Credit and debit card spending rose by 5.7% in June
The bank said the data shows consumer spending remained robust last month and "well ahead" of the rate of inflation of 1.8%.
The figure is down from the 6.5% year-on-year increase recorded in card spending by Bank of Ireland customers in May.
However, BOI said the June numbers indicate "little spending impact from US-tariff related uncertainty and the recent dip in consumer confidence."
Holiday spending was up sharply last month, with accommodation up 4.3% year-on-year, while spending on car rentals increased by 16%.
The bank said the retail sector was helped by a spike in electrical goods sales, which rose by 16%.
While clothing sales were down 2.1% on the year, "albeit reflecting that consumer prices for clothing (-2.4%) and footwear (-1.8%) have fallen over the past year."
Notably, the move away from households using physical cash is continuing.
Decrease in ATM withdrawals
The BOI data shows ATM withdrawals were down 3.6% on the year, with cash now representing just one-in-eight euro spent.
The report said the data suggests consumer spending is "expanding faster than Bank of Ireland's current forecast for a 2.4% real gain in 2025, closer to the upwardly revised 2.9% pace seen in 2024."
Bank of Ireland's Chief Economist, Conall Mac Coille, said the figures show that Irish consumer spending "remains resilient and robust."
He said the growth was driven by strong holiday and retail activity, especially in accommodation, car rentals, and electrical goods.
Despite the global uncertainties and a dip in consumer confidence, Mr Mac Coille said Irish households "continue to spend confidently, supported by solid job creation and income growth."
He also noted that the indicates that "the shift away from cash also continues, with ATM withdrawals down and digital payments now dominating everyday transactions."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Does it make sense to hold onto my husband's bank shares and his stockbroker account?
I know that you have done your best to try to explain the misery that befell many of us when the banks were taken over by the Government. But some of us are remedial and still don't quite understand where we now stand. My late husband worked in AIB and had his life's savings in AIB shares. (For safety he diversified into equally 'safe' BOI shares!). I recall that, before the crash, his AIB shares were worth about €450,000. They were held with Goodbody's . I don't know why. My December 2024 statement states that, as of now, I have close to €25,000 invested roughly evenly across the two big banks. READ MORE Last month, I paid an annual charge of €701,61 to Goodbody's (Cumulative Effect of Costs and Charges on Returns), of which €501,61 was in non-Goodbody charges My questions are as follows: Should I close this account with Goodbodys since I have never done – and don't plan to do – any trading. Is there any point in hanging on to these shares in the hope that, when the banks are making millions again, they might feel sorry for those of us who lost everything and offer some kind of compensation? In fairness, AIB continues to pay my widow's pension. Ms J.R. The first rule in making sense of investments is understanding what you are paying for the opportunity of gain. Charges can fundamentally affect your return so it is important to get a proper fix on them. I get the sense you're not too sure why you are paying the amount you are paying Goodbody's to manage this portfolio of shares and cash. I've spoken to Goodbodys who, no more than their rivals, can be difficult o tie down on the question of fees. To their credit, they have suggested you contact them directly so that they can walk you through exactly what the charges are and for what service. As usual, I have not given any of your identifying details to them as I did not have your explicit permission to do so but they tell me they have offered an experienced person on standby to deal with you directly on this matter. I'll pass those details on to you. Charges aside, there are a couple of big issues here. First, should you hold on to the shares and second, should you continue to hold an account with Goodbody's or any other broker? Let's take those in reverse order. You have kind of answered the second question with your assertion that since your husband died and you inherited these shares, you have never done – and do not plan to do – any trading. There is no obligation to hold your shares through a broker although you will need to engage a broker should you ever decide to sell them. These days, shares are 'dematerialised'. This means that any paper share certificates you hold – which used to be the legal proof of ownership – are now worthless. Instead, details of your shareholdings are held in electronic form by the 'registrar', the company that manages the list of shareholders for each of these banks. In this case, a company called Computershare is share registrar for both banks. You can keep track of your shares and any dealings in them by registering with Computershare here for access to their online investor centre. You'll need very basic details – your unique shareholder reference number for each shareholding – which you should be able to find on communications from the companies, or from Goodbody. The key thing here is that you do not need to hold your shares through a stockbroker and, if you are not trading in shares, it makes little sense to be paying annual charges for the privilege – never mind over €700. Based on the current value of your account, as outlined in your query, the Goodbody's annual charge amounts to over 2.75 per cent, which certainly strikes me as very high, especially for an account with no activity. I cannot think of an explanation Goodbody's could provide that would make this a sensible proposition for you. Unless you plan to sell the shares now given you already appear to be paying Goodbody for the service, I would pull the plug on the Goodbody account and keep track of the shares through the Computershare Investor Centre. If you do want to sell later, you can always 'shop the market' to see who will sell them for you at the lowest charge. That brings us to the other issue – should you hold on to these shares at all? As an AIB lifer, it is not entirely surprising – if not exactly sensible – that he invested heavily n the bank's shares. Back then, he may have been able to do so at preferential rates or through some employee share programme. He was correct that it made sense to diversify given the concentration of his investment. I have no idea if he took advice at that time but the notion of diversifying from having all your investments in one bank stock by investing in the State other large listed back was mad even back then. All his eggs were still in the banking basket and we all know what happened there. People like your husband saw their savings effectively go up in smoke. In AIB's case, quite apart from the bank bailout that saw the value of his shareholding crash, he also went through the one for 250 share consolidation in 2015 that knocked a further 75 per cent of the value of his savings. In the case of Bank of Ireland, in 2017, it gave shareholder one new share for every 30 previously held but, of course, it too saw the value of existing investors' shareholdings decimated by the post-crash bailout. Given the number of shares your husband, and now you, hold in both banks, it is clear his investment in both was significant. You do not say when you inherited these shares which is a key point. Any investment gains (or in his case losses) die with a shareholder. So when you inherited the shares, their base value will be whatever they were worth at that time. The losses your husband suffered are, unfortunately, irrelevant. Assuming you inherited some time since late 2010, you are actually in profit on both those shares right now – albeit a long way of recovering the sort of level they traded at when your husband had them before the crash. So if you do sell, and assuming your gain is more than €1,270, as I assume it will be, you will be paying capital gains tax at 33 per cent on those 'profits'. I'm not a share analyst, nor a qualified financial adviser, so I cannot say what you might expect these shares to do in the future, though it is fair to say that most analysts see some upside for both as the State has now exited their bailout investment despite cuts in European Central Bank interest rates that have padded their profits in recent years. The bigger question is whether you are comfortable with stock market investments in individual shares. Even if you are, it would be advisable to consider proper diversification – something you might discuss with Goodbody when you meet them and before you make any decision to close that account. Whatever you do, I would certainly not bank of either lender offering any compensation to the shareholders it gutted during the crash, now that they are back to earning millions of euro. They may say how sorry they are for what happened – and have done – but they're not that sorry. And, to be fair to them, that is the nature of stock market investment. It carries risk – hence the good sense in diversification – and when things go wrong, shareholders will find themselves at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to people being taken care of. That is the reality of shareholder investment. Investing in Ireland's banks used to be considered almost as good as investing in government bonds, with dividend income as icing on the cake. The crash reminded us not to take such things for granted. And much and all as investors must take responsibility for their own risk, I would not be giving AIB any credit for paying your widow's pension. That is part of the Ts & Cs of your husband's occupational pension scheme - not some munificence on the part of the bank. Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street, Dublin 2, or by email to , with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Von der Leyen says EU to push for deal ahead of Trump deadline on tariffs
The European Union will use the time it has until an August 1st deadline to push for a tariff deal with the United States, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has said. The head of the EU's powerful executive arm was speaking after US president Donald Trump announced he would levy tariffs of 30 per cent on nearly all trade coming from the EU from the start of next month. Speaking in Brussels on Sunday, Ms von der Leyen said commission negotiators would keep pushing for an EU-US deal that suspended those threatened higher tariffs rates. 'We have always been very clear that we prefer a negotiated solution. This remains the case and we will use the time that we have now till the first of August,' Ms von der Leyen said. READ MORE An initial set of EU counter-tariffs on €21 billion worth of US trade that had been due to kick in on Monday after a 90-day pause, will be kept on hold until early August, she said. A second, larger set of retaliatory tariffs that would hit about €70 billion worth of US trade was also ready to go if needed, the commission president said. 'We have prepared for this and we can respond with counter-measures if necessary,' she said. The use of the EU's anti-coercion instrument, which would give the commission wide ranging powers to target US multinational companies, such as tech and social media firms, was reserved for an 'extraordinary situation,' she said. 'We are not there yet,' the German politician said. 'This is now the time for negotiations but this also shows we are prepared for all eventual scenarios.' Mr Trump's threat on Saturday to place a 30 per cent tariff on goods from the European Union caused outrage among European leaders, with some urging retaliatory tariffs while others said they hoped a deal could still be worked out before the new levies went into effect. The EU has been in deep negotiations with Washington in the hope of reaching trade deals that would avert such punishing levies and a wider trade war. But Mr Trump's threat to impose a 30 per cent levy on European and Mexican goods on August 1st upended months of deliberations. The European Council president, António Costa, said on social media that the EU 'remains firm, united and ready to protect our interests.' President Emmanuel Macron of France suggested the 30 per cent rate came as a surprise after weeks of negotiations that he said were 'made in good faith'. He voiced 'very strong disapproval' of the tariffs in a social media post. France has been one of the loudest voices in Europe calling for retaliatory tariffs against the US if a deal is not reached. Mr Macron reiterated a plea for the European Commission, which is negotiating on behalf of the EU countries, to mobilise 'all the instruments at its disposal'. Prime minister Giorgia Meloni of Italy, one of the few European leaders Trump likes, struck a more cautious tone. Her office said in a statement that it would make 'no sense to spark a trade war between the two sides of the Atlantic', and urged negotiators to avoid 'polarisations that would make reaching an agreement more complex'. Mr Trump threatened to meet any EU tariff retaliation with an equal increase in US tariffs. Experts said that would increase the chances of a wider trade war between the United States and Europe. The new tariffs also prolong the economic uncertainty weighing on various exporters, including German carmakers, Italian wine exporters and Irish pharmaceutical companies. - Additional reporting: New York Times Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum noted in speeches that every country has been getting a letter from Mr Trump as he implements global protectionist policies. Her team had already begun discussions with the US on Friday and she was confident Mexico would get a deal. 'We've had some experience with these things for several months now,' Sheinbaum said at a clinic opening in Ensenada, Baja California. 'And I think we're going to reach an agreement with the United States government.' – This article originally appeared in The New York Times , additional reporting by Bloomberg
Irish Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Irish Daily Mirror
Rules and your rights on whether it is too hot to work during Ireland's heatwave
Temperatures have soared in Ireland in recent days to above 30C at times, the hottest weather experienced in the country so far this year. And while conditions look set to change on Sunday and into next week, it's worth knowing the rules around working in extreme temperatures (at least by Irish standards) should we get similar weather in the near future in what has been a decent summer to date. The rules can differ based on whether you're working in an office or working from home. For those working in an office, there is no maximum temperature in a workplace but there is a minimum. The Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 states that workplaces must be at least 17.5C. That changes to 16C if rigorous physical work is undertaken. Despite not having a maximum temperature, the act states that employers must ensure the safety of staff. The act says employers must "take reasonable care to protect his or her safety, health and welfare and the safety, health and welfare of any other person who may be affected by the employee's acts or omissions at work". The Irish Business and Employers' Confederation say that once employers make an effort to bring the heat down, you won't get a day off. It states: "Where an employer is obviously sympathetic and tries to alleviate the worst effects of hot weather most employees should bear with temporary discomfort and continue working normally. 'Unless conditions are extreme, measures such as those outlined above should prevent any employees justifiably claiming that the company is in breach of its duty under the 2005 Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act. 'Any refusal by the employees to work would then place them in breach of their contracts of employment, which could lead to loss of pay/disciplinary action.' Employers are also expected to keep the temperatures down inside if they start shooting up. They also can relax dress codes and offer water breaks to ensure the safety of workers. However, things also get a little muddied for the thousands of workers told to do their jobs from home, where most don't have air conditioning. Mike Hibbs, employment partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, previously told Mirror Money: 'The fact that many employees are still working from home does not mean that employers can suddenly forget their health and safety responsibilities. "All the usual rules apply, including the need to risk assess homes as suitable working environments. In the workplace, employers usually rely on air conditioning and ventilation to regulate temperatures. However, at home, many employees may not have this option and their only means of keeping cool will be to open windows." Open windows can create more problems than it solves depending on your work. Mr Hibbs said: "The potential for disturbance by noisy neighbours and street noise can make this impractical, especially if their work involves making telephone or video calls." He concluded that if you can't get somewhere cool to work from then your boss may not be able to keep you there. The HSE says that heat stress, heat exhaustion and heatstroke are potentially serious health risks for people during a heatwave. It has issued the following public health advice for hot weather in Ireland. Keep your indoor environment cool: The person you are caring for may not have a sense of how much they're drinking. To help them: Contact your GP or the Emergency Department if you are unwell and especially if you These can be signs of serious dehydration that need urgent treatment. The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week
