Scarborough & Skipton Building Societies Merging

RayWolfe

wrighty1969 wrote: »

So they would be obliged to continue the deal?

I wondered if I would be forced to find a new deal to pay the Administrators:eek:

No. Their asset (your borrowing from them) would be taken over.

RayWolfe

jack_spratt wrote: »

I really do understand your point of view but as I have said earlier it will be of no benefit to anyone to let any building society fail

Don't feel too bad about it, many of the "campaigners" for keeping more B/Ss for the competitive benefit, used to post quite a lot about maintaining £100 in as many B/Ss as possible. Can't possibly think why!

jack_spratt_2

martinman3 wrote: »

You need to read between the lines.


Yes, that is why we must merge before the losses at the Scarborough because of bad mortgage debt are finally known and there is a run on Scarborough deposits.


Once we have cooked the books.


Hmm. They are both based in Yorkshire, isn't that enough ?


That is why you don't get a vote on it.:rotfl:


We added up the number of members and total assets and that is the result. Never mind that many of those members will be counted twice, the properties on which the mortgages are secured have fallen in value by 15% in a year and many members will be reducing their deposits for the combined society to £50k.


We need all our money to cover the expected losses. No difference except for those members who use a branch of either Skipton or Scarborough where there is duplication.

We always wanted the Scarborough and now is our chance to get it for nothing.

p.s. Did you wonder why the Nationwide accepted £500m of funding from HMG that it said it didn't really need ?
The answer is "Cheshire" and "Derbyshire" once they had looked at their assets;)

I expect Skipton will be asking for funding they don't really need too !

So can we assume that you are not in favour

baby_boomer

BS mergers in general make sense to increase competition in the market place.

But this one will make Skipton less competitive.

bristolleedsfan

RayWolfe wrote: »

Don't feel too bad about it, many of the "campaigners" for keeping more B/Ss for the competitive benefit, used to post quite a lot about maintaining £100 in as many B/Ss as possible. Can't possibly think why!

" Its not just about merger payments, it about reduced competition in the market place, reduced competition = lower savings rates and higher morgage rates. "

At least when merger payments were made their was a sweetner and effectively a payment in lieu for the subsequent reduced future competition that would lead to higher morgage rates and lower savings rates.

Before Jack posts back that hes glad that their are no merger payments lets not forget that the Chief Executives concerned with all the no member payment "mop ups" will be receiving their payoffs from the societies concerned. :mad:

bristolleedsfan

baby_boomer wrote: »

BS mergers in general make sense to increase competition in the market place.

But this one will make Skipton less competitive.

Will leave Chelsea BS far out ahead in the new account launching stakes. Whats interesting is how many of the financial institutions that had best buy ISA rates at the start of this tax year ish will no longer exist in their own right by the start of the next tax year.

baby_boomer

It is interesting that this is the first merger since 1997 in which the larger societies' members would also have had a say in the normal course of events, since Skipton is not quite 5x the asset size of Scarborough.

By forcing it through, the FSA is muzzling Skipton members as well as Scarborough's.

bristolleedsfan

jack_spratt wrote: »

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

And here are some "comments" that were made at Scarborough Annual General Meeting as recently as 22 August 2008. :::: ( underlines IMO that as a later poster has illustrated that whether it be public statements from Boards and/or Britannia BS Staff briefings :rolleyes: they cannot be relied upon to tell the truth.

"Chief Executive John Carrier said: ‘Our status as a successful, independent mutual building society is very important to us and I am always delighted to see our members underlining the value they place on this by playing a part in our Annual General Meeting.

‘This year's has, once again, been a successful meeting with a very positive voting turnout.

‘It follows 12 months of continued growth and diversification for the Scarborough Group in which we achieved pre-tax profit growth of 16%, to £7.8 million, and asset growth of 24%, to a record £2.85 billion."

jack_spratt_2

Well Alliance and Leicester did extremely well when deciding to become a PLC!!

So did Bradford and Bingley when they became a PLC.

Pity they did not decide to merge

But at least it was worth it ???? :think: The vote was probably influenced by the members who had an account there a year with £10 in it!! if it was a merger with another building Society it would not have got voted through perhaps

bristolleedsfan

jack_spratt wrote: »

The vote was probably influenced by the members who had an account there a year with £10 in it!! quote]


100.00.