MSE News: Yorkshire and Norwich & Peterborough building societies to merge

Mithos

armith wrote: »

What would happen if the members of the society voted 'No' to the merger?

Then N&P would continue on by themselves, its just to cover themselves in case another "incident" happens this year (IMO).

BUT the merger will happen, the board will send out the voting packs in a biased fashion effectively telling members to vote in favor for the merger as its in their best interest to do so etc. Some aware members will view both options equally (For/Against) but the majority of members will say yes and the merger will happen.

opinions4u

Mithos wrote: »

Then N&P would continue on by themselves, its just to cover themselves in case another "incident" happens this year (IMO).

More likely the FSA would demand that N&P get more capital from somewhere. As nobody would be willing to provide this, there would then be a forced merger instigated by the regulator.

Mithos

opinions4u wrote: »

More likely the FSA would demand that N&P get more capital from somewhere. As nobody would be willing to provide this, there would then be a forced merger instigated by the regulator.

Not to disagree with you, more for curiosity sake, but if the members say no, how can the FSA demand anything?

Baldur

Mithos wrote: »

Not to disagree with you, more for curiosity sake, but if the members say no, how can the FSA demand anything?

If the FSA withdrew N&P's authorisation, what would the members be left with?

Mithos

Baldur wrote: »

If the FSA withdrew N&P's authorisation, what would the members be left with?

Is that what they would do then do you think? In the same way the Ministry of Justice could stop a Claims Management Company from operating for example.

Baldur

Mithos wrote: »

Is that what they would do then do you think? In the same way the Ministry of Justice could stop a Claims Management Company from operating for example.

I don't know whether they would do so or not, but thinking that a membership vote would prevent the regulator from taking any legal action required to meet its wider duty of care is rather naive, I suspect.

Mithos

Baldur wrote: »

I don't know whether they would do so or not, but thinking that a membership vote would prevent the regulator from taking any legal action required to meet its wider duty of care is rather naive, I suspect.

Perhaps my point, which I clearly indicted was my own opinion, is naive but at least I haven't been intentionally rude or snide during my participation in this thread. Thank you for answering nonetheless.

EarthBoy

Mithos wrote: »

Not to disagree with you, more for curiosity sake, but if the members say no, how can the FSA demand anything?

The Building Societies Act 1986 (Sections 42B and 42C) gives the FSA the power to order the directors of any building society to transfer its engagements to another building society or other company if the FSA believes it is in the interests of the members to do so. There is no requirement for the members to have to agree to this, or even to be consulted about it.

moonferret

After receiving the usual lengthy propaganda from N&P, I voted NO straight away. I fail to see what will improve, and in the absence of a windfall, I'm not interested in finding out.

le_loup

Jolly good!