Savings account with fixed interest or not?
"Personally I would have a hard time ""locking up"" the money for that very little return.  I would probably rather earn no interest in favor of the liquidity. However, you should find out what the early removal penalties are.  If those are minimal and you are very confident that you will not need the money over the term period then its definitely better to earn something rather than nothing. If inflation is negative you aren't out as much not getting any interest as you would be normally. Consider that in 2014 US inflation was 0.8%.  Online liquid savings accounts pay about 1%.  so that's only .2% positive.  In comparison at -.4% you are better off with no interest than a US person putting their money in a paying savings account.  Keep in mind though that inflation can change month to month so just because June was negative doesn't mean the year will be that way. Not sure your ability to invest in the US market or what stable dividend payers may exist in Sweden.... You said you are risk averse, but it may be worth it to find a stable dividend paying fund.  I like one called PFF, it pays a monthly dividend of 6% and over 5 years stock price is very stable.  Of course this is quite a significant jump in risk because you can lose money if markets tank (PFF is down over 10 years quite a bit).  Maybe splitting up the money and diversifying?" As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.
Down in the Fine Print are these points to consider for the limit: For an average daily balance up to but not exceeding $5,000.00, the interest rate for the Savings Account is 4.91% with an annual   percentage yield (APY) of 5.00%. For that portion of the average daily balance of the Savings Account that is $5,000.01, or more, the interest rate is 0.49% with an annual   percentage yield (APY) of 0.50%. The interest rates and APYs of each tier may change. The APYs were   accurate as of March 1, 2014. These are promotional rates and may   change without notice pursuant to applicable law. No minimum balance   necessary to open Savings Account or obtain the yield(s). Because   Savings Account funds are withdrawn through the Card Account (maximum   6 such transfers per calendar month), Card Account transaction fees   could reduce the interest earned on the Savings Account. Card Account   and Savings Account funds are FDIC-insured upon verification of   Cardholder's identity. For purposes of FDIC coverage limit, all funds   held on deposit by the Cardholder at BofI Federal Bank will be   aggregated up to the coverage limit, currently $250,000.00. The way I usually make this decision is to answer the following question: Do I think that I can earn a better   return on my savings than the interest   rate I would get on the loan? Yes= Get a loan No= Use the savings If you have your savings in a fixed income investment like a CD or bond, then it is just simple math to answer the question, for more volatile investments like stocks you just have to make an educated guess based on the direction of the markets and past performance. If your savings account linked to the mortgage account is an 100% offset account then you don't need to put extra funds into the mortgage account apart from the minimum payments which is done automatically. Any funds you have in an 100% offset acount reduces the amount of interest you have to pay on the mortgage.  So if your mortgage is $100,000 and you have $10,000 in the offset account then you only pay interest on $90,000 within the mortgage. Also the funds in the offset account are at call any time as it is simply a savings account. You can have all your pay go into it and have direct debits set up for all your bills. This way you will benefit from maximising the amounts in your offset account and reducing the amount of interest you pay on your mortgage. If your current linked savings account is not an 100% offset account ask your bank if you can change it over to one that is. If they don't have offset accounts for that particular mortgage account ask them if they have a different mortgage account with offset accounts. If they can't help you then shop arround for a bank or lender that does. I am currently with ANZ and they have a product with 100% offset account and about 0.7% below the standard variable rate, and there are plenty more similar products out there. "When we talk about compounding, we usually think about interest payments. If you have a deposit in a savings account that is earning compound interest, then each time an interest payment is made to your account, your deposit gets larger, and the amount of your next interest payment is larger than the last. There are compound interest formulas that you can use to calculate your future earnings using the interest rate and the compounding interval.  However, your mutual fund is not earning interest, so you have to think of it differently. When you own a stock (and your mutual fund is simply a collection of stocks), the value of the stock (hopefully) grows. Let's say, for example, that you have $1000 invested, and the value goes up 10% the first year. The total value of your investment has increased by $100, and your total investment is worth $1100. If it grows by another 10% the following year, your investment is then $1210, having gained $110.  In this way, your investment grows in a similar way to compound interest. As your investment pays off, it causes the value of the investment to grow, allowing for even higher earnings in the future. So in that sense, it is compounding. However, because it is not earning a fixed, predictable amount of interest as a savings account would, you can't use the compound interest formula to calculate precisely how much you will have in the future, as there is no fixed compounding interval.  If you want to use the formula to estimate how much you might have in the future, you have to make an assumption on the growth of your investment, and that growth assumption will have a time period associated with it. For example, you might assume a growth rate of 10% per year. Or you might assume a growth rate of 1% per month. This is what you could use in a compound interest formula for your mutual fund investment.  By reinvesting your dividends and capital gains (and not taking them out in cash), you are maximizing your ""compounding"" by allowing those earnings to cause your investment to grow." "Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims:  **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.**  **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.**  I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it...  I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, ""I""m sure we'd find...if we looked into..."" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010):  * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf)  About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly -  pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source:  &gt;""The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.""  Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41)  There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41.  * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.**  So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside.  * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html)  Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households.  * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/)  To quote the FDIC:  &gt;*""Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.""*  That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have bank accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with ""checking and savings"" was 75.8% while those with ""checking only"" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest.  This survey also directly addresses the issue of ""emergency savings"":  &gt; *""Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected  expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.""* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88)  Furthermore:  &gt;*""Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for  unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts  were the most used savings method followed by checking  accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings  in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent)  households that saved maintained savings in the home, or  with family or friends.""*   Emphasis added.  * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png)  This is further supported by the OECD data:  * [Americans ""currency and deposits"" are 13% vs 5.8% for ""securities and other shares"" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm)  Additionally:  * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB)  * [""Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used  savings method followed by checking accounts..."" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf)  * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.*  In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100." A questoin that I deal with almost every day.  Like most investments it comes down to.....What is the purpose for this money?  If it is truly a rainy day savings account that you may need in the short term, then fixed income investments like savings accounts, GIC's, Bonds, Bond funds and Fixed Income ETF's are ideal as they are taxed very inefficiently outside of any registered plan (therefore tax free in here).  However if you have a plan in place that has all your short term needs covered elsewhere, I believe this is the place that you should be the most aggressive in your overall portfolio.  If that mining stock goes up by 1000% wouldn't it be nice to put all of that gain in your pocket? The bond will rank below depositors, so it's riskier than the savings account.  The savings account is very safe if you have less than £75,000 in accounts with the bank, as then it would be covered by the deposit guarantee Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Also note that bonds tend to have a fixed maturity whereas savings accounts usually let you get your money out at any time, perhaps with some notice. "I did a rough model and in terms of total $$ paid (interest + penalty - alternative investment income) both options are almost the same with the ""paying it all upfront"" being perhaps a $300 or so better ($9200 vs $8900) However, that doesn't factor in inflation or tax considerations. Personally I'd go with the ""no-penalty"" scenario since you have more flexibility and can adjust along the way if anything else comes up in the meantime."