#3
Oh great. What an awful name for the product.



Investment bonds are life assurance investment products that can be held in an offshore arrangement on onshore. It is a risk based investment product.



So, when the NS&I and Treasury were sitting there thinking what name they should use for this fixed term deposit and thinking what would stand out and avoid confusion, they came up with a name that is already used for a risk based investment product.

#4
I agree Dunstonh they don't half result in confusion from people looking for a safe (or unsafe but potentially rewarding) home for their money!



A safe home for cash at a rate currently above the long term CPI target seems ok to me, especially with no announced restrictions on who can access it (i.e. Not just the over 65s or the under 40s).



The fact that it's £3k rather than £10k or more, means that folks can't moan that only the people who already have large amounts of cash will be able to take best advantage.



So, a rather inoffensive - if unspectacular - piece of help, once you get past the silly naming.

#7
At £66 pa it's about the same as buying one less cheap coffee a week so it won't shoot the lights out but I'll likely open one anyway because, well, why on earth not (once all the better alternatives have been exhausted)



No word on cashing in early as yet and I assume the interest is paid annually and retained within the account as per the 65+ 'bonds'

#8



If the rate is 2.2%, then you'll be able to get a maximum interest of £66 per year - so £196 over the three-year bond term


I make £66 X 3 = £198. More if the interest compounds.

#9



Oh great. What an awful name for the product.
Originally posted by dunstonh


Poor old NS&I. Perhaps their thinking was "Well last time we gave it a sensible name and then the world gave it a misleading one.* Let's cut out the middle man and give it a misleading one from the start"



*65+ Bond -> Pensioner Bond

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron