Millions of Brits could be nearly £10,000 better off by switching savings accounts
BANK ON IT Millions of Brits could be nearly £10,000 better off by switching savings accounts
MILLIONS of Brits could be nearly £10,000 better off as banks directly tell them how to best invest their savings.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves unveiled the move as part of the biggest shake-up in a decade of financial regulation in a summit with executives from the sector.
Advertisement
Banks will send investment opportunities to savers for the first time from next April to help boost their savings pot.
The changes will mean that anyone with money sat in a low-interest savings will be offered advice to switch to stocks and shares.
Industry estimates say more than 29 million adults have their savings sat in an account offering less than 1 per cent.
The average return for stocks and shares accounts is around the 9 per cent mark.
Advertisement
The Treasury - who unveiled the plans as part of their Leeds Reforms - say that under current trends millions of people could be more than £9,000 better off in twenty years time.
Those who invest £2,000 today could have their hands on £12,700 if they put their money in stocks and shares. This contrasts with just £2,700 in a cash account at 1.5 per cent.
High Street banks and financial institutions will be getting behind an advertising campaign to help consumers.
Ms Reeves set out a host of reforms for the financial sector which is seen as one of the top eight drivers of growth for the UK as identified by Industrial Strategy.
Advertisement
She said: 'We fixed the public finances and stabilised the economy.
'Now we need to double down on our global strengths to put the UK ahead in the global race for financial businesses - creating good skilled jobs in every part of the country and helping savers' money go further through our Plan for Change.'
Emma Reynolds, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, said: 'Helping people take advantage of better returns from investing is key to better financial health, giving them a stake in a growing economy and connecting promising businesses with capital.
'These reforms will make the UK the best location for financial services firms and tear down barriers to investment to growing our economy and making families better off.'
Advertisement
The Leeds Reforms will cut red tape for the sector in a bid to drive investment from markets such as America and Asia.
The Chancellor will make her Mansion House speech tonight where she will rip up financial red tape to make the UK a more attractive place to do business for financial firms.
But City grandees will be listening out for reassurance that wealth taxes will not be imposed in the Budget - to avoid entrepreneurs and the wealthy from fleeing the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
This was too little, too late from the ‘iron' Chancellor
There will be a round of deregulation. Lending rules will be relaxed. And new listings will be accelerated. Rachel Reeves did everything she could in her Mansion House speech this evening to win back the City. From any other Chancellor it might have been greeted with loud applause. From this one, however, it will be dead on arrival. The relationship with finance is irretrievably broken – and is too late to win it back now. The bankers and brokers listening to Reeves this evening will like much of what she had to say. The relaxation of lending rules will be welcomed, even if it is questionable whether the British housing market needs yet more debt instead of more supply. Easing some red tape is always helpful, and something needs to be done to encourage more new listings. In reality, however, Labour's relationship with business is now broken beyond repair. When Reeves took office there was plenty of goodwill. Business was ready for a change of 14 years of a Conservative government that seemed more and more chaotic with every year that passed. She even had one or two ideas that sounded good, even if they were thin on detail. By now, however, the City feels completely betrayed. The assault on non-doms has driven wealthy clients out of the country, and many successful entrepreneurs as well, with nothing to replace them. The steep rise in employers' National Insurance has drained money out of companies, and hit profits and dividends. Her changes to inheritance tax have hammered not just farmers but every privately owned business, and many of those are still crucial to the economy. The extra employment rights might please the unions but they could be ruinous for the City. The list goes on and on. Business was told that Reeves was a pro-growth, pro-enterprise Chancellor. Instead she has led an assault on the private sector with no parallel in recent British history. It looks as if it will only get worse over the next year. We all know that there will be another huge round of tax rises in the autumn, and business may well bear the brunt of that. It could be higher business rates, a windfall tax on the banks or utilities, or even a 'temporary' surcharge on corporation tax, similar to the levy imposed in France earlier this year. Likewise, the plutocrats of the Square Mile are likely to be squeezed for extra tax revenue. We may well see a return of the 50 per cent top rate of tax. Or, even worse, a wealth tax, catastrophic for the City where £10 million is regarded as a respectable annual bonus, and not an obscene fortune to be taxed away. Sure, a few reforms are worth having. And it is good that Reeves recognises how crucial the City and financial services are to the British economy, even if many of the Left-wingers on her backbenchers won't agree with her. Finance has always been one of the key drivers of growth, as well as generating huge tax revenues. But the blunt truth is this. Reeves has lost the trust of the City. And no matter how hard she tries, it's surely gone forever.
Times
32 minutes ago
- Times
Rachel Reeves urged not to weaken UK's post-crisis bank regulations
The architect of the ring-fencing rules for banks has warned ministers that it would be a 'bad idea' to fundamentally weaken the regime after the chancellor set out plans to loosen what was the centrepiece of Britain's post-crisis financial regulation. Rachel Reeves pledged on Tuesday to make 'meaningful reforms' to ring fencing, which was brought in after the 2008 banking meltdown and forced lenders to legally separate their high street businesses from riskier investment banking divisions. It follows fierce criticism of the regime in recent months from the bosses of some of Britain's biggest banks, who wrote to the chancellor in April calling on her to abolish the rules altogether, arguing that they were inefficient and had been superseded by other reforms. • Rachel Reeves to relax bank ring-fencing rule to boost growth While the Treasury said it was 'committed to upholding' ring fencing, it revealed it would review the rules to examine 'how changes can strike the right balance between growth and stability'. This prompted Sir John Vickers, who led the government-backed commission that originally proposed ring fencing in 2011, to caution Reeves against going too far with any changes. 'There may well be scope to improve ring fencing's implementation but any weakening of the basic architecture would be a policy mistake and a bad idea,' he told The Times. 'It would remove an important element of safety and soundness regulation of UK banking, and not help the policy objective of more investment and growth in the UK economy.' The Treasury said that areas its review would examine included allowing ring-fenced divisions to offer more services to UK businesses and greater flexibility to share back-office resources across a bank's ring fence. It was one of a flurry of regulatory changes unveiled by Reeves on a visit to Leeds, which the chancellor said would 'put the UK ahead in the global race for financial businesses'. The overhaul was announced just hours before Reeves made a highly anticipated speech to City grandees at Mansion House, in which she called her revamp the most wide-ranging regulatory reform package for financial services in more than a decade. The reforms include: • An overhaul of the Financial Conduct Authority's sweeping consumer duty rules, which were only introduced in July 2023, to tackle worries about how the regime affects the way businesses interact with each other.• Streamlining the senior managers regime, which is a set of post-crisis regulations aimed at ensuring finance executives are held accountable for their actions.• The creation of a new 'concierge service' to help overseas financial firms enter the UK, and the establishment of a listings taskforce to attract companies to the London stock market. • Reform of the Financial Ombudsman Service, which resolves consumer disputes with firms, to address industry concerns that it has become an unpredictable 'quasi-regulator'. • Rule changes by the Bank of England to reduce capital requirements on lenders, including a plan to cut red tape on small and mid-sized banks to boost their ability to compete in the mortgage market. The chancellor's overhaul package, dubbed the 'Leeds reforms', seeks to 'rewire' Britain's financial system. It comes as pressure mounts on Reeves to show that the government can turbocharge the UK's faltering economy. The Treasury said its aim was to double the growth rate in UK net exports of financial services by 2035 and to 'tear down the barriers to attracting investment in the finance sector'.
Daily Mail
33 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Bailey goes toe-to-toe with the Chancellor over her overriding growth mission, says ALEX BRUMMER
The Mansion House dinner in the City of London is one of the few official occasions when the governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor appear together on the same platform. Andrew Bailey, who was once Rachel Reeves' senior on Threadneedle Street, did travel with her to Beijing in January this year. Eyebrows were raised because it happened to be a tense moment on the market for UK government bonds and a perceived mistake for both policy setters to be in the Pacific. Before the Bank was given its independence in 1997, the Mansion House was the great monetary event of the year when the Chancellor would give new marching orders to the governor. All that changed in deference to the Bank's independence. On both sides of the Atlantic, the issue of central bank independence has raised its head. In America, Donald Trump's relentless attacks on Federal Reserve chairman Jay Powell for failure to bring interest rates down more speedily has been unnecessarily crude. If anything, it stiffened the resolve of the Fed's interest rate setting Open Markets Committee not to be bullied. The latest US consumer price data for June, showing inflation zipped up to 2.7 per cent, partly fuelled by tariffs, suggest the battle between Fed and White House is not over. Matters are handled differently in Britain. Historically, all it needed was a twitch of the governor's eyebrows to make a change in the Square Mile. That era, and the Ken and Eddie show when Chancellor Ken Clarke and governor Eddie George would set interest rates together, is long over. In keeping with British understatement, disagreements between Bank and Treasury rarely bubble to the surface in public. Yet governors have ways of making their broader views known. Eddie George was highly sceptical of the 'one size fits all' of the eurozone. Mark Carney was less than enthusiastic about Brexit. He played a big role in the 2014 Scottish referendum when he argued that two economies, each going their own way with one central bank and currency, could be destabilising. The smiles and the connection that comes with being former colleagues does not mean Bailey and Reeves always are on the same page. In her determination to use all the levers possible to propel her growth mission, she is seeking backup powers from Parliament that would allow her to direct up to 10 per cent of pension fund savings into infrastructure projects, start-ups and equities. Bailey, rightly, repeatedly has rejected the compulsion. Privately, Reeves is thought to be frustrated by the Bank's reluctance to lower bank rate from 4.25 per cent to support flagging output. She nonetheless likes to take credit for interest rate cuts and lower mortgage rates since she arrived at No. 11. Remarks by Bailey suggest that, with the economy stumbling, he and colleagues on the Monetary Policy Committee will begin to ease rates in August which could relieve tension. Downing Street and the Treasury were less than pleased with Bailey's interview in The Times this week when he suggested that firms were 'adjusting employment' because of rise of the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions (NICs). The Treasury retorted that the NICs are paying for the NHS and helping waiting lists to fall. Tell that to the owners of pubs, hospitality outlets and retailers forced to close their doors. The Chancellor, having so far failed to put a fire under output, insists that easing the 'red tape' around City listings and fundraising, and a new 'concierge service', encouraging overseas investors to London, will assist. Reeves is also behind the initiatives to unblock mortgage lending for the less well-off, and ease capital ratios for the banks. As a former regulator and an official in the engine room of the Bank in the great financial crisis, Bailey is more cautious. There is no market or economic upside in the Bank and the Chancellor being at odds. Central bank independence is not yet an issue. However, grown-up dissension from the Bank is a useful antidote to Reeves. The Chancellor is openly chastised by business leaders for hearing but not listening.
