chelsea BS savers ......

bristolleedsfan

within article on the benefits mutual building societies have over banks in todays mail on sunday ( financial mail section) it stated that both yorkshire BS and chelsea BS both "denied" on friday that they have been in merger talks.
whilst the important word is "denied" a number of savers in the past have been "denied" a merger bonus in the past due to not having 100.00 in their savings account at the time of subsequent merger announcement

where possible its advisable to keep 100.00 in all building society savings accounts at all times where possible thus avoiding being "denied" a merger windfull when snap announcements are made

before anybody asks should yorkshire bs and chelsea bs ever merge, merger bonuses would go to chelsea members being as chelsea being the smaller society out of the two would be the one that gets "swallowed up" :cool:

baby_boomer

bristolleedsfan wrote: »

should yorkshire bs and chelsea bs ever merge, merger bonuses would go to chelsea members being as chelsea being the smaller society out of the two would be the one that gets "swallowed up" :cool:

Are you saying that only Chelsea members would get windfalls?

If so, how sure are you about that?

RayWolfe

Of course he can't be sure of that ! But he may be right. What do you want a guarantee? Here is a chance, take it if you want; nothing to lose, is there?

baby_boomer

You many have misunderstood my point, Ray.

I was concerned at bristolleedsfan's implication that Yorkshire members woudn't qualify for a windfall in the event that a merger with Chelsea DID take place just because Yorkshire was the larger society.

bristolleedsfan wrote: »

should yorkshire bs and chelsea bs ever merge, merger bonuses would go to chelsea members being as chelsea being the smaller society out of the two would be the one that gets "swallowed up"

It would be a shame if any potental Yorkshire BS savers missed out as a result of that interpretation .

nilrem_2

I have been a Chelsea saver since 1983 and they have had votes on whether they should go down the non mutual route, several times, the last time the members voted around 90%+ voted in favour of demutualising but the Chelsea ignored their views!

bristolleedsfan

baby_boomer wrote: »

Are you saying that only Chelsea members would get windfalls?

If so, how sure are you about that?

like i said mail on sunday say both societies have denied that they have been in merger talks, someone might think that someone had a reason for asking them the question in the first place.

in the past its been the members of the smaller society that have received the merger bonus as its been the smaller society that has effectively been swallowed up, chelsea BS is smaller than yorkshire BS

on another forum this has been said, indicating unusual possible circumstances,

"If the Yorkshire and Chelsea were really planning a merger they would not publicly deny it (that would be lying!) but would say something like 'we do not comment on speculatiin' etc. I don''t expect this particular merger is therefore imminent.

A Yorkshire/Chelsea merger would be interesting though as Yorkshire members would also need to approve the proposal (as Yorkshire's assets aren't 5 times Chelsea's - they aren't even double). Yorkshire members might therefore get a bonus bribe as well!"

my belief is that if the scenario below was to occur anyone who is members of both societies would be entitled to two votes and therefore two bonus "bribes" my intention has not to invite or encourage speculation merely to draw peoples intention to the importance in keeping 100.00 minimum in their building society savings accounts especially in chelsea BS, ive already stated a belief elsewhere that if someone is getting a minimum of 5.25% gross it wouldnt hurt to hold savings accounts with a number of building societies with 100.00 in it as is virtual no loss, personally id keep 100.00 in some building societies even if rate is less than 5.25% gross but i wouldnt want to give that advice to others because it potentially involves a loss of interest




Quote:
Originally Posted by baby_boomer
You many have misunderstood my point, Ray.

"I was concerned at bristolleedsfan's implication that Yorkshire members woudn't qualify for a windfall in the event that a merger with Chelsea DID take place just because Yorkshire was the larger society.
It would be a shame if any potental Yorkshire BS savers missed out as a result of that interpretation."


i did say in my first post that " its advisable that people keep 100.00 in "ALL" their building society accounts"

there might be money savers who already have savings accounts with one of the building societies but not the other, who after reading of the merger talk "denial" might decide to open an account with the other society with 100.00 and take the risk both that no merger might occur and also if a merger did occur that the charity signaway may or may not be applied, its not for me to suggest that people do this, advising money savers to keep 100.00 in "ALL" their building society accounts is entirely reasonable for anybody to recommend, posting the details of the chelsea bs/yorkshire bs merger talk "denial" as reported in todays mail on sunday and mentioning that usually members of the smaller society getting merger payments i also dont believe is unreasonable

it would have been silly for me to suggest that members of both building societies might get merger payments in the event of a merger as i dont believe that merger payments to members of both merging building societies has ever occcured before ( apart from when someone is a qualifying member of both societies of course)

as for "denying" a number of former building societies initially denied plans to change their status most notably northern rock who both denied plans to convert to PLC status a week or so before it announced plans to convert to plc status and having been critizised for not speaking out in favour of mutuality northern rock ran mutuality tv ads a week before it announced plans to convert to a plc. Bradford and Bingley also denied that it would convert to PLC status as well

bristolleedsfan

nilrem wrote: »

I have been a Chelsea saver since 1983 and they have had votes on whether they should go down the non mutual route, several times, the last time the members voted around 90%+ voted in favour of demutualising but the Chelsea ignored their views!

portman building society not so long ago wanted to take over cheshire building society, cheshire dismissed the approach without asking cheshire members of their opinion

CLAPTON

portman 'merged ' with Lambeth and only Lambeth members got a bonus
nationwide are 'merging' with portman and only portman members are getting a bonus.

bristolleedsfan

CLAPTON wrote: »

portman 'merged ' with Lambeth and only Lambeth members got a bonus
nationwide are 'merging' with portman and only portman members are getting a bonus.

newcastle merged with universal and only universal members got a bonus ( 400.00 as well :j ) the list goes on :cool:

like i said many building society members have been denied a merger bonus in the past because they didnt have min 100.00 in their accounts when a out of the blue merger announcement was made so its sound advice to say to money savers try and keep 100.00 in "ALL" your building societiy accounts at all times if poss

baby_boomer

bristolleedsfan wrote: »

merger bonuses would go to chelsea members being as chelsea being the smaller society out of the two would be the one that gets "swallowed up" :cool:

In theory they could agree to merge with no bonus to be paid to either set of members, just a promise that the merger would return "even better mutual value" to all members in future.

In practice they will want to offer an incentive for both sets of members to vote "yes" and in order to avoid counter-bids.

bristolleedsfan

baby_boomer wrote: »

In theory they could agree to merge with no bonus to be paid to either set of members, just a promise that the merger would return "even better mutual value" to all members in future.

In practice they will want to offer an incentive for both sets of members to vote "yes" and in order to avoid counter-bids.

counterbids usually mean higher payouts

how many building society mergers can u name where both sets of members have voted on the merger :think:

likely hood is someone else will merge with chelsea :idea: portman and yorkshire were previously reported to have been 24 hours away from a merger but couldnt agree on a product range