Lambeth BS windfall for members

lipidicman

Just a quickie, I am halfway through transferring an ISA away from Portman. I presumed there was a signaway clause (had it a couple of years only). However I see that sometimes these are 'ignored'. Any input on whether/when Portman introduced a clause and should I hold onto this account.

ReportInvestor

There would have been a signaway clause, designed to protect against a Plc trying to take over the Portman.

At the moment it is the Portman that is the predator in this game of society mergers, so that makes it unlikely that you would be eligible for any benefit from your Portman account.

Unless it demutualises, which most commentators don't think is on the cards.

In some ways the Portman acts like a bank already. Are they charging you a £30 transfer out fee?

lipidicman

Thanks, I know the portman is the predator here. I guess what I was asking is will they now be a target as a fatter BS. So the portman have a signaway clause? Did the Lambeth, can somebody clarify this?

RepInv: I got in before the £30 transfer out fee was added, so no. No way I would have signed up for that!

ReportInvestor

Portman has a signaway clause.
Lambeth has a signaway clause - which doesn't count when you get taken over by a larger BS like Portman.
Portman won't be a target for a larger BS coz only Nationwide is significantly larger and Nationwide don't need the hassle of rationalising & integrating branch networks when they are growing so strongly anway.
So only hang onto them if you personally think they want to be bought out by a bank or demutualise - in which case they would probably waive the signaway clause.

lipidicman

I notice that Kent Reliance are tempting carpetbaggers:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/5000724.stm

ReportInvestor

Eh?

They're probably just thinking of new ways to rustle up some fresh savings business .

And the BBC and Sunday papers obliged :rotfl:.

Edna_Bucket_2

too true - the CEO is a former spin doctor after all!

lipidicman

ReportInvestor wrote:

Portman has a signaway clause.
Lambeth has a signaway clause - which doesn't count when you get taken over by a larger BS like Portman.
Portman won't be a target for a larger BS coz only Nationwide is significantly larger and Nationwide don't need the hassle of rationalising & integrating branch networks when they are growing so strongly anway.
So only hang onto them if you personally think they want to be bought out by a bank or demutualise - in which case they would probably waive the signaway clause.

Great info, thanks.
Now why do BS's bother with these clauses, only to waive them? Do they really discourage carpetbaggers if this is the case?

ReportInvestor

Investors' Association report on the Lambeth SGM to consider the merger proposal

Well over 98% voted in favour, not surprisingly, given that they stay mutual, should get better products and receive £400-£2,500 :T.

There's further comment on page 3 of the link. Why shouldn't more society boards consider such mergers if they release value and strengthen both organisations for the future?

lipidicman

Further reading reveals that the Lambeth Clause was invalidated because they society has not demutualised but rather merged with another society. Have I understood this correctly RI?