Jump to content

Recommended Posts

we're in a position where we are some way to saving money for a deposit on a house, a fortunate position I know. I'm an avid follower of Money Saving Expert and currently have the Santander 123 Accounts. After reading the blog about it on MSE it still seems the best option, when considering bank/savings accounts.


It now seems that the stock market is more lucrative, but I can't quite make my peace with the risk.


Is anyone else in this boat? Where are you putting your money?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/118997-where-to-save-money/
Share on other sites

As you're saving for something specific (deposit) you would be mad to put it in shares, so I think you're stuck with low rates.


Investments & Savings are different things, really.


I thinks savings accounts if you have spare cash are crap and then you should be thinking about investment BUT you are not you are saving for a deposit...stay with poor returns in a savings account

I would say premium bonds. The amount you "lose" in interest is so tiny compared to the amount you could win. My husband is self employed and saves a large amount every year to pay his tax. But the interest is miniscule, whatever account we put it in, and we only have the money for a maximum of 12 months. So premium bonds it is for us from now on.

DovertheRoad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've had ?1000 of premium bonds since birth in

> 1975...quite a lot of money back then....but not

> won any return on that in 41 years. However if id

> invested that in a bog standard low fee FTSE

> tracker....


That's extraordinarily unlucky, with normal luck you should have won between one and two grand by now - I've had ?50 worth since birth in 1968 and won ?300 with them (two separate prizes). Might be worth going on the Premium Bond website and checking your numbers against the unclaimed prizes, if at some point a change of address hasn't been notified then they'll still be holding your prize for you.

Sadly I've done just that rendel. I just checked them for the first time in 20 years. Still perhaps ?1m is due my way next month. At least it's a fun form of saving.


Back to the OP and I genuinely think keeping cash in a regular savings acct is a bad idea unless you are massively risk averse. You'll need to make 3% annually just to beat inflation and keep level. We have a real risk of negative interest rates (your bank charges you to hold yor savings) and house prices are still likely to rise by say 3% pa with continued cheap mortgages.


Equally there are no easy, fast gains in equities unless you have some kind of edge over the markets or are basically gambling.


So what to do? If you can loosen your risk profile slightly I would utilise ISAs to the full and perhaps get an online stocks and shares isa with someone like Hargreaves Landsdowne. Then spread your savings across a mix of low cost tracker funds, perhaps some guilts and keep some in cash (plenty cash only ISAs available). And I would take a long term view of min 5 years. Historically this strategy will beat savings accounts per that timeframe by some margin.

Yes I understand that. If they want a safe place to chuck in a few hundred quid a month they save them a savings account is the only option. But don't expect them to grow on deposit...they'll shrink in real terms and it's important the OP is aware of that.


I was assuming they'd want a modicum of growth....which involves taking some risk.

The Lloyd's monthly saver, is still decent. The rate recently dropped from 4% to 3% gross but in the current environment that's still decent. The max you can keep in there is 5k I think but between you and your partner that's an additional 10k and a decent gross interest rate. Also, for basic rate tax payers, the rules on tax of interest are changing (favorably) so might be better than many saving ISA's out there if either of you pay the basic rate of tax.


Trying to find a sensible place for savings in the current economic environment is a challenge even for professional investors so I'd say stick to what you are doing until you buy a place and then move towards longer term investing strategy incorporating more risk.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...