Scarborough & Skipton Building Societies Merging

john_s_2

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

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.

I'm indifferent to the privatisation issue. My understanding of it was that they should become unregulated after a while - once it had been shown there was 'true' competition. BT was up till recently not allowed to charge less than a certain amount for its line rental. I don't know what was stopping overseas money buying the utilities' shares prior to Blair so you'll need to expand on that one. Original intentions often have unexpected results!

Back on topic... I'm a Skipton member and I'm much persuaded by baby-boomer's argument. I agree that it does seem unfair for an institution to have a poorly performing company forced upon it. But maybe Skipton (and similar institutions like ING with the Kaupthing thing) get some sort of compensation for this? They should do.

baby_boomer

john_s wrote: »

maybe Skipton.. get some sort of compensation for this? They should do.

They don't. Just "Brownie points" from a grateful government and a gong for the Skipton CEO in due course.

jack_spratt_2

I think you have been reading the Daily Mail to much .

The executives which are and have been reaping the rewards are in my opinion the worthless minority !! the real people who would suffer are the ordinary people who depend on the employment with these societies to support there families ,also the charities which The Scarborough have supported over a number of years
You really cannot grasp the fundamentals of the meaning of mutuality and that it is more than letting a building society go belly up

Are you sure you are not miffed at not getting your carpet bagging bonus:D

And don't even bother to reply that by the merger it will put the Skipton at risk these are both still strong societies who are both making a profit but consider that in the future that building societies with a stronger customer base will be in a better position to take advantage of the changing financial conditions

baby_boomer

jack_spratt wrote: »

the real people who would suffer are the ordinary people who depend on the employment with these societies to support there families ,also the charities which The Scarborough have supported over a number of years

I can't disagree.

But it's not the job of a healthy society to rescue them.

jack_spratt wrote: »

You really cannot grasp the fundamentals of the meaning of mutuality

That charge should be levelled squarely at you.

Mutuality means that members collectively benefit from the profits and absorb the losses of their chosen society.

It doesn't mean that a weak society is entitled to scrounge off someone else when it goes wrong .

It doesn't mean that a strong society should have to absorb the losses of another society that goes belly up .

jack_spratt wrote: »

you have been reading the Daily Mail to [sic] much

The Daily Mail is the most pro-mutual of newspapers. Please get your facts right when you try to slag people off.

jack_spratt_2

The Daily Mail is the most pro-mutual of newspapers. Please get your facts right when you try to slag people off

You must be reading a different edition to me

I am sorry if you feel that I am slagging you off it certainly was not my intention to do so

Mutuality and building societies is not just about one building society its about the whole principles of the building societies and of the mutual movement

These mutual organisations originated in the self-help movement which began towards end of the 18th century and agreed that they must act together to protect all there interests.
I know times have changed but if you believe in the principle it still applies .
I just cannot understand why you think its a good idea to let a building society fail and the consequences that go with it .
The knock on effect would be felt through all societies stronger ones and weak .
If you do not like what is happening you do have the option to vote with your feet.

But if you stay you may in the end get your carpet bagging bonus but I hope this will never happen
.

baby_boomer

jack_spratt wrote: »

These mutual organisations originated in the self-help movement which began towards end of the 18th century and agreed that they must act together to protect all there interests.
.

You keep repeating this error. They agreed to act together to protect the interests of their own members who had a financial stake in that particular organisation.

Their purpose and mission is not to rescue other mutual organisations whose foolish directors have led them off the straight and narrow - and thereby make the task of weathering this recession more problematic for their own members.

The government has recently put in place the mechanism by which it could bail out hard up building societies - it just takes a stake in the organisation by investing in PIBs to recapitalise the Scarborough.

This wasn't an option in the 18th, 19th or 20th Centuries - but it is now. And if Scarborough took advantage of this, it wouldn't mean that savers would be any more worried about the position of other BSs than they are now.

bristolleedsfan

jack_spratt wrote: »

these are both still strong societies who are both making a profit but consider that in the future that building societies with a stronger customer base will be in a better position to take advantage of the changing financial conditions

If thats the case then why didnt these two societies decide to merge in the first half of 2007, 2006,2005,2004,2003,2002,2001,2000,1999,1998,1997 or earlier. :huh: :huh: :huh:

I know what BB will reply with. :rotfl: Im facinated to hear what Mr Spratts belief is. :eek:

jack_spratt_2

No not all members all mutual organizations this is the principle of mutuality it is to protect the mutual idea

If you wish you can have a vote !!! move your cash elsewhere its quite easy to do so !!

Some of these comments were taken from the Skipton building society site !!


Both societies are financially strong and have sufficient money to support their savings balances.

The enlarged Society will be well capitalised, have good liquidity, strong funding lines and high asset quality. It will be even better placed to deal with any future uncertainties in the financial marketplace.

The two organisations are well matched, sharing similar business models, subsidiary interests and geography, as well as their commitment to mutuality, their members, their people and their local communities.

The board of Skipton would only agree to this on the basis that it will benefit its current and future members.

It is anticipated the enlarged Society will be a top five building society with approximately 860,000 members and over £16bn of assets. The enlarged Society will be well capitalised, have good liquidity, strong funding lines and high asset quality. It will be even better placed to deal with any future uncertainties in the financial marketplace.

There will be no 'windfall' payment for members of either society and Skipton members will see no difference in their day-to-day relationship with the Society.:T

It is anticipated that the enlarged Society will be a top five building society with approximately 860,000 members and over £16bn of assets.

This is a real opportunity for the North Yorkshire-based societies to create an enlarged Society that is even better placed to deal with any future uncertainties in the financial marketplace. The two societies are well matched, having similar business models, a strong geographical fit and shared commitment to mutuality, their members, their people and their local communities.

A merger of the societies will create a much larger, stronger business in North Yorkshire which offers real advantages to both organisations and their members going forward, in view of the strengths and values we share, our close geographical location and our ethos of returning good value to our members. "We believe this merger is in the long-term best interests of our members, our people and our local community, and can only serve to enhance the building society sector."

You have trusted the Skipton to manage your funds in the past and you must have been happy for them to do so !! if you feel that by this merger they have not you will be able to vote at there next AGM so you will get a vote after all :think:

jack_spratt_2

bristolleedsfan wrote: »

If thats the case then why didnt these two societies decide to merge in the first half of 2007, 2006,2005,2004,2003,2002,2001,2000,1999,1998,1997 or earlier. :huh: :huh: :huh:

I know what BB will reply with. :rotfl: Im facinated to hear what Mr Spratts belief is. :eek:

You do not need to be a brain surgeon to realize that the current financial markets conditions are not the same as 2007, 2006,2005,2004,2003,2002,2001,2000,1999,1998,1997 or earlier.
I do not want to seem rude but with all that has happened in the last few months we are living in unprecedented times !! things that were unthinkable just 6 months ago are not now .
Financial institutions have merge to protect themselves

Its not a big deal really !! if you do not like it move your money out

baby_boomer

jack_spratt wrote: »

This is a real opportunity for the North Yorkshire-based societies to create an enlarged Society that is even better placed to deal with any future uncertainties in the financial marketplace.

And it'd be even stronger and an even better "opportunity" if the Leeds BS joined in the fun.Only you wouldn't need so many directors .

The two societies are well matched, having similar business models

:rotfl: :eek: :rotfl:

There are lies, damned lies and building society merger lies.

The current Skipton CEO whom Jack just quoted above

Skipton is unlike other building societies

The current Skipton Chairman

"John [Goodfellow] has been an exceptional chief executive whose vision of modern mutuality has transformed Skipton in recent years and made it into the unique organisation it is today.

The new CEO from January 2009

[Goodfellow's] vision has created a unique group of companies

So which is it?

Is Skipton unique, or just similar to Scarborough with the same business model?