Two in three Premium Bonds holders have NEVER won a prize
More than 22million people hold Premium Bonds in the hope of winning a £1million prize.
The are loved by Britons for the thrill of the lottery-style prize draw which takes place each month with its promise of not one but two £1million jackpots for two lucky savers.
And also for the fact that any prizes won in the draw are completely tax free, which appeals to savers with bigger pots.
However, two in three current Premium Bonds holders - amounting to some 14.4million - have never won a prize, a Freedom of Information request to National Savings and Investments by stockbroker AJ Bell reveals.
The figure is based on prize data from February 1994 onwards, the same year the first £1million prize was introduced to the monthly prize draw by National Savings and Investments.
It also includes new Premium Bonds holders who were not eligible as their Bonds were not beyond one month purchased.
Premium Bond holders need to wait a full month before their bonds are eligible to be entered into the prize draw.
There is a whopping £127.7billion parked in Premium Bonds, according to AJ Bell, with the average holding sitting at £5,406.
There are likely to be millions of Premium Bonds holders who hold just a few hundreds pounds - or less.
The average holding for the 5.1million Premium Bond holders who won a prize in the last 12 months comes in at £23,397, almost quadruple the average holding.
Four in five winners who won a prize in the last 12 months won more than once during that period.
Millions more £50 and £100 prizes have been dished out since 2022, and they now make up a larger proportion of winning prizes than the lowest £25 prize.
The vast majority of Premium Bond prizes were worth £100 or less in 2024.
Meanwhile, the number of higher value prizes has dipped. In April's draw, there were four fewer £100,000 prizes from than the February draw, down from 82 to 78.
Meanwhile, there were 157 £50,000 prizes, down from 164 in February's draw, as well as 15 fewer £25,000 prizes and 39 fewer £10,000 ones.
Charlene Young, senior pensions and savings expert at AJ Bell says: 'While there has been a recent shift to most winners receiving prizes of £50 or £100, instead of the lowest £25 on offer, the vast majority of winning prizes in 2024 were still worth £100 or less.'
The Premium Bonds prize fund rate - the average return a Premium Bonds saver would get in a year - currently sits at 3.8 per cent, with the odds of winning a prize in the draw at 22,000 to one.
The more you hold, the more likely you are to win a monthly prize.
This does not mean that savers who keep money in Premium Bonds will get anything like a 3.8 per cent return on their savings as many may win nothing in a given year.
Instead of paying a monthly or annual interest rate, Premium Bonds holders have the chance to win monthly prizes from £25 all the way up to £1million.
But there's a chance even the average holding won't win a prize so savers could do better by keeping their money in a high-interest easy-access account.
NS&I cut the prize fund rate from 4.4 per cent to 4.15 December 2024. The prize fell again to 4 per cent in January 2025 before the most recent cut to 3.8 per cent.
If a saver were to keep the average holding of £5,406 in an easy-access account paying the Premium Bonds prize fund of 3.8 per cent, they would stand to earn £616 in interest over the course of a year, albeit if the rate doesn't change.
They could do better still if they kept it in the best easy-access account which pays 4.76 per cent and could earn £669 over the course of a year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
7 hours ago
- Spectator
OnlyFans is giving HMRC what it wants
Fenix International occupies the ninth floor of an innocuous office block on London's Cheapside. The street's name comes from the Old English for marketplace, and once upon a time Cheapside was just that: London's biggest meat market with butcher shops lining either side of the road. Today, the street houses financial institutions and corporate HQs. But Fenix still runs a marketplace. Some may even call it a meat market, albeit one that operates on the phones of hundreds of millions of users worldwide. Its name: OnlyFans. OnlyFans is best understood not just as a porn site, but as a social media platform with a paywall. Creators – mostly women – post photos, videos and voice notes behind monthly subscriptions. Users pay extra to tip the women, customise content and have one-to-one chats with their favourite models. Not everything on OnlyFans is X-rated, but that's the content that makes the money. An entire ecosystem has grown around OnlyFans since it was founded nine years ago by two British brothers, Tim and Thomas Stokely. One 'e-pimp' explained that successful models outsource much of their work to offshore call centres to give the illusion of intimacy with customers. Low-paid workers in Venezuela or the Philippines are hired to impersonate creators over text chats, maintaining dozens, even hundreds, of relationships with lonely men. OnlyFans' profits are enormous. In 2023, it generated nearly £5 billion in sales – up more than 2,000 per cent in four years. The company paid £127 million in tax last year, £110 million of that in corporation tax. Because Fenix is based in London, the bulk of that cash is flowing straight into the Treasury. For comparison: Britain's fishing industry – supposedly a red-line issue in Brexit – brings in just £876 million and pays next to nothing in corporation tax, while also receiving £180 million a year in tax concessions. We don't think of OnlyFans as a media company (if we think of it at all) and so we ignore what it is in business terms: a staggering success. With more than four million 'content creators' and 305 million subscribers, it would easily rank in the top three British publishing companies. It is perhaps the most successful creator-based subscription service ever. Traditional platforms can't compete – OnlyFans' revenues are twice that of North America's Aylo, which operates the world's biggest porn websites. Britain's sex industry brings in far more to the economy than politicians are comfortable admitting Britain's sex industry brings in far more to the economy than politicians are comfortable admitting. The Office for National Statistics estimates Britons spend in excess of £6 billion annually on it. It is one of the few British industries which remains a net (digital) exporter. Indeed, OnlyFans is perhaps the strongest unicorn (a privately held start-up worth more than $1 billion) in the country. It's more profitable than any other British tech start-up. And it's doing something our other digital start-ups can't: exporting to America while keeping tax revenues onshore. Two-thirds of its revenue now comes from the US, proving that even in a global tech economy dominated by Silicon Valley, British firms can still compete. OnlyFans' success makes it all the more striking that, according to Reuters, Fenix is in talks to sell. Los Angeles-based Forest Road Company is leading a group of investors in negotiations to buy the business for £6 billion. It's rumoured that other suitors are vying for attention and that shares may be sold on the stock market. Either way, one of Britain's few successful exports could soon be gone. It's awkward to defend pornography, and so politicians don't try. Parliament hosts thousands of lobbying events every year – payday lenders, bookies, vape companies, even arms dealers turn up for drinks and canapés. There is no 'sex tech reception'. Ministers fall over themselves to visit impressive-looking factories that are in fact barely relevant. For example, Glass Futures, a research and production plant for the glass industry based in St Helens, was recently picked by Keir Starmer as the perfect location for his speech decrying 'Farage's fantasy economics'. The plant is a not-for-profit that makes £7 million in annual sales. OnlyFans pays more in tax in a month than Glass Futures earns in a year. But no MP would be caught dead at OnlyFans' Cheapside HQ, despite, I'm told, many invitations to visit. Neither has any politician ever defended the porn industry in a debate on innovation, exports or growth. The most recent House of Lords research note on 'the impact of pornography on society' contains no mention of the words 'economy', 'tax' or 'finance'. Of course, money isn't everything. The harms of porn – to women, to relationships, to the minds of teenage boys – are real and considerable. We might well be better off banning the whole thing. But if we are going to wage a moral war on porn, we should at least be honest about what we're sacrificing. The money is real – and it's already in the bank of HMRC.
Spectator
7 hours ago
- Spectator
In defence of the Trump playbook
The standard explanation for why charges for plastic bags reduced waste is economic. People were reluctant to pay 10p for a bag and so brought their own instead. This is partly true. But it would still be highly effective if the charge for a bag were merely 1p. That's because charging any amount, however trifling, was sufficient to change the implicit assumptions about normal retail behaviour. Previously, if you went into Boots and bought, say, a toothbrush and a tube of Anusol, the default was for the cashier to put them in a new bag – it would have seemed rude not to do so. Suddenly, however, the imposition of a charge meant that shopkeepers had to ask whether you wanted a bag or not. Often the answer was 'no'; you had one already, or, if you were a chap, your clothing was miraculously equipped with things called 'pockets'. There are many ways in which you can achieve large changes in behaviour without imposing large economic penalties. For instance, I contend that you could significantly reduce intergenerational inequality simply by the imposition of a property tax of 0.1 per cent annually on all homes. The relatively small amount raised could be hypothecated to fund child benefit, or to reduce the income tax burden on the young. For the purposes of comparison, the typical property tax levied by those well-known leftists in the State of Texas is slightly over 1.8 per cent. Bear me out. I am borrowing here from the Donald Trump playbook. This is an under-rated approach to legislation where you impose taxes not for their direct effect, but for their symbolic value. By sending a surprising signal, you can change behaviour by unseating the unthinking assumptions people hold about the future. You don't necessarily have to do anything massive – you simply raise the possibility you might. Most human behaviour runs on implicit deterrents of this kind. By sending a surprising signal, you can change behaviour by unseating the unthinking assumptions people hold Before The Donald, it had become an axiomatic assumption in all businesses that no democratic government of any political stripe would ever deviate from the smug Davos neo-liberal globalist consensus in any shape or form. This artificial certainty meant that for decades you could offshore employment with abandon and treat your native staff fairly shabbily, without fear of any adverse consequences. Today it's different: even if you later reduce many tariffs to near zero and stop randomly abusing Canada, the signal has been sent. I hate to say this, but this approach could work well to solve many other problems. For instance, Britons have been lulled into planning for their future on the assumption that three unwritten rules underpin the tax system. 1) If you actually get up in the morning and do some useful work for which you get paid, you'll be taxed to buggery; 2) If you acquire wealth and then ride the wave of asset-price inflation (i.e. you have more money than you need 'cos you're old), you will be treated very generously; 3) If the asset in question is your own home, you won't be taxed at all, and nor will your good-for-nothing kids when they inherit it all. A large part of the reason why young people cannot afford to buy homes is nothing to do with the use value of a home – it is driven by the as-yet-unshaken belief that residential property has been sanctified as an asset class. It is this belief which possibly accounts for 25 per cent of the price of a home and a similarly large part of oldsters' pathological reluctance to downsize. Residential property is seen as Britain's only tax haven. To unseat this assumption, you don't need to rewrite the whole tax code, or go full Henry George – much as I would personally support this. You just have to make the unthinkable suddenly thinkable.
Daily Mail
9 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Reeves urged to rule out pensions tax raid amid mounting concern over how she will pay for her lavish spending
Rachel Reeves was last night urged to rule out a tax raid on pensions. The Chancellor is expected to launch a round of tax rises in a Budget this autumn to help fill a black hole in finances as she pours money into the public sector. That would follow a £40billion tax hike in the last Budget in October. 'More tax increases are inevitable, not just in the autumn but for years to come,' said Robert Colvile, director of the Centre for Policy Studies. It is feared this could involve a raid on retirement pots, including cutting the tax-free lump sum or reliefs on the contributions of higher earners. Savers can withdraw up to 25 per cent of their pots tax-free at 55 – up to a maximum of £268,275. Pensions grab: The Chancellor is widely expected to launch a fresh round of tax rises in a Budget this autumn as she pours money into the public sector Workers also can save up to £60,000 a year tax-free, equating to relief of 20 per cent for basic-rate taxpayers and 40 per cent or 45 per cent for those in the higher and additional income tax brackets. And experts warned of reductions in the annual allowance or the return of the lifetime allowance while salary sacrifice could also be abolished. Rumours of an attack on the lump sum proved particularly damaging ahead of Labour's Budget last autumn as savers withdrew cash from their pension pots. Investment firm AJ Bell is now calling on the Chancellor to rule out any raid on retirement savings by bringing in a pensions tax lock to provide certainty. 'This was the Chancellor's last foray into the limelight before the Budget and attention will now turn to what tax rises might be in the post,' said Laith Khalaf, head of investment analysis at AJ Bell. 'Amid growing fiscal pressure, there's a real risk that pensions tax reform speculation, especially around tax-free cash and tax relief, will return to the headlines. 'Rather than let uncertainty rattle savers, the Chancellor should introduce a pensions tax lock, ruling out changes to tax-free cash or pension tax relief for the rest of this Parliament. 'A commitment would offer investors the confidence to plan for the long term and give momentum to the retail investing revolution Rachel Reeves wants.' Tomm Adams, a partner at Blick Rothenberg, said: 'Reeves has been suspiciously quiet on the pensions front. But with an expensive funding plan, I'm not alone in asking: 'Where's the money coming from?' 'Basic arithmetic suggests that autumn tax rises look inevitable. Unfortunately, pensions tax relief is the perfect target.'
