We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Nationwide to Demutualise?
Comments
-
and that the Nationwide has remained consistently profitable throughout,
Capital reserves are the issue not profitability. Measured in commercial terms the NW wouldn't make a good investment. As returns are too low. Around £200 million post tax profit in 2013 on a total loan book well in excess of £200 billion.
Tier 1 capital fell by around £500 million between the 2012 and 2013 financial years ends. So the new rules to stop lenders bending the law is having an impact.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Capital reserves are the issue not profitability.
Err, yes. Hence me reference to the leverage ratio.Thrugelmir wrote: »...Measured in commercial terms the NW wouldn't make a good investment. As returns are too low. Around £200 million post tax profit in 2013 on a total loan book well in excess of £200 billion. ...
Well, it was making more like £600 million pre crash. But never mind, the point I was making that over the past three years the Nationwide has made about £200m profit a year. Compared to the kind of red ink splattered all over their competitors income statements that's pretty good going in the circumstances.0 -
SkyeKnight wrote: »This rule was put in to stop members initiating a demutualisation - not the board. I guess if the people running Nationwide wanted to become a bank they would remove this condition.
I'd be amazed if that was the case, it would be their own charitable foundation that would lose out, they'd never be able to withstand the ill-feeling & bad publicity it'd cause.0 -
AS a NW saver, what is the difference? You get just as crappy rates as the banks, short term bonuses to punish loyal customers and the bosses 'rewarding' us members by paying themselves a King's ransom. Whatever happened to them being 'proud to be different'?
Well I bl00dy would! And I've been with them from well before the cut off date so I would get shares. Except I would move all my dealings away from them and to another Building Society.
The world does not need another bank.
After sticking with them for decades I have concluded I would have been much better off if they had demutualised in the late 90s.0 -
Well, it was making more like £600 million pre crash. But never mind, the point I was making that over the past three years the Nationwide has made about £200m profit a year. Compared to the kind of red ink splattered all over their competitors income statements that's pretty good going in the circumstances.
The Nationwide was hit hard by the increase in FSA levies following the Icelandic bailout to savers. Now it has the problem of many mortgage holders on a rate of 2% above BOE base. Highly likely that they are losing money at this level. Thirdly, retail banking no longer has the benefit of PPI to subsidise the operational costs.
In no way suggesting the NW is in trouble. Just not in a position to grow further.0 -
I think people misunderstand.
Nationwide may need to sell shares in order to raise money to meet capital adequacy requirements. There will be no windfall, in fact the opposite. You would go from owning part of Nationwide to owning none of Nationwide.0 -
Nationwide may need to sell shares in order to raise money to meet capital adequacy requirements. There will be no windfall, in fact the opposite. You would go from owning part of Nationwide to owning none of Nationwide.
NW have been looking into issuing a form of hybrid bond share for some weeks to raise capital, rather than PIB's. No talk of demutalisation.0 -
Yes, a demutualisation by necessity, not for greed.
Of course if NW had stayed as it was, instead of trying to be what it isn't, this could have been all avoided.'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »NW have been looking into issuing a form of hybrid bond share for some weeks to raise capital, rather than PIB's. No talk of demutalisation.
Fair enough, if they can get the issue away.
Just to make the point, that sort of capital issue would include a possible future demutualization by definition: if Nationwide fails to keep up with the coupon payments they will have to issue shares instead. That is demutualization.0 -
Of course if NW had stayed as it was, instead of trying to be what it isn't, this could have been all avoided.
If banks generally had stayed as they were and left cowboys to their poker, this could all have been avoided"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards