Nationwide to Demutualise?

John_Pierpoint

Thrugelmir wrote: »

No different to any other business that has a requirement to recapitalise. Converting a liability into equity is one of the easiest and quickest ways of doing so.

Would you prefer that taxpayers bailed the banks out?

Normally the shareholders, the ones with the votes who get all the upside are first in line to carry the can when the management they elected messes up.

Usually the preference share holders/ bond holders might be facing not getting their usual fixed interest but often in such circumstances, the liability continues and the bonds.preference shares get votes.

With these PIB things it seems open season for the other shareholder(s) to rob them.

As someone has already pointed out in the Coop/Britannia saga, it might well make sense for the PIB holders to find the extra half a billion on top of the billion they are expected to chip in and buy the whole bank.

Running_Horse

I started using Nationwide decades ago because it was an attractive alternative to the banks. Nothing during that period has persuaded me becoming a bank would be an advantage, and I would take my business elsewhere if it did happen. Can someone name a demutualisation that worked out well for the organisation concerned?

PasturesNew

When all the carpet bagging was going on, I never had accounts anywhere that got any "wins".... but I did have a small account at the NW that I've kept ever since "in case" they demutualised and I got a "win". New accounts signed it over.

I believe I finally closed that account last year, having given up. Ergo, as the world's unluckiest person, I think I caused it the day I shut that account with it's £140 in it.

Spirit_2

TruckerT wrote: »

Part of the casino culture was the windfalls from building societies becoming banks. We have all learnt a lot since then...

TruckerT

I am not sure we all have. Even in the short life of this thread an acquisitive tone popped up as soon as people started to hope 'windfalls' . There is even a bit of challenge suggesting this constraint might go away.

The hopeful bubble is burst as the reality of the possibilities of the structure of the capital raising are explained.

A windfall would have been nice though. Something for nothing usually is. Except it is never usually is 'for nothing' in the long run.

BobQ

I would qualify for such a windfall but would also vote against de-mutualisation. The culture of carpet bagging exemplified the me-first, something for nothing attitudes of that era.

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

I would qualify for such a windfall but would also vote against de-mutualisation. The culture of carpet bagging exemplified the me-first, something for nothing attitudes of that era.

There will be no windfall. That's the point.

CLAPTON

It's a shame that more people don't join me in voting against the board

armour

I have a Nationwide bank acc and can't see what the difference between that and a 'bank' bank account is. Can someone explain please?

Generali

armour wrote: »

I have a Nationwide bank acc and can't see what the difference between that and a 'bank' bank account is. Can someone explain please?

It's to do with who owns the company.

Normally the share holders of banks are things like pension funds. The share holders (owners) of the Nationwide are the customers: each customer gets 1 share.

purch

armour wrote: »

I have a Nationwide bank acc and can't see what the difference between that and a 'bank' bank account is. Can someone explain please?

It is really only the ownership issue that makes them different

They are members of the UK Clearing so they can clear cheques, they started issuing credit and debit cards in 1990, and they can service most Banking requirements other than the most risky/complex stuff, but even then they do have a large Treasury department