Nationwide swoops on battered rivals

Milarky

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

The argument for building societies going into "different" forms of activity, to make profits, is that they can then give their members a better deal by charging a lower interest margin between mortgages and savings.

To take an example Nationwide credit card (and presumably the personal loans too) are non-membership products - which just happen to be 'bought' by lots of member/customers. The profits from these are retained in the 'mutual' parent.

[But curiously the bank account is a membership product!!]

baby_boomer

I find it hilarious that our MPs last year passed a bill that allows BSs to raise more money like banks and branch out into more non-core business areas.

You can trust MPs not to have a clue. Ironically the cross-party pro-mutual committee is one of the strongest and most unanimous bodies in Parliament :rotfl: So much for unanimity proving that anything is right.

Why weren't MPs thinking that the role of the BSs was to concentrate on their knitting and provided an element of stability & variety to the financial system?

Who were MPs listening to en route to such an awful mistake? Greedy BS director types, of course . My assessment is that Britannia was to the fore, because it already had such a low level of retail funding and wanted the rules changed so that it didn't break the law.

Since the credit crunch Britannia has been forced, by the market and the regulator, to do the exact opposite and offer some great savings deals viz. the 7% Members Bond and the 7.5% Fixed Rate regular saver. As it rediscovers its society roots, so it starts to look more like a building society again - except that the members will have to foot a bill for Platform Mortgages that looks like it might be heading for £100m over the full year .

bristolleedsfan

baby_boomer wrote: »

I find it hilarious that our MPs last year passed a bill that allows BSs to raise more money like banks and branch out into more non-core business areas.

You can trust MPs not to have a clue. Ironically the cross-party pro-mutual committee is one of the strongest and most unanimous bodies in Parliament :rotfl: So much for unanimity proving that anything is right.

Why weren't MPs thinking that the role of the BSs was to concentrate on their knitting and provided an element of stability & variety to the financial system?

Who were MPs listening to en route to such an awful mistake? Greedy BS director types, of course . My assessment is that Britannia was to the fore, because it already had such a low level of retail funding and wanted the rules changed so that it didn't break the law.

.

http://www.britannia.co.uk/home/society/the_board/non_exec_directors.html :rolleyes2

Tom Sawyer


Tom, 65, a member of the House of Lords, joined the Board as a non-executive director in July 1999. He is a member of the remuneration committee and chairs the Members’ Council. He is the chancellor of the University of Teesside and a visiting professor at Cranfield Business School. He is the chairman of Union Income Benefit and a director of Thompsons the Solicitors. Tom is a member of the board of Key Homes and was general secretary of the Labour Party for four years, having previously been deputy general secretary of Unison.

EdInvestor

martinman3 wrote: »

I am assuming that the commercial loans mentioned are BTLs, only they know how many are high LTV on new-build apartments, in arrears and initially overvalued by the developers.

Very unlikely: commercial property includes shops, office blocks, warehouses, industrial parks and such. BTL loans come under residential property lending.

mariegriffiths

I have set up a website to keep track of closed accounts and the loss of money from building societies. So whe you vote with your feet and withdraw your money from the Derbyshire and Chesire in disgust, the whole world eill know about it.
http://www.tvwallet.co.uk/exodus/index.jsp

bristolleedsfan

mariegriffiths wrote: »

I have set up a website to keep track of closed accounts and the loss of money from building societies. So whe you vote with your feet and withdraw your money from the Derbyshire and Chesire in disgust, the whole world eill know about it.
http://www.tvwallet.co.uk/exodus/index.jsp

Will be interesting to see how much withdrawals from Cheshire/Derbyshire amount to although I suspect that being as 1 in every 5.00 deposited has been going to Nationwide BS, much of the withdrawals will end up going to Nationwide BS in one form or another. :rotfl:

"Mistress Extrodinaire".:eek:

www.mariegriffiths.co.uk Portal to Marie - Home Page of Marie Griffiths Web Mistress Extrodinaire

baby_boomer

Since the Cheshire & Derbyshire are going to avoid producing full year accounts thanks to the FSA, it's not going to be possible to say how much money has been withdrawn from them, is it?

bristolleedsfan

baby_boomer wrote: »

Since the Cheshire & Derbyshire are going to avoid producing full year accounts thanks to the FSA, it's not going to be possible to say how much money has been withdrawn from them, is it?

Most the withdrawals will be from carpetbaggers so if they register their withdrawal figures on maries site we should have a fair idea of how much has been withdrawn. ( I shall wait till the "D" deed has been completed before I close my accounts.)

Am I correct in :think: that this can be closed within the calendar year + still receive the headline rate of interest as long as the closure has not meant that two withdrawals have been exceeded during the calendar year?

http://www.thecheshire.co.uk/investment-saving-account/regular-saver/members-privilege-regular-saver.asp

( Ive not looked any further into the T+Cs)

I made a withdrawal in March 2008 and 11th August 2008 so wont be able to close it with full interest until the start of the next "calendar year".

MiserlyMartin

I am livid that this has been forced by the FSA denying members a chance to vote on the issue. Why should Nationwide members foot the bill in rescuing Derbyshires mistakes with Liar Loans?

I'd like to be able to vote NO to this. The only small compensation is that the carpet baggers will get F all.
:rotfl: :T

bristolleedsfan

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

I The only small compensation is that the carpet baggers will get F all.
:rotfl: :T

Ive been waiting for you to post on this subject MM, been a long wait, delighted that you havent disappointed. :rolleyes2