Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Savings and Investments thread
Comments
-
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.PragueAddick said:
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.bobmunro said:
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!PragueAddick said:Grumpy question of the day.
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?
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.1 -
You can always pay for a chaps payment instead of using faster payment0
-
Exactly. "Should". Forgive my cynicism...bobmunro said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.bobmunro said:
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!PragueAddick said:Grumpy question of the day.
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?
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.
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.0 -
Safe guard against fraud mostly. If you want to move more a phone call will normally suffice.PragueAddick said:Grumpy question of the day.
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?
Yes all treated same.1 -
Nonsense. There was a lot of negative outcry when the 'contactless' limit was upped from £45(?) and scaremongering of risk to customers.PragueAddick said:
Exactly. "Should". Forgive my cynicism...bobmunro said:
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.PragueAddick said:
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.bobmunro said:
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!PragueAddick said:Grumpy question of the day.
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?
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.
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.
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.4 -
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.valleynick66 said:
Safe guard against fraud mostly. If you want to move more a phone call will normally suffice.PragueAddick said:Grumpy question of the day.
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?
Yes all treated same.
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.0 -
General question.
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.He,s looking to transfer the £1200 from Aviva to L&G.Does he need to get Aviva or L&G to action this ?Anybody had previous experience ?0 -
Yes I work in Financial Services.PragueAddick said:
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.valleynick66 said:
Safe guard against fraud mostly. If you want to move more a phone call will normally suffice.PragueAddick said:Grumpy question of the day.
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?
Yes all treated same.
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.
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 lower4 -
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 🙄.0
-
@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.0 - Sponsored links:
-
wow, something has spooked the market just now.
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.1 -
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😢golfaddick said:wow, something has spooked the market just now.
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.0 -
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)?
0 -
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.CafcWest said: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)?
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.0 -
I've held Lloyds shares for 20 years and am still waiting for a good time to sell.
Hope that helps.1 -
It went back up to where it had fallen from.golfaddick said:wow, something has spooked the market just now.
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.
FTSE 100 closed 6850 up 0.35%.0 -
As I said in my post I used Lloyds Bank as an example (as they've fallen a lot). I hold shares in 24 different companies spread across several sectors. I also have money in about 15 different funds - but I like playing around with individual shares taking an occasional punt - some pay off and some don't most are a few hundred pounds worth to a few thousand. Just wanted a general pointer to if now looks a good time to buy (generally)...golfaddick said:
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.CafcWest said: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)?
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.0 -
@CafcWest
If I understood your question correctly, you’re thinking about adding different equities, rather than more Lloyds as Golfie thought. Certainly if I were you I would follow his general advice to diversify by buying funds rather than individual stocks. That will allow you to diversify by business sector, and by region. The other thing that many of us are fans of, is buying regularly each month rather than trying to guess the market. Having said that, whether right now is a good time to start, is an open question. I’ve been dipping in for several months, but right now I think I’m going to pause at least until November to see how things pan out. There are risks the like of which we haven’t really been dealing with before. But I am into retirement so I need to be more cautious than somebody younger about buying stuff whose value can fall. I seem to have been spending a lot of time in the last few weeks scouring the cash deposits options, rather than funds and shares. If you can get 5% guaranteed on a fixed deposit, which I think will come soon on the British market, I think there’s a strong argument for having some of that with money you might otherwise put into funds. But I’m sure others will have a different viewpoint.0 -
Thanks @PragueAddick. Yes - spot on in terms of not Lloyds - just generally. I am in retirement and, funnily enough a few years back closed my S Widows pension and moved into an HL SIPP - buying funds recommended on here by you, Golfie and others at the time. Did very well too...until just recently...but I also like to dabble in equities not on a regular trading front - just to sit on for capital growth. Never risk much and, like you, have moved some back into cash and 1 year savings accounts around the 4.5%. Just trying to tease out some pointers on individual shares to buy...but agree funds seem a better bet generally. Some years back I bought shares in a hydrogen producing company based on an article in the Times for £600 and sold them 16 years later for £12,000 - that's what I'm looking for again?! Yes I know....PragueAddick said:@CafcWest
If I understood your question correctly, you’re thinking about adding different equities, rather than more Lloyds as Golfie thought. Certainly if I were you I would follow his general advice to diversify by buying funds rather than individual stocks. That will allow you to diversify by business sector, and by region. The other thing that many of us are fans of, is buying regularly each month rather than trying to guess the market. Having said that, whether right now is a good time to start, is an open question. I’ve been dipping in for several months, but right now I think I’m going to pause at least until November to see how things pan out. There are risks the like of which we haven’t really been dealing with before. But I am into retirement so I need to be more cautious than somebody younger about buying stuff whose value can fall. I seem to have been spending a lot of time in the last few weeks scouring the cash deposits options, rather than funds and shares. If you can get 5% guaranteed on a fixed deposit, which I think will come soon on the British market, I think there’s a strong argument for having some of that with money you might otherwise put into funds. But I’m sure others will have a different viewpoint.0 -
Ditto my Barclays shares, some of which used to be £8 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️Covered End said:I've held Lloyds shares for 20 years and am still waiting for a good time to sell.
Hope that helps.0 - Sponsored links:
-
I sold the last of my Barclays shares a few years ago (thank gawd).TelMc32 said:
Ditto my Barclays shares, some of which used to be £8 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️Covered End said:I've held Lloyds shares for 20 years and am still waiting for a good time to sell.
Hope that helps.0 -
At least they’ve started dividends again. Those and some from my other shares, particularly Glencore, are definitely worth having at the moment.Covered End said:
I sold the last of my Barclays shares a few years ago (thank gawd).TelMc32 said:
Ditto my Barclays shares, some of which used to be £8 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️Covered End said:I've held Lloyds shares for 20 years and am still waiting for a good time to sell.
Hope that helps.1 -
Don’t mean to give the impression there is not a crisis, but challenge the message that the B of E intervention was primarily to save pension funds when the far bigger risk is a collapse of the UK debt market and hyper inflation.PragueAddick said:
Again I dont remotely challenge your overall superior knowledge of the underlying issues, but again the noise from the BoE this morning doesnt sound reassuring to me. After establishing that Amol Rajan was not presenting I listened to the Today prog who offered several knowledgeable commentators, including an ex BoE board member. The consensus seems to be that 1) the markets dont buy the KamiKwazi package, and will not until full workings are provided- and that ińcludes specifics on exactly where the inevitable budget savings will be found. 2) the markets didnt like the time limit the BoE put on the initial support package, hence its panic button pressing this morning.Dippenhall said:Pensions crisis - What crisis?
From Reuters:
The BoE has so far offered to buy up to 40 billion pounds' worth of gilts but has only bought about 5 billion pounds.
So much for "bailing out" pension funds to the tune of £65bn
I don’t like the look of Bailey at all. I would sack him and bring in another “foreign coach”. The most obvious candidate would be Mario -whatever it takes - Draghi😉
Pension funds could just refuse to pay the collateral they were asked to pay and cancel the LDI contract. In which case the potential losers would be the investment intermediaries acting as quasi banks.
Pension payments are made from bonds bought in the past whose maturity dates match the dates when pensions must be paid, so bond prices are irrelevant as there is no sale occurring. It’s the cash to be raised for collateral that requires assets to be sold - because the margins thought adequate didn’t foresee a mad Chancellor running amok.Faced with the choice of paying collateral or paying pensions the latter will take priority. Also, the employer’s liability to fund pension obligations has not been suspended. Finally, I understand collateral could be provided by lending the assets instead of selling them.Just like the Sub Prime Mortgage failure, participants in LDI focused on counter party risk and didn’t price unquantified risks of illiquidity in the market.2 -
You seem to have fallen into the trap of of an emotive rather than balanced consideration because of your perceived lack of service from your bank.PragueAddick said:@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.I fully acknowledge your perception is your reality.However I’d just remind that you are actually getting access to a very effective and efficient payment system at no cost (you may pay a fee for your account but this service is free). The rare scenario you feel a victim of is an infrequent event and atypical. There is always the option of calling your bank to navigate around on these odd occasions.The limit will inevitably rise in time but will only do do when consumers are ready and the banks are confident the bad guys (the minority always spoil it for the majority) can be kept at bay. I cite again the sceptical views on contactless limits being increased.It will rise in due course I have no doubt.Broadly most retail customers get a free service and ease of transacting far removed from the days of limited opening hours / paper cheques and account fees. The service is actually very good for most as it’s become so well automated / self serviced.1 -
Watching the News & Newsnight earlier I get the feeling that the markets are expecting another U turn, either tomorrow or over the weekend. Looks like reversing the Corporation Tax reduction (or just not putting it up as Rishi had planned in his last Budget) is the most favoured outcome. If that doesnt happen & Truss keeps with the Thatcher mantra of being not for turning then the markets will slide again.Covered End said:
It went back up to where it had fallen from.golfaddick said:wow, something has spooked the market just now.
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.
FTSE 100 closed 6850 up 0.35%.
Also, I'm not so sure that the BOE will stop their buying of Bonds tomorrow. They may try, but the market might once again go into freefall (or in terms if interest rates, rapid rise)......as they say, you cant buck the market.1 -
For those buying shares, IMHO you need to know when to sell! I've probably bought and sold Barclays and Lloyds 10-15 times in the last 5 years, sometimes hanging on to get your money back is false economy.1
-
I've likely bought & sold Barclays & Lloyds shares about 30 times over the years, but I'm left with some Lloyds that I kinda plan to sell at @60p, but every time they edge towards 50p they fall back again.Rob7Lee said:For those buying shares, IMHO you need to know when to sell! I've probably bought and sold Barclays and Lloyds 10-15 times in the last 5 years, sometimes hanging on to get your money back is false economy.0 -
Rob7Lee said:For those buying shares, IMHO you need to know when to sell! I've probably bought and sold Barclays and Lloyds 10-15 times in the last 5 years, sometimes hanging on to get your money back is false economy.
A little difficult in my position @Rob7Lee as I always had to apply through Compliance to be allowed to sell (the purchases were only ever through SAYE or SharePurchase schemes). The paperwork was a ball ache and Compliance sometimes forgot your request and eventually got back to you 2 weeks later. You however, only then had 48 hours to action your request or start the process all over again.No such restrictions on me anymore & just moving them to a single broker to make everything easier.0 -
Chase have just announced they are uping the Chase Saver Rate from 1.5% to 2.1%...think they were at risk of people moving their savings...2
-
Dont know if this is the right thread,my son has a property in Old Farm Road Finchley,he is trying to sell this but every buyer he gets has their mortgage application declined,has anyone on here got any inside knowledge of why this might be.0
