Why recurring deposits and term deposits aren't directly comparable by rate alone
A term deposit's advertised rate applies to money that sits for the entire term, while a recurring deposit's advertised rate applies to money that trickles in over that same term. Comparing the two products by their headline percentage alone overstates how much the recurring deposit actually earns relative to a lump sum.
The 'half the rate' shortcut, and where it breaks down
For a recurring deposit with even monthly deposits and simple interest, effective yield on total money contributed is close to half the advertised rate, since on average each dollar deposited only earns interest for about half the total term. This shortcut gets less accurate with irregular deposit amounts, compounding structures, or bonus-rate promotions layered on top.
Frequently Asked Questions
So is a recurring deposit a bad way to save?
Not necessarily β it's not primarily a high-yield tool, it's a discipline tool that builds a savings habit from monthly income you don't have as a lump sum. Comparing its effective yield honestly against a lump-sum term deposit just avoids being misled by the headline rate.
Why do some recurring deposit calculators show a higher effective return than expected?
Some products offer bonus rates for meeting conditions (automatic transfers, new customer promotions, or linked accounts), or compound interest partway through the term, both of which can push the effective yield above the simple 'half the rate' estimate.