Britania merger vote

Iconic

I got the impression that the merger was a handy way of concealing Britannia's emerging mortgage losses.

Richardson gets Britannia in a mess and comes out smelling of roses. He is going to do better than Goodwin:eek:

The merger is still the best bet though because Britannia will need help or it could go to the wall.

cvd

I think there is a question mark about the future performance of the sub-prime division of Britannia called Platform.

The merger is still the best bet though because Britannia will need help or it could go to the wall.

But some of us are in both and are not keen on the idea of Britannia doing to the Co-op Bank what HBOS did to Lloyds.

baby_boomer

baby_boomer wrote: »

Basically a yes vote will deprive you of many of your existing membership rights - e.g. voting for directors and future rule changes or having a say on directors' remuneration.

The Britannia AGM literature puts it differently :rolleyes:.

"Britannia's AGM will be replaced with a different democratic process."

jack_spratt_2

With all the £100 accounts some of the posters have are we talking about the principles of mutual societies or the principles of carpetbaggers taking exception to not getting there little bonus :think:
The only way forward for mutual to survive in a changing market is to enlarge to be able to compete .
Some people somewhere will agree with me that the strength of a Mutual society is more important to its members and if this means merging with another so be it

Milarky

jack_spratt wrote: »

With all the £100 accounts some of the posters have are we talking about the principles of mutual societies or the principles of carpetbaggers taking exception to not getting there little bonus :think:

'their' little bonus, Jack

The only way forward for mutual to survive in a changing market is to enlarge to be able to compete .

'Mergers' should be between equals. Co-op is basically using its lucre to grab customers (us) for £1 each. And what sort of 'competition' will this supermutual's products provide to pukka building societies? Those supposedly great rates seem to go in inverse relation to size. Also, who says mergers provide any tangible benefits to customers? Just look at the horlicks that Nationwide made of the Portman post merger - and as a Nationwide member I 'paid' for that with no say....

Some people somewhere will agree with me that the strength of a Mutual society is more important to its members and if this means merging with another so be it

How did you vote in the merger Jack?

jack_spratt_2

Hello Milarky

I am not saying things are perfect but what is the alternative !! Britannia has got itself in a muddle !! there is no way it would be considering this option if that was not the case.

Who is getting the better deal Co-op members or Britannia members !! as you know I am a strong supporter of the mutual way but even I have my doubts about the benefits sometimes .
The downfall of many of the mutual societies are the fact they have tried to compete against the banks and like the banks have got themselves into trouble !! the sooner we get banks and building societies acting responsibly the better because at the end of the day its us savers who are paying with the interest rates we are getting :beer:

baby_boomer

Is the Britannia loan book in any trouble? Here's what I could glean from the boss's statement to members

"We proactively managed balance sheet risk by reducing the higher risk loans on our books [in 2008]"

# - That sounds good. What with being a sensible mutual in the first place, that should keep arears even lower .

"In 2008 1.7% of Group originated residential lending accounts had arrears greater than 2.5% of the loan balance, which is in line with industry averages of 1.6% ."

# Oh dear. So more like a bank than a BS. But perhaps Britannia has a good reason?

"As you'd expect from a busines owned by its customers, we do our best for borrowers in difficulty, working with them to resolve payment difficulties and taking their individual circumstances into consideration.

We have thousands of customers of special arrangements, ensuring that they stay in their homes while paying what they can afford."

# There you have it. Britannia is taking the strain on behalf of its borrowers, just like a good mutual and just like the government wishes.That must mean far fewer repossessions

"There were 0.33% of properties within Group originated residential lending in possession at the end of the year, compared with the industry average of 0.21%

# What? :eek: So much for responsible, cautious lending! But perhaps I'm mistaken.

"We have no direct exposure to.... subprime assets."

# Phew

"Four in every five Britannia mortgages are low-risk prime loans"

# So what about the other 20%? Commercial? Buy-to-let? Basket case? Do tell us more after you've won the AGM vote and are the boss of CO-OP/Britannia.

cvd

"We have no direct exposure to.... subprime assets."

I assume they can say that because the sub-prime assets (liar loans, etc) are all in Platform.
So the exposure is indirect - but isn't that just a cosmetic difference?

baby_boomer

I haven't assumed he could be quite that disingenuous since he is talking about the Group - including Platform - for much of his statement.

However there can be no worries about the financial strength of Britannia. We are all reassured by the statements of the directors standing for election.

Chief Executive
I have naturally been concentrating on maintaining our financial strength

Finance Director
I also know its important that Britannia maintains its financial strength

Chairman
My focus has been consistently on maintaining the financial strength of the Society

We're in safe hands .

It makes you wonder why we're having to merge with anyone!

cvd

From the web site for Platform:

We offer a wide range of competitive mortgage products designed for people who may have experienced financial difficulties in the past (Non-Conforming) as well as Buy to Let, Self-Certification and Prime.

Surely some of those should be called "sub-prime"?