Lambeth BS windfall for members

Edna_Bucket_2

There's no need to be sarcastic - it just denigrates your argument, and looks a bit petty. You are perfectly entitled to have your opinion, but if you genuinely believe that sweeping statement you made I'm also perfectly entitled to say that it is patently naive.

Perhaps MSE has some Lambeth BS staffers or from the former Staffordshire BS who could share their views and experience on their "immovable" signaway clauses?

...oh i'm sorry - i didn`t realise you were a building society exec.

I'm not but I have met and talked to many of them, and continue to do so.

Edna_Bucket_2

BTW - if you want to share with us which Society you work for boltonangel, I'll happily give you a more informed opinion on whether I still think your signaway would still hold in the event of a takeover or not.

boltonangel

each building society has different ethics, much as i disagree with some of the policies my employers have in place i do feel that in the event of a takeover they would assign any windfalls to charity, as promised.

my 'sweeping' stmt was merely meant to mean that although they are all in the same industry not every bs is the same.

i would rather not state which BS i work for.

Edna_Bucket_2

OK fair enough boltonangel - I guess in an ideal world it might be preferable to see signaways go to charity in this event if that is what is in the Rules and perhaps your Board would indeed stick with that.

Trouble is that when a Society needs to be acquired (a situation that is going to face an awful lot of those remaining in the next few years) they also need that 75% to get it through. Human nature is that people are more likely to vote for something that is in their own interest and the history of these votes shows that. That's why the signaways go out the window - they're of dubious legal standing anyway, since AFAIK none of them were ever voted on by the membership of any Society at an AGM to bring them in when they were all introduced.

Such a fundamental change to a Society's Rules of course should normally be a subject of an AGM Special Resolution. The cynics amongst the readership here might think that these were not so that Directors could abandon them just as easily as they were brought in initially, but I couldn't possibly comment on that...

Of course I quite understand that you would feel uncomfortable naming your employer in a public discussion board - no problem.

boltonangel

all any of us can do is wait and see - for some bs's (mine included) it may not be long!

Lorian

Bernard_Coleslaw wrote:

The simple way of answering this would be to ask "Do you get the AGM papers from Lambeth in your name every year?" If you don't (and I suspect you may not), then you're not a qualifying member.

Today's letter from the lambeth, address to me said "dear member", so we might be lucky.

competitionscafe

"Details of benefits for members of Lambeth have been released today as part of the plan that will see Portman combine with its smaller peer to create Britain's third-largest building society.

But while shareholders and mortgage borrowers with Lambeth will get windfalls, those who hold only savings accounts will receive nothing. Information on the mutuals' merger has been sent out to members today who will have the opportunity to vote at an annual general meeting on May 25.

Qualifying shareholding members of Lambeth – those who held shares in the society valued at £100 or more on January 31 this year – will be awarded an 8.4% bonus which could be as high as £2,500 and will be a minimum of £400.

Meanwhile, borrowing members with a mortgage debt of more than £100 on January 31 will get a bonus payment of £400. "
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/saving-and-banking/article.html?in_article_id=408506&in_page_id=7&ct=5

So it looks like those of us with savings accounts get nothing?

ReportInvestor

competitionscafe wrote:

So it looks like those of us with savings accounts get nothing?

I don't think so. It's just a piece of sloppy journalism and poor editing that is guaranteed to sow confusion amongst Lambeth members .

If true there would be a members' revolt and they need 75% to vote "yes".

"Only savings accounts" probably refers to deposit accounts, as opposed to the ordinary, run of the mill BS share accounts that confer membership and a vote.

New Deposit accounts for ordinary investors were abolished by the 1997 Building Societies Act & most societies, with a few exceptions, conferred membership onto individuals who held deposit accounts.

competitionscafe

ReportInvestor wrote:

I don't think so. It's just a piece of sloppy journalism and poor editing that is guaranteed to sow confusion amongst Lambeth members .

Well getting the facts wrong is about par for the course with the Daily Mail group I did think it sounded odd and unlikely and that perhaps he was getting confused between share accounts and shareholders as I thought a mutual doesn't have any shareholders...

Not heard from them [Lambeth] yet though - hopefully this week?

ReportInvestor

For those of you who have children who have accounts at the Lambeth.

The wording on the proposal suggested to me that children might only get a separate windfall if their parents were not members in their own right.

i.e. just one windfall for the parent since the parent was the "first named member" on each account as Lambeth kid's accounts are trustee accounts.

So I phoned up Lambeth who said that children would get separate windfalls, even in these circumstances .