Personal finance is one of the easiest subjects to write confidently and wrongly about. The defence is boring and mechanical: take every number from the institution that published it, and say when you took it.
A figure gets published here only if we can point to the organisation that produced it and the date we read it. Secondary sources — other blogs, aggregator sites, AI summaries — are not sources. They're leads to check against the original.
This is enforced mechanically, not by good intentions: an article without at least one source fails the build and cannot be published.
The rate everything else is priced off. Taken from the central bank’s own decision announcement, not a news summary of it.
How much of your money is actually guaranteed if a bank fails. Limits differ per country and change by legislation.
Published survey figures, used where a single provider’s rate would mislead.
Scoring mechanics come from the people who build the models or regulate them — never from a credit-repair company’s marketing.
Used for side-income and affordability context, including what each tax authority expects you to declare.
A named bank’s rate is quoted from that bank’s own published page, with the date it was read.
Savings and mortgage rates move constantly. A rate quoted without a date silently claims to be current forever, which is how a page written last year ends up misleading someone this year. Every source on this site carries the date it was last verified, so you can judge for yourself whether it's still worth trusting.
Scroll to the sources block at the end of any article. Each entry names the publishing body, links directly to the page the figure came from, and shows when we read it. If the live page now says something different, the live page wins — and telling us is genuinely useful.
Some things we deliberately don't publish: country-specific score thresholds we can't verify against an official scale, provider rates we can't read from the provider directly, and forward-looking predictions about where rates are going. The last one isn't a sourcing problem — nobody can source a forecast, so we don't dress one up as analysis.
The broader rules this sits inside are in the editorial policy.