with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
property developing
could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
place for the right price?
or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
any ideas welcome , thanks
On 4 Jun 2006 14:52:02 -0700, "beno" <> wrote:
>with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
>
>currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
>property developing
>
>could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
>place for the right price?
>
>or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
>
>any ideas welcome , thanks
If you are not working , presumably investing some of it into hardware
that you could start a one man business with would be a good start.
Avoid franchise schemes IMO. small scale stuff such as spray cleaning
wheely bins you can do yourself and start small is what you want.
Around here they want to charge £3.00 / bin with a discount for a year
in advance.
<Now you see em, now you don't> :-((
We have 3 wheely bins, = almost £500.00/year.
JMHO.
DG
"beno" <> wrote in message
news:
> with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
>
> currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
> property developing
>
> could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
> place for the right price?
>
> or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
>
> any ideas welcome , thanks
>
I would buy the max 30k in premium bonds
"beno" <> wrote in message
news:
> with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
>
Not a clue, without knowing if you want long term or short term investments,
and how much risk you are preparded to take
> currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
> property developing
>
Will this amount of cash affect any benefit entitlements ?
> could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
> place for the right price?
>
You could turn it into millions with the right about of luck :-)
> or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
>
Tons of work and hassle, if you want to invest in property a managed fund is
a lot easier.
mrcheerful . wrote:
> "beno" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
>>
>> currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
>> property developing
>>
>> could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
>> place for the right price?
>>
>> or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
>>
>> any ideas welcome , thanks
>>
>
> I would buy the max 30k in premium bonds
LOL
Irma
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita
"Irma Troll" <> wrote in message
news:
>> I would buy the max 30k in premium bonds
>
> LOL
You wouldn't be laughing if he won!
---
Sam
beno wrote:
> with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
>
> currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
> property developing
>
> could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
> place for the right price?
>
> or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
Buy shares in Standard Life.
Train to become a plumber.
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 12:37:45 +0100, "Sam Smith" <>
wrote:
>
>You wouldn't be laughing if he won!
It probably would....
Daytona
On 4 Jun 2006 14:52:02 -0700, "beno" <> wrote:
>with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
<>
Daytona
On 5 Jun 2006 11:41:46 +0200, Irma Troll <> wrote:
>mrcheerful . wrote:
>> "beno" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>> with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
>>>
>>> currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
>>> property developing
>>>
>>> could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
>>> place for the right price?
>>>
>>> or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
>>>
>>> any ideas welcome , thanks
>>>
>>
>> I would buy the max 30k in premium bonds
>
>LOL
>
Im sorry ?. I have the max £30k in bonds and I AM laughing !!!!
Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email
"tarquinlinbin" <> wrote in message
news:
> On 5 Jun 2006 11:41:46 +0200, Irma Troll <> wrote:
>
>>mrcheerful . wrote:
>>> "beno" <> wrote in message
>>> news:
>>>> with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
>>>>
>>>> currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
>>>> property developing
>>>>
>>>> could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
>>>> place for the right price?
>>>>
>>>> or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
>>>>
>>>> any ideas welcome , thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would buy the max 30k in premium bonds
>>
>>LOL
>>
> Im sorry ?. I have the max £30k in bonds and I AM laughing !!!!
>
My point exactly. Each month a cheque or three, the capital is still there
if needed. The enjoyment of the tax free cheques is hard to describe, I
find.
mrcheerful
mrcheerful
.. wrote:
> "tarquinlinbin" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> Im sorry ?. I have the max £30k in bonds and I AM laughing !!!!
>
> My point exactly. Each month a cheque or three, the capital is still
> there if needed. The enjoyment of the tax free cheques is hard to
> describe, I find.
The capital is eroding at inflation rate, though, since you're not
re-investing the cheques by buying more bonds, and the notional
average interest rate is in any case pretty low. For someone who
is neither a higher rate taxpayer nor a gambloholic, premium bonds
are just not a sensible investment.
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
tarquinlinbin <> wrote:
>>
> Im sorry ?. I have the max £30k in bonds and I AM laughing !!!!
>
So what average annual level of prize money do you receive?
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 17:33:54 +0100, "Roger Mills"
<> wrote:
>In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>tarquinlinbin <> wrote:
>
>>>
>> Im sorry ?. I have the max £30k in bonds and I AM laughing !!!!
>>
>
>So what average annual level of prize money do you receive?
They may not be related facts...
Jim.
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:03:36 GMT, "mrcheerful
.." <> wrote:
>
>"tarquinlinbin" <> wrote in message
>news:
>> On 5 Jun 2006 11:41:46 +0200, Irma Troll <> wrote:
>>
>>>mrcheerful . wrote:
>>>> "beno" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:
>>>>> with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
>>>>>
>>>>> currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
>>>>> property developing
>>>>>
>>>>> could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
>>>>> place for the right price?
>>>>>
>>>>> or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
>>>>>
>>>>> any ideas welcome , thanks
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would buy the max 30k in premium bonds
>>>
>>>LOL
>>>
>> Im sorry ?. I have the max £30k in bonds and I AM laughing !!!!
>>
>
>My point exactly. Each month a cheque or three, the capital is still there
>if needed. The enjoyment of the tax free cheques is hard to describe, I
>find.
But how much? I mean, in total? Have you worked out what you could be
getting through traditional investments? And that would be a
predicatble return, not the hit and miss affair of Ernie, who might
only pay low value prizes - or nothing at all for six months. I have
had £100 in the PB scheme since 1967 and have yet to win a single
penny! Needless to say, I am not impressed. Whether I would tie up
£30K in PBs, if I had it to spare, quite honestly, I doubt it. I could
be better off buying a top notch vintage car and keeping it for five
years. I haven't seen green label Bentleys losing value! (Not that
£30K would get you one, of course...)
MM
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:35:01 +0100, MM <> wrote:
>But how much? I mean, in total? Have you worked out what you could be
>getting through traditional investments? And that would be a
>predicatble return, not the hit and miss affair of Ernie, who might
>only pay low value prizes - or nothing at all for six months. I have
>had £100 in the PB scheme since 1967 and have yet to win a single
>penny! Needless to say, I am not impressed. Whether I would tie up
>£30K in PBs, if I had it to spare, quite honestly, I doubt it. I could
>be better off buying a top notch vintage car and keeping it for five
>years. I haven't seen green label Bentleys losing value! (Not that
>£30K would get you one, of course...)
>
>MM
You have to be in it to win it. For example,last month a total of
seven,yes seven cheques,all £50,total £350. Theres the odd month when
nothing comes but generally something does...
Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email
"tarquinlinbin" <> wrote in message
news:
> You have to be in it to win it. For example,last month a total of
> seven,yes seven cheques,all £50,total £350. Theres the odd month when
> nothing comes but generally something does...
Surely they don't send seven separate cheques in seven separate envelopes? If so no
wonder they've had to cut the interest rate to pay for postage. As someone said
recently on here - it's unbelievable they don't at least offer the option to pay
winnings direct into bank accounts. Cheques are a PITA.
--
Andy
"Ronald Raygun" <> wrote in message
news:XzYgg.81282$
> >> Im sorry ?. I have the max £30k in bonds and I AM laughing !!!!
> >
> > My point exactly. Each month a cheque or three, the capital is still
> > there if needed. The enjoyment of the tax free cheques is hard to
> > describe, I find.
>
> The capital is eroding at inflation rate, though, since you're not
> re-investing the cheques by buying more bonds, and the notional
> average interest rate is in any case pretty low. For someone who
> is neither a higher rate taxpayer nor a gambloholic, premium bonds
> are just not a sensible investment.
They're not even sensible for a gambloholic - the skew towards the trivial end of the
prize scale makes them pretty boring for someone who likes a gamble.
--
Andy
"MM" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:03:36 GMT, "mrcheerful
> ." <> wrote:
>
>>
>>"tarquinlinbin" <> wrote in message
>>news:
>>> On 5 Jun 2006 11:41:46 +0200, Irma Troll <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>mrcheerful . wrote:
>>>>> "beno" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:
>>>>>> with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
>>>>>> property developing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
>>>>>> place for the right price?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> any ideas welcome , thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would buy the max 30k in premium bonds
>>>>
>>>>LOL
>>>>
>>> Im sorry ?. I have the max £30k in bonds and I AM laughing !!!!
>>>
>>
>>My point exactly. Each month a cheque or three, the capital is still
>>there
>>if needed. The enjoyment of the tax free cheques is hard to describe, I
>>find.
>
> But how much? I mean, in total? Have you worked out what you could be
> getting through traditional investments? And that would be a
> predicatble return, not the hit and miss affair of Ernie, who might
> only pay low value prizes - or nothing at all for six months. I have
> had £100 in the PB scheme since 1967 and have yet to win a single
> penny! Needless to say, I am not impressed. Whether I would tie up
> £30K in PBs, if I had it to spare, quite honestly, I doubt it. I could
> be better off buying a top notch vintage car and keeping it for five
> years. I haven't seen green label Bentleys losing value! (Not that
> £30K would get you one, of course...)
>
> MM
Vintage cars are a terrible investment, mainly because of the high cost of
physically keeping them.
The money is not really tied up in premium bonds because you can get it back
in a very short time.
30 k at 5 per cent is 1500 quid per year less tax.
mrcheerful
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 22:39:06 GMT, "mrcheerful
.." <> wrote:
>
>"MM" <> wrote in message
>news:
>> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:03:36 GMT, "mrcheerful
>> ." <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"tarquinlinbin" <> wrote in message
>>>news:
>>>> On 5 Jun 2006 11:41:46 +0200, Irma Troll <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mrcheerful . wrote:
>>>>>> "beno" <> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:
>>>>>>> with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
>>>>>>> property developing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
>>>>>>> place for the right price?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> any ideas welcome , thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would buy the max 30k in premium bonds
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL
>>>>>
>>>> Im sorry ?. I have the max £30k in bonds and I AM laughing !!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>My point exactly. Each month a cheque or three, the capital is still
>>>there
>>>if needed. The enjoyment of the tax free cheques is hard to describe, I
>>>find.
>>
>> But how much? I mean, in total? Have you worked out what you could be
>> getting through traditional investments? And that would be a
>> predicatble return, not the hit and miss affair of Ernie, who might
>> only pay low value prizes - or nothing at all for six months. I have
>> had £100 in the PB scheme since 1967 and have yet to win a single
>> penny! Needless to say, I am not impressed. Whether I would tie up
>> £30K in PBs, if I had it to spare, quite honestly, I doubt it. I could
>> be better off buying a top notch vintage car and keeping it for five
>> years. I haven't seen green label Bentleys losing value! (Not that
>> £30K would get you one, of course...)
>>
>> MM
>
>Vintage cars are a terrible investment, mainly because of the high cost of
>physically keeping them.
I wish I still had my 1934 Morris 8, a 1940-ish Wolseley, a pre-war
Hillman, and many others, nearly all bought for a fiver or so.
Nowadays they'd all worth at least 5 grand apiece, a roughly 99900%
increase since 1960. Conversely, my father's smallholding was bought
for £5,500 in 1957 and recently sold (by the second or third owner
since then) for around £350,000. That's 6232% over a slightly longer
period.
MM
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
mrcheerful . <> wrote:
>
> The money is not really tied up in premium bonds because you can get
> it back in a very short time.
>
> 30 k at 5 per cent is 1500 quid per year less tax.
>
> mrcheerful
But how much prize money per annum could you *realistically* expect to
receive if you invest the full 30k?
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> Surely they don't send seven separate cheques in
> seven separate envelopes? If so no wonder they've
> had to cut the interest rate to pay for postage.
Hahahaha!
Even first class postage would only require a
drop in interest rates of (less than) 0.02%...
[Eg1: (50.00 / 50.32) x 3.0% = 2.98%.]
[Eg2: (100.00 / 100.32) x 3.0% = 2.99%.]
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> As someone said recently on here - it's unbelievable
> they don't at least offer the option to pay winnings
> direct into bank accounts. Cheques are a PITA.
Agreed!
> mrcheerful wrote:
> > 30 k at 5 per cent is 1500 quid per year less tax.
>
"Roger Mills" wrote
> But how much prize money per annum could you
> *realistically* expect to receive if you invest the full 30k?
About the same, if you are a high rate taxpayer:-
Interest A/C: 30K x 5%pa is £900 after 40% tax.
.vs.
Premium Bonds: Say 12 x £50 and 3 x £100 = £900, tax-free.
[15 prizes on average over year for £30K bonds.]
tarquinlinbin wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2006 11:41:46 +0200, Irma Troll <> wrote:
>
>> mrcheerful . wrote:
>>> "beno" <> wrote in message
>>> news:
>>>> with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
>>>>
>>>> currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
>>>> property developing
>>>>
>>>> could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
>>>> place for the right price?
>>>>
>>>> or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
>>>>
>>>> any ideas welcome , thanks
>>>>
>>> I would buy the max 30k in premium bonds
>> LOL
>>
> Im sorry ?. I have the max £30k in bonds and I AM laughing !!!!
Exactly, so am I LOLLLLLLLL!
Irma
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita
MM wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 22:39:06 GMT, "mrcheerful
> ." <> wrote:
>
>> "MM" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:03:36 GMT, "mrcheerful
>>> ." <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "tarquinlinbin" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:
>>>>> On 5 Jun 2006 11:41:46 +0200, Irma Troll <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> mrcheerful . wrote:
>>>>>>> "beno" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:
>>>>>>>> with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
>>>>>>>> property developing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
>>>>>>>> place for the right price?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> any ideas welcome , thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would buy the max 30k in premium bonds
>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>> Im sorry ?. I have the max £30k in bonds and I AM laughing !!!!
>>>>>
>>>> My point exactly. Each month a cheque or three, the capital is still
>>>> there
>>>> if needed. The enjoyment of the tax free cheques is hard to describe, I
>>>> find.
>>> But how much? I mean, in total? Have you worked out what you could be
>>> getting through traditional investments? And that would be a
>>> predicatble return, not the hit and miss affair of Ernie, who might
>>> only pay low value prizes - or nothing at all for six months. I have
>>> had £100 in the PB scheme since 1967 and have yet to win a single
>>> penny! Needless to say, I am not impressed. Whether I would tie up
>>> £30K in PBs, if I had it to spare, quite honestly, I doubt it. I could
>>> be better off buying a top notch vintage car and keeping it for five
>>> years. I haven't seen green label Bentleys losing value! (Not that
>>> £30K would get you one, of course...)
>>>
>>> MM
>> Vintage cars are a terrible investment, mainly because of the high cost of
>> physically keeping them.
>
> I wish I still had my 1934 Morris 8, a 1940-ish Wolseley, a pre-war
> Hillman, and many others, nearly all bought for a fiver or so.
> Nowadays they'd all worth at least 5 grand apiece, a roughly 99900%
> increase since 1960. Conversely, my father's smallholding was bought
> for £5,500 in 1957 and recently sold (by the second or third owner
> since then) for around £350,000. That's 6232% over a slightly longer
> period.
But you can't live in a car...Admittedly, you can't drive a smallholding
either.
Irma
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita
"MM" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 22:39:06 GMT, "mrcheerful
> ." <> wrote:
>
>>
>>"MM" <> wrote in message
>>news:
>>> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:03:36 GMT, "mrcheerful
>>> ." <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"tarquinlinbin" <> wrote in message
>>>>news:
>>>>> On 5 Jun 2006 11:41:46 +0200, Irma Troll <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>mrcheerful . wrote:
>>>>>>> "beno" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:
>>>>>>>> with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> currently not working so have time to do work and interested in
>>>>>>>> property developing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> could i make money if i did enough research and bought in the right
>>>>>>>> place for the right price?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or would a buy to let be more sensible long term?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> any ideas welcome , thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would buy the max 30k in premium bonds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>> Im sorry ?. I have the max £30k in bonds and I AM laughing !!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My point exactly. Each month a cheque or three, the capital is still
>>>>there
>>>>if needed. The enjoyment of the tax free cheques is hard to describe, I
>>>>find.
>>>
>>> But how much? I mean, in total? Have you worked out what you could be
>>> getting through traditional investments? And that would be a
>>> predicatble return, not the hit and miss affair of Ernie, who might
>>> only pay low value prizes - or nothing at all for six months. I have
>>> had £100 in the PB scheme since 1967 and have yet to win a single
>>> penny! Needless to say, I am not impressed. Whether I would tie up
>>> £30K in PBs, if I had it to spare, quite honestly, I doubt it. I could
>>> be better off buying a top notch vintage car and keeping it for five
>>> years. I haven't seen green label Bentleys losing value! (Not that
>>> £30K would get you one, of course...)
>>>
>>> MM
>>
>>Vintage cars are a terrible investment, mainly because of the high cost of
>>physically keeping them.
>
> I wish I still had my 1934 Morris 8, a 1940-ish Wolseley, a pre-war
> Hillman, and many others, nearly all bought for a fiver or so.
> Nowadays they'd all worth at least 5 grand apiece, a roughly 99900%
> increase since 1960. Conversely, my father's smallholding was bought
> for £5,500 in 1957 and recently sold (by the second or third owner
> since then) for around £350,000. That's 6232% over a slightly longer
> period.
>
> MM
But what about running costs/maintenance/storage/insurance? If you actually
add up that lot, then your investment will have cost you a small fortune.
Unless the vehicle is practically extinct now then its value is not actually
that great.
mrcheerful
"Roger Mills" <> wrote in message
news:
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> mrcheerful . <> wrote:
>
>>
>> The money is not really tied up in premium bonds because you can get
>> it back in a very short time.
>>
>> 30 k at 5 per cent is 1500 quid per year less tax.
>>
>> mrcheerful
>
> But how much prize money per annum could you *realistically* expect to
> receive if you invest the full 30k?
> --
> Cheers,
> Roger
statistically you should get 1.25 prizes per month, so at the minimum prize
of 50 pounds that is 750 per year tax free. In practise the cheque
frequency is higher. I do not have the full amount yet, nor have I held
mine very long, but the cheques are coming in!!!
mrcheerful
"mrcheerful ." <> wrote in message
news:Qychg.81703$
>
> "Roger Mills" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> mrcheerful . <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The money is not really tied up in premium bonds because you can get
>>> it back in a very short time.
>>>
>>> 30 k at 5 per cent is 1500 quid per year less tax.
>>>
>>> mrcheerful
>>
>> But how much prize money per annum could you *realistically* expect to
>> receive if you invest the full 30k?
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Roger
>
> statistically you should get 1.25 prizes per month, so at the minimum
> prize of 50 pounds that is 750 per year tax free. In practise the cheque
> frequency is higher. I do not have the full amount yet, nor have I held
> mine very long, but the cheques are coming in!!!
>
> mrcheerful
>
Just an update, the nsandi website prize checker has just been updated for
June and I have got another 50 quid !!!!!!!!
That is a total of 150 quid income on a total of 6000 bonds that I have
built up over 6 months, so it is difficult to be precise about the
income/outlay yet.
Checked further and that is the second 50 quid on the first 2000 bond I
bought 6 months ago, so that particular one is 5 percent in 6 months, so
about double what a bank investment would give.
mr very cheerful
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:52:54 +0100, Daytona <> wrote:
>On 4 Jun 2006 14:52:02 -0700, "beno" <> wrote:
>
>>with 30k has anyone any advice on the most sensible way to invest it?
>
><>
Sorry, old link -
<>
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Tim <> wrote:
>> mrcheerful wrote:
>>> 30 k at 5 per cent is 1500 quid per year less tax.
>>
> "Roger Mills" wrote
>> But how much prize money per annum could you
>> *realistically* expect to receive if you invest the full 30k?
>
> About the same, if you are a high rate taxpayer:-
>
> Interest A/C: 30K x 5%pa is £900 after 40% tax.
> .vs.
> Premium Bonds: Say 12 x £50 and 3 x £100 = £900, tax-free.
> [15 prizes on average over year for £30K bonds.]
OK, so that's about 3% net. If you're *not* a higher rate taxpayer, and
would normally pay 20% tax on investment income, that grosses at 3.75%. I
would have thought you could do better than that in a building society.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!
Roger Mills wrote:
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Tim <> wrote:
>
>>> mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> 30 k at 5 per cent is 1500 quid per year less tax.
>>>
>> "Roger Mills" wrote
>>> But how much prize money per annum could you
>>> *realistically* expect to receive if you invest the full 30k?
>>
>> About the same, if you are a high rate taxpayer:-
>>
>> Interest A/C: 30K x 5%pa is £900 after 40% tax.
>> .vs.
>> Premium Bonds: Say 12 x £50 and 3 x £100 = £900, tax-free.
>> [15 prizes on average over year for £30K bonds.]
>
>
> OK, so that's about 3% net. If you're *not* a higher rate taxpayer, and
> would normally pay 20% tax on investment income, that grosses at 3.75%. I
> would have thought you could do better than that in a building society.
Exactly. That point is often made, that premium bonds are basically
pointless *except* for HRTPs.
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:51:42 +0100, tarquinlinbin
<> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:35:01 +0100, MM <> wrote:
>
>
>>But how much? I mean, in total? Have you worked out what you could be
>>getting through traditional investments? And that would be a
>>predicatble return, not the hit and miss affair of Ernie, who might
>>only pay low value prizes - or nothing at all for six months. I have
>>had £100 in the PB scheme since 1967 and have yet to win a single
>>penny! Needless to say, I am not impressed. Whether I would tie up
>>£30K in PBs, if I had it to spare, quite honestly, I doubt it. I could
>>be better off buying a top notch vintage car and keeping it for five
>>years. I haven't seen green label Bentleys losing value! (Not that
>>£30K would get you one, of course...)
>>
>>MM
>You have to be in it to win it. For example,last month a total of
>seven,yes seven cheques,all £50,total £350. Theres the odd month when
>nothing comes but generally something does...
>
Oops -spoke too soon, another £50 for June....
>
>
>Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email
Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 23:11:04 +0100, "Andy Pandy"
<> wrote:
>
>"tarquinlinbin" <> wrote in message
>news:
>> You have to be in it to win it. For example,last month a total of
>> seven,yes seven cheques,all £50,total £350. Theres the odd month when
>> nothing comes but generally something does...
>
>Surely they don't send seven separate cheques in seven separate envelopes? If so no
>wonder they've had to cut the interest rate to pay for postage. As someone said
>recently on here - it's unbelievable they don't at least offer the option to pay
>winnings direct into bank accounts. Cheques are a PITA.
Oh yes they do,,crazy innit?
Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 14:06:58 +0100, "Roger Mills"
<> wrote:
>In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>Tim <> wrote:
>
>>> mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> 30 k at 5 per cent is 1500 quid per year less tax.
>>>
>> "Roger Mills" wrote
>>> But how much prize money per annum could you
>>> *realistically* expect to receive if you invest the full 30k?
>>
>> About the same, if you are a high rate taxpayer:-
>>
>> Interest A/C: 30K x 5%pa is £900 after 40% tax.
>> .vs.
>> Premium Bonds: Say 12 x £50 and 3 x £100 = £900, tax-free.
>> [15 prizes on average over year for £30K bonds.]
>
>
>OK, so that's about 3% net. If you're *not* a higher rate taxpayer, and
>would normally pay 20% tax on investment income, that grosses at 3.75%. I
>would have thought you could do better than that in a building society.
True but then you;d have no chance of winning a high value prize...
Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:21:15 GMT, "mrcheerful
.." <> wrote:
>
>"mrcheerful ." <> wrote in message
>news:Qychg.81703$
>>
>> "Roger Mills" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>>> mrcheerful . <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The money is not really tied up in premium bonds because you can get
>>>> it back in a very short time.
>>>>
>>>> 30 k at 5 per cent is 1500 quid per year less tax.
>>>>
>>>> mrcheerful
>>>
>>> But how much prize money per annum could you *realistically* expect to
>>> receive if you invest the full 30k?
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Roger
>>
>> statistically you should get 1.25 prizes per month, so at the minimum
>> prize of 50 pounds that is 750 per year tax free. In practise the cheque
>> frequency is higher. I do not have the full amount yet, nor have I held
>> mine very long, but the cheques are coming in!!!
>>
>> mrcheerful
>>
>
>Just an update, the nsandi website prize checker has just been updated for
>June and I have got another 50 quid !!!!!!!!
>
Me too ....!
Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email
"Tim" <
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > Surely they don't send seven separate cheques in
> > seven separate envelopes? If so no wonder they've
> > had to cut the interest rate to pay for postage.
>
> Hahahaha!
> Even first class postage would only require a
> drop in interest rates of (less than) 0.02%...
>
> [Eg1: (50.00 / 50.32) x 3.0% = 2.98%.]
> [Eg2: (100.00 / 100.32) x 3.0% = 2.99%.]
They cut the rate by 0.05%.
--
Andy
"Tim" <
> > > 30 k at 5 per cent is 1500 quid per year less tax.
> >
> "Roger Mills" wrote
> > But how much prize money per annum could you
> > *realistically* expect to receive if you invest the full 30k?
>
> About the same, if you are a high rate taxpayer:-
>
> Interest A/C: 30K x 5%pa is £900 after 40% tax.
> .vs.
> Premium Bonds: Say 12 x £50 and 3 x £100 = £900, tax-free.
> [15 prizes on average over year for £30K bonds.]
Over 96% of the prizes are £50's, so you'd be extremely luck to get 3 £100's a year.
The average would be one £100 every two years, and 14-15 £50's a year.
--
Andy
"tarquinlinbin" <> wrote in message
news:
> >>> But how much prize money per annum could you
> >>> *realistically* expect to receive if you invest the full 30k?
> >>
> >> About the same, if you are a high rate taxpayer:-
> >>
> >> Interest A/C: 30K x 5%pa is £900 after 40% tax.
> >> .vs.
> >> Premium Bonds: Say 12 x £50 and 3 x £100 = £900, tax-free.
> >> [15 prizes on average over year for £30K bonds.]
> >
> >
> >OK, so that's about 3% net. If you're *not* a higher rate taxpayer, and
> >would normally pay 20% tax on investment income, that grosses at 3.75%. I
> >would have thought you could do better than that in a building society.
> True but then you;d have no chance of winning a high value prize...
But the chance of winning a high value prize is miniscule with premium bonds. They
are skewed towards the lower end.
The chance of winning a big prize (£5000+) is 1 in 125 million per bond, and for the
jackpot it's 1 in 15 billion.
--
Andy
Andy Pandy wrote:
>
> "Tim" <
>> "Andy Pandy" wrote
>> > Surely they don't send seven separate cheques in
>> > seven separate envelopes? If so no wonder they've
>> > had to cut the interest rate to pay for postage.
>>
>> Hahahaha!
>> Even first class postage would only require a
>> drop in interest rates of (less than) 0.02%...
>>
>> [Eg1: (50.00 / 50.32) x 3.0% = 2.98%.]
>> [Eg2: (100.00 / 100.32) x 3.0% = 2.99%.]
>
> They cut the rate by 0.05%.
That way they can afford to pay for the envelopes too, and
for an army of stuffers.
"mrcheerful ." <> wrote in message
news:vGchg.81706$
> > statistically you should get 1.25 prizes per month, so at the minimum
> > prize of 50 pounds that is 750 per year tax free. In practise the cheque
> > frequency is higher.
In practice the cheque frequency is exactly what is published.
Do you really think they are giving away more prizes than they think they are?
> > I do not have the full amount yet, nor have I held
> > mine very long, but the cheques are coming in!!!
> >
> > mrcheerful
> >
>
> Just an update, the nsandi website prize checker has just been updated for
> June and I have got another 50 quid !!!!!!!!
>
> That is a total of 150 quid income on a total of 6000 bonds that I have
> built up over 6 months, so it is difficult to be precise about the
> income/outlay yet.
>
> Checked further and that is the second 50 quid on the first 2000 bond I
> bought 6 months ago, so that particular one is 5 percent in 6 months, so
> about double what a bank investment would give.
Beginner's luck!
--
Andy
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:02:50 +0100, "Andy Pandy"
<> wrote:
>
>But the chance of winning a high value prize is miniscule with premium bonds. They
>are skewed towards the lower end.
>
>The chance of winning a big prize (£5000+) is 1 in 125 million per bond, and for the
>jackpot it's 1 in 15 billion.
But nevertheless,someone wins these prizes every month. Take a look
here..
The thing is,in a building society you would have ZERO chance which is
quite a lot worse than some chance!
Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:52:54 +0100, tarquinlinbin
<> wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:02:50 +0100, "Andy Pandy"
><> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>But the chance of winning a high value prize is miniscule with premium bonds. They
>>are skewed towards the lower end.
>>
>>The chance of winning a big prize (£5000+) is 1 in 125 million per bond, and for the
>>jackpot it's 1 in 15 billion.
>But nevertheless,someone wins these prizes every month. Take a look
>here..
>
>
>
>The thing is,in a building society you would have ZERO chance which is
>quite a lot worse than some chance!
But a BS pays interest. One knows from the outset that one is going to
receive it. With PBs, it's a bit of a lottery. Therefore, I don't
think it is wise to compare PBs with any other form of money hoarding
(saving). Even though you can can get your stake back, PBs are a
gamble and as such must be counted as a luxury leisure pursuit, like
going to the races, not as sensible financial planning.
MM
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:13:50 +0100, MM <> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:52:54 +0100, tarquinlinbin
><> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:02:50 +0100, "Andy Pandy"
>><> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>But the chance of winning a high value prize is miniscule with premium bonds. They
>>>are skewed towards the lower end.
>>>
>>>The chance of winning a big prize (£5000+) is 1 in 125 million per bond, and for the
>>>jackpot it's 1 in 15 billion.
>>But nevertheless,someone wins these prizes every month.
Oh dear, the gamblers mentality.
>>The thing is,in a building society you would have ZERO chance which is
>>quite a lot worse than some chance!
Why do you think an 0.000000008 and 0.00000000007 is a lot worse that
zero ?
At odds as bad as that you'd need to invest £260,000 to have the
probability of 1 prize above £5,000 and £31,250,000 to have the
probability of a big prize over a 40 year timespan.
>But a BS pays interest. One knows from the outset that one is going to
>receive it. With PBs, it's a bit of a lottery. Therefore, I don't
>think it is wise to compare PBs with any other form of money hoarding
>(saving). Even though you can can get your stake back, PBs are a
>gamble and as such must be counted as a luxury leisure pursuit, like
>going to the races, not as sensible financial planning.
It should be measured against the stockmarket. Which has returned 5.2%
above inflation over the last 100 years. The max PB investment of
£30,000 would be worth £700,000 over the same 40 year period (with
inflation at 3%).
People investing in PBs are effectively giving up that kind of return
for odds of 0.000000008 and 0.00000000007.
Daytona
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> But the chance of winning a high value prize is miniscule with
> premium bonds. They are skewed towards the lower end.
>
> The chance of winning a big prize (£5000+) is 1 in 125
> million per bond, and for the jackpot it's 1 in 15 billion.
In that case, someone holding £30K of PB's has
30,000 chances in 15billion, or a 1 in 500,000
chance of winning the jackpot each month.
Let's compare that with the National Lottery :-
Each £1 ticket has a 1 in (about)14million chance
of winning the jackpot. So you'd need to buy
28 tickets each month, just to have the *same*
chance of winning the jackpot as with the PB's...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> Over 96% of the prizes are £50's...
Only 82.5% of mine have been the £50!
[That's over more than three years.]
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> ... so you'd be extremely luck to get 3 £100's a year.
> The average would be one £100 every two years...
I've had 7(seven) £100's in a period of less than 18 months.
My best period of 12 months had 5(five)...
"Tim" <
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > Over 96% of the prizes are £50's...
>
> Only 82.5% of mine have been the £50!
> [That's over more than three years.]
>
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > ... so you'd be extremely luck to get 3 £100's a year.
> > The average would be one £100 every two years...
>
> I've had 7(seven) £100's in a period of less than 18 months.
> My best period of 12 months had 5(five)...
ISTR they've skewed the fund more towards £50's, and away from all higher prizes, so
they can improve the odds of a win. I think it used to be 1 in 28,000 or 30,000, it's
now 1 in 24,000.
The details are here:
There are 1,289,364 prizes in total, of which 41,882 are £100's. The chance of
winning a prize is 1 in 24,000, so I'm sure a man of your mathematical ability can
work out the current odds of winning 5+ £100's a year with a £30,000 investment.
--
Andy
"Tim" <
> > But the chance of winning a high value prize is miniscule with
> > premium bonds. They are skewed towards the lower end.
> >
> > The chance of winning a big prize (£5000+) is 1 in 125
> > million per bond, and for the jackpot it's 1 in 15 billion.
>
> In that case, someone holding £30K of PB's has
> 30,000 chances in 15billion, or a 1 in 500,000
> chance of winning the jackpot each month.
Yup.
> Let's compare that with the National Lottery :-
> Each £1 ticket has a 1 in (about)14million chance
> of winning the jackpot. So you'd need to buy
> 28 tickets each month, just to have the *same*
> chance of winning the jackpot as with the PB's...
Indeed. So if your £30,000 was instead invested in a savings account paying 3%
interest net, you'd get £75 a month interest. If you spent that on lottery tickets
you'd have almost treble the chance of winning the jackpot, which on average is much
more than a mere £1 million (it was £18 million last Saturday!). So if you're after
a big prize - you're much better off with the lottery.
--
Andy
"tarquinlinbin" <> wrote in message
news:
> >But the chance of winning a high value prize is miniscule with premium bonds. They
> >are skewed towards the lower end.
> >
> >The chance of winning a big prize (£5000+) is 1 in 125 million per bond, and for
the
> >jackpot it's 1 in 15 billion.
> But nevertheless,someone wins these prizes every month. Take a look
> here..
>
>
>
> The thing is,in a building society you would have ZERO chance which is
> quite a lot worse than some chance!
Nope!
I won a "big prize" through investing in the Leeds before they merged with the
Halifax and floated. I think I got about £6000 in shares. The chances of the
remaining building societies floating may be remote, but far less remote than winning
a big prize on the PB's.
--
Andy
Andy Pandy <> wrote:
[]
> Indeed. So if your £30,000 was instead invested in a savings account
> paying 3% interest net, you'd get £75 a month interest. If you spent that
> on lottery tickets you'd have almost treble the chance of winning the
> jackpot, which on average is much more than a mere £1 million (it was £18
> million last Saturday!). So if you're after a big prize - you're much
> better off with the lottery.
Interesting point.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: IMO PBs are a good home for
the '100% secure emergency roof repair' part of one's portfolio.
For 30K over, say, a five-year timescale, I'd stick maybe 2K in PBs i.e
an amount large enough to be usefull if you want it back, but not so big
that you're gambling /all/ your possible returns.
rgds, Alan
--
99 Ducati 748BP, 95 Ducati 600SS, 81 Guzzi Monza, 74 MV Agusta 350
"Ride to Work, Work to Ride" SI# 7.067 DoD#1930 PGP Key 0xBDED56C5
> > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > But the chance of winning a high value prize is miniscule with
> > > premium bonds. They are skewed towards the lower end.
> > >
> > > The chance of winning a big prize (£5000+) is 1 in 125
> > > million per bond, and for the jackpot it's 1 in 15 billion.
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> > In that case, someone holding £30K of PB's has
> > 30,000 chances in 15billion, or a 1 in 500,000
> > chance of winning the jackpot each month.
> ...
> > Let's compare that with the National Lottery :-
> > Each £1 ticket has a 1 in (about)14million chance
> > of winning the jackpot. So you'd need to buy
> > 28 tickets each month, just to have the *same*
> > chance of winning the jackpot as with the PB's...
>
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> Indeed. So if your £30,000 was instead invested in a
> savings account paying 3% interest net, you'd get £75 a
> month interest. If you spent that on lottery tickets you'd
> have almost treble the chance of winning the jackpot, ...
Exactly! I was picking up on your comment that
"the chance of winning a high value prize is miniscule
with premium bonds". It is the same for the Lottery!
Don't forget, we are comparing a chance
of 0.000002 with a chance of 0.000005.
They are *both* "miniscule"!!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> ... which on average is much more than a mere
> £1 million (it was £18 million last Saturday!).
Ah, but (excluding rollovers), when the jackpot is, say £6M,
then you'd expect on average three winners sharing and
getting £2M each. The average expected jackpot prize is
always £2M - which is only twice as much as for PB's.
And bearing in mind that people often play the Lottery
in syndicates, which they don't use to invest in PB's, the
average jackpot payout is even lower for the Lottery!
> > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > Over 96% of the prizes are £50's...
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> > Only 82.5% of mine have been the £50!
> > [That's over more than three years.]
> >
> > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > ... so you'd be extremely luck to get 3 £100's a year.
> > > The average would be one £100 every two years...
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> > I've had 7(seven) £100's in a period of less than 18 months.
> > My best period of 12 months had 5(five)...
>
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> ISTR they've skewed the fund more towards £50's, and away
> from all higher prizes, so they can improve the odds of a win. I
> think it used to be 1 in 28,000 or 30,000, it's now 1 in 24,000.
I know - but the period I mentioned above was *after* the change!
"Tim" <
> > Indeed. So if your £30,000 was instead invested in a
> > savings account paying 3% interest net, you'd get £75 a
> > month interest. If you spent that on lottery tickets you'd
> > have almost treble the chance of winning the jackpot, ...
>
> Exactly! I was picking up on your comment that
> "the chance of winning a high value prize is miniscule
> with premium bonds". It is the same for the Lottery!
> Don't forget, we are comparing a chance
> of 0.000002 with a chance of 0.000005.
>
> They are *both* "miniscule"!!
Well, yes.
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > ... which on average is much more than a mere
> > £1 million (it was £18 million last Saturday!).
>
> Ah, but (excluding rollovers), when the jackpot is, say £6M,
> then you'd expect on average three winners sharing and
> getting £2M each. The average expected jackpot prize is
> always £2M - which is only twice as much as for PB's.
Why exclude rollovers? The only relevant factors are the chances of winning and the
size of the (shared) jackpot.
> And bearing in mind that people often play the Lottery
> in syndicates, which they don't use to invest in PB's, the
> average jackpot payout is even lower for the Lottery!
Well obviously, but then the chance of winning is higher, in exact proportion to the
lower prize.
--
Andy
"Tim" <
> > > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > > Over 96% of the prizes are £50's...
> > >
> > "Tim" wrote
> > > Only 82.5% of mine have been the £50!
> > > [That's over more than three years.]
> > >
> > > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > > ... so you'd be extremely luck to get 3 £100's a year.
> > > > The average would be one £100 every two years...
> > >
> > "Tim" wrote
> > > I've had 7(seven) £100's in a period of less than 18 months.
> > > My best period of 12 months had 5(five)...
> >
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > ISTR they've skewed the fund more towards £50's, and away
> > from all higher prizes, so they can improve the odds of a win. I
> > think it used to be 1 in 28,000 or 30,000, it's now 1 in 24,000.
>
> I know - but the period I mentioned above was *after* the change!
So you've either been very lucky or very selective with your chosen periods. I'm sure
you're capable of working out the odds.
--
Andy
> > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > Indeed. So if your £30,000 was instead invested in a
> > > savings account paying 3% interest net, you'd get £75 a
> > > month interest. If you spent that on lottery tickets you'd
> > > have almost treble the chance of winning the jackpot, ...
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> > Exactly! I was picking up on your comment that
> > "the chance of winning a high value prize is miniscule
> > with premium bonds". It is the same for the Lottery!
> > Don't forget, we are comparing a chance
> > of 0.000002 with a chance of 0.000005.
> >
> > They are *both* "miniscule"!!
>
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> Well, yes.
Glad you agree.
> > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > ... which on average is much more than a mere
> > > £1 million (it was £18 million last Saturday!).
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> > Ah, but (excluding rollovers), when the jackpot is, say £6M,
> > then you'd expect on average three winners sharing and
> > getting £2M each. The average expected jackpot prize is
> > always £2M - which is only twice as much as for PB's.
>
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> Why exclude rollovers? The only relevant factors are the
> chances of winning and the size of the (shared) jackpot.
Yes, but you need to average over time:-
When there isn't a jackpot winner (so it rolls over), then
the chance of you being "one of the winners" is *zero*.
When it was a rollover, and the winners share more
than £2M each, then this simply counter-acts the
lower-than-average "chance of winning, times jackpot size"
of the earlier draw (which was zero, see above).
> "Tim" wrote
> > And bearing in mind that people often play the Lottery
> > in syndicates, which they don't use to invest in PB's, the
> > average jackpot payout is even lower for the Lottery!
>
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> Well obviously, but then the chance of winning
> is higher, in exact proportion to the lower prize.
A bit like "more prizes, but lower" in PB's? ;-)
"Tim" <
> > > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > > Indeed. So if your £30,000 was instead invested in a
> > > > savings account paying 3% interest net, you'd get £75 a
> > > > month interest. If you spent that on lottery tickets you'd
> > > > have almost treble the chance of winning the jackpot, ...
> > >
> > "Tim" wrote
> > > Exactly! I was picking up on your comment that
> > > "the chance of winning a high value prize is miniscule
> > > with premium bonds". It is the same for the Lottery!
> > > Don't forget, we are comparing a chance
> > > of 0.000002 with a chance of 0.000005.
> > >
> > > They are *both* "miniscule"!!
> >
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > Well, yes.
>
> Glad you agree.
Nevertheless, if you're going to ignore multiplicative effects on "miniscule"
amounts, then you may as well argue than investing £1 in PB's is as worthwhile as
£30,000.
> > > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > > ... which on average is much more than a mere
> > > > £1 million (it was £18 million last Saturday!).
> > >
> > "Tim" wrote
> > > Ah, but (excluding rollovers), when the jackpot is, say £6M,
> > > then you'd expect on average three winners sharing and
> > > getting £2M each. The average expected jackpot prize is
> > > always £2M - which is only twice as much as for PB's.
> >
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > Why exclude rollovers? The only relevant factors are the
> > chances of winning and the size of the (shared) jackpot.
>
> Yes, but you need to average over time:-
>
> When there isn't a jackpot winner (so it rolls over), then
> the chance of you being "one of the winners" is *zero*.
Eh? You're suffering a logic failing - you're chance of winning was 1 in 14 million
per ticket. The fact that nobody ended up winning doesn't change that.
If you're going to look back in hindsight and say "nobody won so your chance was
zero", you may as well say "my numbers didn't come up so my chance was zero".
> When it was a rollover, and the winners share more
> than £2M each, then this simply counter-acts the
> lower-than-average "chance of winning, times jackpot size"
> of the earlier draw (which was zero, see above).
But using your logic above, the more people who win the better your odds - so if lots
of people win your odds were better than 1 in 14 million!
> > "Tim" wrote
> > > And bearing in mind that people often play the Lottery
> > > in syndicates, which they don't use to invest in PB's, the
> > > average jackpot payout is even lower for the Lottery!
> >
>
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > Well obviously, but then the chance of winning
> > is higher, in exact proportion to the lower prize.
>
> A bit like "more prizes, but lower" in PB's? ;-)
Sort of - although it's still likely to be skewed towards higher end prizes even in a
syndicate.
--
Andy
> > > > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > > > Indeed. So if your £30,000 was instead invested in a
> > > > > savings account paying 3% interest net, you'd get £75 a
> > > > > month interest. If you spent that on lottery tickets you'd
> > > > > have almost treble the chance of winning the jackpot, ...
> > > >
> > > "Tim" wrote
> > > > Exactly! I was picking up on your comment that
> > > > "the chance of winning a high value prize is miniscule
> > > > with premium bonds". It is the same for the Lottery!
> > > > Don't forget, we are comparing a chance
> > > > of 0.000002 with a chance of 0.000005.
> > > >
> > > > They are *both* "miniscule"!!
> > >
> > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > Well, yes.
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> > Glad you agree.
>
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> Nevertheless, if you're going to ignore multiplicative
> effects on "miniscule" amounts, then you may as well argue
> than investing £1 in PB's is as worthwhile as £30,000.
Well, ignoring the minimum allowed investment
in PB's, who says it isn't as worthwhile?
Altho', the probability distribution will be
very different from the £30K holding scenario.
> > > "Tim" wrote
> > > > And bearing in mind that people often play the Lottery
> > > > in syndicates, which they don't use to invest in PB's, the
> > > > average jackpot payout is even lower for the Lottery!
> > >
> >
> > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > Well obviously, but then the chance of winning
> > > is higher, in exact proportion to the lower prize.
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> > A bit like "more prizes, but lower" in PB's? ;-)
>
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> Sort of - although it's still likely to be skewed
> towards higher end prizes even in a syndicate.
Not if the syndicate has three or more people in it!
With a three-person syndicate, that "nearly treble chance"
becomes "just under the same chance"...
"Tim" <
> > > > > And bearing in mind that people often play the Lottery
> > > > > in syndicates, which they don't use to invest in PB's, the
> > > > > average jackpot payout is even lower for the Lottery!
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > > Well obviously, but then the chance of winning
> > > > is higher, in exact proportion to the lower prize.
> > >
> > "Tim" wrote
> > > A bit like "more prizes, but lower" in PB's? ;-)
> >
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > Sort of - although it's still likely to be skewed
> > towards higher end prizes even in a syndicate.
>
> Not if the syndicate has three or more people in it!
> With a three-person syndicate, that "nearly treble chance"
> becomes "just under the same chance"...
Eh? Are you feeling alright today? Have you been in the sun too long ;-)
With a 3 person syndicate the "nearly treble chance" becomes a nine-fold chance. For
every £1 you get 3 entries. The winnings are smaller, the odds of winning are
greater.
--
Andy
> > > > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > > > ... on lottery tickets ... the jackpot, which
> > > > > on average is much more than a mere
> > > > > £1 million (it was £18 million last Saturday!).
> > > >
> > > "Tim" wrote
> > > > Ah, but (excluding rollovers), when the jackpot is, say £6M,
> > > > then you'd expect on average three winners sharing and
> > > > getting £2M each. The average expected jackpot prize is
> > > > always £2M - which is only twice as much as for PB's.
> > >
> > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > Why exclude rollovers? The only relevant factors are the
> > > chances of winning and the size of the (shared) jackpot.
>
> "Tim" wrote
> > Yes, but you need to average over time:-
> >
> > When there isn't a jackpot winner (so it rolls over), then
> > the chance of you being "one of the winners" is *zero*.
>
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> Eh? You're suffering a logic failing - you're chance
> of winning was 1 in 14 million per ticket. The fact
> that nobody ended up winning doesn't change that.
>
> If you're going to look back in hindsight and say "nobody
> won so your chance was zero", you may as well say
> "my numbers didn't come up so my chance was zero".
>
> "Tim" wrote
> > When it was a rollover, and the winners share more
> > than £2M each, then this simply counter-acts the
> > lower-than-average "chance of winning, times jackpot size"
> > of the earlier draw (which was zero, see above).
>
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> But using your logic above, the more people who
> win the better your odds - so if lots of people
> win your odds were better than 1 in 14 million!
Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. Let me try again...
The main point is that the expected average
jackpot win is (only) £2M per winner.
This is true whether-or-not you consider rollovers
-- I just thought it might be easier to think about a
single draw that wasn't rolled-over (into or out of).
But over the fullness of time, for each 14 Billion tickets
sold we expect an average of 1,000 jackpot winners
sharing a total jackpot of £2Billion (£2M each).
Those 1,000 winners probably won't be evenly spread
over the weeks -- some draws may have no winner
(creating a rollover) and others will have more than one.
But the average over time will still be £2M per winner,
because those draws with no winner "counter-act"
those with many, and those draws with jackpots not
won "counter-act" with winners of rollover amounts.
Summary:
There is £2Billion to be spread amongst 1,000
jackpot winners, so the average is £2M each.