Goldman Sachs - Marcus account

Jim K.. explained :

How so? I simply said I had transferred a large sum, after a test £1.

That I think is >MY OWN PRIVATE BUSINESS<

What would you call a large amount of your money?

All things are relative - do I detect a note of envy in your obsession with what I wrote?

Jim K.. wrote on 04/01/2019 :

You seem to be the only one complaining, so likely the only one showing inadequacy tendencies.

It seems the larger the transferred sum into Marcus, the longer the transfer takes to actually appear. The £1 tester was near instant.

As I have previously said, I have several accounts and several investments. I use a TSB account which earns 5%, upto a balance of £1500, as a current account - I had allowed that to accumulate £12K, so zero interest on £10.5K :-(

I then had a much larger lump in an account, which could only be put in or withdrawn via the TSB account and only paid 0.95%. The security to get into to it of which was ridiculous. So two good reasons to move it.

Jim K.. laid this down on his screen :

No, I am the author of a follow up to my OP, providing extra detail to demonstrate how my transactions with Marcus went.

Not that private, or personal really - its only some money.

It happens that Jim K.. formulated :

Er, what tune did I change?

Jim K.. laid this down on his screen :

If you stop being silly and read back through what I actually wrote....

You were trying to determine from me, the size of the lump sum I was transferring which presently only earned interest of 0.95%. I said that was entirely my business.

I only gave details of a smaller amount I was transferring, the surplus from an intermediate account which earned 5% on a deposit of less than £1,500 and zero above that.

My memory is absolutely fine thank you.

Jim K.. presented the following explanation :

Then if you have zero interest, why get involved at all?

Inflation is 3%.

There are plenty of blue chip FTSE companies paying more than that as a dividend yield, or many Investment Trusts or Funds for the Widows and Orphans.

Jim K.. explained on 04/01/2019 :

To achieve what exactly?

I already have those. This is ready quick accessible cash.

Which would have been wiped out if you invested just a few months ago and now need to access your money.

Jim K.. formulated on Friday :

You actually achieved nothing of the sort. I also doubt you even new what the word meant when you used it..

Jim K.. laid this down on his screen :

Pointless, because you are now ploinked.

I got 1.44% on my Premium Bonds last year and with online servicing I can get the money back in my bank account pretty quickly.

With a credit card that has a £3K limit I could probably manage with hardly any immediate 'cash' though I still end up with money earning derisory interest for months until I force myself to invest it.

Rubbish. You are only 'wiped out' if a company goes bust, and it's fairly easy to see who is failing.

Last year Linsell Train IT made over 35%, while 3I Infrastructure IT did quite well too.

It's people who leave their money in 'deposits' for years or even decades who get wiped-out, because they don't realise the effect of inflation.

Anyone who invested a few months ago when European, UK and Japan stocks had already fallen a fair bit, and US interest rates were heading back to 'normal', frankly only has themselves to blame. A few months ago was the time to move into cash, and if they had been invested since 2009, or even 2011 then the gains will have been more than a lifetimes interest on deposits.

You need to read with more care.

You referred to dividend yields paying more than 3%. My response was that the *dividend yield of >3%* would have been wiped out by the drop in capital value of the investments if you had invested just a few months ago and now need to access your money. I *did not* say that the

Tax?

Why are telling us?

Whatever it takes...