Minimum Amount for Carpetbagging

MrMicawber_2

RE the original question. The rules do vary a bit but it is often that you need an aggregated balance of £100 in qualifying accounts when a merger is announced, £100 in qualifying accounts on the effective date (bar the legalese when the societies merge), and you must maintain continuous membership between these two dates.

In broad terms you need to be the voting member for the balance to be aggregated. E.g you have an account with your partner with £100 in it. You are the first named holder which a little simplistically makes you the voting member. Provided you had that £100 at the start and the end, and retained continuous membership between you would qualify, but your partner wouldn't. Continuous membership might mean that you can reduce your balance to 1p.

There may well be a bigger shell out for larger balances but this is discretionary. Having a larger balance does not give you any greater rights than someone with the minimum qualifying balance.

Remember that bonuses are taxed unless you qualify as a non tax payer - and there might be some careful R85 form filling to do.

IS IT WORTH VOTING FOR SOCIETIES TO MERGE. HAVE YOU THOUGHT OF THE RESULTS OF DECREASED COMPETITION AND THE DIFFERENT PRODUCTS THAT MERGING SOCIETIES FOCUSSED ON WHEN SEPARATE ENTITIES.

MERGING IS NOT NECESSARILY IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CUSTOMER. THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WILL GET A TAXABLE AMOUNT OF £100 WITH THE NET AMOUNT BEING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1 & 2 WEEKS SHOPPING IF YOU ARE LUCKY. IS IT WORTH IT?

cashprincezac

MrMicawber wrote: »

IS IT WORTH VOTING FOR SOCIETIES TO MERGE. HAVE YOU THOUGHT OF THE RESULTS OF DECREASED COMPETITION AND THE DIFFERENT PRODUCTS THAT MERGING SOCIETIES FOCUSSED ON WHEN SEPARATE ENTITIES.

MERGING IS NOT NECESSARILY IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CUSTOMER. THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WILL GET A TAXABLE AMOUNT OF £100 WITH THE NET AMOUNT BEING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1 & 2 WEEKS SHOPPING IF YOU ARE LUCKY. IS IT WORTH IT?

I think in the current climate there will be a number of mergers, they need to in order to survive

MrMicawber_2

I don't think that there need necessarily be mergers, and the need to merge in order to survive is bit of an urban myth. Remember that building societies cannot operate on the same business model as banks - i.e. they have to be 75% retail funded so cannot play around as much with complex instruments which have proved to be a one way gravy train (didn't Shakespeare write something about 'clever fools').

There are still a number of fiercely independent small societies - Nottingham, Hanley Economic, Darlington, Market Harborough, Cumbria, Principality, Kent Reliance - to name a few offering reasonable deals.

The main reasons for mergers are to meet growth requirements for the bigger players and to remove competition. Cynically you cannot remove the golden handshakes either.

20 years ago there were over 200 building societies. There are now 59. Not good for the customer. And without getting nostalgic and sentimental they are part of the fabric of the country and at least originally had their roots in local support for local people.

Don't get me wrong, if they can't hack it commercially then they don't deserve to survive but most can, and they tend to be better then the high street banks...............but I'd bet they won't be when there's only a couple left.

cashprincezac

I guess only time will tell....but I know what I am doing with my BS accounts....Keeping them.

The CEO of Kent has already said he thinks there will be mergers

MrMicawber_2

Pity - but enjoy the shopping.