Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Rubbish Rates Of Interest
17 Answers
I truly believe that now the Government’s Treasury has spent billions of pounds to protect the populace during the pandemic and as it is nowhere near over yet,will very likely be spending several billions more . And like the outcome of the credit crunch era, will lead to the collapse of several banks
So for safety l intend to move larger amounts into “safe” accounts so as to stay within the £85000 rule. Can any A.B ‘er out there tell me is there ANY Bank , Anywhere in this WORLD that pays MORE than 1/2...1% ??? How about investing in a barrel of Scotch whisky ?? Grateful for all answers.
So for safety l intend to move larger amounts into “safe” accounts so as to stay within the £85000 rule. Can any A.B ‘er out there tell me is there ANY Bank , Anywhere in this WORLD that pays MORE than 1/2...1% ??? How about investing in a barrel of Scotch whisky ?? Grateful for all answers.
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
bobinwales: "For me the £85000 protection thing is there just to give an illusion of security but really if any major bank went bust my guess is they'd all go under and no goverment could really repay us " - bang on, I've said as much on here before. The government would not allow a major high st bank to collapse the prospect is to horrific to contemplate. If that...
11:02 Fri 05th Mar 2021
1.25% on 5-year traditional fixed-term accounts, or 1.4% on a 5-year sharia fixed-term account:
https:/
https:/
The whisky investment might not be such a bad idea ;-)
https:/
https:/
^^^ The current prize rate on Premium Bonds is only 1%, Bhg481:
https:/
https:/
>>> could you walk us through how that might happen?
TTT:
I suspect that Dinger2 is remembering that the 2007/2008 banking crisis came about because banks had been lending money to people who would struggle to pay it back and, when times got worse for them, simply defaulted on the loans (probably by applying for bankruptcy), thus leaving the banks without sufficient reserves to cover their losses.
The banks have, of course been lending loads of money during the Covid crisis, and quite a few of those who've taken on personal loans or borrowed money on credit cards may well end up defaulting through bankruptcy, but there are some big differences between 2008 and now:
Firstly, some of the loans (such as Bounce Back loans for businesses) have 100% guarantees from the Government anyway. Secondly, since the 2007/2008 crisis, banks have been required to substantially increase their reserves. Thirdly, since 2007/2008 banks have been required to carry out far more stringent checks on the ability of lenders to repay their loans before lending anything to them. Lastly, even if some banks do find their reserves are insufficient to cover their losses, governments don't like to see High Street banks going bust because of the effects on the economy (and, probably more important to them, the effect on the number of votes that they'll get in the next election). That's why the Government stepped in to save High Street lenders in 2008 and why, no doubt, they'd be forced to do the same again if any bank was struggling to stay afloat.
So I don't share Dinger2's pessimism about the future of UK banks.
TTT:
I suspect that Dinger2 is remembering that the 2007/2008 banking crisis came about because banks had been lending money to people who would struggle to pay it back and, when times got worse for them, simply defaulted on the loans (probably by applying for bankruptcy), thus leaving the banks without sufficient reserves to cover their losses.
The banks have, of course been lending loads of money during the Covid crisis, and quite a few of those who've taken on personal loans or borrowed money on credit cards may well end up defaulting through bankruptcy, but there are some big differences between 2008 and now:
Firstly, some of the loans (such as Bounce Back loans for businesses) have 100% guarantees from the Government anyway. Secondly, since the 2007/2008 crisis, banks have been required to substantially increase their reserves. Thirdly, since 2007/2008 banks have been required to carry out far more stringent checks on the ability of lenders to repay their loans before lending anything to them. Lastly, even if some banks do find their reserves are insufficient to cover their losses, governments don't like to see High Street banks going bust because of the effects on the economy (and, probably more important to them, the effect on the number of votes that they'll get in the next election). That's why the Government stepped in to save High Street lenders in 2008 and why, no doubt, they'd be forced to do the same again if any bank was struggling to stay afloat.
So I don't share Dinger2's pessimism about the future of UK banks.
I put it in premium bonds, I win a small prize regularly and I'm in with a chance of a big prize. Capital un touched, I reinvest the prizes. Better than the paltry rates you get at banks et al where you have to switch every 5 minutes or they wack you on 0.001 and hope you don't notice. Doing a rough calc I earned approx 1.25% in the last 12 months. Not the best but I don't even think about it. There's a home for 60k for you.
bobinwales: "For me the £85000 protection thing is there just to give an illusion of security but really if any major bank went bust my guess is they'd all go under and no goverment could really repay us " - bang on, I've said as much on here before. The government would not allow a major high st bank to collapse the prospect is to horrific to contemplate. If that happened everyone would try and withdraw from all financial institutions and they would collapse like dominoes because they ain't actually got it. Civil unrest martial law, state of emergency, human stupidity would put us back to the dark ages. If it ever got to that stage money would be worthless anyway.
1 to 17 of 17
