Kent Reliance BS - Charitable Assignment

millsee

Just thought I'd share something with you.

Had my Kent Reliance BS application form through for this year's cash ISA. From 1 June 2006, they are removing the requirement for charitable assignment of shares should they demutualise.

You carpetbaggers out there may just be interested

steady__eddie

You're about 44 days late opening this years I.S.A. aren't you ? Think of all that tax free lost interest. Just had a look on their website, if you were a member prior to 01/06/00 - no signaway. If you become a member after 31/05/06 - no signaway, if on the other hand you became a member between those 2 dates then the charitable assignment clause still applies.
Looks like I'm going to have to open an £100 instant access account with them after 31/05/06.

Bernard_Coleslaw

This applies to new customers only from 1st June. Existing Kent Reliance customers who signed up to the charitable assignment will find that it still applies (even if you close one account and open another) until five years have passed from the date you opened your first account.

BC

millsee

steady__eddie wrote:

You're about 44 days late opening this years I.S.A. aren't you ? Think of all that tax free lost interest.

Aye, but I've got £150 a month going into the Bradford and Bingley "Christmas Saver" at 10% gross

This year's ISA is just a top up to that - at least until December - so I'm not too fussed.

Oh, and I've just had to pay for my wedding :eek:

steady__eddie

This applies to new customers only from 1st June. Existing Kent Reliance customers who signed up to the charitable assignment will find that it still applies (even if you close one account and open another) until five years have passed from the date you opened your first account.


It would appear that Kent Reliance have been following the Nationwide advertising campaign a little too closely for my liking. (Sorry new customers only) I have transferred accounts to them not primarily for carpetbagging purposes (although I will admit that this is always lurking at the back of my mind) but because they offered above average rates of interest.
I wonder what is going on behind the scenes ?

Deemy

Probably because they want new customers and the charitable assignment clause would have detered some customers from signing up. Especially since their rates arn't particularly spectacular anymore.

They used to be above the market average, now below average.

I must say they have made a dogs dinner of their new site !!! All I want to know is the !!!!!!! interest rates ! Not having to clikc about 50 billion times to get there !!!

Debt_Free_Chick

It's an interesting move. I would have thought that existing customers who accepted the charitable assignment clause are unlikely carpetbaggers - as they wouldn't have accepted the clause.

So they are, in effect, being "penalised" compared with new customers, who are more likely to be carpetbaggers!

gggrrrrrr!!!! :mad:

Browntoa

They have been planning to close almost all their shops down here, not sure what their plans are ??

do wonder if anyone would actually want to take them over or if the windfall would be worth the trouble

thrifty_get

I noticed Kent Reliance's new gimmick and wondered which other BS are open for this kind of speculation? I know its lazy and I should do my own leg work but does anyone have any ideas.........

ReportInvestor

Kent Reliance said in the Independent that they aren't about to merge with anyone in the near future and were just drumming up new business.

But they did also say that the times they are a changing.

The BSA said that no other society would be following suit.

steady__eddie

To what extent do they envisage new business will be drummed up by simply removing the signaway clause ? Correct me if I'm wrong but the new business will be savers because I was under the belief that borrowers do not have to forego any possible windfall as long as their indebtedness is in excess of £100 at a specified hypothetical date. I understand that some advisers have indicated that K.R. may have "lost" X pounds because of the existance of the signaway clause and this is the reason for its forthcoming demise but have these same advisers guesstimated Y where Y is the value of accounts opened between 31/06/00 and 31/06/06 by disgruntled investors who resent being treated as second class "valued members" and who are prepared to vote with their feet ?