Savers warned ‘loyalty does not pay' as Bank of England base rate held at 4.25%
The Bank of England base rate remained on hold at 4.25% on Thursday.
Average savings rates have been on a downward path in recent weeks, but there was a ray of light for savers as some providers unveiled new products on Thursday.
Rachel Springall, a finance expert at Moneyfactscompare.co.uk, said: 'Loyalty does not pay so it comes down to savers to proactively review rates and switch their account if they are getting a poor return on their hard-earned cash.
'It is vital that savers look beyond the high street banks and instead take notice of the many challenger banks and mutuals competing in the savings arena.
'The biggest high street banks pay an average of 1.56% across easy access accounts, but even this pitiful return is being eaten away by inflation, which sits above its 2% target.
'It may be convenient to leave pots with such prominent brands, but it's costing savings in better returns available elsewhere.'
According to Moneyfacts, the average easy access savings rate on offer across the market fell from 2.79% at the start of May to 2.72% at the start of June, based on someone having a £10,000 deposit.
The average easy access Isa rate fell from 3.03% to 2.98% over the period.
Alice Haine, a personal finance analyst at Bestinvest by Evelyn Partners said: 'With interest rates still offering savers a decent return, it's never been more important to keep an eye on the personal savings allowance (PSA) – a threshold that's remained the same since 2016.
'Under the PSA, basic rate taxpayers can receive up to £1,000 of interest tax-free, while for higher rate taxpayers this is limited to just £500. Additional rate taxpayers get no PSA at all.
'Higher-rate taxpayers are particularly at risk of breaching the PSA, especially if they've secured one of the market's top-paying accounts.
'To sidestep an unexpected tax bill, savers should consider a more tax-efficient approach. Making full use of the £20,000 Isa allowance and boosting pension contributions can help shelter returns from the taxman, while also supporting long-term wealth goals.'
On Thursday, Yorkshire Building Society announced it had refreshed its range of fixed-rate saving options, including a one-year fixed-rate bond at 4.00% AER (annual equivalent rate), a 4.05% two-year fixed-rate bond, a 3.80% three-year fixed-rate bond, and a 3.70% five-year fixed-rate bond.
It is also offering a 3.75% one-year fixed-rate cash Isa and a 3.80% three-year fixed-rate cash Isa.
Harry Walker, senior savings manager at Yorkshire Building Society, said: 'With interest rate movements making it harder for savers to plan ahead, we're proud to offer fixed-rate options that combine strong returns with peace of mind.'
Another mutual, Skipton Building Society, has launched a 'bonus saver' easy access account, at 4.50%, which includes a 1.70% fixed bonus for the first 12 months.
The launch follows the introduction of Skipton's new cash Isa base rate tracker last week. The tracker is linked to the Bank of England base rate, currently offering savers a rate of 4.10%. The rate of interest is guaranteed to track 0.15 percentage points below the Bank of England base rate for 12 months from the first payment into the account.
The base rate hold on Thursday may disappoint some mortgage holders looking to switch to a new deal.
According to figures from UK Finance, around 1.6 million fixed-rate homeowner mortgage deals will end or have already ended in 2025.
The Bank of England has said interest rates 'remain on a gradual downward path,' despite being left on hold on Thursday.
Nicholas Mendes, mortgage technical manager at John Charcol, said: 'Markets still expect a cut or two later this year, possibly as soon as August,' although: 'The rate path is still anything but settled.
'Borrowers would be wise not to wait passively. If your current fixed deal is due to end this year, it's worth reviewing your options early, as some lenders allow new deals to be secured up to six months in advance.'
Mark Harris, chief executive of mortgage broker SPF Private Clients, said borrowers do have 'some good news … in that lenders have reduced mortgage rates and eased criteria in recent weeks.
'This rate hold was largely expected by the markets but if swap rates (which are used by lenders to price mortgages) fall, this will enable lenders to price their fixed-rate mortgages more keenly, easing borrowers' affordability concerns.'
Matt Smith, Rightmove's mortgages expert said: 'Lenders have a bit of room to reduce rates further even with a hold in the (Bank of England base rate) today so home movers can still be hopeful of some small mortgage rate cuts over the next couple of weeks.
'Average rates have been pretty flat in recent weeks, but we have seen increasing signs of competition amongst lenders as they have reduced their stress-testing criteria and with new mortgage products coming back to market, lenders are looking at ways to support more people get the home that they want.'
Jenny Ross, Which? Money editor, said: 'Anyone concerned about meeting their payments should speak to their lender as soon as possible – they're obliged to help.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
18 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.
Daily Mail
a day 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.
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
EU fantasies of toppling the dollar are totally delusional
It's a nice problem to have amid the Trump-inspired madness that grips today's foreign exchange markets. But it's a problem none the less. The Swiss franc keeps on appreciating, and there seems to be almost nothing the authorities can do to stop it. Increasingly alarmed by its trajectory, the Swiss National Bank last week cut its official policy rate back down to zero, and there is now talk of rates going negative again by summer's end. But to little effect. Switzerland's safe haven attributes have rarely been in such high demand. Rising geopolitical tensions have combined with growing loss of trust in the dollar as the bedrock of the global economy to send the franc soaring, almost regardless of whatever rate of interest it carries. Lest it be gold, there are few repositories of wealth thought more secure than Switzerland. Contrast that with the UK, where Bank Rate is still firmly stuck at 4.25pc with stubbornly persistent inflation to match. Thanks substantially to the lower import prices that the surging franc brings about, prices as a whole are going down not up; there is little or no cost of living crisis. This is great for consumers, not so much for Swiss industry, which has to match these deflating prices at home and abroad. But thus far at least, it's coped remarkably well. I've never bought the idea that a competitive economy needs a weak currency. Persistent devaluation has been the British way for decades now, and little good has it done either. At best, it's only smoothed the decline – a tranquiliser to avoid having to face up to the hard yards of painful structural adjustment. While the UK has grown poorer, the Swiss grow ever richer – living proof that a strong currency goes hand in hand with a competitive economy. The one is a reflection of the other. Bad, uncompetitive companies are quickly weeded out and dispensed with, while the disciplines of having to compete with cheaper foreign goods and services forces the survivors into imaginative innovation and productivity gain. You can, however, have too much of a good thing, and this is the unfortunate position that Switzerland now finds itself in. Broadly speaking, Switzerland produces in appreciating francs, but sells in equally fast depreciating dollars. There is only so far countervailing productivity improvement can take you. Theoretically, Donald Trump's tariff policies should make the dollar stronger, in that all other things being equal, they ought to reduce the size of the deficit. But it hasn't worked out that way. In practice, they've only further undermined international confidence in US economic management more widely. To most observers, it looks as if the White House is deliberately trying to tank the dollar. And on one level, it is; a depreciating dollar temporarily helps domestic producers by making imports more expensive. When combined with tariffs – effectively a sales tax on foreign producers – US industry gets a double boost. Trump wants the best of both worlds; he wants a weak dollar, but he also very much likes the dollar's commanding position in the global economy for the geopolitical power it bestows. Sadly for him, it's not clear he can have both. To support a weak dollar, he needs to make dollar assets less attractive to foreign investors. As Stephen Miran, the head of Trump's council of economic advisers, has suggested, this might be achieved by imposing a withholding tax on income generated by US assets, or by converting foreign holdings of US Treasuries into 100-year bonds. Trump's problem is that the less attractive the US makes itself to foreign investors, the less likely it is that the dollar can sustain its dominant reserve currency position. Use of the dollar for sanctions against countries the US has got a problem with has further undermined trust in the currency as both a store of value and reliable means of exchange. International trust relies crucially on the idea of a global order based on agreed rules, the very thing Trump wants to dispense with. So the dollar turns weaker, and together with the Trump tariff shock, it drives up domestic US inflation. Despite almost daily berating from Trump, Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, is sitting on his hands and refusing to reduce interest rates in the precipitous way the president demands. The more Trump complains, the more Powell digs in. Determination not to give way has become a matter of principle, almost regardless of its economic merits. Powell's stance is totemic in the wider struggle to protect institutional integrity from presidential diktat. Once Federal Reserve independence goes, the whole fragile structure of dollar hegemony begins to crumble. Even Trump must know that. Meanwhile, Europe is cutting fast – with the notable exception of the UK, where inflation remains a problem. Normally, America's higher interest rates relative to Europe would cause the dollar to strengthen, but the trust issue has provoked a very different response – a weaker dollar despite a widening interest rate gap. Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank, sees Trump's antics as an opportunity for a 'global euro moment'. It has long been the ambition of European policymakers to look the mighty dollar in the face, and eventually usurp its position in the international monetary system. This has always seemed fanciful. For all its grandstanding, the EU remains a disjointed confederation of fiscally sovereign and often deeply divided nations, with no centralised Treasury function to speak of, no banking union and no unified sovereign debt market. This makes its monetary union acutely vulnerable to existential crisis. Lagarde might think of herself as queen bee, but her powers and reach are remarkably limited. As long as this remains the case – and there is little sign of it changing – Lagarde's musings are just delusional nonsense. Where reserve managers have been diversifying away from the dollar, it has, moreover, tended to be into gold, not the euro. Indeed, gold recently overtook the euro as the biggest central bank reserve asset after the dollar. A rather more potent long term threat comes from China, whose central bank digital currency and the infrastructure being built around it are deliberately designed to provide an alternative to the dollar for trade and investment. Those who take umbrage at Trump's America can try China instead. Who's to say it's less reliable than a country that slaps record tariffs on some of its closest allies? Regrettably, Switzerland is just too small to act as a global reserve currency. As it is, it struggles to manage the inflows of international capital looking for safety amid the bedlam of today's world. Already, the Swiss National Bank balance sheet is swollen by its various currency interventions to a size considerably bigger than that of Switzerland's entire economy. It can surely go no further in printing Swiss francs to buy foreign assets. But as I say, it's a nice problem to have.
