restrictions, and most of them are branches of or owned by big Western European banks.
And if you believe there is a good reason, do you think this applies to the personal bank account of, oh, I dunno, Jacob Rees-Mogg?
It is for AML and the prevention of fraud (maybe the Czech banks are a bit more lax in their interpretation). A phone call to the bank if you want to move more is not that onerous a task!
An interesting one on AML. I sent a final payment to my kitchen company, was just below the limit (£25k). About half hour later I got a phone call from the fraud department. I never take those calls so rang back the bank. After 101 questions they refused to send the payment as the recipient bank (Monzo) they believe do not have sufficient AML procedures! Apparently they are currently under investigation by the FCA etc.
Was quite happy to be honest as the company had to take credit card for which I got cash back!
Can anyone give me a good reason why UK banks believe they can slap a limit - £25,000 - on their customers' ability to move money via online banking in a single day? My Czech banks (not generally noted for their service levels) have no such restrictions, and most of them are branches of or owned by big Western European banks.
And if you believe there is a good reason, do you think this applies to the personal bank account of, oh, I dunno, Jacob Rees-Mogg?
It is for AML and the prevention of fraud (maybe the Czech banks are a bit more lax in their interpretation). A phone call to the bank if you want to move more is not that onerous a task!
Well of course I called them when I first got the cash from the house sale. I explained the situation and the best they (HSBC) could offer was that I wouldnt get calls from the fraud squad ( had a fair few) but they refused to up the £25k limit. The result of course is that I’ve had far too much cash sitting in an HSBC account too long, which suits them just fine, but is a pain in the neck for me; especially when suddenly it can be helpful to move largeish amounts quickly, and fairly regularly. They are also apparently intent on closing the Eltham branch where I am a customer, btw.
That was behind my Rees-Mogg question. Or sub in any very rich customer. Do we really believe they are subject to the same rules?. And yet who is more likely to be involved in money -laundering?. A middling punter whose records with HSBC go back to when it was the Midland, or a foreign non-dom?. And thats before we get to the hilarious idea of HSBC, of all banks, being tough on money-laundering.
Can anyone give me a good reason why UK banks believe they can slap a limit - £25,000 - on their customers' ability to move money via online banking in a single day? My Czech banks (not generally noted for their service levels) have no such restrictions, and most of them are branches of or owned by big Western European banks.
And if you believe there is a good reason, do you think this applies to the personal bank account of, oh, I dunno, Jacob Rees-Mogg?
It is for AML and the prevention of fraud (maybe the Czech banks are a bit more lax in their interpretation). A phone call to the bank if you want to move more is not that onerous a task!
Well of course I called them when I first got the cash from the house sale. I explained the situation and the best they (HSBC) could offer was that I wouldnt get calls from the fraud squad ( had a fair few) but they refused to up the £25k limit. The result of course is that I’ve had far too much cash sitting in an HSBC account too long, which suits them just fine, but is a pain in the neck for me; especially when suddenly it can be helpful to move largeish amounts quickly, and fairly regularly. They are also apparently intent on closing the Eltham branch where I am a customer, btw.
That was behind my Rees-Mogg question. Or sub in any very rich customer. Do we really believe they are subject to the same rules?. And yet who is more likely to be involved in money -laundering?. A middling punter whose records with HSBC go back to when it was the Midland, or a foreign non-dom?. And thats before we get to the hilarious idea of HSBC, of all banks, being tough on money-laundering.
Still grumpy.
some banks might make you upgrade to premium banking etc to transfer higher amounts. But yes, its an issue. Recently recieved a fairly decent sum from a relative, want to pump some of it in my LISA but barclays are saying it has to be split over 2 days.
Can anyone give me a good reason why UK banks believe they can slap a limit - £25,000 - on their customers' ability to move money via online banking in a single day? My Czech banks (not generally noted for their service levels) have no such restrictions, and most of them are branches of or owned by big Western European banks.
And if you believe there is a good reason, do you think this applies to the personal bank account of, oh, I dunno, Jacob Rees-Mogg?
It is for AML and the prevention of fraud (maybe the Czech banks are a bit more lax in their interpretation). A phone call to the bank if you want to move more is not that onerous a task!
Well of course I called them when I first got the cash from the house sale. I explained the situation and the best they (HSBC) could offer was that I wouldnt get calls from the fraud squad ( had a fair few) but they refused to up the £25k limit. The result of course is that I’ve had far too much cash sitting in an HSBC account too long, which suits them just fine, but is a pain in the neck for me; especially when suddenly it can be helpful to move largeish amounts quickly, and fairly regularly. They are also apparently intent on closing the Eltham branch where I am a customer, btw.
That was behind my Rees-Mogg question. Or sub in any very rich customer. Do we really believe they are subject to the same rules?. And yet who is more likely to be involved in money -laundering?. A middling punter whose records with HSBC go back to when it was the Midland, or a foreign non-dom?. And thats before we get to the hilarious idea of HSBC, of all banks, being tough on money-laundering.
Still grumpy.
Very rich customers go through a much higher level of due diligence (or should!!). So no, not subject to the same rules but have a great deal more scrutiny up front.
Can anyone give me a good reason why UK banks believe they can slap a limit - £25,000 - on their customers' ability to move money via online banking in a single day? My Czech banks (not generally noted for their service levels) have no such restrictions, and most of them are branches of or owned by big Western European banks.
And if you believe there is a good reason, do you think this applies to the personal bank account of, oh, I dunno, Jacob Rees-Mogg?
It is for AML and the prevention of fraud (maybe the Czech banks are a bit more lax in their interpretation). A phone call to the bank if you want to move more is not that onerous a task!
Well of course I called them when I first got the cash from the house sale. I explained the situation and the best they (HSBC) could offer was that I wouldnt get calls from the fraud squad ( had a fair few) but they refused to up the £25k limit. The result of course is that I’ve had far too much cash sitting in an HSBC account too long, which suits them just fine, but is a pain in the neck for me; especially when suddenly it can be helpful to move largeish amounts quickly, and fairly regularly. They are also apparently intent on closing the Eltham branch where I am a customer, btw.
That was behind my Rees-Mogg question. Or sub in any very rich customer. Do we really believe they are subject to the same rules?. And yet who is more likely to be involved in money -laundering?. A middling punter whose records with HSBC go back to when it was the Midland, or a foreign non-dom?. And thats before we get to the hilarious idea of HSBC, of all banks, being tough on money-laundering.
Still grumpy.
Very rich customers go through a much higher level of due diligence (or should!!). So no, not subject to the same rules but have a great deal more scrutiny up front.
I can see that it shouldn't be unlimited. I think though that £25k is far too low in a country where property prices have inflated people's paper worth, a paper worth which at least temporarily becomes actual due to property transactions.
Can anyone give me a good reason why UK banks believe they can slap a limit - £25,000 - on their customers' ability to move money via online banking in a single day? My Czech banks (not generally noted for their service levels) have no such restrictions, and most of them are branches of or owned by big Western European banks.
And if you believe there is a good reason, do you think this applies to the personal bank account of, oh, I dunno, Jacob Rees-Mogg?
Safe guard against fraud mostly. If you want to move more a phone call will normally suffice.
Can anyone give me a good reason why UK banks believe they can slap a limit - £25,000 - on their customers' ability to move money via online banking in a single day? My Czech banks (not generally noted for their service levels) have no such restrictions, and most of them are branches of or owned by big Western European banks.
And if you believe there is a good reason, do you think this applies to the personal bank account of, oh, I dunno, Jacob Rees-Mogg?
It is for AML and the prevention of fraud (maybe the Czech banks are a bit more lax in their interpretation). A phone call to the bank if you want to move more is not that onerous a task!
Well of course I called them when I first got the cash from the house sale. I explained the situation and the best they (HSBC) could offer was that I wouldnt get calls from the fraud squad ( had a fair few) but they refused to up the £25k limit. The result of course is that I’ve had far too much cash sitting in an HSBC account too long, which suits them just fine, but is a pain in the neck for me; especially when suddenly it can be helpful to move largeish amounts quickly, and fairly regularly. They are also apparently intent on closing the Eltham branch where I am a customer, btw.
That was behind my Rees-Mogg question. Or sub in any very rich customer. Do we really believe they are subject to the same rules?. And yet who is more likely to be involved in money -laundering?. A middling punter whose records with HSBC go back to when it was the Midland, or a foreign non-dom?. And thats before we get to the hilarious idea of HSBC, of all banks, being tough on money-laundering.
Still grumpy.
Very rich customers go through a much higher level of due diligence (or should!!). So no, not subject to the same rules but have a great deal more scrutiny up front.
I can see that it shouldn't be unlimited. I think though that £25k is far too low in a country where property prices have inflated people's paper worth, a paper worth which at least temporarily becomes actual due to property transactions.
Nonsense. There was a lot of negative outcry when the 'contactless' limit was upped from £45(?) and scaremongering of risk to customers.
This is a safeguard / control its not penalising anyone. The vast majority of payments are for sums well under the limit you suggest is in place with your bank.
House sales or similar are infrequent events and not unreasonable to have additional checks and balances for such transactions. The bank does not gain by having its customers engage in person / by phone when it could be self service.
Can anyone give me a good reason why UK banks believe they can slap a limit - £25,000 - on their customers' ability to move money via online banking in a single day? My Czech banks (not generally noted for their service levels) have no such restrictions, and most of them are branches of or owned by big Western European banks.
And if you believe there is a good reason, do you think this applies to the personal bank account of, oh, I dunno, Jacob Rees-Mogg?
Safe guard against fraud mostly. If you want to move more a phone call will normally suffice.
Yes all treated same.
see my later post. A phone call didn't suffice. Got the impression that a one off might have been allowed, (if I was going to buy another property with the cash raised from the sold one, for example), but several payments? To...other financial institutions? Oh, no. And by the way Mr Customer, at HSBC one of our trained financial advisers would be more than happy to call you and show you how HSBC's wonderful range of investment products can help you.
Do you actually have any professional knowledge about this matter? Not a snarky question, I'm genuinely interested to learn what serious problems banks think they are tackling with this arbitrary limit. Because in the lack of any more detailed info it seems to me that they tacitly admit their online systems are not secure. And that is an issue, if so.
Edit. @Rob7Lee indicated, £25k is not an industry wide figure. Barclays allows £50k. Nat West 20k. Triodos allows much bigger amounts but you have to use CHAPs so they can charge you for the privilege.
Can anyone give me a good reason why UK banks believe they can slap a limit - £25,000 - on their customers' ability to move money via online banking in a single day? My Czech banks (not generally noted for their service levels) have no such restrictions, and most of them are branches of or owned by big Western European banks.
And if you believe there is a good reason, do you think this applies to the personal bank account of, oh, I dunno, Jacob Rees-Mogg?
Safe guard against fraud mostly. If you want to move more a phone call will normally suffice.
Yes all treated same.
see my later post. A phone call didn't suffice. Got the impression that a one off might have been allowed, (if I was going to buy another property with the cash raised from the sold one, for example), but several payments? To...other financial institutions? Oh, no. And by the way Mr Customer, at HSBC one of our trained financial advisers would be more than happy to call you and show you how HSBC's wonderful range of investment products can help you.
Do you actually have any professional knowledge about this matter? Not a snarky question, I'm genuinely interested to learn what serious problems banks think they are tackling with this arbitrary limit. Because in the lack of any more detailed info it seems to me that they tacitly admit their online systems are not secure. And that is an issue, if so.
Edit. @Rob7Lee indicated, £25k is not an industry wide figure. Barclays allows £50k. Nat West 20k. Triodos allows much bigger amounts but you have to use CHAPs so they can charge you for the privilege.
Yes I work in Financial Services.
But as I stated its as much about safeguarding against Fraud as anything else.
Its not about denying you a special / extra limit as typically the 'limit' will be bank wide rather than customer specific on your online service. Id imagine the 'one off' would have been them taking your instruction over the phone / in person to do on your behalf.
Its not about online being insecure. Potentially its about you misquoting beneficiary details and paying away all your funds - common fraud now is the 'wrong uns' emailing people that bank details have changed and here is revised account number to send to and you comply. Limiting transaction volumes is a partial mitigant. Likewise Faster Payments seek to marry Beneficiary Name with the Account Number before you 'pay away' your money. None of it can be 100% fool proof but its not designed with anything other than risk reduction in mind.
If I recall correctly when Faster Payments was designed / established it could technically support for up to £100k - but limits are set lower
As @Rob7Lee said, there is no standard limit as ime different banks have different limits. In my line of work I'm often asking clients to send money to a financial institution (for an ISA or pension) and I find that most banks are ok with £20k for an ISA, although I client had to send 2x£10k one year 🙄.
@valleynick66 thanks for your interesting reply. You manage on the banks' behalf to clarify somewhat that the measure is supposed to help protect customers from fraud, ( rather than suspecting its customers of fraud, or money-laundering, which is the impression I've rather gained, but possibly because when it comes to banks and big privatised utilities I've got a default mindset of cynicism). So that's a good answer, pity I have to get it from CL rather than a bank CEO.
But it's not entirely convincing, is it? I mean it sounds like it's aiming to protect a financially naive older person trying to use internet banking, but such people are also the very people for whom the loss of £25k would be devastating. It ought not to be beyond the wit of man, especially with the resources the banks have, to devise a more flexible system for those who basically know what they are doing, and give their consent to be allowed to do so. I'd suggest the limit, subject to a mutual consent process, should be £85k, which of course is the bank guarantee limit - it would act as a useful caution. I just find that the banks aren't interested. Certainly not HSBC. Currently they have three tiers of personal account tariffs, I'm on the second one but the third one doesn't offer a higher transfer limit either. Just loads of stuff I don't need or can't use (e.g the travel insurance, which nowadays insists the journey must start in the UK, so would rule out most of my travel purchases).
BTW re your explanation of how Faster Payments is supposed to marry beneficiary and account number. Another issue I have, which may be specific to HSBC's automated system, is what happens if it cannot do that for a new payee. It warns you that it cannot, and basically says "you're on your own here, mate". However it has a higher level of warning which states bluntly some thing like "our systems detect this transaction carries a higher risk of fraud". I have had this several times recently. Sometimes I know the payee personally at some level (e.g the Pompey fan and private investigator whom we paid to help the Dossier team in the early stages), but most recently it happened when I was dealing with a debt collection agency re final utility bills for gas and elec. at the house I just sold. I have another thread about that. The debt collector came out of the blue, and at first I really though they were fraudsters because of the communication style. Again CL assured me that they look to be an established debt collector, and that the initial demand, for the electricity, looked reasonable so I paid it. But when I set up the payment I got the "higher risk of fraud" message - and that really made me pause again. In the end I hit the button because it was £120 or so and I had everything documented up to that point. But imagine someone less well resourced, with the power of CL behind them, in the same situation. They could end up on the credit registry because the bank scared the shit out of them over what turns out to be a legitimate if badly communicated debt.
The reason why I get grumpy with stuff like this is probably because I spent 38 years working in business environment with a high personal expectation of "delivery", including 25 years running my own biz where I didn't earn a penny unless I delivered 100%. Senior bank management pays itself eye-watering amounts of money. So they should earn it. I suppose someone will say "retail isn't where the money is". So IMO, we get mugged off. But here we are.
It fell almost 2% within mins - from being up 0.5% at 1.30 pm to being down 1.4% at 1.35pm.
Might have been a big sale order or some form of triple witching hour (don't ask) but it is a large fall with no news proceeding it.
EDIT.
Ah, just seen it was news of US inflation data. Hmmm. Lets see what the US does in an hour.
The £ has slightly strengthened after this. I think I might be able to extract some more cash to a safe haven😀 However on the downside we are also expecting a statement from Kamikwazi any moment😢
OK...my simple, but probably not straightforward question....(especially to the knowledgeable folk who post on here) is - should I be thinking now about buying more equities. I already hold a few thousand shares in Lloyds Bank (as an example) and they have gone down a lot...would it be wise to invest when low (in general)?
OK...my simple, but probably not straightforward question....(especially to the knowledgeable folk who post on here) is - should I be thinking now about buying more equities. I already hold a few thousand shares in Lloyds Bank (as an example) and they have gone down a lot...would it be wise to invest when low (in general)?
In general its always best to buy low & sell high. Whether it's a good time now to buy Lloyds shares is anyones guess. The thing you should be asking yourself though is " do I really want more shares in Lloyds ? " Do you have any other share holdings? If not, why Lloyds specifically? There are other banks.....in fact there are thousands of different Companies you could buy into, not just banks.
If I were you I'd be looking at an investment fund - something that invests in more than just 1 Company. Diversification is the name of the game.
Comments
Just sent in application. Need to open by 1st Nov
Secure Trust was a much faster and more efficient process.
Edit: the Santander welcome e-mail has popped into my box already, just two hours later. I think that's what you call "expectation management"
So tax cuts funded by increased borrowing alone - the City were never going to welcome that news.
Having said that she will likely U-turn several times in the next few days leading up to the Chancellor's budget. It amazes me how she doesn't get giddy.
Can anyone give me a good reason why UK banks believe they can slap a limit - £25,000 - on their customers' ability to move money via online banking in a single day? My Czech banks (not generally noted for their service levels) have no such restrictions, and most of them are branches of or owned by big Western European banks.
And if you believe there is a good reason, do you think this applies to the personal bank account of, oh, I dunno, Jacob Rees-Mogg?
Most seem to have an online limit of £25k for faster payments but some go lower down to £10k, some go much much higher in branch or by phone (for instance Metro Bank I know do £250k by branch or phone).
The highest I know of, online, is starling at £1m.
Was quite happy to be honest as the company had to take credit card for which I got cash back!
HSBC fined £64m for anti-money laundering failings
I can see that it shouldn't be unlimited. I think though that £25k is far too low in a country where property prices have inflated people's paper worth, a paper worth which at least temporarily becomes actual due to property transactions.
Yes all treated same.
This is a safeguard / control its not penalising anyone. The vast majority of payments are for sums well under the limit you suggest is in place with your bank.
House sales or similar are infrequent events and not unreasonable to have additional checks and balances for such transactions. The bank does not gain by having its customers engage in person / by phone when it could be self service.
Do you actually have any professional knowledge about this matter? Not a snarky question, I'm genuinely interested to learn what serious problems banks think they are tackling with this arbitrary limit. Because in the lack of any more detailed info it seems to me that they tacitly admit their online systems are not secure. And that is an issue, if so.
Edit. @Rob7Lee indicated, £25k is not an industry wide figure. Barclays allows £50k. Nat West 20k. Triodos allows much bigger amounts but you have to use CHAPs so they can charge you for the privilege.
Have a mate who has £1200 in an old DC Aviva pension, where he has not contributed for years. . He now has a workplace scheme with Legal &General.
But as I stated its as much about safeguarding against Fraud as anything else.
Its not about denying you a special / extra limit as typically the 'limit' will be bank wide rather than customer specific on your online service. Id imagine the 'one off' would have been them taking your instruction over the phone / in person to do on your behalf.
Its not about online being insecure. Potentially its about you misquoting beneficiary details and paying away all your funds - common fraud now is the 'wrong uns' emailing people that bank details have changed and here is revised account number to send to and you comply. Limiting transaction volumes is a partial mitigant. Likewise Faster Payments seek to marry Beneficiary Name with the Account Number before you 'pay away' your money. None of it can be 100% fool proof but its not designed with anything other than risk reduction in mind.
If I recall correctly when Faster Payments was designed / established it could technically support for up to £100k - but limits are set lower
So that's a good answer, pity I have to get it from CL rather than a bank CEO.
But it's not entirely convincing, is it? I mean it sounds like it's aiming to protect a financially naive older person trying to use internet banking, but such people are also the very people for whom the loss of £25k would be devastating. It ought not to be beyond the wit of man, especially with the resources the banks have, to devise a more flexible system for those who basically know what they are doing, and give their consent to be allowed to do so. I'd suggest the limit, subject to a mutual consent process, should be £85k, which of course is the bank guarantee limit - it would act as a useful caution. I just find that the banks aren't interested. Certainly not HSBC. Currently they have three tiers of personal account tariffs, I'm on the second one but the third one doesn't offer a higher transfer limit either. Just loads of stuff I don't need or can't use (e.g the travel insurance, which nowadays insists the journey must start in the UK, so would rule out most of my travel purchases).
BTW re your explanation of how Faster Payments is supposed to marry beneficiary and account number. Another issue I have, which may be specific to HSBC's automated system, is what happens if it cannot do that for a new payee. It warns you that it cannot, and basically says "you're on your own here, mate". However it has a higher level of warning which states bluntly some thing like "our systems detect this transaction carries a higher risk of fraud". I have had this several times recently. Sometimes I know the payee personally at some level (e.g the Pompey fan and private investigator whom we paid to help the Dossier team in the early stages), but most recently it happened when I was dealing with a debt collection agency re final utility bills for gas and elec. at the house I just sold. I have another thread about that. The debt collector came out of the blue, and at first I really though they were fraudsters because of the communication style. Again CL assured me that they look to be an established debt collector, and that the initial demand, for the electricity, looked reasonable so I paid it. But when I set up the payment I got the "higher risk of fraud" message - and that really made me pause again. In the end I hit the button because it was £120 or so and I had everything documented up to that point. But imagine someone less well resourced, with the power of CL behind them, in the same situation. They could end up on the credit registry because the bank scared the shit out of them over what turns out to be a legitimate if badly communicated debt.
The reason why I get grumpy with stuff like this is probably because I spent 38 years working in business environment with a high personal expectation of "delivery", including 25 years running my own biz where I didn't earn a penny unless I delivered 100%. Senior bank management pays itself eye-watering amounts of money. So they should earn it. I suppose someone will say "retail isn't where the money is". So IMO, we get mugged off. But here we are.
It fell almost 2% within mins - from being up 0.5% at 1.30 pm to being down 1.4% at 1.35pm.
Might have been a big sale order or some form of triple witching hour (don't ask) but it is a large fall with no news proceeding it.
EDIT.
Ah, just seen it was news of US inflation data. Hmmm. Lets see what the US does in an hour.
If I were you I'd be looking at an investment fund - something that invests in more than just 1 Company. Diversification is the name of the game.
Hope that helps.