|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 2, 2023 9:18:56 GMT
Yay £1,100 today, my biggest win ever! well done you ! (or rather Well done Ernie, and congratulations to you !) I had only £75, but I reduced my holding to £25k. My father's account was £150, on £44k.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildlife2 on Sept 2, 2023 9:35:28 GMT
Only £150 for me this month.
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Sept 2, 2023 9:43:48 GMT
Yay £1,100 today, my biggest win ever! 50k at 6% pa is 250pm so take the next 3 months off. Spare a thought for all those who keep the average payout level at 4.65%.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 1,214
|
Post by travolta on Sept 2, 2023 10:01:46 GMT
£100 for me £200 for 1/2 £80,000 combined investment . Still consoling ourselves on the £10,000 win the other year (which one? memory shot). Reinvested my £100. Bought a lotto ticket for tonight ..... I do the Postcode Lottery too .... well it doesn't cost anything  |
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,048 
Likes: 4,438
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 2, 2023 10:24:51 GMT
Went onto the NS&I website and opened the prize history section. When I looked at the 'draw date' I was disappointed to see only one entry for September. However, when I looked accross to the prize value column it was £500.
It's a fickle business investing in premium bonds. One of my £10k blocks went for 9 months without a win, and then a winner 3 months running.
|
|
starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 298 
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on Sept 2, 2023 10:27:33 GMT
Because I cannot tell anyone else £5,000 😮
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 2, 2023 11:47:16 GMT
Went onto the NS&I website and opened the prize history section. When I looked at the 'draw date' I was disappointed to see only one entry for September. However, when I looked accross to the prize value column it was £500.
It's a fickle business investing in premium bonds. One of my £10k blocks went for 9 months without a win, and then a winner 3 months running.
I have never even looked to see what bonds and which "blocks" were behind the prizes. The idea of being interested in that aspect is an entirely foreign country to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by geofft on Sept 2, 2023 13:03:16 GMT
Because I cannot tell anyone else £5,000 😮 Nice one! Although I now feel thoroughly miserable with my measly £175..... 
|
|
rscal
Posts: 985
Likes: 537
|
Post by rscal on Sept 2, 2023 13:40:10 GMT
I have never been into PBs b/c by definition you cannot reach their quoted average* since the Law of Averages (over time) will drag you back to whatever the effective mean payout is. This 'true mean' must exclude the very top tier prizes which distort the total fund value of prizes. So. in 1995, for instance, PBs were then quoting '5.2%' average whereas 98% (then £50 or £100) of all prizes available constituted only about three quarters of this - and thus for 98% of ALL prizewinners therefore the average payout was not '5.2%' but more like '3.9%'. Oh, how people don't like to hear this because - anecdotally at least - many can report strings of 'above average' rate of prize wins (NOT 'above average' prize values of course - they're all inline with that 98% chance covering ALL possible prizes) Inevitably this observation is weighted toward NEW investors experiencing 'non average' rates of winning b/c the Law of Averages requires time to settle in to reveal the true average. Rather than looking at the first 6 months in isolation, looking at the first 12, 18, 24 etc will expose this. Another way of thinking about this 'truth' is that by holding on to PBs for longer you "can't take your luck with you" and the longer you chance that luck the more your returns will be governed by whatever the 'true' average return is.
I assume the average payout has gone up significantly this year following base rate increases - meaning the prizes are now easier to win, or higher in value (or both) but, notice, you will only be tracking a losing position. The real winners here are the government, which succeeds in devaluing its debts.
(* I keep my £1 bond bought for me as a child as the best strategy.)
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 2, 2023 15:13:12 GMT
I have never been into PBs b/c by definition you cannot reach their quoted average* since the Law of Averages (over time) will drag you back to whatever the effective mean payout is. This 'true mean' must exclude the very top tier prizes which distort the total fund value of prizes. So. in 1995, for instance, PBs were then quoting '5.2%' average whereas 98% (then £50 or £100) of all prizes available constituted only about three quarters of this - and thus for 98% of ALL prizewinners therefore the average payout was not '5.2%' but more like '3.9%'. Oh, how people don't like to hear this because - anecdotally at least - many can report strings of 'above average' rate of prize wins (NOT 'above average' prize values of course - they're all inline with that 98% chance covering ALL possible prizes) Inevitably this observation is weighted toward NEW investors experiencing 'non average' rates of winning b/c the Law of Averages requires time to settle in to reveal the true average. Rather than looking at the first 6 months in isolation, looking at the first 12, 18, 24 etc will expose this. Another way of thinking about this 'truth' is that by holding on to PBs for longer you "can't take your luck with you" and the longer you chance that luck the more your returns will be governed by whatever the 'true' average return is. I assume the average payout has gone up significantly this year following base rate increases - meaning the prizes are now easier to win, or higher in value (or both) but, notice, you will only be tracking a losing position. The real winners here are the government, which succeeds in devaluing its debts. (* I keep my £1 bond bought for me as a child as the best strategy.) yeah, but its pretty easy to adjust for that. I've been doing so for years. The distribution of prizes within the total payout is published. For quite a long time now, the lowest value prizes (£25, 50, £100) have constituted 80% of the prize value (by design). I've not checked whether they have changed that in the very latest prize adjustment but I think they have not. So it is close to trivially easy to determine where your 'reasonable expectation' return should be providing you hold a decent size holding so that you stand a pretty guide chance of trending to the mean represented by the lower prize band awards only. Last time I checked (but I think that was before the very latest adjustment) the headline rate was 4%, therefore the reasonable expected mean return was 3.2%. Tax free of course. So equivalent to 4% for anyone who pays tax on their savings return, and 5.3% if you are in the higher rate tax band. For what amounts to an instant account with anywhere between 1 and 31 days interest penalty. Whether that is attractive or not depend on the individual of course.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,048
Likes: 4,438
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 2, 2023 15:43:56 GMT
I have never been into PBs b/c by definition you cannot reach their quoted average* since the Law of Averages (over time) will drag you back to whatever the effective mean payout is. This 'true mean' must exclude the very top tier prizes which distort the total fund value of prizes. So. in 1995, for instance, PBs were then quoting '5.2%' average whereas 98% (then £50 or £100) of all prizes available constituted only about three quarters of this - and thus for 98% of ALL prizewinners therefore the average payout was not '5.2%' but more like '3.9%'. Oh, how people don't like to hear this because - anecdotally at least - many can report strings of 'above average' rate of prize wins (NOT 'above average' prize values of course - they're all inline with that 98% chance covering ALL possible prizes) Inevitably this observation is weighted toward NEW investors experiencing 'non average' rates of winning b/c the Law of Averages requires time to settle in to reveal the true average. Rather than looking at the first 6 months in isolation, looking at the first 12, 18, 24 etc will expose this. Another way of thinking about this 'truth' is that by holding on to PBs for longer you "can't take your luck with you" and the longer you chance that luck the more your returns will be governed by whatever the 'true' average return is. I assume the average payout has gone up significantly this year following base rate increases - meaning the prizes are now easier to win, or higher in value (or both) but, notice, you will only be tracking a losing position. The real winners here are the government, which succeeds in devaluing its debts. (* I keep my £1 bond bought for me as a child as the best strategy.) While the average investor may not achieve average returns, it is clearly incorrect to say that nobody can. For example, if you have £50k invested and win the £1m prize, you will remain above average returns for over 400 years.
As a seperate thought, why don't NS&I do away with premium bonds and monthly draws, and simply make it a 4.65% tax free instant access account. People would be queuing up to invest.
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,808
Likes: 3,242
Member is Online
|
Post by jonno on Sept 2, 2023 15:54:13 GMT
I have never been into PBs b/c by definition you cannot reach their quoted average* since the Law of Averages (over time) will drag you back to whatever the effective mean payout is. This 'true mean' must exclude the very top tier prizes which distort the total fund value of prizes. So. in 1995, for instance, PBs were then quoting '5.2%' average whereas 98% (then £50 or £100) of all prizes available constituted only about three quarters of this - and thus for 98% of ALL prizewinners therefore the average payout was not '5.2%' but more like '3.9%'. Oh, how people don't like to hear this because - anecdotally at least - many can report strings of 'above average' rate of prize wins (NOT 'above average' prize values of course - they're all inline with that 98% chance covering ALL possible prizes) Inevitably this observation is weighted toward NEW investors experiencing 'non average' rates of winning b/c the Law of Averages requires time to settle in to reveal the true average. Rather than looking at the first 6 months in isolation, looking at the first 12, 18, 24 etc will expose this. Another way of thinking about this 'truth' is that by holding on to PBs for longer you "can't take your luck with you" and the longer you chance that luck the more your returns will be governed by whatever the 'true' average return is. I assume the average payout has gone up significantly this year following base rate increases - meaning the prizes are now easier to win, or higher in value (or both) but, notice, you will only be tracking a losing position. The real winners here are the government, which succeeds in devaluing its debts. (* I keep my £1 bond bought for me as a child as the best strategy.) While the average investor may not achieve average returns, it is clearly incorrect to say that nobody can. For example, if you have £50k invested and win the £1m prize, you will remain above average returns for over 400 years.
As a seperate thought, why don't NS&I do away with premium bonds and monthly draws, and simply make it a 4.65% tax free instant access account. People would be queuing up to invest.
Well thank you Dr Fun! 
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 2, 2023 16:17:43 GMT
I have never been into PBs b/c by definition you cannot reach their quoted average* since the Law of Averages (over time) will drag you back to whatever the effective mean payout is. This 'true mean' must exclude the very top tier prizes which distort the total fund value of prizes. So. in 1995, for instance, PBs were then quoting '5.2%' average whereas 98% (then £50 or £100) of all prizes available constituted only about three quarters of this - and thus for 98% of ALL prizewinners therefore the average payout was not '5.2%' but more like '3.9%'. Oh, how people don't like to hear this because - anecdotally at least - many can report strings of 'above average' rate of prize wins (NOT 'above average' prize values of course - they're all inline with that 98% chance covering ALL possible prizes) Inevitably this observation is weighted toward NEW investors experiencing 'non average' rates of winning b/c the Law of Averages requires time to settle in to reveal the true average. Rather than looking at the first 6 months in isolation, looking at the first 12, 18, 24 etc will expose this. Another way of thinking about this 'truth' is that by holding on to PBs for longer you "can't take your luck with you" and the longer you chance that luck the more your returns will be governed by whatever the 'true' average return is. I assume the average payout has gone up significantly this year following base rate increases - meaning the prizes are now easier to win, or higher in value (or both) but, notice, you will only be tracking a losing position. The real winners here are the government, which succeeds in devaluing its debts. (* I keep my £1 bond bought for me as a child as the best strategy.) While the average investor may not achieve average returns, it is clearly incorrect to say that nobody can. For example, if you have £50k invested and win the £1m prize, you will remain above average returns for over 400 years.
As a seperate thought, why don't NS&I do away with premium bonds and monthly draws, and simply make it a 4.65% tax free instant access account. People would be queuing up to invest.
Possibly to do with their having to be doing something a bit different so as to not compete unfairly with the banks etc.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,048
Likes: 4,438
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 2, 2023 16:34:59 GMT
While the average investor may not achieve average returns, it is clearly incorrect to say that nobody can. For example, if you have £50k invested and win the £1m prize, you will remain above average returns for over 400 years.
As a seperate thought, why don't NS&I do away with premium bonds and monthly draws, and simply make it a 4.65% tax free instant access account. People would be queuing up to invest.
Possibly to do with their having to be doing something a bit different so as to not compete unfairly with the banks etc. The High Street banks need something to galvanise them into offering competitive rates.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Sept 2, 2023 17:03:21 GMT
Bunged my Premium Bonds £50K into Fundsmith and a few Vanguard Trackers. Smart move. I think.  ( I don't know anyone who has held the Max Premium Bonds for 5+ years and has ever come out ahead of basic savings interest.) |
|
