One Bank/Building Society or Several?

baldbloke_2

Carry On Saving! ... that would fill the Multiplexes to be sure.

ReportInvestor

baldbloke wrote:

I am ethically and morally opposed to the transfer of our Societies to the private sector - mind you 40 quid sounds alright. Dilemmas & Infamy.

I wasn't suggesting that there was the slightest prospect of demutualisation - so your conscience is clear . In any case, a new member couldn't get a shares windfall because of the 5 year / lifetime signaway clause on joining most societies.

I was thinking more of the sort of mutual merger situation now developing at the Cheshire BS.

Link to story about the Cheshire BS boss's exit and recent merger rumours

baldbloke_2

Reporter wrote:

I wasn't suggesting that there was the slightest prospect of demutualisation - so your conscience is clear . In any case, a new member couldn't get a shares windfall because of the 5 year / lifetime signaway clause on joining most societies.

I was thinking more of the sort of mutual merger situation now developing at the Cheshire BS.

Link to story about the Cheshire BS boss's exit and recent merger rumours

I apologise. I realized after making my post that you clearly said 'consolidation' but I had presumably chosen to ignore that in order to tub-thump. You're right of course about the end of windfalls as I am so politely reminded every time I open any BS account these days. Do I mind any windfall benefits going to a charitable fund? - well my heart and my head agree to differ on that question.

ReportInvestor

Here's a link to the details of the terms of the Portman's takeover of the Staffordshire BS in December 2003

Qualifying savers got 100 quid minimum - subject to income tax - or 4.65% of the balances on their accounts - whichever was the greater.

Staffordshire's reserves were much higher than the Cheshire's reserves, so don't expect the terms to be so generous when / if the Cheshire succumbs. In fact, if it is a merger of equals, they may try to pay nothing at all to members :eek:.

EdInvestor

baldbloke wrote:

I am ethically and morally opposed to the transfer of our Societies to the private sector ...

[pedant mode on]

The building societies are not in the public sector.They are already in the private sector,mutually owned by their members, who are in the same position as shareholders at plcs.

[/pedant mode off]

baldbloke_2

Understood. But isn't it one member one vote with the mutuals and number of shares = number of votes with the plcs? I am probably oversimplifying things but in general this would probably make the difference between the two types of organisations when matters are put to a vote. Not the point you were responding to - I appreciate that.