well that is four £25 wins in four months...cool

On Sun, 9 May 2021 09:34:18 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

well that is four £25 wins in four months...cool
I've had £15 worth (child birthday present) for over 60 years, never
won anything (

On 11/05/2021 12:05, Davidm wrote:
On Sun, 9 May 2021 09:34:18 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

well that is four £25 wins in four months...cool
I've had £15 worth (child birthday present) for over 60 years, never
won anything (


And today's purchasing power of that £15 is about 65p - or should that
be 13/- ?

PA

On 11/05/2021 12:05, Davidm wrote:
On Sun, 9 May 2021 09:34:18 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

well that is four £25 wins in four months...cool
I've had £15 worth (child birthday present) for over 60 years, never
won anything (


You need to buy a block of at least £1000 then for two years you
should expect to get the equivalent of a 10-year gilt, which is
currently about 0.8%

On 11/05/2021 14:07, Owain Lastname wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 May 2021 at 13:33:02 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
You need to buy a block of at least £1000 then for two years you
should expect to get the equivalent of a 10-year gilt, which is
currently about 0.8%

"with average luck"

some people will get more, some less.


Or, as a pedant would put it, *everybody* will get more or less

The prizes are quantised; the minimum is £25; so the (compound) rate of
return on £1,000 over 2 years is either 0%, or 1.24%, or 2.47%, or.....
Calculating the odds of each is beyond my pay grade.





--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 11/05/2021 14:07, Owain Lastname wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 May 2021 at 13:33:02 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
You need to buy a block of at least £1000 then for two years you
should expect to get the equivalent of a 10-year gilt, which is
currently about 0.8%

"with average luck"

some people will get more, some less.


Or, as a pedant would put it, *everybody* will get more or less

The prizes are quantised; the minimum is £25; so the (compound) rate of
return on £1,000 over 2 years is either 0%, or 1.24%, or 2.47%, or.....
Calculating the odds of each is beyond my pay grade.

I had £30,000 invested. I got a £25 cheque every six months or so. I once
got £100 cheque. I probably made about £400 over the 10 years I had the
money invested. I thought this was surprisingly poor - and so did my wife
who had had a much smaller amount invested and regularly got cheques for
£100. But that was a few years before I invested my money: circumstances may
have changed.

%0.8 on £30,000 is £240 *per year*, whereas I only made double that amount
in *10* years :-(

I do have a sneaking suspicion that some of my bond numbers were not entered
into the draw or else were paying out to someone else, for that large amount
of capital to return *such* a small amount. There was no problem when I
cashed in the money (as a small contribution to buying a new house), so all
the money was correctly registered to me on their system.

If I had my time again I'd put that money in a Unit Trust such as the one I
still have which has had a very good growth - because that reinvests any
dividends/interest that it makes.

NY wrote:

I do have a sneaking suspicion that some of my bond numbers were not
entered into the draw or else were paying out to someone else, for that
large amount of capital to return *such* a small amount. There was no
problem when I cashed in the money (as a small contribution to buying a
new house), so all the money was correctly registered to me on their
system.

For premium bonds purchased in the 1960s, which are yellowing pieces of
paper with a rubber-stamped date on them, in a small cardboard wallet,
were these centrally recorded anywhere?

There are those who swear if you cash them in and buy new ones every couple
of years, you stand more chance of winning, but the officials of course say
no, they are after all just picked by a random number generator. Of course
how random random actually is is not defined and indeed makes an interesting
thought experiment. most computer ones I've looked at start with a seed
number then basically count from that to when you hit stop. You can then
have the seed tied to something weird like the number of cosmic rays
detected, or the number of frames that have been viewed on a computer since
the program started and all sorts of other things. You can sort the numbers
with one random algorithm and read them with another etc etc, but really, in
the end you can still end up with sequential numbers in a sequence, just
because its as random as anything else is!

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Davidm" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 May 2021 09:34:18 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

well that is four £25 wins in four months...cool
I've had £15 worth (child birthday present) for over 60 years, never
won anything (

On 11/05/2021 14:53, Robin wrote:
On 11/05/2021 14:07, Owain Lastname wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 May 2021 at 13:33:02 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
You need to buy a block of at least £1000 then for two years you
should expect to get the equivalent of a 10-year gilt, which is
currently about 0.8%

"with average luck"

some people will get more, some less.


Or, as a pedant would put it, *everybody* will get more or less

The prizes are quantised; the minimum is £25; so the (compound) rate of
return on £1,000 over 2 years is either 0%, or 1.24%, or 2.47%, or.....
Â* Calculating the odds of each is beyond my pay grade.


There are two approaches to PBs.

If you're a gambler - good luck

If you're an investor then you should treat PBs as currently returning
up to 0.9% tax free. There's a fair chance you'll get pretty close to
0.9% if you hold tens of thousands. Below that holding you get
progressively less.

The rationale for that is that, though the total prize funds varies from
month to month - the split of the fund hasn't changed very often. There
are three categories - 5% goes to big prizes, 5% to mid prizes and 90%
to small prizes.

If you are a rational investor you treat big and mid prizes as "you die
before you win" So you really only have access to 90% of the prize fund
- and so you expect up to 0.9% when the declared prize fund rate is 1%.

As for the "professionally less", the technical term is granularity.
Imagine that Sainsbury's stated that we'll only refund cash purchasers
in rounded-down whole pounds. In both cases the un-refunded change is
typically 50p. That's a much better deal for someone spending, say,
£97.50 than it is for someone spending, say, £1.50

Not a perfect analogy. By the way, PBs are no different in this as
compared to other savings. It's just PB's granularity is £25, compared
to 1p for the others.

PA

On Wed, 12 May 2021 07:43:01 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

NY wrote:

I do have a sneaking suspicion that some of my bond numbers were not
entered into the draw or else were paying out to someone else, for that
large amount of capital to return *such* a small amount. There was no
problem when I cashed in the money (as a small contribution to buying a
new house), so all the money was correctly registered to me on their
system.

For premium bonds purchased in the 1960s, which are yellowing pieces of
paper with a rubber-stamped date on them, in a small cardboard wallet,
were these centrally recorded anywhere?
Must be, 'cos I recently registered for an online account with NS&I
and they showed up in my account (I had kept them updated on address
changes).

"Davidm" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 May 2021 07:43:01 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

NY wrote:

I do have a sneaking suspicion that some of my bond numbers were not
entered into the draw or else were paying out to someone else, for that
large amount of capital to return *such* a small amount. There was no
problem when I cashed in the money (as a small contribution to buying a
new house), so all the money was correctly registered to me on their
system.

For premium bonds purchased in the 1960s, which are yellowing pieces of
paper with a rubber-stamped date on them, in a small cardboard wallet,
were these centrally recorded anywhere?
Must be, 'cos I recently registered for an online account with NS&I
and they showed up in my account (I had kept them updated on address
changes).

Apart from a few bonds that I bought in a savings scheme at school in the
mid-1970s (I contributed 10p a week and after 10 weeks a £1 bond was bought
in my name) where paper certificates were issued, all my bonds were bought
electronically using the web site. I don't remember seeing individual bond
numbers on the notification of which bond had won a prize. If the prize
notification had mentioned the bond number, I might have thought "it's odd
that a bond with this number has won several prizes over the years whereas a
bond with this number has never won - is that statistically significant?".
Very difficult to prove when the chance of any given bond winning is so
small.

In article , Andy Burns
writes
NY wrote:

I do have a sneaking suspicion that some of my bond numbers were not
entered into the draw or else were paying out to someone else, for
that large amount of capital to return *such* a small amount. There
was no problem when I cashed in the money (as a small contribution to
buying a new house), so all the money was correctly registered to me
on their system.

For premium bonds purchased in the 1960s, which are yellowing pieces of
paper with a rubber-stamped date on them, in a small cardboard wallet,
were these centrally recorded anywhere?
Held on computer. Originally LEO3
--
bert

In article , "Brian Gaff (Sofa)"
writes
There are those who swear if you cash them in and buy new ones every couple
of years, you stand more chance of winning, but the officials of course say
no, they are after all just picked by a random number generator. Of course
how random random actually is is not defined and indeed makes an interesting
thought experiment. most computer ones I've looked at start with a seed
number then basically count from that to when you hit stop. You can then
have the seed tied to something weird like the number of cosmic rays
detected, or the number of frames that have been viewed on a computer since
the program started and all sorts of other things. You can sort the numbers
with one random algorithm and read them with another etc etc, but really, in
the end you can still end up with sequential numbers in a sequence, just
because its as random as anything else is!

Brian

Not that sort of random number generator.

https://www.i-programmer.info/histor...-random-number
-generator.html
--
bert

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 7:43:08 AM UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
NY wrote:

I do have a sneaking suspicion that some of my bond numbers were not
entered into the draw or else were paying out to someone else, for that
large amount of capital to return *such* a small amount. There was no
problem when I cashed in the money (as a small contribution to buying a
new house), so all the money was correctly registered to me on their
system.
For premium bonds purchased in the 1960s, which are yellowing pieces of
paper with a rubber-stamped date on them, in a small cardboard wallet,
were these centrally recorded anywhere?

Yes, I found one in my dead father's belongings that apparently had been bought for me (worth £1). No problem registering it to my current address.

Jonathan

On Tue, 11 May 2021 13:32:58 +0100, Andrew wrote:

On 11/05/2021 12:05, Davidm wrote:
On Sun, 9 May 2021 09:34:18 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

well that is four £25 wins in four months...cool
I've had £15 worth (child birthday present) for over 60 years, never
won anything (


You need to buy a block of at least £1000 then for two years you should
expect to get the equivalent of a 10-year gilt, which is currently about
0.8%

We have had some for about 3 years, and so far have managed over 1% a year
simple interest return, although each year it gets slightly less.
Then again, each year the number of prizes goes down.

So our returns are broadly in line with the predicted return.

Cheers


Dave R


--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Wed, 12 May 2021 09:55:53 +0100, Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) wrote:

There are those who swear if you cash them in and buy new ones every
couple of years, you stand more chance of winning, but the officials of
course say no, they are after all just picked by a random number
generator. Of course how random random actually is is not defined and
indeed makes an interesting thought experiment. most computer ones I've
looked at start with a seed number then basically count from that to
when you hit stop. You can then have the seed tied to something weird
like the number of cosmic rays detected, or the number of frames that
have been viewed on a computer since the program started and all sorts
of other things. You can sort the numbers with one random algorithm and
read them with another etc etc, but really, in the end you can still end
up with sequential numbers in a sequence, just because its as random as
anything else is!

Brian

The problem with cashing them in every 2 years is that you have to wait a
month before the new bonds can be entered in the draw, which potentially
reduces your return.


Cheers


Dave R


--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Jonathan wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

For premium bonds purchased in the 1960s, which are yellowing pieces of
paper with a rubber-stamped date on them, in a small cardboard wallet,
were these centrally recorded anywhere?

Yes, I found one in my dead father's belongings that apparently had been bought for me (worth £1). No problem registering it to my current address.

Similarly, one of these is dated a few days after I was born

On 12/05/2021 07:43, Andy Burns wrote:
NY wrote:

I do have a sneaking suspicion that some of my bond numbers were not
entered into the draw or else were paying out to someone else, for
that large amount of capital to return *such* a small amount. There
was no problem when I cashed in the money (as a small contribution to
buying a new house), so all the money was correctly registered to me
on their system.

For premium bonds purchased in the 1960s, which are yellowing pieces of
paper with a rubber-stamped date on them, in a small cardboard wallet,
were these centrally recorded anywhere?

Yes. If you create an online account you can see how many prehistoric
birthday ones you have languishing on their system. It shows as how much
more you can invest before hitting their £50k limit.

With a £10 bond you can expect to wait around 20k months to get a win.
Conversely with £20k invested you might feel hard done by if you didn't
get a win most months. £1k will get you a win every now and then.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In message , NY writes
I do have a sneaking suspicion that some of my bond numbers were not
entered into the draw or else were paying out to someone else, for that
large amount of capital to return *such* a small amount.

I've had some for the best part of 60 years and never had a farthing in
prize money. NS&I assure me that the numbers are registered, so clearly
the random element of the draw is working :-(

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 12/05/2021 14:58, David wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2021 09:55:53 +0100, Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) wrote:

There are those who swear if you cash them in and buy new ones every
couple of years, you stand more chance of winning, but the officials of
course say no, they are after all just picked by a random number
generator. Of course how random random actually is is not defined and
indeed makes an interesting thought experiment. most computer ones I've
looked at start with a seed number then basically count from that to
when you hit stop. You can then have the seed tied to something weird
like the number of cosmic rays detected, or the number of frames that
have been viewed on a computer since the program started and all sorts
of other things. You can sort the numbers with one random algorithm and
read them with another etc etc, but really, in the end you can still end
up with sequential numbers in a sequence, just because its as random as
anything else is!

Brian

The problem with cashing them in every 2 years is that you have to wait a
month before the new bonds can be entered in the draw, which potentially
reduces your return.


Cheers


Dave R



Not long ago the million pound prize was won by a bond on its
first outing. Last month a million pound prize was won by a bond
on its second outing.

On 12/05/2021 07:43, Andy Burns wrote:

For premium bonds purchased in the 1960s, which are yellowing pieces of
paper with a rubber-stamped date on them, in a small cardboard wallet,
were these centrally recorded anywhere?

Well if they weren't the computer would have a hard time selecting them.

Andy