chelsea BS savers ......

Milarky

bristolleedsfan wrote: »

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

1987. Anglia BS (then about number 6 by size) Merged with Nationwide BS (then number 3) There was only a ballot but of both societies - and no payout. In 1989 Abbey was the first BS to demutialise and offer free shares in the listed company to former members. The concept of a payout (from reserves) is surely a post-demutialisation one. It is now more likely to be done because without tangible benefits people will kick off and complain rather than as a strictly necessary 'balancing' exercise. When Portman 'agreed' to merge with Nationwide the balance sheet at the 'smaller' society scarcely justified the payout. Nationwide members weren't necessarily required to be balloted (under 5 to 1 size rule) although the FSA did have the power to require it of the NW Board. But that did not happen. No ballot means you don't have get any kind of agreement to the change - and therefore no need for a bribe.

bristolleedsfan

Milarky wrote: »

1987. Anglia BS (then about number 6 by size) Merged with Nationwide BS (then number 3) There was only a ballot but of both societies - and no payout. In 1989 Abbey was the first BS to demutialise and offer free shares in the listed company to former members. The concept of a payout (from reserves) is surely a post-demutialisation one. It is now more likely to be done because without tangible benefits people will kick off and complain rather than as a strictly necessary 'balancing' exercise. When Portman 'agreed' to merge with Nationwide the balance sheet at the 'smaller' society scarcely justified the payout. Nationwide members weren't necessarily required to be balloted (under 5 to 1 size rule) although the FSA did have the power to require it of the NW Board. But that did not happen. No ballot means you don't have get any kind of agreement to the change - and therefore no need for a bribe.

5-1 thing was quoted in my second thread, i actually had a morgage with anglia building society i didnt realise they were so big
so yes their is one example from 20 years ago where nobody got a merger bonus
i didnt say their werent any cases where both sets of members had voted on a merger i just begged the question , "how many building society mergers can u name where both sets of members have voted on the merger",for every one u can name where nobody got a payout we can name half a dozen or more where members from the smaller building society only did get the payout, its also possible in the future a merger will occur where either nobody get a merger bonus or where members of the larger building society get a small sweetener.

it should also be remembered that nationwide at 1 time had plans to convert to plc ( had they taken over N+P rather than abbey national, they was recorded as having had the plans to do so, leeds permanent members also got no payout when halifax took them over, but halifax stated that they would be converting to plc so leeds permanent members new they would be getting a conversion bonus following the merger

as u have the memories of nationwide/anglia merger do u know why it was a difficult merger ?

i didnt say that anyone or everyone would def get or would not get a merger bonus in fact i posted what was reported in mail on sunday that certain merger talks had been "denied" all i said was that "normally" the smaller building society members get the payout, i also said that its always advisable for everyone to keep 100.00 in "ALL" their building society accounts at all times if possible for reasons stated

spammeplease

I understand that the Chelsea is nearly complete on a major back-office restructure and rationalisation. I think that they will be announcing something fairly soon, and that it might be worth adding some spare cash to the £106 in my account to try and bag a percentage bonus. How much is the question? I suspect it would have to be 5k or more to make it worthwhile. (It has been so long since the last round of carpet bagging that I've forgotten what to do.)

mystic_trev

spammeplease wrote: »

I understand that the Chelsea is nearly complete on a major back-office restructure and rationalisation. I think that they will be announcing something fairly soon, and that it might be worth adding some spare cash to the £106 in my account to try and bag a percentage bonus. How much is the question? I suspect it would have to be 5k or more to make it worthwhile. (It has been so long since the last round of carpet bagging that I've forgotten what to do.)

Portman put a cap on £1,000 payout, which I think was fair, although if they hadn't I would have got over £2,000!

KingKenny

Chelsea were always quite competitive with its short term product range in the past. Introducing a product which would top the best buy tables for a short period of time, this would bring in a large amount of capital, and pay a good rate of interest which tracked the base rate.

But recently, in the last 12 months, they have not introduced anything that resembles a table topping account. So they are probably re-aligning their product range to fit in with another institution?

There product range is very poor really, they also introduce alot of finite details to their accounts now, which could confuse the confused, which makes a poor account look good at a quick glance, but read on and you see it is not quite so good?

Maybe a buy out is on the cards, but anyone becoming a member after i think around 2001, will get diddly squat as you had to sign away your windfall should there ever be one?

mystic_trev

KingKenny wrote: »

But recently, in the last 12 months, they have not introduced anything that resembles a table topping account.

I invested in there Tracker 20 at the end of last year. Tracks the base rate for the first year at + 0.50% which isnt bad.

mystic_trev

KingKenny wrote: »

Maybe a buy out is on the cards, but anyone becoming a member after i think around 2001, will get diddly squat as you had to sign away your windfall should there ever be one?

If it's a merger you'llstill get your money as the signaway dosen't count. i.e. as with the Portman.

KingKenny

mystic_trev wrote: »

I invested in there Tracker 20 at the end of last year. Tracks the base rate for the first year at + 0.50% which isnt bad.

That is a good account, totally agree with you!

But why have they stopped introducing these types of accounts for the last six months? But i thought it was 12 months, but i could be wrong, not been tracking their products for a while.

bristolleedsfan

KingKenny wrote: »

That is a good account, totally agree with you!

But why have they stopped introducing these types of accounts for the last six months? But i thought it was 12 months, but i could be wrong, not been tracking their products for a while.

chelsea BS are famous for keep launching new accounts which hit the best buy tables then letting these accounts become mediocre and hoping that people wont notice ( theve been doing it for years) they still doing it now by launching accounts with either guarantee x amount over base rate for 12 months or introductory bonus for first 12 months hoping that people wont move their money when the bonus/guarantee stops ( costs money to move money about), for those that say half percent above the base rate is good, sainsburys are paying 6% instant access with no ( in the words of chelsea BS) "footnotes"

last two base rate increases chelsea BS passed on first 0.20 and then 0.15 to its reg saver account ( now around 5.60% gross)

look at all chelseas closed issue accounts :eek: i cant even see the 120 day notice account i had in mid 90s

http://www.thechelsea.co.uk/html/savings/invest_intrates_old_current.html