Here we have a post written by my pal Emma about a personality test, it looks sponsored but its not.
I don’t know about you but when I think of towns which are particularly “risky”, I don’t instantly think of Canterbury, nor would I think that Watford would be slap bang in the middle of the “risky/risk-averse spectrum” but according to recent research performed by Zopa – it is.
So how did they come to this conclusion? Well, Zopa worked with a behavioural psychologist Ivo Vlaev from the super snazzy Warwick Business school to create a ‘Risk and Safety’ index – oh, er! They analysed 97 towns across the UK (creating a matrix of Google Trends data) to see how much risk their inhabitants are willing to take. Watford comes out as the most ‘middle’ of all.
Now, I have been to Watford a few times and I didn’t think there was anything middle of the road about it but Here. We. Are.
Curious about your home town? Check the infographic below to see how your town fares.
If you’re anything like me and are curious about how you fit into these categories Zopa has also created a personality test to see which UK town would be best for you to live in, dependent on the level of risk you take… as I am from Stoke-on-Trent, I am rather disappointed that we didn’t even make the top 10 – my goodness!
So, why did Zopa so this? Well, dear reader Zopa has an Innovative Finance ISA (IFISA) product, providing returns for those who are trapped between investing in risky stock markets and traditional low-rate saving products, so it’s a ‘middle-ground‘ ISA (hence the link!).
I’ll explain that in layman’s terms for us not so educated in the financial world lingo – it means that us regular folk can get involved in investing and setting up ISA’s which is something I have been keen to try for a very long time.
Make sure to let me know what your scores were on the quiz so we can compare notes…and for those curious, I got:
Soooo it turns out I may not be as risky as I initially thought!
Do you agree with the data collected or do you think your town is far more riskier than those listed?