Nice. Out of interest, are your PSBs all in one block or spread over many different numbers bought over time? As I posted yesterday, mine are dispersed and I’m being told that people win more when their holdings are in single, large blocks.
Nice. Out of interest, are your PSBs all in one block or spread over many different numbers bought over time? As I posted yesterday, mine are dispersed and I’m being told that people win more when their holdings are in single, large blocks.
£75 (3x£25) for me, £25 for Mrs Chaz and £200 for jnr (£100, £50, £25x2).
I noticed on the ‘High Value’ winners list that somebody with a £100 holding won £50,000 and another with £300 holding won £100,000. Neither £1m winner had the full £50k holding. So really can’t see having a single £50k block makes any difference.
£75 (3x£25) for me, £25 for Mrs Chaz and £200 for jnr (£100, £50, £25x2).
I noticed on the ‘High Value’ winners list that somebody with a £100 holding won £50,000 and another with £300 holding won £100,000. Neither £1m winner had the full £50k holding. So really can’t see having a single £50k block makes any difference.
Whether a sequential block of 50,000 or 50,000 randomly distributed amongst the 119 Billion bonds issued - the chances of each individual number being drawn for a prize is exactly the same. Anyone who believes otherwise does not have even a fundamental grasp on statistics.
£75 (3x£25) for me, £25 for Mrs Chaz and £200 for jnr (£100, £50, £25x2).
I noticed on the ‘High Value’ winners list that somebody with a £100 holding won £50,000 and another with £300 holding won £100,000. Neither £1m winner had the full £50k holding. So really can’t see having a single £50k block makes any difference.
Whether a sequential block of 50,000 or 50,000 randomly distributed amongst the 119 Billion bonds issued - the chances of each individual number being drawn for a prize is exactly the same. Anyone who believes otherwise does not have even a fundamental grasp on statistics.
Fellow mug punters!! I may have hit upon an idea. It may however not survive the scrutiny of those more ITK which is why I am posting it before looking further into it.
This applies to mug punters like me who are aghast at the destruction of their “safe” ballast funds such as Vanguard Life Strategy 20 and with some relish and relief you turn to the rapidly rising number of savings accounts which actually pay interest..whereupon you run into a new problem, when to take advantage of the fixed term offers with the best rates. You can end up with a turkey there too…like this mug stuck untíl March with one paying 2.1%, while my new Santander instant account pays 2.72%…
So. If you already invested in funds in the early 90s, you may recall the cash funds. I had one with Fidelity on their platform which sometimes was showing 5% gains, because at that time bank rates were pretty high. As we entered the long low inflation period, these funds became pointless.
Now, I suppose their time has come again. But here’s my question: can they, would they invest in fixed term high interest instruments? If so, that is a way to access those instruments without committing to a timespan- you can buy and sell the fund when you please, like any other.
whaddya’ reckon?
Royal London had 2 "cash" funds in their Personal Pension range. Both changed their investment mandate earlier this year & changed their name from Deposit and Deposit Plus to Short Term Fixed Rate and now invests in short dated Gilts.
Not sure cash funds are "in vogue" thesedays
Indeed, they are not, but I wonder if this is about to change. I had a quick look at the Vanguard LS 20 vs a Fidelity cash fund, and will try to post up the graph later. It is pretty…graphic. But the returns so far this year for a cash fund are not that great, they just haven’t lost punters money, whereas the Vanguard fund has shed 15%. I am surprised that isnt being talked about more in the financial media.
However it is marketed as the safest option, because only 20% is equities, supposedly more risky. And up to this year it worked that way ( I have some 40 and 60 ). I will post up the graph later, and then my question for those who understand bonds/gilts/Treasuries better than I would be, is the graph going to recover, or might it not be better to cash out and stick it in a deposit account fixed at 5% for a year or more?
However it is marketed as the safest option, because only 20% is equities, supposedly more risky. And up to this year it worked that way ( I have some 40 and 60 ). I will post up the graph later, and then my question for those who understand bonds/gilts/Treasuries better than I would be, is the graph going to recover, or might it not be better to cash out and stick it in a deposit account fixed at 5% for a year or more?
I'm not so sure that's entirely true, the 20/40/60 are all risk level 4 of 7, 80 & 100 and 5 of 7, so the 80 & 100 are only marginally riskier.
I guess it all depends on what you are trying to achieve and your overall portfolio, I personally don't have any 20 (or 40), have a bit in 60, a bit in 80 and much more in 100. I do also hold about 5% in bonds/gilts separately so overall about 8% of my portfolio is in that.
You also need to consider the yield as much as the value. Most UK Gov 10 year bonds are paying a yield of over 4% now.
However it is marketed as the safest option, because only 20% is equities, supposedly more risky. And up to this year it worked that way ( I have some 40 and 60 ). I will post up the graph later, and then my question for those who understand bonds/gilts/Treasuries better than I would be, is the graph going to recover, or might it not be better to cash out and stick it in a deposit account fixed at 5% for a year or more?
I'm not so sure that's entirely true, the 20/40/60 are all risk level 4 of 7, 80 & 100 and 5 of 7, so the 80 & 100 are only marginally riskier.
I guess it all depends on what you are trying to achieve and your overall portfolio, I personally don't have any 20 (or 40), have a bit in 60, a bit in 80 and much more in 100. I do also hold about 5% in bonds/gilts separately so overall about 8% of my portfolio is in that.
You also need to consider the yield as much as the value. Most UK Gov 10 year bonds are paying a yield of over 4% now.
I have a stash of cash that I kept aside specifically as a "health insurance fund" - cash that I did not pay over the years to BUPA or PPP because they were a rip-off and not needed here when you are in the state health insurance system. Just an insurance against worst case scenarios. It had been in cash deposits but I got fed up with earning less than 1% on them, so I had the "bright" idea of sticking it in LS20 on the basis that it might earn 2-3% with low risk. That was based on actual experience over 5-7 years with all of these funds. The graph below shows what has happened this year.
OK, roughly I know why; the whole retail investment market had worked on a rule of thumb..if equities do well, then bonds less so, and vice versa. This year, as we know, that rule of thumb fell part. Yet Vanguard continue to assert on their website, right now and in multiple places :
"It’s all about finding the right level of risk and reward. Shares typically give you a higher return over the long term, but are riskier. Whereas bonds are more stable but offer lower potential returns."
If you take Vanguard's six question test about personal attitude to risk, it steers you towards LS 20 if you answer in the most risk averse way. That's not my actual attitude, but it was for this stash of cash, and as others have mentioned, many cautious mug punters have relied on it to build their own pension portfolios. I suspect a lot of them have not yet realised what's happened.
Anyway, what I'd appreciate now are views on what's going to happen now. I am pretty sure cash funds like that Fidelity one will move up more next year as interest rates rise. What do you think those Vanguard bond heavy funds will do? Will they recover all their lost ground? What factors will influence them? I'm not sure about the money market funds, but if I can stick the cash away on deposit for 1 or 2 years at 5%, will that beat keeping it in LS20? that's what I have to decide...
Fellow mug punters!! I may have hit upon an idea. It may however not survive the scrutiny of those more ITK which is why I am posting it before looking further into it.
This applies to mug punters like me who are aghast at the destruction of their “safe” ballast funds such as Vanguard Life Strategy 20 and with some relish and relief you turn to the rapidly rising number of savings accounts which actually pay interest..whereupon you run into a new problem, when to take advantage of the fixed term offers with the best rates. You can end up with a turkey there too…like this mug stuck untíl March with one paying 2.1%, while my new Santander instant account pays 2.72%…
So. If you already invested in funds in the early 90s, you may recall the cash funds. I had one with Fidelity on their platform which sometimes was showing 5% gains, because at that time bank rates were pretty high. As we entered the long low inflation period, these funds became pointless.
Now, I suppose their time has come again. But here’s my question: can they, would they invest in fixed term high interest instruments? If so, that is a way to access those instruments without committing to a timespan- you can buy and sell the fund when you please, like any other.
whaddya’ reckon?
Royal London had 2 "cash" funds in their Personal Pension range. Both changed their investment mandate earlier this year & changed their name from Deposit and Deposit Plus to Short Term Fixed Rate and now invests in short dated Gilts.
Not sure cash funds are "in vogue" thesedays
Indeed, they are not, but I wonder if this is about to change. I had a quick look at the Vanguard LS 20 vs a Fidelity cash fund, and will try to post up the graph later. It is pretty…graphic. But the returns so far this year for a cash fund are not that great, they just haven’t lost punters money, whereas the Vanguard fund has shed 15%. I am surprised that isnt being talked about more in the financial media.
Why not just hold cash in the portfolio then Most platforms these days have a cash "account", which is usually used as a go between before investing or when holdings are sold & waiting to be reinvested. I've a few clients I've done that with when property funds have closed & the money has been paid back to the clients. Might not earn anything but its not losing anything either.
Fellow mug punters!! I may have hit upon an idea. It may however not survive the scrutiny of those more ITK which is why I am posting it before looking further into it.
This applies to mug punters like me who are aghast at the destruction of their “safe” ballast funds such as Vanguard Life Strategy 20 and with some relish and relief you turn to the rapidly rising number of savings accounts which actually pay interest..whereupon you run into a new problem, when to take advantage of the fixed term offers with the best rates. You can end up with a turkey there too…like this mug stuck untíl March with one paying 2.1%, while my new Santander instant account pays 2.72%…
So. If you already invested in funds in the early 90s, you may recall the cash funds. I had one with Fidelity on their platform which sometimes was showing 5% gains, because at that time bank rates were pretty high. As we entered the long low inflation period, these funds became pointless.
Now, I suppose their time has come again. But here’s my question: can they, would they invest in fixed term high interest instruments? If so, that is a way to access those instruments without committing to a timespan- you can buy and sell the fund when you please, like any other.
whaddya’ reckon?
Royal London had 2 "cash" funds in their Personal Pension range. Both changed their investment mandate earlier this year & changed their name from Deposit and Deposit Plus to Short Term Fixed Rate and now invests in short dated Gilts.
Not sure cash funds are "in vogue" thesedays
Indeed, they are not, but I wonder if this is about to change. I had a quick look at the Vanguard LS 20 vs a Fidelity cash fund, and will try to post up the graph later. It is pretty…graphic. But the returns so far this year for a cash fund are not that great, they just haven’t lost punters money, whereas the Vanguard fund has shed 15%. I am surprised that isnt being talked about more in the financial media.
I noticed a couple of months back that a lot of the ITs that I own had loaded up on short term cash instruments but have since been dripping them back in. I think one of the reasons retail people worried about them was because of the liquidity crisis that sparked the financial crisis. Not really my area but I would have a thought a strategic bond fund would be skewing that way ...?
£75 (3x£25) for me, £25 for Mrs Chaz and £200 for jnr (£100, £50, £25x2).
I noticed on the ‘High Value’ winners list that somebody with a £100 holding won £50,000 and another with £300 holding won £100,000. Neither £1m winner had the full £50k holding. So really can’t see having a single £50k block makes any difference.
Whether a sequential block of 50,000 or 50,000 randomly distributed amongst the 119 Billion bonds issued - the chances of each individual number being drawn for a prize is exactly the same. Anyone who believes otherwise does not have even a fundamental grasp on statistics.
Sorry to be pedantic but anyone who believes that Ernie is sophisticated enough to generate genuinely random numbers probably doesn't work in IT ;-)
£75 (3x£25) for me, £25 for Mrs Chaz and £200 for jnr (£100, £50, £25x2).
I noticed on the ‘High Value’ winners list that somebody with a £100 holding won £50,000 and another with £300 holding won £100,000. Neither £1m winner had the full £50k holding. So really can’t see having a single £50k block makes any difference.
Whether a sequential block of 50,000 or 50,000 randomly distributed amongst the 119 Billion bonds issued - the chances of each individual number being drawn for a prize is exactly the same. Anyone who believes otherwise does not have even a fundamental grasp on statistics.
Sorry to be pedantic but anyone who believes that Ernie is sophisticated enough to generate genuinely random numbers probably doesn't work in IT ;-)
That's another issue entirely - my comment was based on pure probability theory and was predicated on approaching true randomness in the RNG!
£75 (3x£25) for me, £25 for Mrs Chaz and £200 for jnr (£100, £50, £25x2).
I noticed on the ‘High Value’ winners list that somebody with a £100 holding won £50,000 and another with £300 holding won £100,000. Neither £1m winner had the full £50k holding. So really can’t see having a single £50k block makes any difference.
Whether a sequential block of 50,000 or 50,000 randomly distributed amongst the 119 Billion bonds issued - the chances of each individual number being drawn for a prize is exactly the same. Anyone who believes otherwise does not have even a fundamental grasp on statistics.
Sorry to be pedantic but anyone who believes that Ernie is sophisticated enough to generate genuinely random numbers probably doesn't work in IT ;-)
That's another issue entirely - my comment was based on pure probability theory and was predicated on approaching true randomness in the RNG!
Your point on probability was, of course, sound!
But I think people suspect that, for example, very old numbers don't come up and that perception could be down to all sorts of things. But there's always been a suspicion that the programming can't generate genuinely random numbers and therefore there are biases.
Fellow mug punters!! I may have hit upon an idea. It may however not survive the scrutiny of those more ITK which is why I am posting it before looking further into it.
This applies to mug punters like me who are aghast at the destruction of their “safe” ballast funds such as Vanguard Life Strategy 20 and with some relish and relief you turn to the rapidly rising number of savings accounts which actually pay interest..whereupon you run into a new problem, when to take advantage of the fixed term offers with the best rates. You can end up with a turkey there too…like this mug stuck untíl March with one paying 2.1%, while my new Santander instant account pays 2.72%…
So. If you already invested in funds in the early 90s, you may recall the cash funds. I had one with Fidelity on their platform which sometimes was showing 5% gains, because at that time bank rates were pretty high. As we entered the long low inflation period, these funds became pointless.
Now, I suppose their time has come again. But here’s my question: can they, would they invest in fixed term high interest instruments? If so, that is a way to access those instruments without committing to a timespan- you can buy and sell the fund when you please, like any other.
whaddya’ reckon?
Royal London had 2 "cash" funds in their Personal Pension range. Both changed their investment mandate earlier this year & changed their name from Deposit and Deposit Plus to Short Term Fixed Rate and now invests in short dated Gilts.
Not sure cash funds are "in vogue" thesedays
Indeed, they are not, but I wonder if this is about to change. I had a quick look at the Vanguard LS 20 vs a Fidelity cash fund, and will try to post up the graph later. It is pretty…graphic. But the returns so far this year for a cash fund are not that great, they just haven’t lost punters money, whereas the Vanguard fund has shed 15%. I am surprised that isnt being talked about more in the financial media.
Why not just hold cash in the portfolio then Most platforms these days have a cash "account", which is usually used as a go between before investing or when holdings are sold & waiting to be reinvested. I've a few clients I've done that with when property funds have closed & the money has been paid back to the clients. Might not earn anything but its not losing anything either.
Well the trouble with that is, inflation. You dont want cash sitting around too long doing nothing. Mistake I made with my SIPP when I switched it to H-L. Now when you have instant access accounts with big banks paying 2.75% it really ought to be avoided for any period longer than a month or so, I reckon.
£75 (3x£25) for me, £25 for Mrs Chaz and £200 for jnr (£100, £50, £25x2).
I noticed on the ‘High Value’ winners list that somebody with a £100 holding won £50,000 and another with £300 holding won £100,000. Neither £1m winner had the full £50k holding. So really can’t see having a single £50k block makes any difference.
Whether a sequential block of 50,000 or 50,000 randomly distributed amongst the 119 Billion bonds issued - the chances of each individual number being drawn for a prize is exactly the same. Anyone who believes otherwise does not have even a fundamental grasp on statistics.
Sorry to be pedantic but anyone who believes that Ernie is sophisticated enough to generate genuinely random numbers probably doesn't work in IT ;-)
That's another issue entirely - my comment was based on pure probability theory and was predicated on approaching true randomness in the RNG!
Your point on probability was, of course, sound!
But I think people suspect that, for example, very old numbers don't come up and that perception could be down to all sorts of things. But there's always been a suspicion that the programming can't generate genuinely random numbers and therefore there are biases.
For anyone who holds a 50k block: have you had a month where you've won zero?
£75 (3x£25) for me, £25 for Mrs Chaz and £200 for jnr (£100, £50, £25x2).
I noticed on the ‘High Value’ winners list that somebody with a £100 holding won £50,000 and another with £300 holding won £100,000. Neither £1m winner had the full £50k holding. So really can’t see having a single £50k block makes any difference.
Whether a sequential block of 50,000 or 50,000 randomly distributed amongst the 119 Billion bonds issued - the chances of each individual number being drawn for a prize is exactly the same. Anyone who believes otherwise does not have even a fundamental grasp on statistics.
Sorry to be pedantic but anyone who believes that Ernie is sophisticated enough to generate genuinely random numbers probably doesn't work in IT ;-)
That's another issue entirely - my comment was based on pure probability theory and was predicated on approaching true randomness in the RNG!
Your point on probability was, of course, sound!
But I think people suspect that, for example, very old numbers don't come up and that perception could be down to all sorts of things. But there's always been a suspicion that the programming can't generate genuinely random numbers and therefore there are biases.
For anyone who holds a 50k block: have you had a month where you've won zero?
£75 (3x£25) for me, £25 for Mrs Chaz and £200 for jnr (£100, £50, £25x2).
I noticed on the ‘High Value’ winners list that somebody with a £100 holding won £50,000 and another with £300 holding won £100,000. Neither £1m winner had the full £50k holding. So really can’t see having a single £50k block makes any difference.
Whether a sequential block of 50,000 or 50,000 randomly distributed amongst the 119 Billion bonds issued - the chances of each individual number being drawn for a prize is exactly the same. Anyone who believes otherwise does not have even a fundamental grasp on statistics.
Sorry to be pedantic but anyone who believes that Ernie is sophisticated enough to generate genuinely random numbers probably doesn't work in IT ;-)
That's another issue entirely - my comment was based on pure probability theory and was predicated on approaching true randomness in the RNG!
Your point on probability was, of course, sound!
But I think people suspect that, for example, very old numbers don't come up and that perception could be down to all sorts of things. But there's always been a suspicion that the programming can't generate genuinely random numbers and therefore there are biases.
For anyone who holds a 50k block: have you had a month where you've won zero?
I've had the odd month, on average maybe one a year, my Father in Law has had one blank month ion about 5 years!
With Easy access looking like going over 3% and 1 year bond over 5% , is it worth staying in Premium Bonds. £50,000 in a one year is going to bring you in over £2500 a year interest (before Tax).
With Easy access looking like going over 3% and 1 year bond over 5% , is it worth staying in Premium Bonds. £50,000 in a one year is going to bring you in over £2500 a year interest (before Tax).
It's important to remember the tax element which reduces the headline rate on savings (by quite a chunk if you are a higher rate tax payer). Cash ISA's are starting to pick up a bit, almost 4% for a 1 year fix (of course limited to £20k).
PB's have never given the best return due to the variability/pot luck nature, but it's secure, pays a decent return of you hold a lot and there's always that chance.............
Personally unless you are holding at least £25k or have tax issues I wouldn't bother.
Comments
Interesting prizes this month, my wife had 2x £25, 2x £50 and 1x £100.
Father in law to follow!
Every little helps
https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/investments/vanguard-lifestrategy-20-equity-fund-gbp-gross-accumulation-shares/portfolio-data
I guess it all depends on what you are trying to achieve and your overall portfolio, I personally don't have any 20 (or 40), have a bit in 60, a bit in 80 and much more in 100. I do also hold about 5% in bonds/gilts separately so overall about 8% of my portfolio is in that.
You also need to consider the yield as much as the value. Most UK Gov 10 year bonds are paying a yield of over 4% now.
OK, roughly I know why; the whole retail investment market had worked on a rule of thumb..if equities do well, then bonds less so, and vice versa. This year, as we know, that rule of thumb fell part. Yet Vanguard continue to assert on their website, right now and in multiple places :
If you take Vanguard's six question test about personal attitude to risk, it steers you towards LS 20 if you answer in the most risk averse way. That's not my actual attitude, but it was for this stash of cash, and as others have mentioned, many cautious mug punters have relied on it to build their own pension portfolios. I suspect a lot of them have not yet realised what's happened.
Anyway, what I'd appreciate now are views on what's going to happen now. I am pretty sure cash funds like that Fidelity one will move up more next year as interest rates rise. What do you think those Vanguard bond heavy funds will do? Will they recover all their lost ground? What factors will influence them? I'm not sure about the money market funds, but if I can stick the cash away on deposit for 1 or 2 years at 5%, will that beat keeping it in LS20? that's what I have to decide...
But I think people suspect that, for example, very old numbers don't come up and that perception could be down to all sorts of things. But there's always been a suspicion that the programming can't generate genuinely random numbers and therefore there are biases.
I've had the odd month, on average maybe one a year, my Father in Law has had one blank month ion about 5 years!
Interest rates up, interesting times.
PB's have never given the best return due to the variability/pot luck nature, but it's secure, pays a decent return of you hold a lot and there's always that chance.............
Personally unless you are holding at least £25k or have tax issues I wouldn't bother.