....to think that if you work in a bank you should know the difference between 1.9% and 1.09%?

[RustyBear]

Went into a local branch today to find out interest rates.
Found a leaflet telling me to ask at the counter for interest rates, which I did, only to be given another (different) leaflet telling me to ask at my local branch….

When I pointed this out the person at the counter said vaguely ‘Oh I’ll try to find out’ looked on her screen and told me that the rate of interest if paid annually would be ‘one point ten percent’ but if it was paid monthly I would ‘only’ get ‘one point nine percent’

I pointed out that ‘one point ten per cent’ is meaningless, and did she mean one point one percent. She agreed, but then repeated that the monthly rate would be ‘only one point nine percent’

At this point I asked to see her screen, which showed ‘Interest paid annually: 1.10%, monthly 1.09%’

So why does the bank (a) use a way of writing percentages which the average Year 5 child knows is meaningless, and (b) not ensure their staff know their place values?

Writing the percentages as 1.09% and 1.10% is fine, although I hope it was clear that they were both annually, as you won't get 1.09% interest per month anywhere.

Reading them as one point nine percent and one point ten percent is wrong and it makes you question both what type of training the bank provides and education standards.

But then numbers are just so unreasonably difficult aren't they .

Oh yes, I knew it was an annual rate. (I remember the days when you could get pretty near 1.1% a month! But in those days I was paying out on the high interest rates, not getting them on savings!)

But there really is no point in putting a final zero at the end of a percentage, I know it's a common way of doing it, but it doesn't mean it's right, and in this case it certainly made it easier for the cashier to make the mistake she did.

In this case the precision of that extra decimal place is important.

1.1% could well be rounded down from 1.11% or 1.14% both of which are much higher than 1.09%

The same number of decimal places are also important for figures which are going to be compared directly.

1.09
1.10

vs

1.09
1.1

Because the bank are only interested in employing staff to flog their poor value products & couldn't really give a damn about customer service.

It's all about sales figures.

But it's not extra precision, 1.1 is exactly 1.1, the extra 0 is totally unnecessary, even in your examples. In fact the only thing it does is cause confusion.

You might as well say that if you're comparing 1,000 with 100 you should write them

1000
0100

Rusty that's precisely how the numbers would be formatted on accounts - a leading zero would not be added but decimal places would be aligned.

The extra zero in 1.10 adds no mathematical precision but it eliminates doubt re rounding.

britbat's right about the meaning of the final zero.

But you are oh so right about the incompetence of the teller, Rusty.

Yes, but if the numbers are aligned and there's no need to actually add a leading zero, why the need to add one at the end, when you are talking about an interest rate that has been set by the bank? If the interest rate was actually higher than 1.1 surely it shouldn't have been rounded anyway on the screen?

Because it tells you there has been no rounding.

Ie that the figure was exactly 1.1, not 1.11 rounded-to-1-dp.

Ok, can see the point of that, but that wouldn't apply in this case, would it? Surely the interest rate would have to be given exactly?

If a bank gives a savings rate for an account and lists an annual rate and a monthly rate of interest the two figures will be different.

In the olden days (10 years ago) it was worth your while having a savings account with a lump of money in there and taking your interest each month and using it as income, if you wanted to do that then you would be told about the 'monthly rate'. If you just wanted to save and keep your interest in the account then you would be told about the annual rate. You would earn the same rate either way it is just that if you kept the money in the account all year then you would earn interest on top on interest.

I am assuming that is why there were two different figures, the cashier might not know much about that because not many 'savings accounts pay enough interest for someone to bother scooping of the interest each month to use as an income.

No, the cashier knew there were two different rates of interest, she just couldn't read what they actually were correctly off her screen!

She'll have been employed for her selling people skills, and will probably know nothing about banking. Next time you go in, ask her to explain the clearing cycle or if you're feeling a little bit malevolent the rule of 78.

Why goring? To humiliate her?

britbat is right re the zero on the end - important for comparison and to show the level (or not) of rounding.

Well, based on this situation, she's doing a fairly good job of that on her own. Explaining stuff like this should be a basic requirement of a bank employee. I just think that people who work in a bank should be able to understand at the very least basic banking, not just be target-driven salespeople.