Kent Reliance - demutualising?

Dr_Cuckoo3

opinions4u wrote: »

I suspect this just a way of them buying a banking licence on the cheap ahead of some other sort of expansion in to the British market.

Do Building Societies have a banking licence then ?


and would a bank with a spare banking licence refuse to sell it to a competitor (even if they had a niche audience)

pwalker5959 wrote: »

Copy the link into your browser and sign up.

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/38321.html

two signatures so far :eek:

Upwind

Without getting too deep into the subject, I have a sizeable ISA with KRBS and personally my only concerns would be if this merger would affect my returns or change rates? If not, I can always transfer my cash at the end of it's current term and not bother to re-invest

Tahiti

two signatures so far :eek:

There are five now.

molerat

What advantages will this merger bring for members ................... nothing
What advantages will this merger bring for the board ................ :rotfl:

Just the usual fat cat self interest. The smaller the organisation the less they can pay themselves.

Mee

have signed online petition.

Thanks

opinions4u

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

Do Building Societies have a banking licence then ?

Yes. They need one to be part of the FSCS and they need to be part of the FSCS to trade.

This link says "the attraction for Flowers is that it would get a UK bank licence. The US firm bid unsuccessfully for Northern Rock in 2007. "

and would a bank with a spare banking licence refuse to sell it to a competitor (even if they had a niche audience)

Almost certainly. Why would you willingly help a new player in to the market?

Dr_Cuckoo3

opinions4u wrote: »

Yes. They need one to be part of the FSCS and they need to be part of the FSCS to trade.

This link says "the attraction for Flowers is that it would get a UK bank licence. The US firm bid unsuccessfully for Northern Rock in 2007. "

I see , however a Building Society would have the additional obstacle of converting from a mutual to a bank , which would require FSA approval and there have been other building societies that required bailing out recently eg Chelsea , Cheshire , Dunfermline , Derbyshire , Stroud & Swindon , Chesham and these didn't generate interest


Also couldn't they have bought IVO Bank instead http://www.ivobank.com

There are a couple of Building Societies which own banks - Manchester BS owns Whiteaway Laidlaw Bank
National Counties BS owns Hampshire Trust , both of these are up for sale (to competitors)

opinions4u wrote: »

Almost certainly. Why would you willingly help a new player in to the market?

Barclays and Standard Life Bank would be an example

opinions4u

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

I see , however a Building Society would have the additional obstacle of converting from a mutual to a bank , which would require FSA approval

It's a fair point and it would also need member approval, which would invariable mean a capital cost / bribe in the form of shares.

and there have been other building societies that required bailing out recently eg Chelsea , Cheshire , Dunfermline , Derbyshire , Stroud & Swindon , Chesham and these didn't generate interest

No, but the market has progressed from one of desperation to potential and opportunity.

Also couldn't they have bought IVO Bank instead http://www.ivobank.com

An option perhaps?

There are a couple of Building Societies which own banks - Manchester BS owns Whiteaway Laidlaw Bank
National Counties BS owns Hampshire Trust , both of these are up for sale (to competitors)

This probably underlines the capital pressures faced by a small building society, rather than a desire to sell.

It wouldn't be in the interests of a big player to gift market opportunity to a new competitor, but it's highly unlikely that the same could be said of a small player like Manchester Building Society.

Barclays and Standard Life Bank would be an example

Not quite sure what you mean.

Barclays have choices over what to do with the Standard Life banking licence.

- they could sell it (I don't think they would)
- they could retain it and use it to leverage savings deposits
- they could merge it with their own licence, saving a significant sum in regulatory costs each year.

I think they'll do the last option when the market is considered to be a little more settled.

A_nice_fellow

opinions4u wrote: »

Almost certainly. Why would you willingly help a new player in to the market?

Because they offer you more money than what you expect to lose due to their entry

hillcats

We received our voting papers today, and promptly voted AGAINST x 2 votes.