NOW OPEN: the MSE Forum 'Ask An Expert' event. This time we'd like your questions on TRAVEL & HOLIDAY DEALS. Post by Wed and deals expert MSE Oli will answer as many as he can.
Building Society ISA Strategy
in ISAs & tax-free savings
21 replies 1.3K views
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Energy Price Cap change
Martin Lewis on what it means for youMSE News
Best £1 you've ever spent?
Share your most impressive bargainsMSE Forum
New MSE Forum avatars available
Try 'em out nowMSE Forum
You can hold as many as you like from previous tax years and transfer the old ones around as long as you don't contribute to them. They still count as previous years allowance and not the current years allowance.
Hope that helps.
Personally I think it's easier to just have one for cash (less complicated).
Not an opportunist? Read your first post again ;-)
Yes, in fact that's a good definition of 'carpet-bagging. Unless you have a different motive, of course?
They're not denying their members anything. It's just the Johnnie-come-latelys they're denying windfalls to. How would you feel if you'd invested loyally with a BS for years then suddenly everyone who stumps up £100 takes a cut.
Don't get me wrong, I've done my share of carpet-bagging. But I knew that's what it was and I knew the rules. But it's all over bar the shouting now, just one or two mergers maybe, with low payouts so it's not worth spreading £100 each over dozens of BSs just to get £200 or so if there's one merger.
I think you may find that although you can only open one mini-cash ISA in any tax year the rules bizarrely allow you to split this ISA into different providers after the end of the tax year.
Or so the carpetbaggers claim.
I admit it. I don't really know what carpet bagging is! I just thought if I save with many different institutions instead of one it would increase the chances of a windfall. That could take one year or many years and it wouldn't bother me either way.
I think it is possible to be a loyal saver with more than one BS. At 1000 in each BS and leaving there for the forseeable I wouldn't think the BS or other members would have anything to grumble about.
What I find strange is that a BS doesn't want to attract savers looking for a possible windfall at some undefined point but WILL let opportunistic savers rate tart around the place
It seems that it's not worth the hassle of administering saving this way anyway so I'll go for the NS&I low hassle option.
Well it should bother you because it's probably at the expense of using the top paying accounts and is therefore going to cost you.
It involves risk and I think you will probably lose out as most of the mergers & acquisitions have already happened.
As tanith has already said you are far too late for this strategy (about a decade too late).
Unfortunately it pays them to do this.
This is because the tarts are a minority.
The vast majority are appathetic and will do nothing and watch their returns dwindle.
That's just the way the world is. It's not necessarily right or fair but this is how it works.
Most companies are not run with their primary motivation being to provide fairness. Mostly their primary motivation is to make money (the mutuals may be a bit of an exception here).
Agreed go for the best paying accounts.
Dudley 42 5.55% ISA
Earl Shilton 55 5.50% ISA
Melton Mowbray 33 5.40% ISA
Buckinghamshire 50 5.25% ISA or TOISA
Shepshed 56 5.25% ISA or TOISA
Scottish 45 5.15% ISA
Ecology 58 5.10% ISA or TOISA
These should all allow transfers-in as I've checked them previously. Where 'TOISA' is indicated it means that the 'Tessa only ISA' product may be as good as or slightly better interest rate paying than the ISA - and 'TOISAs' are all transferred in of course. 'TOISA' should not really be regarded as a distinct category where the HMRC are concerned but is treated distinctly by the individual provider. You just have to ask each one whether they are prepared to accept 'some' cash from a 'TOISA' source - allowing for the splitting of 'TOISAs' even though this could only have come from a single matured TESSA in the first place.
Back to the question of 'signaways'. I'm paying no attention to these at the moment because (my personal view, which may be wrong) is that they are unlikely ever to be used 'in anger'. My reasoning is that a 'signaway' only strictly applies to demutulisation. To demutualise, a Society's board will have had a change of heart about status. They will be minded to be 'generous' handing out the 'family silver'. But on a practical level, they need 75 percent approval in a ballot of members - including those affected by 'signaways', who still have votes. Although apathy means that only 20% of the membership might take part in any ballot, the Board cannot be confident that would go through with the necessary majority. That's what happened with Standard Life (not an exact parallel, but a close one) and many carppet baggers 'bet' on this being the case by opening £20 policies after the signaways were introduced. They all got 185 shares. The Board didn't want to 'look stupid' so they dropped the pretence.
The thinking on building societies is that most will eventually merge - or be acquired by larger ones. Bonuses (from reserves) will be paid out to qualifying members in many cases. There does not seem to be any 'carpet bagging' rule against members simply voting to join a larger society - and again 75 percent will be needed to approve it.
Now I could be wrong about this, but has a 'signaway' clause ever actually been used against some members of a building society when that society has changed status or merged with another society?
"Existing customers and new customers who live within 25 mile radius of branches."
Is it worth it? probably not nowadays (says he looking at just £200 from Portman).
Hardly a complete answer, and probably not the main reason.
It was primarily so that the directors could stay in control and continue to carpetbag their own society for salaries, pensions, extra bonuses and cushy jobs while ignoring mergers that had the potential to deliver better value to saving & borrowing members.