CarpetBagging- The best accounts to open at each Building Society

planteria

tend to agree p of p....i am still a member of most building societies. i just wonder whether there could actually be changes ahead now, with questions about Nationwide..........

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Finance/article1245108.ece

Nationwide Demutualisation:exclamati:question:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23190259

talexuser

If they (just how unlikely in this economic climate!) convert to ease the leverage ratio because need money, I can't see how at the same time they will be giving away windfalls to the members...

ps I still have £100 in Nationwide - pre charity giveaway member - don't really know why, except not desperate for the £100..?

pharma

quick question: if I have an account with the Derbyshire b/s and nationwide (original) - does it mean I now have 2 memberships of nationwide post merger and therefore 2 votes and double pay-out if they convert, or did I effectively lose my Derbyshire membership status upon merger?
thanks

EarthBoy

pharma wrote: »

quick question: if I have an account with the Derbyshire b/s and nationwide (original) - does it mean I now have 2 memberships of nationwide post merger and therefore 2 votes and double pay-out if they convert, or did I effectively lose my Derbyshire membership status upon merger?
thanks

You only have one membership and one vote. In the event of Nationwide converting to a bank, which is possible, although very unlikely, it would be decided at that time who gets a payout and how much. Everybody might get the same, or combined account balances might be taken into account.

If you joined after 3 November 1997 then as the rules stand at the moment you won't get a penny because you are a "signaway" member. People have suggested that Nationwide might waive this rule, but that's just speculation.

Froggitt

If they want to convert, they will have to waive the rule, otherwise what is probably now a significant majority of signaway customers will vote against it.

pqrdef

Froggitt wrote: »

If they want to convert, they will have to waive the rule, otherwise what is probably now a significant majority of signaway customers will vote against it.

Well doing nothing isn't an option, so if the voters won't vote for something, the government will have to invoke some powers we didn't know it had and impose a solution.

Froggitt

I read yesterday that if the Co-op Bank PIB holders vote no, they Government may nationalise Co-op Bank. No different to what they did with Bradford and Bingley or Northern Rock.

When the Nationwide members narrowly voted against demutualisation in 2000 (?), they turned down roughly £1,500 per member. Its virtually worthless now IMHO.......they've spunked most of their reserves up a wall, and have been subsidising borrowers for years.

At least the other converted societies, failed or not, lined the pockets of their members on their way out the door.

planteria

Froggitt wrote: »

I read yesterday that if the Co-op Bank PIB holders vote no, they Government may nationalise Co-op Bank. No different to what they did with Bradford and Bingley or Northern Rock.

When the Nationwide members narrowly voted against demutualisation in 2000 (?), they turned down roughly £1,500 per member. Its virtually worthless now IMHO.......they've spunked most of their reserves up a wall, and have been subsidising borrowers for years.

At least the other converted societies, failed or not, lined the pockets of their members on their way out the door.

they did. Nationwide's board have lined their own pockets with gold whilst spunking over the years though.

and nor can i telexuser. perhaps, if Co-op Bank were to go, and Nationwide were to follow, the mutual savings/mortgages sector could change dramatically.

EarthBoy

Froggitt wrote: »

If they want to convert, they will have to waive the rule, otherwise what is probably now a significant majority of signaway customers will vote against it.

Would they vote against it, -or would they simply not bother to vote at all if there was nothing in it for them? There would be no point voting against unless they were either against the principle of conversion itself, or unless they thought they could force a change of mind and guarantee themselves a payout. And this is presuming that a payout is on the cards for the non-signaway members, which isn't guaranteed, -they aren't compulsory. Most of the recent mergers/takeovers haven't had any payouts and they've been voted through by the members.

In urgent cases the Building Societies Act gives the FSA/PRA the power to bypass the members and order a merger/takeover, although I don't think the Nationwide is in quite that bad a state to warrant this yet.

pqrdef wrote: »

Well doing nothing isn't an option, so if the voters won't vote for something, the government will have to invoke some powers we didn't know it had and impose a solution.

The government can always give itself new powers on the spot. When Northern Rock went belly up they passed emergency legislation enabling the creation of a bad bank/good bank, which had never been done before. I believe these were the same powers used when Bradford and Bingley went under, and when the Dunfermline collapsed.

planteria

anyone reckon there will ever be Building Society windfalls again?