• long running

5.50% p.a. Interest on Balances up to $50,000 for 14-35 Year Olds (Monthly Criteria Apply for 18+) @ Bank of Queensland


Saw this in email.

We’re delighted to share some great news with you. On 22 March 2024, the interest rate on your savings account increased, so you can continue to work towards your goals faster.

Previous offer

Our savings rates:
Future Saver Account
$0 to $50,000 5.50%
$50,001 - $250,000 3.00%

Monthly Criteria:

  1. $1,000 minimum monthly deposit
  2. Make 5 or more eligible transactions

Related Stores

Bank of Queensland
Bank of Queensland


  • +1
    Merged from BoQ increases savings rate for under 35s to 5.5%

    5 months ago, they decreased it from 5.5 to 5.4%.


    Now they've increased it back to 5.5%, effective today (22 March 2024).

    Nothing mentioned about over 35s. Their rate is still at 5% (reduced from 5.1% in October 2023).

    • +1


    • -3

      Why just for under 35s?

      • marketing

        • -7

          So they are exempt from anti discrimination laws ?

      • -2

        I identify as under 30.

    • -6

      BoQ increases savings rate for under 35s to 5.5%

      Ummm BoQ might want to have a read up on the age discrimination act, as it says you can't do this.

      • +1

        Yeah right, is that why they've had this offer in place for over a year now?

        • -3

          Go read the age discrimination act, can't discriminate services based on age. Which is what they are doing here.

          • +3

            @JimmyF: I did and it appears you didn't, or you didn't look closely enough, or you missed the relevant exemptions.
            Try Part 4, Division 4—General exemptions, Section 33
            This Part does not make it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person, on the ground of the other person’s age, by an act that is consistent with the purposes of this Act, if:
            (a) the act provides a bona fide benefit to persons of a particular age; or
            Example 1: This paragraph would cover a hairdresser giving a discount to a person holding a Seniors Card or a similar card, because giving the discount is an act that provides a bona fide benefit to older persons.
            Example 2: This paragraph would cover the provision to a particular age group of a scholarship program, competition or similar opportunity to win a prize or benefit.
            (b) the act is intended to meet a need that arises out of the age of persons of a particular age; or
            Example: Young people often have a greater need for welfare services (including information, support and referral) than other people. This paragraph would therefore cover the provision of welfare services to young homeless people, because such services are intended to meet a need arising out of the age of such people.
            (c) the act is intended to reduce a disadvantage experienced by people of a particular age.
            Example: Older people are often more disadvantaged by retrenchment than are other people. This paragraph would therefore cover the provision of additional notice entitlements for older workers, because such entitlements are intended to reduce a disadvantage experienced by older people.

    • Westpac worse. They limited at 30s. Move on people

      • -2

        That's different though.

        • How?

          • -1

            @richadam: one is under 30s the other under 35s

    • +1

      under 35

      cries in middle age

      • +1

        I'll buy you a porsche

    • 5.5%pa calculated daily = 0.015027322 per day this leap year vs 0.015068493 if it was last year…really only 5.48497253% compared to last year…add to this those on a salary working an extra day for free and day light savings fading my curtains…

  • +14

    Not a deal

    First they decreased their saving rate to 5.4% and now increase it back to 5.5% which was the same rate as it should’ve been since June last year

    • +3

      For the neggers context, BOQ did decrease the rate to 5.4% around October last year when ING still remain their rate at 5.5%

      BOQ should’ve just kept the rate at 5.5% when RBA hasn’t decided to increase the cash rate since

    • +4

      I think it's a deal:

      Compared to other banks it's one of the highest int rate

      Compared to ING, it has no increase balance per month requirement

      Compared to ING, if you abuse the glitch you get the int rate applied to 450k, instead of an amount below 100k and if it crosses 100k you have to move your funds out of ING unless you want the standard low int rate

      Even when they dropped to 5.4% it was still one of the highest rates amongst the banks.

      Good deal OP

  • +1

    Is this going to affect the multiple account 'glitch'?

    • +5

      It's only for 14 to 35 year olds. You look older.

      • //You look older.//

        That's a glitch.

    • +1

      I don't think it's a glitch.

      • +1

        Yeah, more of a "too hard to fix" sort of deal. BOQ are useless across the board, no surprise. I see no reason why this interest rate change would affect it - I might also be right in saying that it has persisted across rate changes before. We'll see.

  • -1

    limiting deposits? I smell a bank run

    • -1

      I believe you can have 9 accounts below $50k that earn the 5.5%, but only a total $250k will be covered under the government guarantee.

      Also recently discovered that you get a $250k guarantee in individual holder accounts, and then another $250k per person in a joint account, per bank.

      • -1

        you should read the legislation for that to see what exactly is covered..

      • +2

        That's not my understanding of the FCS. See here, under "How are joint account holders treated under the FCS?"

        How are joint account holders treated under the FCS?

        For joint accounts, the amount of FCS protection is determined by splitting the deposit equally between the account holders. Each account holder's share is then added to any other eligible deposits they may hold under their own name at the same bank, building society or credit union before the $250,000 FCS limit is then applied to the total for each individual.

        Case study
        Alex and Peter have a number of accounts with their credit union:

        • $300,000 in a joint account
        • $50,000 in a separate account in only Alex’s name.

        The FCS protects a total amount of deposits up to $250,000 for each account holder for each bank, building society and credit union. Therefore, Peter is covered under the FCS for $150,000 (half the joint account) while Alex is covered for $200,000 (being the sum of $150,000 from the joint account in addition to the $50,000 from his individual account).

        • +1

          You're right, what I learnt was wrong :D Thanks for clarifying

  • +1

    If the rate goes up any higher I'd be making money off my mortgage

    • +5

      A mate did that. Refinanced via for a renovation, got an extra $200K, fixed at about 2%. The bank put the money in a variable high interest account until he could use it. Covid happened so he didn’t get to do his reno. At the end of the 2 year fixed interest period he refinanced again (at a higher rate), but gave back the $200K.
      Pocketed about $5K in interest payments, entirely with the banks own money.

      • Interest earned is taxed as income. So their actual net return after tax will be much less depending on their tax rate.

        Generally speaking, the interest savings will need to be a tad bit higher for you to be ahead (rather than putting the money straight into your home loan/offset). There’s other factors as well that could impact your real return (compound interest, opportunity cost, etc).

        That said, an overly simplified calculation will be:
        home loan rate / tax rate = breakeven rate

        Therefore, in most cases chucking money into the mortgage will be the biggest savings for pretty much no risk.

    • +22

      Yea, get rid of the pension and seniors discounts too! Ageist!

      • While we at it might as well age restrictions for drinking and smoking.

      • -1

        A pension is about ability to work no need to be of a certain age. There is also a fair argument that many receiving an age pension have contributed to it through a life of taxes.
        Why should a 36 year old subsidize the interest received of a 30 year old at a private business?

        • +3

          Taxes are used by goverments to pay their current expenses, like infastructure and education and healthcare. Things the people recieving the age pension have already benefited off immensely.

          I don't see why the next generation of Australians, which get to look forward to a decreased standard of living and face the challenges of climate change, should pay the pensions of their predecessors while not expecting a pension themselves due to superannuation.

          • @Michael15286: Because the people that aren't expecting superannuation paid higher taxes to receive one. You get other kinds of welfare, child care, parental leave, 30% of the workforce gets to be a public servant to maintain low employment, if you have anxiety the gov't supports you. The people retired now had a different social contract, which was a trust that the gov't support in old age.

            • @tonka:

              paid higher taxes to receive one

              Higher than what exactly? And did overall net taxes reduce (and stay down) since superannuation was introduced? I think you might find that spending on welfare and healthcare is directed disproportionately to the aged, including pensioners.

              Sure, the previous generation was paying for their parents' generation's pensions (the ones that weren't killed en-masse in wars of course). Those people were also less numerous than their childrens' generation, and used to die sooner after retiring. We're talking an increase of several years on average, over the past couple of decades. Essentially, we're currently paying many more people, and for a lot longer after retirement - it's unsustainable and grossly unfair.

              Maybe the age pension should only come in when you're medically certified as permanently unfit to work? If we're going to live by "past social contracts", maybe everyone should only eligible for those major medical treaments which were available at the time of their birth? I thought the loan scheme was a bit less drastic, but I'm certainly open to being convinced in another direction.

        • There is also a fair argument that many receiving an age pension have contributed to it through a life of taxes.

          I don't see any qualifying criteria mentioning an amount of taxation paid over their working life up to that point? If anything, they haven't paid nearly enough when looking at the quality of infrastructure and services procured over that period (ripping out a bunch of public transport corridors in Melbourne and Sydney, for instance).

          Taxes paid didn't used to go into some big savings account to be dished out as pensions later on. These people have had their whole lives to save up for retirement, and they should better appreciate such kind gifts from the contemporary taxpayer to support their ongoing comfortable lives.

          I'd suggest the fairest method is to convert the existing age pension scheme into a HECS-style loan, which can be paid back out of their estate, or waived if they die penniless. Now that's very fair IMO.

          • @BobLim: Sure why not do that for everyone on a pension. Why bother having an estate if it';s gonna get taken off you. And isn't means testing on pension exactly that anyway.

            • @tonka: Yes they can feel free to not have an estate if it puts them out so much. Obviously there would need to be limits on gifting and asset disposal etc.

              Primary place of residence isn't included in the pension assets test, so by my understanding, it's still possible to receive a full age pension while sitting in a $20M mansion, as long as you've got less than the limit in other assets ($301,750 for singles and $451,500 for couples currently).

              Such a person doesn't sound like someone deserving of taxpayer funds to me? And if they or their less-wealthy friends needs some cash, I don't see why it should be a gift rather than a loan.

              Education is ostensibly a public good, which improves the economy in many areas, yet we make students pay back their support loans. What's the business case for handing out cash to seniors just for being old and owning a maximum of one Ferrari?

              • @BobLim: Why not just apply some critical thinking. Right now, IF someone has an estate, they die and leave to their pension age children making them ineligible for pension - your solution achieved. They die with no benefactor - goes to charity or gov't = your solution achieved.
                People that choose to live on a $350 pension are not wealthy, they're either battlers that worked for minimal wage or people that didn't work. Your solution doesn't fix this. Unlikely people in these categories will be fit to work past 67, are you gonna euthanize them or something?

                • @tonka:

                  IF someone has an estate, they die and leave to their pension age children making them ineligible for pension

                  The smart / logicaly incentivised thing for their children to do by the time they retire would be to clear all their debts, use the remaining liquidity to upgrade to a more expensive PPoR and get under the assets test threshold, then claim the pension themselves.

                  People that choose to live on a $350 pension are not wealthy

                  Looks to me like the singles rate is ~$1020 a fortnight. I'm sure that's largely true (if we ignore the houses that most of them own hint - we shouldn't), but it doesn't mean that taxpayers should be picking up the tab to fund their lifestyle if they choose to retire "early" even without accumuating any wealth. The fact that current rules can even allow a wealthy person (by virtue of their PPoR) to claim an age pension is wrong, even if we support the general principle.

                  At the end of the day, someone who worked a decent job for 40 years, but spent every penny on gin and overseas travel is eligible (no matter where they live), while their twin who earnt the same but decided to save a portion of it doesn't qualify. At least superannuation goes some way to fixing this - in the meantime, make it a loan. If all these people are as poverty-striken as you claim, it'll make no difference in reality, but at least the rules would be much more fair.

                  • @BobLim: 'most of them own', do you have some data to back this? Home ownership is only around 67% of population. And Google tells me a big chunk of retires are already self-funded. It seems like only about 75% of population actually get a job, what's your plan for the people who can't fund their retirement. And how are you gonna get the rest of the population to keep working when you're gonna penalize them even more to subsidize the people who don't. .

                    • @tonka: https://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/2019/1…

                      Looks like over 250,000 households (presumably more individuals) sitting on a $1M+ property and collecting ongoing gifts from the taxpayer to me? Do you disagree that someone with a home worth over $2M shouldn't be getting a pension?

                      what's your plan for the people who can't fund their retirement.

                      This was only in the case that the "loan" idea doesn't go ahead (which is the scheme I suggest). They won't qualify for a government pension until they're medically unfit to work. Unitl that point, like everyone else below "retirement age", it would be their choice between:

                      • get a paid job
                      • go on another type of welfare payment until they can get a paid job
                      • beg on the streets
                  • @BobLim: So at the moment,a lot of people work so they can own a home so they won't be struggling in retirement because paying rent. Yes, you can shield your wealth by buying a big expensive house…but they are very expensive to maintain and so you need to keep some other form of income which will mess up your means test. And you'd have to make the decision to live on noodles while being wealthy to achieve it.
                    There's so many complications to your plan. Land value varies by extremes across aust, so impossible to means test fairly. And while Aust is fairly non-traditional, there are many place in the world where the concept of a generational home does exist and it definitely does in rural Australia. So you'd have to avoid pushing farmers off the land somehow as well.

                    • @tonka:

                      Yes, you can shield your wealth

                      Hit the nail on the head - this shouldn't be possible, and it's outrageous it's been allowed to continue for so long IMO.

                      • @BobLim: And…you're ignoring the part where it's not outrageous and it's incredible difficult to define what is reasonable. People living in run down un-renovated houses in inner Sydney worth millions. But moving means away from friends/family and the support network they need in old age, just because their land value is expensive compared to an inland ghost town with no amenities? So move them somewhere cheaper where they have no idea how to exist and brain inflex now to adapt? Gov't wants them to stay where they are you know, assisted living etc is more of a burden on taxpayer. I bought a home way too expensive for myself as I thought would be good in retirement. Nope, rates too high, maint too high, neighbors too demanding, every tradie thinks you're rich. It will be cheaper to self fund a pension, so looking now to sell and downsize. It's not as simple as you think, and what is the point of living as a pauper to hide wealth until you die, I think most people don't want that and will prefer a lifestyle anyway.
                        And you haven't answered my question on how home owners are the big problem and not the lifetime unemployed.

                        • @tonka:

                          it's incredible difficult to define what is reasonable

                          Fine, but I've defined what's reasonable in my opinion: Where there's a retiree who's accumulated sufficient assets to see them through the rest of their life, society (i.e. people working for their moneya and/or needing public services) shouldn't gift them any extra. This is also essentially the principle of superannuation. What's your take?

                          People living in run down un-renovated houses in inner Sydney worth millions

                          Take out a reverse mortgage or similar government scheme as linked in this thread - income problem solved, and they can live wherever suits them best. Treating the primary home the same as any other asset also has the benefit of removing the disincentive to move somewhere which might be more suitable (e.g. a granny flat). What I'm suggest would provide exactly the same income as they're currently receiving as a loan rather than a gift, with the beneficiaries of their estate receiving anything left over after that loan is repaid.

                          And you haven't answered my question on how home owners are the big problem and not the lifetime unemployed.

                          I don't have all the answers, but I'm pretty convinced those holding extensive real estate assets shouldn't get any handouts. The ones with their assets in shares or investment properties already don't qualify thankfully. The "lifetime unemployed" can continue to do whatever they've been doing the rest of their life I suppose? I'm not familiar enough with that demographic to know how to handle it. What do you suggest? Do you have any statistics on the extent of that concern?

                          It will be cheaper to self fund a pension, so looking now to sell and downsize.

                          Genuinely - well done. The treasurer should send you a personal letter of thanks for helping the budget with this choice.

                          what is the point of living as a pauper to hide wealth until you die

                          This would become the choice of the individual (though 300k in liquid assets seems like a decent kitty to me for drawing down…). As it currently stands, the age pension makes up for the former (providing a decent living income), to free them up for the latter (hoarding wealth for your estate). Luckily they can use that wealth to generate an income, and save the burden on the tax system.

                          the people that aren't expecting superannuation paid higher taxes to receive one

                          Nothing further on this claim? Source?

                          • @BobLim: A. I agree. But there is a generation with no super etc, that paid the pension of their predecessors with an expectation they would receive the same. If that was the covenant at the time I think it should be honored
                            B. From what I've seen reverse mortgages are a rip off no Ozbargainer would want to touch. And things are still complicated, you can't 'buy' a granny and people shouldn't be forced to become tenants just because the land value where their home is has increased. There's merit there (but see my point at end)
                            C - I'm not talking about people with extensive real estate assets. just people with a modest home where ever that may happen to be. People with assets in shares etc instead of a home do get a greater value allowed for asset testing.
                            E - I think you're way off in 300K assets lasting people through retirement, it could be 30 years and inflation, I guess it would be easier to implement your plan if date of death could be known.
                            F- Taxation has been my occupation for 35 years

                            But the overall reason why your plan is problematic is because we will still have social security for those that can't self fund. You can't have a situation where people that work and save and have a home end up with exactly the same benefit as those who do nothing. It destroys societies. The big stick at the moment, to keep people in the workforce at the lower end of the wage spectrum is the threat of not having a home / paying rent / not leaving something for the kids.
                            I already regret getting a job and paying off a home instead of bludging my whole life at the beach. I spent years leaving for work at 6am, getting home at 8pm dealing with shitting managers. Just to see all the unemployed people in the townhouses next door live in nicer houses,have better dentistry, drive nicer cars, and smile all day while they raised their own children. And they will still have the same lifestyle as me in retirement except I will be paying my own way.

                            • @tonka: A. IMO the same cohort have been a front-row beneficiary of mass immigration, technological development and globalisation, with consequential increasing asset prices. I see it as them partly having voted and acted to trade stability and certainty (and possibly their descendants' prosperity…) for capital gains and a higher GDP. It seems the upsides of these changes have been richly enjoyed by the currently-retired, though certainly not evenly shared (along with the shareholders of large companies doing things like offshoring for cheaper labour of course). Keeping the "covenant of the time", perhaps each current taxpayer should be able to limit their contributions to pensions at the same level as their predecessors (noting that there are now more pensioners per worker, and they live longer, so you'd probably be expecting something like a 60-80% reduction on that line item compared to today at a guess). Maybe we should kill two birds with one stone, and immigration visa fees can be increased to cover the shortfall?

                              B. I'd suggest the scheme would need to be better than current options, and not aim to make any profit - say, administered by the feds, with an interest rate tracking inflation, just like HECS. It would be replacing welfare after all.

                              C - No matter how wealthy they are or not, I don't think taxpayers should be covering their expenses so that they can preserve wealth to transfer it to the next generation. Presumably the assets test doesn't include undervalued antiques or thousands in cash under the bed either. Frankly I think all welfare should be a loan with mandatory payments like HECS. Pensions are just one of the largest such costs, and regularly drawn by people with ample means to pay it back following liquidation of their estate.

                              we will still have social security for those that can't self fund

                              Yes that's still an issue. At least the costs will be minimised by taking everything they have in that case, leaving no inheritance. Maybe the Treasury/ATO can iron out some of the kinks in the scheme for me?

                              I already regret getting a job and paying off a home instead of bludging my whole life at the beach.

                              Absolutely. I'm much earlier in my working life, and see it as a choice to either:

                              • ascend to the ranks of the "very wealthy" without any expectation of a single favourable circumstance or any good luck along the path (I'm not voluntarily locking away a cent into any government-restricted funds for instance), or
                              • spend everything you get (or take it in cash and hide it), then rely on the welfare state to take care of your needs.

                              Anything in the middle is to be taken for a sucker (most people sadly). I think I'm aiming for the former, but likely to end up in the middle.

                              Out of interest, what year do you think the age pension should end in its current (IMO very generous) form? It seems like your primary argument is that many of these people don't have any super due to timing. Shouldn't there be a gradual phasing-out and/or devaluation of age pensions as the workers with who were covered by superannuation start retiring? At some point it should be one's own responsibility for choosing to retire with no assets, despite receiving plenty of aggregate income over the years.

                              • +1

                                @BobLim: I started work (first adult job) in 1989, it was around that time superannuation started but it was only about 3%. We were told, (formally by gov't) there would be no aged pension for those born after around 1969. That seems to have been quietly redacted.
                                The 3% super we received (for a good portion, then 4%, 5% etc) is not gonna cut it compared to people getting 9% to 11% for a lifetime though. So I think some kind of scaling then maybe people getting 11% super their whole career can be cut off.
                                BUT there has to be a significantly greater benefit to being a worker over being a lifetime social security receiver.
                                Because why would people on lower income jobs bother, when they get the same or worse lifestyle in the end plus a broken body from working. It just won't work with the current system.
                                AND don't forget we are looking down the barrel of automation where in the future is envisaged everyone will be paid a stipend (pension) anyway. What if you think of it this way, in future, every worker will have super, if they get some pension as well, that can be paid from the 15% tax on all their superannuation contributions.
                                The problem for you is still the (maybe 20% of) people that never worked and now are drawing a pension anyway. And then on that there's a whole heap of economic theory that those people must exist in the economy for it to work properly.

          • +1

            @BobLim: There's already a scheme where you can 'borrow' against your home but not many appear to be aware or interested, probably because of the compound interest.


            • -1

              @Igaf: Fantastic reasoning for why a pension isn't needed / primary home shouldn't be excluded from the assets test.

              • +1

                @BobLim: No political party would dare touch that atm. There are lots of arguably "fair" principles which could be adopted but as we saw with the Coalition's Neg Gearing/CGT campaigning, not to mention Abbott's attack on the innocuous MRRT, what is/may be good policy for the nation is no longer given high priority. The Labor Party was so damaged by the campaign against the MRRT that they're still afraid to make sure OUR gas supplies are secured firstly for home use, let alone at prices which would help both business and consumers. Gutless wonders.

                • -1

                  @Igaf: Absolutely agreed on all of htat.

                  Personally I think the royalties from resource extractjion should be distributed to citizens individually rather than governments with a vested interest in approving said projects. The amount of the royalty could be set at exactly the same rate as domestic wholesale supply.

    • +1

      ING requires people to grow their balance, that's a deal breaker in my opinion unless you're parking cash.

      • Yep, some conditions don't suit some people, same goes for benefits (eg no OS trans fees). Most of these accounts are Savings accounts, not Transaction accounts, which typically earn MUCH lower interest, sometimes 0%.

        If you can't find $0.01 per month or want simplicity (one account does everything) then a search of comments in Ozbargain bank interest deals will turn up a few banks/accounts which do both, but for around 1% less interest iirc. Think Macquarie had one?

        Edit: found this below. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/15090581/redir

      • Yes grow. So put in the maximum 100K then every month add a cent. You can move the interest earned out in the meantime as long as you put it back for the last day of the month.

        • what are you doing with the interest earned if you have to put it back? I don't get it

          • +1

            @commiewealth: You park the excess elsewhere or take the significant hit on interest (0.55% on anything over $100K). The key is in the timing - at midnight on the last day of the month your balance must be higher than the previous month. At any time in between it can be whatever you like.

            Interest is about $460/m. This is added to you eom balance. To maximise your interest and minimise your effort moving funds around you should try to maintain slightly under $100Kin the SM acount. If you can't be bothered doing that then you MUST ensure each end of month's balance is larger than the previous, before ING adds its interest. Given anything over $100K earns just 0.55%, on the first day of next month you should move any excess to another high interest account such as Ubank, which has no criteria other than put $200? in each month (which can immediately be withdrawn if necessary).

            1. Midnight on 31st March your ING SM balance is say $100,000.
            2. ING then adds its ~$460 interest so your actual eom balance is now ~$100,460 (you'll see this actual eom balance in your statement on first day of the next month).
            3. Your end of April balance target is now $100,460.01, before ING adds the April interest.
            4. You are also required to add $1000/m so potentially you'll have $1460 earning only 0.55% if you don't move funds out.

            Sounds complex but it really isn't. Might take half an hour of your time each month, or you can automate - keeping in mind that if you leave it until the last day of the month you're risking transfers not being processed. OSKO should be "instant", but……..

    • @TassieTommy Hmmm…. This is a form of ageism isn't it?

      Hmmm….. Given the number of similar special deals offered by a range of businesses and organisations (pensioner/Seniors discounts etc) I would have thought the answer was obvious.

      If I were you Tommy I'd read the relevant Act or pay someone to explain your rights and responsibilities.

  • -8

    This bank is Years behind the game No Osko ,shocking customer service, hoops to try & get a good investment rates So I moved to a far better bank.

    • +2

      Yes they have Osko.

    • osko yeh they have

      internet banking interface is the same shitty system as when they just started… click a few more times and they freeze up.

      they are like BigW of banks… it has no direction

  • +1

    Great southern bank has same rate and no criteria. Only downside is low maximum of $5,000.

    • +20

      That's a very, very big downside.

  • Beware of higher tax brackets for under 18's unless it is excepted person or excepted income.

  • -1

    Same institution, higher interest rate and deposit limit, no age limit and less onerous conditions to meet bonus criteria.


    • +1

      Ensure you grow your savings balance in your HomeME account each month. If you withdrew money, you’ll need to replace that, plus a little bit extra (this excludes interest paid by ME or any adjustments processed by ME).2

      • Logged in just to say this, if you use your saving to pay for something big you lose a whole months worth of interest. Absolutely not worth it.

        • +1

          That's why it is a savings account and not a transaction account. Works for me but you do you

  • Be careful with the 5 transactions a month criteria, I missed out on interest due to one transaction taking multiple days to clear. Support did nothing for me, I took my money out soon after. I would rather use St George or Ubank with the far easier criteria and not lose out on interest for a month.

    • +3

      You can do scheduled BPAY payments which count. I usually schedule payments of $1 to my super and then forget about it.

      • $1 BPay payments to a credit card is another good idea. Just schedule 5 payments early in the month.

    • Beem still works for meeting the criteria.

    • On the other hand, I spent 20 cents on the debit card at Coles on 31st March and it counted for one of the transactions for April

      Just do them at the start of the month

  • -1


    this one from Macquarie is so much better, with 4.75% rate no criteria and you can put everything in transaction account

    • Big Five bank ,

  • $50,001 - $250,000 3.00%

    what was it before ?>

Login or Join to leave a comment