Britannia AGM - voting form received

mariegriffiths

realaledrinker wrote: »

Voting against is not an option. The Britannia cannot exist long term in its present form given its sub prime losses & the state of its mortgage book (not quite Northern Rock but getting there). Give it 12 months and the Britannia would have to be "rescued" like the Derbys & Cheshire.

Incorrect according to the documents there is a 4.5% excess that the Britannia memebrs will lose with a Yes vote. This is just scarmongering for financial gain.

latecomer

I've got to say I've not yet had time to read the half a trees worth of paper they sent along with the voting forms (Is this normal BTW or exceptional due to the merger?). I fully intend to try and read through them prior to voting but it sounds like there is no good reason to vote for? We only have our mortgage with them and hence I very much doubt whether this will have a huge effect on us.

realaledrinker

latecomer wrote: »

there is no good reason to vote for? .

Depends on whether you would prefer the Britannia to be taken over by the Co-operative bank or wait another year or so for the Nationwide....

sons_2

James_Robertson_1963 wrote: »

And what a biased document it is. Vote with the board, all you have to do is sign your name in the big red box...easy.

Stuff that, I'm voting against re-electing the lot of them on a point of principle. This voting form is a disgrace.

And they can stick their merger with the Co-op where the sun don't shine until the members get a pay out.:mad:

As a society we don't learn do we, all the troubles that have been seen with banks and building societies and the biggest concern is that people are not getting a payout.
All info they have both released has said that this is in the best interest of the 2 companies, maybe they are looking for the long term best.

Milarky

sons wrote: »

As a society we don't learn do we, all the troubles that have been seen with banks and building societies and the biggest concern is that people are not getting a payout.
All info they have both released has said that this is in the best interest of the 2 companies, maybe they are looking for the long term best.

I'm afraid that is how we have been 'encouraged' to become ('Thatcher' is a convenient starting point, and shorthand, for the intense individualism that many people express these days) There must be the faint hope that the recession purges some of these 'animal spirits', but the signs so far (an introspective blame culture?) aren't hopeful.

But when one big profitable company wants to take over another big but no-so profitable one it's perfectly reasonable for the customers to ask 'what's in it for me?' These large corps don't seem to do a very convincing job of explaining themselves (other than in the Lincoln sense of hoodwinking most people) because. I suspect, they don't have a 'masterplan' other than growth for growth's sake.

That growth 'imperative' will one day be our undoing (but that's another story).. In the meantime it's business as usual, and the Board of Britannia will get their 75% vote to push this through.

bristolleedsfan

[quote=sons;20252721_maybe_they_are_looking_for_the_long_term_best.[/quote]


"Maybe they are looking for"/after their own best interests.

realaledrinker

Milarky wrote: »

But when one big profitable company wants to take over another big but no-so profitable one

Would hardly call either Co-op bank or Britannia 'big' even in UK financial services terms. What Co-op have been after for some time is an opportunity to make a step change in their market penetration and this opportunity gives it to them. Once the Britannia main course has been consumed (albiet with some indigestion) then the rest of the building society 'club' will be invited to become 'afters'. You can see this happening in the main Co-op movement with the Co-operative Group hovering up the smaller regional societies (Plymouth & South West Co-op being currently on the menu).