Nationwide to Demutualise?

John_Pierpoint

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

What are we voting against this year?

Do you remember the year when the News of the World (RIP) caused a shareholders' revolt by publicising the all expenses paid "jolly" that the directors and their "WAGs" had to the USA to study what they call "thrifts"; just in time for most "thrifts" to go bust due to mismanagement ?

Some joker observed that most of the criticisms could be silenced by electing a black woman under 60 to the board.

By the next year they had sort of taken two of the three factors on board as (I think) this woman appeared at the boardroom table plus a new chairman, who went on to run the CBI ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Whitehorn

CLAPTON

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

What are we voting against this year?

Do you remember the year when the News of the World (RIP) caused a shareholders' revolt by publicising the all expenses paid "jolly" that the directors and their "WAGs" had to the USA to study what they call "thrifts"; just in time for most "thrifts" to go bust due to mismanagement ?

Some joker observed that most of the criticisms could be silenced by electing a black woman under 60 to the board.

By the next year they had sort of taken two of the three factors on board as (I think) this woman appeared at the boardroom table plus a new chairman, who went on to run the CBI ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Whitehorn

I vote against their remuneration package as it's excessive

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

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

So it can de-mutualise without paying anything to its current shareholders?

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

So it can de-mutualise without paying anything to its current shareholders?

it doesn't have shareholders but its members would have to vote in favour

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

So it can de-mutualise without paying anything to its current shareholders?

Yes. What would happen is that the Nationwide members would have to vote to issue more shares to sell on the open market.

If the alternative is insolvency, the existing shares are worthless in any case.

mystic_trev

Generali wrote: »

Yes. What would happen is that the Nationwide members would have to vote to issue more shares to sell on the open market.

If the alternative is insolvency, the existing shares are worthless in any case.

I assume they'd have a Public and a Institutional allocation, therefore allowing members to pick up shares at a lower price.

Generali

mystic_trev wrote: »

I assume they'd have a Public and a Institutional allocation, therefore allowing members to pick up shares at a lower price.

You'd imagine that some sort of bone like that would be thrown to the members.

This isn't the only solution open to the Nationwide but it is the most obvious.

thor

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

So which of the Building Societies, whose managements turned them into banks, still exist. Even the well run ones got bought up by banks and went phut in the global crisis.

So if NW demutualised in the 90s I would have missed all the benefits of being a member in return for shares which I would have flogged off to raise a profit. As a saver(with less than £85k) how would I have lost out?

CLAPTON

thor wrote: »

So if NW demutualised in the 90s I would have missed all the benefits of being a member in return for shares which I would have flogged off to raise a profit. As a saver(with less than £85k) how would I have lost out?

You would have missed out of the fabulous (less than the tops) interest rates that N/Wide have had over those years.

And you would have missed out on the smug feeling that you were part of a MUTUAL building society