Chelsea building society

lynnzal

"The directors (of Chelsea BS) said they would "continue to review the strategic options available to the society", a phrase often used by managements when they are considering seeking a buyer or a merger partner"

As a member, I vote they sell out. THEN the Chelsea will have to consider adopting the SVR of it's buyer/merger partner.

The Chelsea ARE in a position to lower rates, and I re-iterate the point. By keeping rates high they force those people that are struggling with their finances to default on their payments, thus exacerbating the shortfall that Chelsea BS are trying to cover - by keeping rates high! Additionally, anyone that can afford their payments will most likely find that they are in a position that they can move away from the Chelsea BS...making the the Chelsea BS shortfall covering policy a farce. It all boils down to simple economics really.

anh1904

Would a merger lead to a payout though? Would all members, mortgage holders or savers, be entitled to some divvy up?

Is this just a means of keeping people with the society rather than moving?

opinions4u

anh1904 wrote: »

Would a merger lead to a payout though? Would all members, mortgage holders or savers, be entitled to some divvy up?

If they merge due to financial hardship, where would the money come from to pay out members?

The answer is, unfortunately, no chance of a payout.

Muhasib

Ask the members of the Cheshire, Barnsley and Dunfermline Building Societies if they got a takeover bonus recently, its a difficult time for building societies who are faced with bad debt after expanding outside their core expertise of owner occupation mortgages and personal savings deposits.

Mithos

lynnzal wrote: »

"The directors (of Chelsea BS) said they would "continue to review the strategic options available to the society", a phrase often used by managements when they are considering seeking a buyer or a merger partner"

As a member, I vote they sell out. THEN the Chelsea will have to consider adopting the SVR of it's buyer/merger partner.

The Chelsea ARE in a position to lower rates, and I re-iterate the point. By keeping rates high they force those people that are struggling with their finances to default on their payments, thus exacerbating the shortfall that Chelsea BS are trying to cover - by keeping rates high! Additionally, anyone that can afford their payments will most likely find that they are in a position that they can move away from the Chelsea BS...making the the Chelsea BS shortfall covering policy a farce. It all boils down to simple economics really.

They way I see it, and of course I'm no expert, But if a person can not afford the SVR, but is unable to move to a new rate with them based on lending criteria, then why the hell would any BS or bank offer a person the lower rate in the first place? You're clearly a liability and its that sort of blinked lending which caused this entire mess to start with.

In case of the Chelsea it would seem that BTL's are largely to blame for this mess so in that respect lynnzal I do feel for you, and after only a short afternoon of google research its nice to see a lot of greedy landlords are about to meet a sticky end.