If there’s one asset we all definitely hold, it’s cash. So it’s odd that there isn’t a long-run cash index available – one that we can use to compare other investments against.
Academics approximate returns to cash by resorting to treasury bill or money market rates. But what might a savvy UK investor have achieved with money in the bank?
Monevator is devoted to DIY investing after all, and so an everyday cash savings index would better reflect the experience of individual investors. It would also form a useful reference point for future expectations.
And so without further ado (I’ve always wanted to say that!) I present the Monevator cash total returns index.
A UK cash savings index
Our new cash index tracks the total return of UK savings accounts based on monthly interest rate figures going back to 1900.
I’ve relied upon three sources:
- Pre-November 1939: the Bank of England’s A Millennium of Macroeconomic Data.
- November 1939-March 2004: the Building Societies Association’s BSA Yearbook.
- April 2004-present day: Money Saving Expert’s amazing email newsletter archive.
My profuse thanks and additional hat-tips go to Monevator readers Alan Stocker, who suggested using the BSA and MSE sources, and Snowman, whose ongoing comments provided the motivational juice to plough through scads of dusty old interest rate records.
I’ll explain the decisions I’ve made in constructing the index at the end of the article. But first it’s high time I presented the facts on cash savings in the UK.
Spoiler: they’re not pretty.
The money illusion
The green cash uplands shown in the graph below represent the comforting sight of interest piling on interest. But the wavy red line that goes more or less nowhere is the return on cash after inflation:

Data from Millennium of Macroeconomic Data for the UK, 1Building Societies Association (BSA) Yearbook, Money Saving Expert, and ONS. April 2026.
The annualised real return on UK cash savings is 0.1% for the period 1900-2025. Miserable!
It’s a performance that stacks up poorly against other mainstream asset classes:
- The money market annualised return is 0.4% (0.3% after fees)
- All stocks gilts is 0.8% (0.7% after fees)
- World equities is 5.6% (5.5% after fees)
In a nutshell, those returns and the chart above explain why we urge readers not to put everything into cash. The green stuff barely scrapes past against inflation over time.
Of course cash is not the worst place to be over some shorter periods, as we saw in 2022. And there are good reasons to always keep some readies in reserve.
However holding a large wedge will likely cost you as the years turn into decades.
The silent hissing of a slow puncture, or the quiet boiling of that unlucky frog come to mind.
Hard times
The next chart highlights cash’s longest losing streaks in real terms – including a 72-year whopper:

We’ve shared some godawful charts over the years on Monevator. But this one is right up there.
The red zones show you the length and depth of cash drawdowns, as viewed through inflation-adjusted googles. They demonstrate that cash can be a perilous place to store your wealth if you overly rely on it.
The same is true of all asset classes, admittedly. But cash is deceptive because it looks so stable in nominal terms.
However as the chart shows, cash can periodically inflict huge losses – and the culprit isn’t hard to find:

As we’ve all experienced lately, the cash-gobbling monster of inflation isn’t a blight that’s faded into history like smallpox, or grit in your codpiece.
Cast your eyes back to the cyan growth line in our chart above. Cash has only performed well in real terms over a few short periods: namely 1921 to 1933 and 1982 to 2008.
On both occasions you could have done better in bonds.
The not-so-flash crash
Here’s the full drawdown chart for cash’s nastiest ever bear market.

The record shows:
- Cash spent over 72 years in negative territory
- It took 48 years to sink to the bottom
- Losses peaked at -58% in April 1981
- The recovery took another 24 years until December 2005
Money markets experienced similarly severe losses. UK government bonds suffered an even deeper, if shorter, drawdown. (See our previous retelling of the tale of the UK’s worst ever bond market crash. Prepare a stiff drink.)
Essentially, successive UK governments failed to control inflation. That wrecked the real returns from fixed income assets.
The red gouge above partly explains why my grandparents – born around 1910 – were so hard up. All they had were savings with the Post Office. But whatever they put away was murdered by inflation. Especially in the early 1940s, the early 1950s and, most savagely, in the 1970s.
Yet go back to the first chart in this article and cash’s nominal return curve betrays no hint of these losses that lasted a lifetime.
Cash after the Global Financial Crisis
Let’s fast forward.
The competitive savings market we enjoy today was unknown to previous generations.
British savers had few options until the cosy arrangements of our banks and building societies were broken up by deregulation from 1987 onwards.
Two decades later, the retail savings market was flourishing on the eve of the Credit Crunch, as documented by Money Saving Expert’s empowering weekly emails.
Easy-access rates topped 6% as the first rumbles of the oncoming storm rolled across the consumer landscape in 2007. 2
But within a few months, Britain experienced its first retail bank run in 140 years. Keystone institutions teetered, and the economy locked-up.
The Bank of England cut rates to historic lows, and real cash returns fell into the red:

Since January 2009, cash has been under water for all but one month up to the time of writing. That’s 17 years of drawdown and counting.
The chart shows that cash wasn’t a save haven either when interest rates were slashed to near-zero, nor when they rebounded post-Covid.
Indeed, the jagged plunge to the latest cash trough (-15% in May 2023) was a direct consequence of the 2021-23 inflationary surge. The only good thing about cash during the recent cost-of-living crisis was its drawdown wasn’t as bad as bonds.
Frankly, neither cash nor bonds are the place to be when inflation breaks loose.
Please read our previous hunt for the best inflation hedge for more.
Conflict of interest
Before I embarked on this project, I had thought a fleet-footed saver may have beaten money market rates. But the data says otherwise.
The next chart shows how British savers have mostly lagged the official Bank of England rate since 1900. (Money market returns usually track the central bank rate like a lovelorn teenager):

There’s a lot of economic history packed into this chart, but the takeaway is that savers have only outperformed the going rate during two eras.
One was upon the outbreak of World War 2 up until Churchill’s re-election as Prime Minister in October 1951.
The other shows up in the MSE era of consumer choice from 2004. Up until the Global Financial Crisis, the green cash rate tracks ahead of the red Bank Rate as savers were offered very generous terms – the likes of which haven’t been seen since.
The Bank Rate is then slashed from 5% in September 2008 to just half-a-percent by March 2009, as the scale of the crisis became clear.
Still, if you kept your job, a chunky rate tart’s premium emerged as different banks and building societies needed to suck in cash periodically to balance their books.
Switching to whichever institution was most in distress at the time was perhaps not my soberest ever financial move (reader, I was a rate tart) but hey, the British Government was playing backstop so it seemed okay.
In my view though, the savvy saver’s edge has hardly been worth the effort since 2022, though the premium perked up a little in 2025 – as you can see at the tail end of the chart.
Inside the cash total return index
There were a surprising number of decisions to make in assembling the index – specifically in the MSE-powered ‘best buy’ era.
The most important thing to say is that the index is composed of the compound interest rates for short-notice savings deposit accounts.
Up to October 1939 – We use the ‘Interest rate on sight deposit accounts’. The Bank of England defines a sight deposit account as:
…where the depositor has access to the entire balance of the deposit, without incurring any penalty, either on demand or by close of business the day following that on which the deposit was made.
November 1939 to March 2004 – Interest figures come from the rates on ordinary shares accounts provided by the Building Societies Association. An ordinary shares account was just a standard savings account accessible using a passbook. (Ask your grandparents. Or me! I had a Post Office passbook account from childhood until I looted it as a desperate 21-year-old trying to make rent.)
April 2004 to present day – The best interest rate collated by Money Saving Expert at the end of each month, provided the account fulfils the following criteria:
FSCS protected (or European equivalent schemes prior to Brexit).
95 days or less notice required. This provision bears comparison with historical treasury bill rates which are typically for 3-month bills.
Introductory rates are included so long as they last at least six months.
Exclusions:
Cash ISA accounts due to historically severe caps on balances.
Fixed term rates – these accounts are subject to interest rate risk.
Accounts that limit withdrawals to fewer than 12 per year or impose interest rate penalties for withdrawals.
Minimum deposit requirements of greater than £1,000 or a maximum balance of less than £85,000.
Current accounts, because they’re typically subject to restrictive terms and conditions including tight caps on bonus interest rates.
Exclusively postal or in-branch accounts.
Cash back bonuses.
Tax rates and fees as per standard practice for indices.
The notional saver
Indices by definition are based on a set of guidelines that simplify the real world in order to produce a snapshot of a market.
The Monevator cash total return index is based on what a switched-on UK retail saver could have earned on liquid cash savings from 1900 to the present day.
My notional saver paid attention to rates and moved their money to the best available product. But they did not use exotic or highly restrictive products.
They’re not the average saver, but neither do they have unlimited time and the motivation to pursue every savings avenue either.
Crucially, the index needs to be comparable with retail investment opportunities where an investor can commit almost as little or as much as they like to any given asset class.
For that reason, I’ve only admitted accounts that allow for low minimum balances and high maximum balances.
I’ve also ruled out fixed-term savings because they contain embedded interest rate risk. 3
In the modern era, financial institutions have come up with every wheeze they can think of to top the best-buy tables for long enough to hit their targets, whilst avoiding attracting so much cash that it craters their bottom line.
So I’ve had to filter out much of that fiendishness in order to balance the features of a genuinely desirable cash product: liquidity, accessibility, and competitive interest rate.
Finally, I’m not making a claim about what any individual could have earned. The index is beatable if, for example, you took term risk at the right time, or used interest-boosting techniques like current account stacking.
(Current account stacking enables a saver to jack-up their return – and partially circumvent balance caps – by opening multiple accounts that pay sweet rates of interest on restricted amounts of cash. Perhaps you opened ten accounts, perhaps you opened 20. It was a viable strategy for juicing your cash returns in the ZIRP era. It didn’t move the needle as much as I hoped when I ran the numbers, though. But that’s another story.)
Alright, that’s it for now. I’m very much looking forward to the thoughts, reactions, and critiques of the Monevator Massive. And I reserve the right to adjust the index in light of any bright ideas you have!
Take it steady,
The Accumulator
- Thomas R, Dimsdale N. 2017. “A Millennium of Macroeconomic Data for the UK.” Bank of England.[↩]
- You could even bag yourself 8% on balances of up to £2,500 via an Abbey National current account.[↩]
- That is to say, adverse interest rate moves will leave you stuck in an uncompetitive product from time-to-time.[↩]


11 Comments
I always have to have a reasonable pot of cash in retirement for cash flow management and the unforeseen-new car,new roof etc
So works out at about 6% of portfolio -been this % for a long time
3 accounts only for simplicity’s sake
A high interest instant access bank account with interest rate producing just under tax free £1000 limit for a 20% tax payer-currently approx £20000 invested
2 Instant Access Cash ISAs -wife and I-currently Skipton BS
Aim for as high a rate as possible but I don’t fret the top rates as it’s a very competitive market and good providers keep me in the top rates as I renew contracts-often no more than yearly
Low returns compared with other assets but needed for sake of ease of cash flow management
PS might drop high interest bank account bank account but 2 sources for cash flow lets me sleep at night in case one source hiccups-cash flow cannot fail!
xxd09
Thanks for a really interesting post. I imagine most readers will be feeling either smug, smashed or sober after reading it.
Amazing to think that nobody, as far as I know, in the MSM/financial area has ever done this. Neither have I seen anything like it in promotional material from the ‘financial-services’or ‘snake-oil’ sector.
When I have absolutely nothing better to do I’ll add gold & silver to the chart for my own amusement. Quite a few regard those things as real money. Would they be smug, smashed or sober? I think we know.
Thanks for this really interesting article. In the past, I’ve been surprised by how difficult it was to locate a simple historical chart comparing prevailing interest rates with inflation.
Bright ideas are beyond me, but my initial takeaways are 1) that it’s somewhat heartening to learn that, even if not recently, historically it’s been possible to be in cash only and not actually lose money, and 2) that a simple money market fund might achieve a slightly better return while obviating the need for all the tiresome ‘rate tarting’. (Previous monevator caveats about money markets not being real cash duly noted.)
My dad (an accountant) wasn’t kidding in 1980 when he said his money wasn’t doing anything and he might as well buy that yacht.
Great stuff @TA. An amazing and highly original and valuable piece of research.
Cash is optionality but, just as options can’t pay off long term in aggregate (as there would then be no Equity Risk Premium); so cash can’t pay it’s way over decades either.
And if you go into cash then how and when do you get back in and at what levels? (I’ve faced this dilemma myself and it’s not fun even if you get the market exit to cash timing part broadly right).
I remember those N&I escalator bonds in the early 1990s which paid out a higher % each year. I think one I held had a final payment of 14.5% (and around 10% on average over the fixed term) but this was a looong time ago now.
I do also remember George Cole as Arthur Daley from ‘Minder’ advertising Leeds Building Society’s / Halifax’s Liquid Gold account on a double digit rate from around the same time. A classic of its era.
Thanks TA, a very interesting article.
I think cash has the following benefits that mitigate its relatively poor return
1. liquidity – it’s readily accessible
2. simple – very easy to manage
3. safe – if you split between institutions covered by the £120k FCSC
4. provides an incentive to decumulate – like BBB’s Dad, you know you’re losing money so why not spend it!
Very useful article. and an important reminder of its role. Thanks
Of course there are other (non return) isues such as taking greater risks with the equity part of portfolio, available for opportunistic investment, avoiding having to be a forced seller of equities when needing money of unexpected events, etc
I imagine some amount of cash as having an extra return from the saved premiums from allowing you to self insure more things (pets, appliances, even income protection), or have a higher excess or less cover at least on the things you do insure. That all said, you could cover a lot of that from unused available credit
Fantastic piece of work @TA! This article should be required reading for every young person starting their working career. I genuinely feel that the failure to understand the difference between nominal and real returns is at the root of lots of people’s problems when it comes to money (and houses). This article nails it. “Invest” £100 for 126 years and reap your £12 reward- that is so sobering!
Great work @TA, like others I don’t recall seeing anything like it anywhere.
I would have guessed that the real rate of return on cash was better – say 0.5%, based on DMS’s figure of 1% for the historical rate of return on bills. So it’s a salutary lesson (not that I needed one – I avoid cash like the plague, and don’t even have an emergency fund! (Don’t try this at home, kids.))
One question – for the “MSE era” wouldn’t restricting yourself to instant access accounts have been a better comparator? As you say, a 90-day access account is more comparable to bills. Although perhaps most accounts you surveyed were instant access anyway?
Great article and analysis. I’ve seen very few attempts to try and quantify real returns on savings.
The Barclays Equity Gilt Study gave figures for cash returns but as the journalist Paul Lewis pointed out this was not really based on the savings rates actually achievable.
Many people who have saved but never invested talk of the magic of compound interest. But price inflation compounds too. And when the two are very similar all you can hope to achieve over the long period with savings, based on the data in this article and my own personal experience, is to maintain the value of those savings over time but not much more, and you might not even match price inflation.
When they talk about encouraging people to invest and not just save this is the key point at play. That savings might at best just keep up with inflation if you shop around is not just a risk it’s a likelihood.
My analysis of my personal savings interest achieved since I kept records in December 2004 to April 2026 is as per this chart (1st of month monthly data).
https://ibb.co/wNYPR9jL
My monthly average savings rate are shown on the left hand axis together with CPI and base rate.
My real rate of return on savings at points in time is shown by the grey shaded blocks using the right hand axis. So you can see the fluctuations between positive real returns and negative real returns at different time points.
Overall from December 2004 to April 2026 my geometric average savings return above CPI inflation has been 0.6% pa. In fact it’s actually just negative if assessed against RPI inflation. Given the effort I’ve put in to maximise my savings interest its not much of a return. Of course that’s just my personal return.
Even if we can estimate the potential average future real returns on savings (or lack of them) from past returns the actual interest rates achieved by someone constantly switching to best buy rates depends greatly on the subsidy they are getting from savers who don’t swap around.
The FCA update on cash savings – September 2024 (published 18/9/2024) showed that the average easy access deposit interest rate paid by the the largest 9 firms (Lloyds Banking Group, HSBC, NatWest Group, Santander UK, Barclays, Nationwide Building Society, TSB Bank, Virgin Money UK, The Co-operative Bank) was 2.11%pa at the end of the second quarter of 2024. Base rate was then 5.25%pa and best buy savings accounts paid around 4.8%pa. How might that significant differential between average and best buy rates change in the future, and how might that affect returns on savings?
On this point are the Building Societies Association’s BSA Yearbook from 1999 based on the interest rates shown for example on pages 48-49 of the 2025-2026 yearbook and if so are they average rates and not best buy rates, so perhaps understate best buy rates, albeit shopping around was different in nature historically?