Barclays to make big change to bank accounts in DAYS impacting thousands of customers
BARCLAYS is to make a big change to bank accounts in days impacting thousands of customers.
The high street bank is lowering the rate on its Rainy Day Saver account for the second time in four months.
1
Customers are currently getting 4.87% interest on their Rainy Day Saver account.
The interest was previously set at 5.12%, but this was cut by the bank in February.
And now, on May 5, the interest is set to lower again to 4.61%.
It comes ahead of the Bank of England 's next interest decision on May 8.
Most economists are predicting that the rate will be cut next month down from its current figure of 4.5%, due to falling inflation.
The base rate is used by lenders to determine the interest rates offered to customers on savings and borrowing costs.
A base rate cut can mean that mortgage rates are lowered, which is good news for homeowners.
But savers can be left with the short end of the stick as the interest rate they earn on their savings can also drop.
At 4.61% the Barclays Rainy Day saver is still a pretty good option for savers.
It offers more than Close Brothers bank, which gives 4.45% on it easy access savings account.
Santander's £130 Million Recovery: What You Need to Know
But the figure is trumped by Chip bank who offer 4.75% on its easy access account.
It is also worth noting that in order to sign up for a Barclays Rainy Day account you must already be a premium account holder or sign up for Blue Rewards, which costs £5 a month.
Barclays blue rewards comes with a number of perks including free. Apple TV.
OTHER BANK CHANGES
Virgin Money will lower the interest rate on its M Plus Saver account by 0.25 percentage points on June 16.
Currently, customers benefit from an interest rate of 2.5% on savings up to £25,000.
For instance, if you have £5,000 in savings, you would earn £125 in interest over the course of a year.
However, once the rate drops to 2.25%, the same £5,000 savings will generate £112.50 in interest annually - £12.50 less than before.
For customers with savings exceeding £25,000, the current rate stands at 2%.
Chase also slashed the rate on its standard Saver account from 3.25% to 3%.
FINDING THE BEST SAVINGS RATES
WITH your current savings rates in mind, don't waste time looking at individual banking sites to compare rates - it'll take you an eternity.
Research price comparison websites such as MoneyFactsCompare.co.uk and MoneySupermarket.
These will help you save you time and show you the best rates available.
They also let you tailor your searches to an account type that suits you.
As a benchmark, you'll want to consider any account that currently pays more interest than the current level of inflation - 2%.
It's always wise to have some money stashed inside an easy-access savings account to ensure you have quick access to cash to deal with any emergencies like a boiler repair, for example.
If you're saving for a long-term goal, then consider locking some of your savings inside a fixed bond, as these usually come with the highest savings rates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
14 hours ago
- Times
‘No Carbon' Carney has left us high and dry
A bit like a sort of unreliable boyfriend. This, rather brilliantly, was the description of the record of the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, by the Labour MP Pat McFadden, then a member of the Treasury select committee. That was in 2014, when the handsome Canadian, hailed as the 'George Clooney of central banking', was just a year into his tenure. McFadden was not talking about Carney's personal life: it was a metaphor for his policy of interest rate 'forward guidance', which was proving no sort of guidance at all. It was all over the place. In one respect, however, there was complete consistency in Carney's record over seven years as this country's most powerful unelected figure. He determinedly used his position to push Britain's banks into defunding the oil and gas industry, on the grounds that man-made climate change was of primary importance, and that financial institutions should base their investment decisions on the proposition that 80 per cent of the planet's hydrocarbon reserves were 'un-burnable'. His wise predecessor, Mervyn King, questioned the decision to make fighting climate change part of the Bank of England's remit, arguing that it made 'absolutely no sense' to add 'net zero' to its responsibilities, and that the Bank should stick to its knitting (interest rates and price stability) and leave environmental policies to the politicians. However, after leaving the Bank in 2020, Carney stuck to his mission. Under the auspices of the UN, he set up the Net Zero Banking Alliance, co-opting a large number of the world's biggest banks, representing $74 trillion in assets, into basing their lending on the mission to achieve 'net zero by 2050'. This, combined with the Labour government's policies under Ed Miliband, has meant that, as one British oil company executive put it to me, 'Not a single UK bank will lend to the North Sea industry'. The Net Zero Banking Alliance, more recently, has suffered an exodus of its American members, which have fallen in line with Donald Trump's agenda (summarised as 'Drill, baby, drill'). But surely, now that Carney has at last achieved his ambition of becoming Canadian prime minister, he is using all the power of that position to fight the good fight. Er, no. One reason Carney actually won the recent election was that he pledged to scrap the 'carbon tax' implemented by Justin Trudeau, for which he had previously proselytised. In office Carney has kept that promise — and in recent weeks gone much further in the opposite direction to everything he did when Bank of England governor. He appointed as energy minister a man who was an executive of an oil exploration and production company in Alberta, the heart of Canada's vast hydrocarbon reserves. These are known as the Alberta oil sands, covering an area the size of England and described some years ago by National Geographic (not a fan) as 'the world's largest industrial project … Especially north of Fort McMurray, where the boreal forest has been razed and bitumen is mined from the ground in immense open pits, the blot on the landscape is incomparable.' Carney has relaxed the emission restrictions that hampered this development (among others) and declared two weeks ago that he wanted Canada to be 'an energy superpower … in both clean and conventional energies. And, yes, that does mean oil and gas. It means using our oil and gas here in Canada to displace imports wherever possible, particularly from the United States. It makes no sense to be sending that money south of the border or across the ocean, so, yes, it also means more oil and gas exports, without question.' • The oil-rich Canadian cowboys who want their own Brexit What accounts for this remarkable transformation? Pure political expediency. Trudeau's policy had been profoundly unpopular, and the Conservative candidate, Pierre Poilievre, constantly referred to 'carbon tax Carney'. So, shamelessly disowning his own previous advocacy, Carney dumped it. Then there were the idiotic threats from Trump to annex Canada. While that will 'never happen' (to quote Carney), the prospect of Albertan secession was less improbable, as that province had been sorely provoked by the ecologically motivated threats to its hydrocarbon industry. Canada as a whole could not afford such a secession, and immediately after Carney's election win, the premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, introduced a bill to make a referendum on the matter much simpler to implement. She simultaneously called on Carney to make various concessions, which 'must include abandoning the unconstitutional oil and gas production cap'. He got the message. It was no coincidence that, as host of last week's G7 summit, Carney chose to hold it in Alberta. In the final communiqué, the topic of climate change was barely mentioned. To put it mildly, this has confused those who deeply admired Carney, not least in this country, for his previously passionate campaigning against oil and gas investment. But when I asked someone who worked closely with the man at the Bank of England what had happened to his old boss, he laughed and said: 'I must have told you before that Mark is fundamentally a trader, and therefore prepared to adapt principles to circumstances.' This was partly a reference to the fact that Carney's career before becoming a central banker was at Goldman Sachs. But what does this mean for the UK, still thoroughly enmeshed by the net zero policies in which Carney played such a central role? As Brendan Long, a Canadian energy analyst, told The Daily Telegraph last week: 'It means that while Canada's oil and gas industry is ramping up production under Carney, the UK remains aligned with the anti-oil and gas ideology he promoted when he was governor of the Bank of England.' Although Ed Miliband has now indicated a reversal of his opposition to the development of two North Sea fields, known as Rosebank and Jackdaw, the government is keeping its radical policy of banning all new exploration; across the median line, Norway has declared it will be boosting its North Sea exploration and production to the highest level since 2010. The crazy point, which fits in with the government's target but not the national interest, is that if we buy Norwegian gas, it does not come out of our 'carbon budget', as administered by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Similarly, when we've shut down our entire domestic oil and gas operation and are buying the Canadian hydrocarbons that Carney is now so keen to boost, we will make the (unelected) Climate Change Committee — charged with setting our carbon budgets and invigilating our progress to purity — happy. Not so much the British voters, I fear, come our own general election in a few years' time.
Times
15 hours ago
- Times
Top of the pension pots: the best place for your Sipp
B arclays Smart Investor and Fidelity International have been crowned the top investment platforms for self-invested personal pensions (Sipps) by the consumer group Which?. Which? compared charges across 18 platforms for seven different sizes of pension pot, from £25,000 to £1 million. It also asked about 3,000 customersto rank firms on their customer service and value for money. Sipps give savers control over how their retirement savings are invested, with a broad range of options to invest in, including regulated and unregulated products. Since their introduction in 1989, Sipps have soared in popularity, particularly since 2015, when it became possible to leave your pension money invested after you retire. The Financial Conduct Authority, the City regulator, said more than 1.7 million people held a total of £205 billion in Sipps in 2023.
Daily Mail
19 hours ago
- Daily Mail
HAMISH MCRAE: Rising inflation leaving those with the least paying the most
Let's be honest. We're going to get a lot more inflation. Why? Two reasons. First, Rachel Reeves and the rest of this Government secretly quite welcome it. Second, the Bank of England isn't strong enough to tackle the scourge, even though that is its most important job. If you think that is too cynical, look at the evidence of the past few days. We had inflation figures showing that the Consumer Price Index, the CPI, was running at 3.4 per cent. It's bad enough that this is way above the Bank's 2 per cent target, but dig deeper and the numbers get worse. Allow for owner-occupied housing costs, the so-called CPIH, and the figure is 4 per cent. This is a more accurate tally for most of us since 64 per cent of our homes are owner-occupied. It gets worse. The RPI, the Retail Prices Index, which sets the costs of many business contracts and the charges on the index-linked portion of our national debt, rose 4.3 per cent. On any rational assessment, inflation is running at double the target rate. You would imagine there would be some debate at the Bank about increasing interest rates, particularly since it expects inflation to continue around this level, maybe higher, through the autumn. But no, three of the Monetary Policy Committee voted for a cut, the rest voted to keep rates where they are. This says that they are more worried about a soft economy, and in particular the job losses, that are feeding through as a result of the increase in employers' National Insurance, than they are about inflation. Of course, they are right to be concerned about the economy. We all are. But in effect, they are having to compensate for what most economists would agree was a mistake by Rachel Reeves: clobbering businesses in her Budget last year. Now look at all this from the Chancellor's perspective. She is in a jam. Revenues are weaker than she and the Office for Budget Responsibility expected, and it looks like there will have to be tax increases in the Autumn Budget. That is before all the extra money needed for defence and all the other pressures on spending pile in. There is, however, one thing that is helping: fiscal drag. Higher inflation boosts revenues as rising wages push people into higher tax brackets – even if in real terms their pay does not rise at all. Think back to Reeves' statement on public spending ten days ago. All that stuff about millions more for a list of projects, and a reference to lower interest rates, but barely a squeak about inflation. For what it's worth, the CPI in June last year – the month before Labour won the General Election – was exactly on target: 2 per cent. It's called the money illusion. The Government can say it is spending more money, but in real terms, it may end up spending less. In defence of our government, we are not alone. In the US, Donald Trump's tariffs will inevitably increase prices. In Europe, rearmament will be financed by more borrowing, which will pile pressure on prices there. But the fact is, our inflation figure of 3.4 per cent compares with 2.4 per cent in the US and 1.9 per cent in the eurozone. No wonder our government has to pay more to finance its national debt than any other G7 nation. The harsh judgment on the Bank of England is that it has been less effective in carrying out its prime duty than the US Federal Reserve or the European Central Bank. The thing that worries me most about inflation, even more than the economic costs, is the social damage it causes. Those with strong bargaining power, like heavily unionised train drivers, can negotiate above-inflation pay rises. But those in weaker positions cannot, and right now risk losing their jobs. If asset prices soar – and despite global mayhem, shares are close to all-time highs – those with the greatest wealth gain the most. The most sophisticated investors benefit. But those unable to pay for the best advice see the value of their savings whittled away. It is the fault of our government and our central bank. We deserve better.
