The real odds of winning a Premium Bonds prize revealed as millions are ‘missing out'
The real odds of winning a prize through Premium Bonds has been revealed as a personal finance expert weighs in on how worthwhile the popular savings option really is.
Premium Bond holders are waiting an average 3.5 years to win a single prize, new analysis from Octopus Money has found. In nine out of ten of these cases, this prize is worth less than £2,000.
These findings mean savings in Premium Bonds are likely to be 'quietly shrinking in value,' Octopus Money CEO Ruth Handcock says, calling into question whether this popular financial product is the best option for savers.
Millions of people in the UK now have some savings in Premium Bonds, with the government-backed scheme holding more than £127 billion across 24 million accounts.
The investment product from National Savings and Investment (NS&I) provides savers with a unique opportunity to win cash prizes rather than accrue interest as with a regular savings account.
Each month, every account holder is entered into a draw with prizes ranging from £25 to £1 million. Each £1 entered has a 22,000-to-one chance of winning, with £25 being the minimum and £50,000 the maximum.
The new analysis also reveals how much is optimal to hold in Premium Bonds to boost the chance of winning a prize. Over the past five years, 94 per cent of jackpot winners held over £10,000, while three quarters of them held over £25,000.
For those who do win prizes, it is exceedingly rare that this will be anywhere close to the top prize. In 2024, 88 per cent of prize winners won less than £2,000, while only 0.32 per cent won over £10,000.
An accompanying survey of 2,000 Premium Bond account holders found that the main reason for choosing the product is the perceived lack of risk, followed by the tax-free status of a win and the possibility of a large return.
However, over £4.25 billion has been held in Premium Bond accounts that have had no activity over the past decade. This means the money has accrued zero interest during this time, which it would have done in a regular savings account.
Ruth Handcock, CEO of Octopus Money commented: 'While products like Premium Bonds may work well for some, others are missing out on strategies that could grow their wealth and deliver stronger returns over time. Premium Bonds are unlikely to outpace inflation, so your money may seem 'safe' but it's quietly shrinking in value over time.
'The truth is that millions of people could be getting more from their money, but they need access to affordable, personalised advice to help them figure out what's right for them - something that only 9 per cent of people in the UK currently receive.
'We want to empower people with the confidence to explore options that help them achieve their long-term goals – not just rely on products that feel 'safe' or like a 'quick win' but fall short in the long run.'
An NS&I spokesperson said: 'Premium Bonds are one of the nation's favourite savings products, offering bond holders the excitement of the possibility of winning tax-free prizes each month while knowing their investment is safe and secure, backed by a 100 per cent government guarantee.
'Every Premium Bonds number has a separate and equal chance of winning a prize each month, however the more Bonds you have, the better your chances of winning, and the quicker you may win a prize.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
31 minutes ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: Pernod Ricard launches restructuring plan as spirits sales slide
PARIS/LONDON, June 18 (Reuters) - Pernod Ricard ( opens new tab is streamlining its business by grouping brands into two main divisions, according to internal presentation slides seen by Reuters on Wednesday, as European spirits makers grapple with a downturn in sales. The French spirits maker told Reuters it had announced an "internal project to create a more agile and simplified organisation". "These changes imply the launch of local consultation processes with our social partners and employees where necessary," Pernod Ricard said. It did not comment on the number of jobs affected or the plan to group brands into two units.
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK benefits system could collapse if payments are not cut, Liz Kendall says
Britain's benefits system faces collapse without cuts to disability payments, Liz Kendall has said, as the government published plans that put it on a collision course with dozens of angry Labour MPs. Kendall published her welfare reform bill on Wednesday, confirming it would lead to benefit cuts for 950,000 people by 2030. She said the country's £326bn social security net might cease to exist if costs continued to escalate. The bill includes several concessions designed to win over fractious Labour MPs as ministers look to ward off the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer's premiership. But the efforts were met with hostility by many in the party, who said they still intended to vote against the bill next month. Kendall said: 'Our social security system is at a crossroads. Unless we reform it, more people will be denied opportunities, and it may not be there for those who need it. This legislation represents a new social contract and marks the moment we take the road of compassion, opportunity and dignity. 'This will give people peace of mind, while also fixing our broken social security system so it supports those who can work to do so while protecting those who cannot – putting welfare spending on a more sustainable path to unlock growth.' The bill will cut personal independence payments (Pips) for more than 800,000 people with disabilities, as well as carers' support for 150,000 people who care for them. Claimants only able to wash half of their body or who are unable to cook a meal for themselves will no longer be able to claim Pips unless they have another limiting condition. The cuts are at the heart of an overall package of nearly £5bn in welfare savings which ministers argue are necessary to protect the financial sustainability of the benefits system. Kendall has tried to dispel widespread anger in the Labour party over the plans by introducing new concessions. Under the terms of the bill, people losing their disability benefits will get additional financial support for 13 weeks, while those with severe conditions such as heart disease or spinal injuries will not have to face reassessments. The work and pensions secretary has set out a separate £1bn plan to help unemployed people get back to work, but this is not related to Pips, which are unconnected to employment status. Whips are also issuing threats, and the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, refused on Wednesday to rule out the possibility of suspending any Labour rebels when the bill is put to a vote next month. The mixture of concessions and threats did not appear to have won over wavering Labour MPs, however, and many went public with their criticism after the bill was published. Rachael Maskell, the MP for York Central, said: 'Having read the bill, it is clear that disabled people will lose significant support. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'The explanatory notes set out that 800,000 will not receive the daily living component of Pip by 2029/2030 and 150,000 will also lose their carers allowance. Poverty will be the legacy of this bill.' Andy McDonald, the MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, said the bill was 'a huge attack on the incomes of disabled people'. 'MPs are being expected to vote these through whilst the green paper consultation continues, before the Pip assessment review is conducted, and without any evidence the separate employment support package – which is not in this bill – will work. 'This bill will be a yes or no on impoverishing disabled people. It's a no from me.' Those feelings were echoed by disability campaign groups and charities. James Taylor, the director of strategy at the disability equality charity Scope said: 'This bill will be catastrophic for disabled people. Cutting benefits will plunge hundreds of thousands into poverty. Over 800,000 will lose at least some financial support from Pip. 'It will have a devastating effect on disabled people's health, ability to live independently or work.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
HS2: a complete failure by the British state and its politicians
When was it obvious that HS2 was an economic turkey at risk of becoming 'an appalling mess', as transport secretary Heidi Alexander described today's position? A fair case can be made for 2013, a year of two neon-lit warnings of trouble ahead. One was a scathing report on HS2 from the National Audit Office (NAO), the first of many, when the project was still at the planning stage. The NAO concluded it was impossible to say whether the programme was likely to deliver value for money; the cost and benefit estimates were 'uncertain'; there had been 'past errors in the underlying model'; the Department for Transport had 'poorly articulated' the strategic need for a transformation in rail capacity and how HS2 was supposed to rebalance economic growth. In short, there was 'a weak foundation for securing and demonstrating success in the future'. Then there was Peter Mandelson's remarkable insider confession in the pages of the FT of how Gordon Brown and his cabinet came to approve HS2 in the first place in 2010. It was a tale of collective short-termism; in the grim post-banking crash era, the Labour government didn't want to be outdone by the Tories in their enthusiasm for a shiny new big project. The cost estimates were 'almost entirely speculative', wrote Mandelson, but 'the vision was exciting' and 'we were focusing on the coming electoral battle'. Laughably, ministers had imagined HS2 would attract private sector backers. By 2013, Mandelson had changed his mind on HS2 and feared 'an expensive mistake'. If only others had rethought. It would have been a painless option for David Cameron's coalition government to ditch the whole adventure. There was an excuse to do so because an earlier report in 2006 by former British Airways chief Sir Rod Eddington, which was being reread with fresh eyes at the time, had rejected the idea of new high-speed rail links. For a country the size of the UK, the best value will usually lie in improving existing rail and road networks, it argued. Instead, the HS2 show rolled on, fuelled by more political puff and short-termism. Some of the passages in the review by ex-KPMG infrastructure adviser James Stewart, published by Alexander on Wednesday, are excruciating. Key decisions, such as the passing of the first parliamentary bill in 2017 and the letting of works contracts, prioritised the schedule over costs. 'I have heard a range of reasons for this but pressure from politicians to maintain momentum, fear of HS2 being cancelled, and the belief that costs will increase as a result of delay have featured strongly,' says Stewart. Meanwhile, 'the top-down vision of building a railway that would be the best and fastest has been a major factor in undermining attempts to introduce a culture of cost control'. This is tear-your-hair-out stuff because it breaks the golden rule about getting plans hammered down in detail before you start building large-scale infrastructure projects. Even now half of Euston sits as a wasteland before a plan has been agreed for a design for a HS2 terminus. The main source of cost overruns, as Stewart and Mark Wild (the ex-Crossrail chief executive now charged with salvaging the shambles) agree, were the works contracts. The contracting model, combined with unrealistic targets, turned the contracts into 'cost-plus' arrangements whereby contractors had little to no incentive to hit cost targets. Companies rang rings around the department and its arm's-length body, HS2 Ltd. The Institution of Civil Engineers concluded roughly the same in its report last year: huge contracts created 'an imbalance of power', especially in the context of a political demand to hurry up. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Later Tory leaders, especially Boris Johnson, deserve their own mention in the catalogue of infamy. It was Johnson who pushed the formal 'notice to proceed' button in 2020, in full knowledge that the review he commissioned from Douglas Oakervee said HS2 only made sense if built in full. Within 18 months, and with costs hurtling out of control, ministers amputated most of HS2's eastern arm to Leeds in 2021; the section to Manchester followed. In shrunken circumstances, it makes sense, as Alexander and Wild say, to slow down and complete the rump Birmingham-London link to a slower timetable in the interests of minimising yet more cost overruns. It will involve running the high-speed trains at slower speeds initially, a suitably farcical postscript to a project that has wasted tens of billions of pounds and consumed the lion's share of spending on rail for years. The tragedy is this ending has been predictable for about a decade.
