Savings and Investments thread

Rob7Lee · December 2

As an annual round up:

my return 3.85%, Mrs 2.85% Daughter 2.1%. Pleased with mine as a gross equivalent of 7%. Wife’s 3.6% and daughter 2.6%, although a little skewed due to our different tax positions.

Chaz Hill · December 2

£50 for me on my half max, £100 for Mrs on max and £25 for junior on quarter holding on PBs. Always nice to win something.

TelMc32 · December 2

£325 this morning on £40k holding (2x £100, 2x £50 and 1x £25).

bobmunro · December 2

£175 for me, nothing for the missus - 2x max holdings.

Friend Or Defoe · December 2

Rob7Lee said:

As an annual round up:

my return 3.85%, Mrs 2.85% Daughter 2.1%. Pleased with mine as a gross equivalent of 7%. Wife’s 3.6% and daughter 2.6%, although a little skewed due to our different tax positions.

So they're well worth doing if you are a Additional/Top Rate Taxpayer, otherwise not really.

golfaddick · December 2

Friend Or Defoe said:

Rob7Lee said:

As an annual round up:

my return 3.85%, Mrs 2.85% Daughter 2.1%. Pleased with mine as a gross equivalent of 7%. Wife’s 3.6% and daughter 2.6%, although a little skewed due to our different tax positions.

So they're well worth doing if you are a Additional/Top Rate Taxpayer, otherwise not really.

So ripe for an attack by Rachel in the next Budget 🤔.

Addickinedi · December 2

£275 for me and £375 for wife, both on max holding.
Returned just over 5% combined for the year.

Rob7Lee · December 2

Friend Or Defoe said:

Rob7Lee said:

As an annual round up:

my return 3.85%, Mrs 2.85% Daughter 2.1%. Pleased with mine as a gross equivalent of 7%. Wife’s 3.6% and daughter 2.6%, although a little skewed due to our different tax positions.

So they're well worth doing if you are an Additional/Top Rate Taxpayer, otherwise not really.

If my wife also had returned 3.85% would have been well worth it as well even though she’s a lower rate tax payer (she already uses up her savings allowance).

Pedro45 · December 3

£100 on max, so that's £1500 this year, or 3% return on my PB's.

RaplhMilne · December 3

I have only spotted this today regarding new rules for ISA,s when the new £12,000 cash limit comes into force. Does anybody know more details.

Copied from an online artical

The new HMRC rules will also ban transfers from stocks and shares to cash ISAs, as well as implementing a charge on any interest paid on cash holdings within a stocks and shares or Innovative Finance ISA.

I currently do not reinvest my dividends from my Stocks and Shares ISA. I let them build up in cash and then transfer them out to my Cash ISA. This infers that this would no longer be possible. Or do we believe there will be dispensation for the over 65 year olds.

bobmunro · December 3

RaplhMilne said:

I have only spotted this today regarding new rules for ISA,s when the new £12,000 cash limit comes into force. Does anybody know more details.

The new HMRC rules will also ban transfers from stocks and shares to cash ISAs, as well as implementing a charge on any interest paid on cash holdings within a stocks and shares or Innovative Finance ISA.
I currently do not reinvest my dividends from my Stocks and Shares ISA. I let them build up in cash and then transfer them out to my Cash ISA. This infers that this would no longer be possible. Or do we believe there will be dispensation for the over 65 year olds.

I'm hoping none of the new rules will apply to over 65s as it also includes not being able to use cash like investments (e.g. MMFs) within a SS ISA. If it does then I will move anything I have in SS ISAs to Cash ISAs before April 27.

golfaddick · December 3

I'm sure Rachel said that there will be discussions with providers & the FCA before the new rules come in. Providers & Platforms will have to come up with a way of not offering MM funds or near cash ones for ISA's but allow them for other products like Pensions & GIA's

Watch this space is all I'd say atm.

hmmoore · December 3

£250 on max. £1775 for the year. 3.55%. Happy with that.

PragueAddick · December 4

£175, ending up at 3.8%, so satisfied with that.

I saw something about NS&I being expected to bring in more, and that this might mean an increase in PB prize rate next year.

Personally I'd welcome an inflation linked bond from them.

TelMc32 · December 4

Got a blended rate this year of 4.77%, which I’m happy with.

Covered End · December 4

Covered End said:

I'm a few days behind, but in case not already posted -

Premium Bonds rates could rise after Rachel Reeves revealed she would need another £1bn from savers for the Treasury’s coffers.
The Chancellor said National Savings & Investments (NS&I), which administers Premium Bonds and other savings products, would be required to raise between £13bn and £17bn from savers this year, rather than the £12bn target it had previously been set.

golfaddick · December 5

Covered End said:

Covered End said:

I'm a few days behind, but in case not already posted -

Premium Bonds rates could rise after Rachel Reeves revealed she would need another £1bn from savers for the Treasury’s coffers.
The Chancellor said National Savings & Investments (NS&I), which administers Premium Bonds and other savings products, would be required to raise between £13bn and £17bn from savers this year, rather than the £12bn target it had previously been set.

Cant see how raising the prize money is going to give the Exchequer more money. Surely that means more outflows....not inflow. People don't "invest" into PB's because the prize money has gone up, they "invest" bevause it's safe & its tax free. The layman wouldnt have a clue how much the prizes are anyway.

Rob7Lee · December 5

golfaddick said:

Covered End said:

Covered End said:

I'm a few days behind, but in case not already posted -

Premium Bonds rates could rise after Rachel Reeves revealed she would need another £1bn from savers for the Treasury’s coffers.
The Chancellor said National Savings & Investments (NS&I), which administers Premium Bonds and other savings products, would be required to raise between £13bn and £17bn from savers this year, rather than the £12bn target it had previously been set.

Cant see how raising the prize money is going to give the Exchequer more money. Surely that means more outflows....not inflow. People don't "invest" into PB's because the prize money has gone up, they "invest" bevause it's safe & its tax free. The layman wouldnt have a clue how much the prizes are anyway.

If it attracts enough new money? I assume they make a turn on my cash!?! Maybe a slightly lower turn but on 17bn not 12bn means more money. I put my absolute faith in Rachel from accounts abacus

Covered End · December 5

golfaddick said:

Covered End said:

Covered End said:

I'm a few days behind, but in case not already posted -

Premium Bonds rates could rise after Rachel Reeves revealed she would need another £1bn from savers for the Treasury’s coffers.
The Chancellor said National Savings & Investments (NS&I), which administers Premium Bonds and other savings products, would be required to raise between £13bn and £17bn from savers this year, rather than the £12bn target it had previously been set.

Cant see how raising the prize money is going to give the Exchequer more money. Surely that means more outflows....not inflow. People don't "invest" into PB's because the prize money has gone up, they "invest" bevause it's safe & its tax free. The layman wouldnt have a clue how much the prizes are anyway.

When people take out a National Savings product such as PSBs they are lending money to the Treasury/government.

If they put up the prize rate it will attract more money for them.

PragueAddick · December 5

A while ago @bobmunro made a quick comment that even money market/cash funds are not risk-fee. Which I noted, but filed under "inconvenient truths". Today in the FT the deliberately controversial punter-commentator Stuart Kirk has expanded on that, prompting some very interesting BTL comments.

So it's good to note that (and I didn't see anyone make much of this here) the bank deposit guarantee level has been quietly raised from 85k to 120k. (It will be interesting to see if Europe follows suit, so far I have seen not a whisper on it)

The question is, if you use these funds long term, as I am now doing, maybe it's worth de-risking further and switching some of those funds into banks like Charter Savings. You lose maybe 0.5% in returns by doing so, but your wedge will be protected by the government.

If you can't read the article, Stuart Kirk sold all his £650k holdings in equity funds (!) and stuck it in one money market fund, Fidelity Cash, and only after he did it, decided to see what Fidelity Cash really holds. Answer: it ain't cash, not as we know it.

valleynick66 · December 6

PragueAddick said:

A while ago @bobmunro made a quick comment that even money market/cash funds are not risk-fee. Which I noted, but filed under "inconvenient truths". Today in the FT the deliberately controversial punter-commentator Stuart Kirk has expanded on that, prompting some very interesting BTL comments.

So it's good to note that (and I didn't see anyone make much of this here) the bank deposit guarantee level has been quietly raised from 85k to 120k. (It will be interesting to see if Europe follows suit, so far I have seen not a whisper on it)

The question is, if you use these funds long term, as I am now doing, maybe it's worth de-risking further and switching some of those funds into banks like Charter Savings. You lose maybe 0.5% in returns by doing so, but your wedge will be protected by the government.

If you can't read the article, Stuart Kirk sold all his £650k holdings in equity funds (!) and stuck it in one money market fund, Fidelity Cash, and only after he did it, decided to see what Fidelity Cash really holds. Answer: it ain't cash, not as we know it.

So one way of looking at the maths on this is you can move an extra £35k into the safety net of FSCS but lose 0.5% of gain.

That’s about £175 than prior to December when the limit changed.

I’m not sure I see why that sum would be the deciding factor?

Isn’t this really that the money market funds are not as close to cash as you might have thought and really the change in the FSCS limit is just an aside - the overall risk is greater than the 0.5% benefit is really the concern?

redman · December 7

cantersaddick said:

Slightly tangential but related. I've been digging into the ONS stats on migration and emigration. It seems for all the talk of millionaire exits the issue that has gone unmentioned is the young people brain drain leaving for better opportunities and quality of life. There has been a massive exit of young workers (mostly degree and above educated) particularly those aged 16 to 34, who accounted for two-thirds of all departing Britons in the last Financial Year.

We should be terrified of the brain drain. It's certainly reflected in my life. Of my uni friends around half have left. My wife's Cambridge friend group there's only 4 left with more than 20 plus partners now abroad. Her masters is about half. If the brightest and best are leaving for a better life and we have an ageing population we are storing up even more problems.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2024

Wow. I find this extremely troublesome. I couldn't see the two-thirds figure mentioned or analysed in the link but the real question is why. I could make some guesses, but is any analysis ever done on this?

redman · December 7

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Leuth said:

I have nothing but respect for those who have grafted to get where they are. I too believe in working to live, and there being dignity in all work.

What I'm saying is that even these grafts are less available now. You don't just get a job at a market or a shift at the paper mill by walking along and asking (I got a summer job at Brewer's once by doing this but that was in 2005). Job applications are a terrible whirl of automated responses and rejection. If you still somehow secure a dogsbody job it won't earn enough to cover much of anything (my brother is ongoingly experiencing this and only stays out of trouble cos he lives with our folks aged nearly 35).

Fair play to those of you who grafted, but I would say, you had the clarity of knowing graft would help you prevail. Young people now don't know that, I'd argue

Can't argue with a lot of what you are saying.
I have a daughter of 35 and a son who's 33 and im well aware of what it's like nowadays.
My point was that in order to get anywhere in life you have to be prepared to work for it regardless of when you were born.

Agree with that. My point is its a minority who don't want to work. And that work alone is not always enough now, as demonstrated by the large numbers of people in work still in poverty orneeding state support.

Define 'poverty' though. I'm not sure we all have the same interpretation of that word. As i don't believe all those to benefit from the cap changes are currently unable to food & clothe their children/ themselves.

Poverty is defined as living in a household earning less than half the median income. But that's not the full picture. It's actually a measure of spread. So what you need to do is track what is happening to the median (it has barely moved for a decade), how many people are below the threshold, how far from the threshold they are and what proportion is vulnerable groups (children, elderly disabled etc.). All of them have consistently worsened for more than a decade. I produced the 2015/16 child poverty stats so I did know this stuff inside out.

As for whether they can feed their children here is a selection of articles from the last few year covering research into this exact issue. Children going to school hungry is the biggest single determinant of educational outcomes and therefore future participation in the labour market. Not doing thisbis the definition of false economy.

So isn't a tool to tackle child poverty to give them breakfast at school? Would seem more effective than child benefit where the money can be spent on anything the parent desires.

cantersaddick · December 8

redman said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Leuth said:

I have nothing but respect for those who have grafted to get where they are. I too believe in working to live, and there being dignity in all work.

What I'm saying is that even these grafts are less available now. You don't just get a job at a market or a shift at the paper mill by walking along and asking (I got a summer job at Brewer's once by doing this but that was in 2005). Job applications are a terrible whirl of automated responses and rejection. If you still somehow secure a dogsbody job it won't earn enough to cover much of anything (my brother is ongoingly experiencing this and only stays out of trouble cos he lives with our folks aged nearly 35).

Fair play to those of you who grafted, but I would say, you had the clarity of knowing graft would help you prevail. Young people now don't know that, I'd argue

Can't argue with a lot of what you are saying.
I have a daughter of 35 and a son who's 33 and im well aware of what it's like nowadays.
My point was that in order to get anywhere in life you have to be prepared to work for it regardless of when you were born.

Agree with that. My point is its a minority who don't want to work. And that work alone is not always enough now, as demonstrated by the large numbers of people in work still in poverty orneeding state support.

Define 'poverty' though. I'm not sure we all have the same interpretation of that word. As i don't believe all those to benefit from the cap changes are currently unable to food & clothe their children/ themselves.

Poverty is defined as living in a household earning less than half the median income. But that's not the full picture. It's actually a measure of spread. So what you need to do is track what is happening to the median (it has barely moved for a decade), how many people are below the threshold, how far from the threshold they are and what proportion is vulnerable groups (children, elderly disabled etc.). All of them have consistently worsened for more than a decade. I produced the 2015/16 child poverty stats so I did know this stuff inside out.

As for whether they can feed their children here is a selection of articles from the last few year covering research into this exact issue. Children going to school hungry is the biggest single determinant of educational outcomes and therefore future participation in the labour market. Not doing thisbis the definition of false economy.

So isn't a tool to tackle child poverty to give them breakfast at school? Would seem more effective than child benefit where the money can be spent on anything the parent desires.

Absolutely. If you've seen me posting on here at all you'll know that I'm a massive advocate for provision of basic services. Including things like public transport and breakfast and lunch at school should be free for all children. There will always be some things that only the parent can purchase on behalf of the child so I don't think you can get rid of child benefit but provision of basic services could remove a lot of the need.

Slightly off topic but relevant to previous chats on the benefit changes. Despite the 2 child benefit cap being lifted the overall benefit cap thay caps the amount that can be claimed is still in place so I think some of the case studies/ figures quoted on here would not be able to happen in practice due to hitting the benefit cap.

https://www.gov.uk/benefit-cap

cantersaddick · December 8

redman said:

cantersaddick said:

Slightly tangential but related. I've been digging into the ONS stats on migration and emigration. It seems for all the talk of millionaire exits the issue that has gone unmentioned is the young people brain drain leaving for better opportunities and quality of life. There has been a massive exit of young workers (mostly degree and above educated) particularly those aged 16 to 34, who accounted for two-thirds of all departing Britons in the last Financial Year.

We should be terrified of the brain drain. It's certainly reflected in my life. Of my uni friends around half have left. My wife's Cambridge friend group there's only 4 left with more than 20 plus partners now abroad. Her masters is about half. If the brightest and best are leaving for a better life and we have an ageing population we are storing up even more problems.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2024

Wow. I find this extremely troublesome. I couldn't see the two-thirds figure mentioned or analysed in the link but the real question is why. I could make some guesses, but is any analysis ever done on this?

The independent has done a lot of analysis on it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/starmer-migration-young-people-b2874423.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gen-z-emigration-young-people-move-abroad-b2877134.html

Country of destination showing the most popular to be Australia, Canada, Spain, Scandinavian countries and Portugal. All of whom have similar or higher tax regimes than us. So suggests tax isn't a key factor.

From my experience with friends and me and my wife considering it over the last year or so (ended up turning down a job on a Pacific island!). Its a whole load of factors. Low pay compared to many other conparable countries, much higher cost of living. Unaffordability of housing. Cost of childcare, commute time and poor work life balance mean its hard to be part of you'd kids lives (multiple friends and family working so hard just to cover childcare costs have said if work is busy it's very possible or even likely to not see their young kids for the whole work week), joint worst paternity leave in Europe, poor public services provision, massive inequality meaning that for most people it doesn't feel like you're living in a "rich" country. Low state pension provision. Record low disposable income. And that's before you get to crime, racism, weather and the rise of the far right (all mentioned in the independent research). For someone in their 20s and 30s, especially one looking to start a family quality of life is better in so many other countries.

The key thing being that for all of these factors and more, things aren't getting better and its hard to see them getting better. In fact in lots of ways it looks likely they're only gonna get worse.

Personally If we wanted kids we would have already gone. My wife has worked in Geneva before and despite being much more junior (in a famously expensive city) she had a much higher quality of life, more disposable income and better work/life balance.

Rob7Lee · December 8

cantersaddick said:

redman said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Leuth said:

I have nothing but respect for those who have grafted to get where they are. I too believe in working to live, and there being dignity in all work.

What I'm saying is that even these grafts are less available now. You don't just get a job at a market or a shift at the paper mill by walking along and asking (I got a summer job at Brewer's once by doing this but that was in 2005). Job applications are a terrible whirl of automated responses and rejection. If you still somehow secure a dogsbody job it won't earn enough to cover much of anything (my brother is ongoingly experiencing this and only stays out of trouble cos he lives with our folks aged nearly 35).

Fair play to those of you who grafted, but I would say, you had the clarity of knowing graft would help you prevail. Young people now don't know that, I'd argue

Can't argue with a lot of what you are saying.
I have a daughter of 35 and a son who's 33 and im well aware of what it's like nowadays.
My point was that in order to get anywhere in life you have to be prepared to work for it regardless of when you were born.

Agree with that. My point is its a minority who don't want to work. And that work alone is not always enough now, as demonstrated by the large numbers of people in work still in poverty orneeding state support.

Define 'poverty' though. I'm not sure we all have the same interpretation of that word. As i don't believe all those to benefit from the cap changes are currently unable to food & clothe their children/ themselves.

Poverty is defined as living in a household earning less than half the median income. But that's not the full picture. It's actually a measure of spread. So what you need to do is track what is happening to the median (it has barely moved for a decade), how many people are below the threshold, how far from the threshold they are and what proportion is vulnerable groups (children, elderly disabled etc.). All of them have consistently worsened for more than a decade. I produced the 2015/16 child poverty stats so I did know this stuff inside out.

As for whether they can feed their children here is a selection of articles from the last few year covering research into this exact issue. Children going to school hungry is the biggest single determinant of educational outcomes and therefore future participation in the labour market. Not doing thisbis the definition of false economy.

So isn't a tool to tackle child poverty to give them breakfast at school? Would seem more effective than child benefit where the money can be spent on anything the parent desires.

Absolutely. If you've seen me posting on here at all you'll know that I'm a massive advocate for provision of basic services. Including things like public transport and breakfast and lunch at school should be free for all children. There will always be some things that only the parent can purchase on behalf of the child so I don't think you can get rid of child benefit but provision of basic services could remove a lot of the need.

Slightly off topic but relevant to previous chats on the benefit changes. Despite the 2 child benefit cap being lifted the overall benefit cap thay caps the amount that can be claimed is still in place so I think some of the case studies/ figures quoted on here would not be able to happen in practice due to hitting the benefit cap.

https://www.gov.uk/benefit-cap

Free school lunch is already there for Primary age (in London, most of the country has the standard years Reception - 2 free). If you are in receipt of the free school meals benefit you can also get this in the holidays (which is why it is important for a number of reasons that parents still apply). Buses (and trams) are also free, think trains may have small charge from a certain age (used to be £1).

The problem with breakfast is as much about time as anything as currently the school day timing doesn't include breakfast and/or tea/dinner. Opening earlier would also come with additional staff costs.

If it could be made to work i'd be an advocate of it, but in reality not everyone would use it, and not necessarily the one's who need it, those in my wife's class who do are usually the ones turning up half an hour late as it is! Plus in the current climate funding it would be a major stumbling block i'm sure, even if you cut certain benefits to allow for it, it wouldn't be anywhere near enough funding.

Savings and Investments thread

Comments

Categories