Savings Guide: More options than ever for savers to beat inflation - and good news about top easy access ISA
From easy access to fixed rate bonds, there are lots of savings accounts to choose from. Savers now have more options than ever to beat inflation.
For this week's Savings Guide, Anna Bowes, expert from The Private Office, reviews the best account options on the market in June.
Easy access
There has not been a lot of change to the easy access table, apart from the addition of a new financial app provider, Snoop.
Like other fintech providers such as Chip, Moneybox, Tembo, Plum, and Sidekick, Snoop offers savings and investment services.
These companies are not banks themselves, but they partner with fully authorised and regulated banks.
This means that funds placed in their savings accounts are protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
However, it's important to remember that the FSCS protection limit of £85,000 applies per person, per bank. So if you already hold money with one of these underlying partner banks - either directly or through another financial app - you'll need to consider your total balance across all accounts.
If you exceed the £85,000 limit, any amount over that may not be protected.
Of the top five accounts listed in the table, Chase and Atom are also app-only, but unlike the fintechs above, these are authorised and regulated banks in their own right.
For those who would prefer not to use an app-only provider, Cahoot's Simple Saver offers a straightforward, unrestricted, easy access account with an interest rate of 4.55% AER.
However, note that after 12 months, any remaining funds in this account will be transferred to a Cahoot Savings Account, which currently pays only 1.20% AER.
Fixed-term bonds
The Bank of England's decision to keep the base rate on hold at 4.25% last week has given savers another reprieve - and the good news is that fixed-term bond rates have not only remained steady, but we've actually seen some improvements.
Of the top five one-year fixed-term bonds, four are new and improved since the base rate decision last Thursday - and the top rate on offer has jumped up to 4.55% AER, from 4.50% a week before.
It's not quite as impressive in the two-year table, but the top rate has edged up from 4.42% to 4.45% AER.
However, we have also seen one provider cutting the rate it is offering very slightly, leaving the new rate high enough to keep it in the best buy tables.
The longer-term tables have seen very little activity, which makes sense - although there was no base rate cut this time around, the trajectory is very much downwards, so providers don't want to be paying out more than they need to over the longer term.
While the new, better rates are only marginally higher, it does mean that savers have more options than ever to choose from that still beat inflation - especially if we see inflation fall in the next few months and years.
Fixed-term cash ISAs
It's a similar picture for fixed-term ISAs - in fact, in some cases, it's even better.
We've seen some rate hikes among the top longer-term accounts. And, just like with the one-year bonds, there have been multiple improvements. All of the top five fixed-term cash ISAs are now paying more than they were a week ago.
The average has improved from 4.26% to 4.30% following a little battle between Cynergy, Castle Trust and Hodge.
Cynergy is currently the winner, paying 4.35% tax free/AER.
If you are looking to fix for two years, the top rates are still slightly lower, as the markets are expecting rates to fall in the next few months and years, but there have been a few increases in the meantime.
The top rate available over this term is now 4.25% with both Cynergy Bank and United Trust Bank, with Vanquis falling slightly behind them, paying 4.22%.
Over in the three-year table, the top rates are all exactly the same as in the two-year table, so if you want to hedge against further cuts by locking in for a bit longer, you're not missing out by doing so.
Finally, in the five-year table, the average among the top five is 4.22%, which is the same as both the three-year and two-year terms, as the rates are very similar.
However, the top five-year rate is very slightly less at 4.23% with the Nottingham Building Society.
What term you choose all depends on what you think will happen to interest rates over the next few years.
In the meantime, once again, there are plenty of inflation-beating accounts to choose from for those who have not yet used this year's ISA allowance or who are looking to switch from a poorer-paying ISA account.
Easy access cash ISAs
Competition has been more muted among the easy access cash ISA providers and we have seen a few rates being cut over the last few days.
That said, the top easy access ISA with Plum increased the rate for new customers from 4.85% to 4.88% - an unexpected move as it was already paying quite a bit more than the rest of the field.
For those who do not want to choose a financial-app-only fintech provider, the top rate is now a little less, as Vida Savings has reduced rates.
The new best Easy Access ISA is with Kent Reliance, paying 4.46%.
This is a refreshingly straightforward account, as there are no restrictions on the number of withdrawals you can make, and there is no short-term bonus to watch out for.
It can be opened online or even in a branch if you live close to one.
As ever, check all the terms and conditions to make sure you choose the best account to meet your needs.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
With this surrender to Leftist rebels, Starmer's days as PM are numbered
It is now clear that Keir Starmer is making major concessions to his belligerent MPs to save his political career. A series of compromises have drastically diluted his landmark welfare Bill. This is not just a personal defeat. Starmerism, the final line of defence between the far-Left and the levers of power, is on the brink of collapse. Rachel Reeves and her Treasury colleagues will conclude Britain has little choice but to continue pursuing mass migration and increasing taxation. Spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence will become hopelessly unrealistic; even 3 per cent will be out of reach. All this is aside from the moral gravity of the failure to break the cycle of benefits dependency, or the impact it will have on those who study, strive and work hard to provide a better life for their families. Spending on welfare has ballooned in recent years. One in 10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit. By the end of the decade the country could be spending as much on disability benefits as it currently does on transport, policing and social care put together. The pool of workers is shrinking, whilst spending rises inexorably. In the end, this country will go to the wall. Starmer's reforms didn't go far enough; the IFS estimates that the benefits bill would still rise by £8 billion by 2030. Yes, this row – the row that could derail Starmer's premiership – would not even come close to cutting the overall cost. A benefits surrender risks destroying the trust of the markets, triggering a Truss-style meltdown, not immediately but inevitably. Labour came into power on the promise of 'change'. When Reeves hiked taxes by £40 billion in a single fiscal event, she insisted she was 'fixing the foundations'. The Government has sought to distance itself from the 'fantasy' economics now being advanced by Reform UK. How can it reconcile this with a benefits climbdown, coming in the wake of all the other about-turns on other cuts? How can it claim to be taking 'tough' decisions for the 'greater good'? Labour's far-Left, fresh from derailing Starmer's reforms, will surely make the case for a shift towards socialist populism. If Labour cannot see off Nigel Farage through the successful pursuit of deep reform, then, according to some Labour MPs, the next best thing is to try and match his immigration populism with economic populism. Wealth taxes, pensions tax raids, second home levies – all will be on the table. A failure to push through benefit cuts will above all be a moral calamity. Britain is becoming a country that mollycoddles 'takers' whilst clobbering the 'makers'. Citizens who attempt to improve their lives are being dragged down, through excessive taxation, the neutering of private enterprise or the destruction of the private school system. We learnt this week that more than seven million people are now estimated to be higher rate taxpayers, a jump of more than two-fifths since just 2022-23. The permanently inactive are exalted as 'vulnerable' and 'deserving', a status that renders them untouchable. Serial welfare recipients are relentlessly given the benefit of the doubt, yet the self-employed and those with assets are treated by the system as potential tax dodgers. We should of course cushion the most vulnerable in our society. We should also make the distinction between the respectable working class and the dysfunctional underclass. On a recent trip to the North East, residents from one rough estate told me of the local children who aspire to become drug dealers and believe that their future is not determined by their own decisions but rather merely by 'luck'. Their parents are too proud to visit the estate's work support charity but are at ease tapping benefits from an impersonal bureaucracy. Those like Diane Abbott who preach that 'there is nothing moral about cutting benefits' should be made to conduct an in-depth tour of these places. They would see the destructive impact of uncontrolled welfarism on the integrity of families, the self-respect of adults, and the dreams of children. Starmer's failure was not inevitable. Labour could have made a solid centre-Left case for reform. It should be possible to cut benefits while also treating genuinely disabled people with greater humanity, not least by bringing back rigorous in-person assessments. It could have glanced at this week's British Social Attitudes Survey, which found that less than half (45 per cent) of people support more spending on benefits for disabled people who cannot work. Nearly a third now agree it is too easy to claim disability benefits. And there is rising evidence that benefits cuts can actually be a vote winner. After a brief softening of public opinion during the Covid lockdown, polling expert James Frayne has recently picked up on a hardening of attitudes to welfare and a growing perception that benefits do not reach the working class. Rather than hiding behind Old Left platitudes about the 'dignity of work', Starmer could have spoken bluntly about the phenomenon of people claiming benefits based on false beliefs and statements about their mental health. The Prime Minister's failure to articulate these truths only serves to embolden his opponents. As one told me: 'I've heard no minister explain why the budget of the United Kingdom should be balanced on the backs of disabled people. And if you can't make the argument maybe you're doing the wrong thing.'
BBC News
33 minutes ago
- BBC News
PM 'agrees' benefit changes deal with Labour rebels
The government is expected to announce a deal shortly with Labour rebels on its planned benefits changes. Multiple sources tell the BBC existing claimants of the Personal Independence Payment (Pip) will continue to receive what they currently get, as will recipients of the health element of Universal Credit. It is also expected that the support to help people into employment will be fast forwarded so it happens concessions amount to a massive climbdown from the government, which was staring at the prospect of defeat if it failed to accommodate the demands of over 100 of its backbenchers. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Opposing reforms that are a step in the right direction is bad politics
What do you do as a parliamentary opposition when the Government is doing something you know you should support? The Conservative Party has faced this issue twice this week. The first is on Labour's feeble attempt to slow the increase (not make a cut) in health-related welfare spending. How that will play out is unresolved as I write. Kemi Badenoch recognises the reputational risks of voting against, so she has made an offer to back Sir Keir Starmer – but on conditions: further spending cuts and no tax increases this autumn. It's clever tactically. Starmer clearly can't accept the conditions. And his refusal allows a vote against the Government and, potentially, the death of a flagship Bill. That's the job of an opposition, isn't it? Well maybe. Yes, it certainly makes things awkward for Starmer. But it makes things awkward for the Tories too. For a political party, principles are as important as tactics, especially perhaps if you are trying to reinvent yourselves in the public mind after the political mush of the last 14 years. Sometimes it's possible to be too tactical, too clever. The fact is the welfare bill has to come down. Maybe Labour is not going about it exactly as we would. But it is still the right thing to do. Fiscal responsibility is supposed to be a Conservative thing. So when Labour is taking a Conservative approach to something, maybe the party should back them? A similar problem is presented by the Planning Bill, which had its Second Reading in the Lords this week. Less is at stake in the short run, for the Bill will certainly go through. But the underlying politics are if anything more significant. Labour's Bill is certainly imperfect. It is best characterised as driving the current system to work better: more meaningful plans, less power for local councillors to block, less scope for legal challenge. It has a novel approach to nature protection: essentially making developers pay to restore nature somewhere, but not necessarily on the exact spot where development is taking place. My suspicion is that this is not going to deliver the boost Labour wants. The current system hasn't delivered the target of 300,000 homes a year since the late 1970s. Indeed, since the financial crash, it's only once delivered more than 200,000. Our restrictive controls-based system, with its presumption against building, very likely just can't do it, however streamlined it is. Moreover, although Labour hates it when you mention it, any house building is to a very large extent building for migration. Net immigration is going to be, best case, towards two million under this Government, so at least 125,000 homes every year will be needed simply to accommodate future arrivals. While that's the case, it's going to be very difficult to get political consent to build more – and rightly so. So what is the right political response to this situation? Do Conservatives resist Labour's Bill, arguing that it undermines local democracy and risks the countryside, or support, recognising their approach is imperfect? At the moment the party is doing neither. Instead it is trying to side-step the choice by saying it wants 'more homes, but the right homes, in the right places'. That allows it to sound sympathetic to the policy aims while raising all sorts of difficulties in practice, and (not by chance) to accommodate very different perspectives within the party. But there are risks here: not just that Conservatives get on the wrong side of the argument, but that voters can't see the guiding principle that's being applied, perhaps can't even tell whether we are actually supportive or hostile at all. Once again: when trying to establish a clear profile, maybe this is less than ideal. I know where I stand. Like it or not, and unless you are prepared to engage in what is euphemistically called compulsory 'remigration', which I am not, the population is what it is, and we need to build more houses. That requires both reducing immigration right down to zero for a prolonged period and a serious reform to the current planning system, more like the radical Robert Jenrick proposals from 2021, sadly junked as the Conservative Party entered the early stages of its nervous breakdown. Indeed we might need to be even more radical than that in places like London within the M25. That's obviously not going to happen under Labour, but it is what a post-2029 government on the Right should aim to do. So we shouldn't do things which are inconsistent with it now. Labour's Bill is an imperfect half measure, but it still goes in the right direction. There is no future for the Right in echoing the voice of nimby councillors and the green and Lib Dem blob, determined as they are to stop development or hamstring it with green regulation. The appeal of the Right must instead be to aspiration, to those who want to own a home (and dare I say it more than one?) and get on in life. The Conservative Party at least can't get back in the game without this. Now would be a good time to start.
