Will Nationwide EVER demutualise?

jb_lord

Back in 1996 ish I opened an Invest Direct with Nationwide BS as an account that would qualify for shares (yes I was a carpet bagger!) if they ever demutialised.

Fifteen years later I still have the account with £200 in, earning virtually no interest, just incase Nationwide do ever float on the stock exchange.

Is it worth hanging on any more???? Be grateful for advice from all you savvy MSE's out there.

opinions4u

Here's a list of building societies that demutualised.

National and Provincial
Abbey
Halifax
Alliance & Leicester
Bristol & West
Birmingham Midshires
Bradford & Bingley
Woolwich
Alliance & Leicester
Northern Rock

Doubtless I've missed a few off too.

They have all either:

a) Disappeared
b) Been taken over and lost their identity
c) Nearly gone bust and been taken over
d) Been nationalised

So why would it be good for them to demutualise? Do you really want them to end up as part of Santander?

In the post-Credit Crunch world of no lending business wanting to rely on wholesale funding, I can't see any reason why it would be good for members - there would be little to no value in any potential windfall payments.

For what it's worth, I'd leave £100 in the account and forget about it (advising them of any house move).

Edit: Here's a link that adds C&G to the above list.

http://www.bsa.org.uk/consumer/factsheets/100010.htm

Rainmaker_uk

I would hold on to it

roddydogs

Why £200, you only need £100

theGrinch

never say never. maybe one day.

glider3560

roddydogs wrote: »

Why £200, you only need £100

£200 held for two years allows you (and 249 other people) to nominate a director. It also allows you (and 499 others) to call an SGM.

Personally, I keep £100 in a 3 year e-Bond. That way, I earn a reasonable amount of interest and can't touch the money.

Milarky

Some typo there, Op4u?

Won't demutualise. But won't act like a truly democratic organisation either - like allowing a futher ballot [they changed the rules to prevent one] As long as they don't go too far and stoke up a revolution the situation will remain as it is - an awkward half-way house. People's main concern is that they stick around to offer some competition for mortgages and savings. These things tend to go in cycles [someone leaves, someone joins] and so you have pick and choose whether to use their products.

As roddydogs says, take out £100 at least.

As I've often said before, the 'signaway' clause is ineffective too (see Standard Life) - so any windfalls would go to far more people than the 4.9 million members eligible in 1998 - which makes any likely windfall of the order of £100 rather than £1000.

evenasus

Will Nationwide EVER demutualise?

I hope not.

someone

evenasus wrote: »

Will Nationwide EVER demutualise?

I hope not.

Why? there does not appear to be any benefit in them staying mutual. After all the last line on my statment says

Interest added Gross Interest £0 Tax Paid £0.

... Sums them up nowadays. If a vote was held tomorrow I would vote yes to demutualise and I'm a member who has the sign away clause

apt

Nationwide has many faults, but as a large mutual it has helped stabilising the financial system by rescuing a string of building societies in recent years. It would be counterproductive to demutualise.

darich

I've been with them since 1997 when I got my first mortgage - nothing to do with carpet bagging - I was too young and daft to know about that then but they were cheapest on the market at the time.

Since then I've moved house, had a few bank loans and added/increased my mortgage.
I've always found NW to be among the cheaper lenders for what I'm after. I appreciate that others with different circumstances will find them more expensive but for me, they're always near the top of the pile.
And with using them for so long I've always found the service to be fine.

I put the competitiveness down to a lack of shareholders looking for a dividend.