Scarborough & Skipton Building Societies Merging

jack_spratt_2

HankMcSpank wrote: »

I think it suprememly ironic...mutuals are supposed to serve their members. In truth all they've done is serve their directors & (to a lesser extent) their staff.

The society traditional model of taking in high st deposits, & lending them out to borrowers at minimal profit has long been outdated. These so called mutuals have been taking excessive risk...if it comes off, the directors benefit, if it doesn't (as with the Scarborough), then no worries...not much downside (ie no risk of being held up to account).

It really sticks in my throat when I see slogans such as "mutuality - working for you" ....nothing could be further from the truth. it ought to be "mutuality...we fool you into believing we're working for you, but we're actually riding a might fine gravy train"

I agree in part with you !! but as a merger it makes sense there are very little duplication of branches !!
This will not be the last merger we will hear about there are more to come

Somerset

In the past, long before this credit crunch, building societies are usually uncompetitive with their products. The argument went, that as mutuals, they were a different 'animal', they weren't 'cutting-edge' souless, money-is-king institutions like banks. They were rooted in the community and were more down to earth - not international comglomerates. This was their attraction.

Then we find out they were playing the same risky, sub-prime game as the big boys. And people wonder why supporters of mutuals are disappointed and might feel just a little betrayed.

cheggers

Expect to be no more than 10 Building Societies in 3 years I bet.

Mutuality stands for mismangement these days!

Milarky

cheggers wrote: »

Expect to be no more than 10 Building Societies in 3 years I bet.

Mutuality stands for mismangement these days!

No, it's become "Mute-uality" (membership is inaudible..)

GeorgeHowell

john_s wrote: »

?!? Yeah, that flipping Blair eh? Privatising all the publicly owned utilities so that Jonny Foreigner could buy them.

I didn't agree with the privatisation either, that was mistake number one. But at least they were regulated to start with. Blair took off the price regulation under the delusion that it was a fully competitive market, and also allowed these vital industries to fall into foreign hands. That was never the intention of the original privatisation, which was intended to stop the utilities being a cosy home for indifferent management subsidised by taxpayers money. Having said that it was a fair bet that they would somehow become a cash-cow for profiteers.

baby_boomer

And that's how it should be.

Mutuals were not set up as a disaster fund to help out the taxpayer or other failing mutuals.

PremierFella_2

Mutuals were not set up as a disaster fund to help out the taxpayer or other failing mutuals.

No they weren't. But do you really think it is the best interests of YOUR society to allow other societies to fold (not that I think any society recently was or is in immediate danger of folding btw)? How long do you think it would take for there to be a run on building societies that ultimately leads to failure of YOUR society?

bristolleedsfan

cvd wrote: »

Iand the Skipton IS badly run. No building society with any sense or ethics would own a chain of estate agents.

On the face of it, looks a very nice portfolio


http://www.skiptongroup.com/

http://www.skiptongroup.com/mutualOne.asp

jack_spratt_2

baby_boomer wrote: »

And that's how it should be.

Mutuals were not set up as a disaster fund to help out the taxpayer or other failing mutuals.

At the end of the day it is better for everyone to have stable financial system .If not it effects more than just the members of one building society !! it effects everyone's everyday life such as pensions,savings ,mortgages, stocks and shares , your employment.your children's employment.
I can assure you that governments taking this kind of action have not taken this decision lightly.
I suggest we put this one to bed as it is going to happen in the first quarter of next year whether anybody likes it or not!! in 10 years time Skipton members may look at this as a very good piece of business

baby_boomer

PremierFella wrote: »

No they weren't. But do you really think it is the best interests of YOUR society to allow other societies to fold

Damn right I do

If I'm a member of a well run society it will survive this crisis and be able to offer its members decent rates.

If that society has to take on a basket case society then the current members will suffer in order to protect the taxpayer and/or the other banks/building societies.

Given the FSCS protection for savers, I don't think that a few societies folding will affect the stronger ones much at all.

In fact, it might encourage a flight to quality . So stronger societies would benefit.

cvd wrote: »

So we can let the Skipton rot in hell when it gets into trouble

Yes.

Savers are protected by the FSCS so any damage will be spread around all financial institutions, instead of being concentrated on the poor society that has to take them over.

Other building societies shouldn't be seen as charities by the government.

Or as "scratch your mutual back" job centres for failed building society executives who would otherwise get the P45s they deserve.

cvd wrote: »

I guess you have money in the Skipton.

That is a fair assumption to make. And also, by a curious coincidence, in Scarborough . It must be my family's Yorkshire connection. My Father-in-law actually has £50K in Scarborough (most of his retirement savings) - reduced after my advice.

But my arguments are applicable throughout the BS sector and do not arise from either my or my family's BS holdings.