Jeremy Warner's Outlook: Once there were building societies. Then they became banks, and it all went wrong
Fired up by the prospect of FTSE 100 salaries and bonuses, building society bosses rushed to demutualise
Saturday, 7 June 2008
Remember demutualisation windfalls? This was the closest thing to a free lunch ever invented. All you had to do was spend half a day of your time wandering up and down the high street opening an account at every building society you could see, and then sit back and wait for the share certificates to start dropping through the door.
Many of these so-called carpet baggers made tens of thousands out of the wheeze, which you could read about in any old personal finance column. Even longstanding depositors and mortgage holders seemed happy enough with the outcome. It was like money for old rope.
Today, the demutualisation dream lies in tatters. All of the building societies that did it have either gone or are shadows of their former selves. Even the mighty HBOS, the remnants of the Halifax and Leeds Permanent building societies, trades at less than half the price the shares were floated at more than 10 years ago. Alliance & Leicester has ended up as similarly damaged goods. Northern Rock is a complete write-off, Bradford & Bingley is virtually the same, and Abbey National, which led the charge to demutualisation, had to be taken over by Santander of Spain after management hubris brought the company to its knees. A perfectly viable industry which performed a vital public service in a reasonably well-managed, responsible fashion, has been completely destroyed. As ever, it was greed that did it.
Only Nationwide, which I'm happy to say The Independent supported in resisting the carpet baggers, and a few tiddlers remain as monuments to this bygone structure of ownership.
Some building societies had to be dragged kicking and screaming into conversion, but most needed little persuasion. Fired up by the prospect of FTSE 100 salaries and bonuses, building society bosses rushed to demutualise. Few in the financial press, I regret to say, opposed the process. Why would they? Journalists were some of the most active in pursuing the demutualisation dividend.
But it wasn't just about the money. Conversion was justified on other grounds, too. One was that building societies had too much capital, and that, in the interests of capital efficiency, it needed to be distributed. Not many shareholders at HBOS and Bradford & Bingley would recognise this characteristic now they are being asked to give it all back again in jumbo, distress rights issues.
But if you didn't like the capital surplus argument, there was always the one which had it that, by remaining mutually owned, the building societies were depriving themselves of access to the capital markets and all the opportunities for balance-sheet expansion that their rivals among the joint stock banks could pursue. Given what's happened in the last year, you might reasonably think that these were opportunities that would much better have been avoided.
Then there was the old fallback of the supposedly unaccountable management structure of building societies – the cosy, club-like atmosphere of the building society boardroom which was said to perpetuate rotten management. Much better that directors should be exposed to the harsh disciplines of the free market. Managers couldn't be sacked by the members, nor could they be held responsible for their mistakes. This couldn't be allowed to continue.
In fact, the governance arrangements of building societies have proved rather sounder than those of the heavily "incentivised" bankers. Building society managements may be stuffy and old-fashioned, but at least they don't go blowing their capital on CDOs and hare-brained acquisition-making. They have proved better stewards of their businesses than their converted counterparts.
Prudential regulation of building societies also seems to be sounder. The reckless expansion of the mortgage book that took place at Northern Rock under Adam Applegarth wouldn't have been allowed had the bank remained mutually owned. There are strict limits on a building society's use of wholesale funding.
By converting, building societies only seem to have joined the madness of bankers and the ruination of the banking cycle, an infectious pursuit of money and growth which for ever condemns participants to bouts of crisis and capital destruction. Still, you cannot halt progress, can you?
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

On reflection, I think the last correspondent may be right in thinking the idea that many carpet baggers made tens of thousands of pounds an exaggeration. Thousands may be nearer the mark. However, the two year rule wasn't introduced until quite late in the rush to convert, and in most cases wasn't retrospective, so that if you had joined before it was announced, you would still get the demutualisation benefit. The basic point stands. A lot of people made a lot of free money out of the process. Socialism has nothing to do with it. What demutualisation was about was the latest generation of members cashing in on all the accumulated, vested capital of previous generations. Self evidently, it has been a disaster.
Posted by jeremy warner | 08.06.08, 21:06 GMT
Except you didn't have to just "wander up and down any high street" opening accounts in order to get free shares. Building socs. very quickly instigated new member rules which disqualified customers from receiving shares unless they had been members from a date usually two years previous or a similar period. Any how many is many when it comes to making tens of thousands of pounds? Do you have evidence of the "many of these" who made those figures? If you can just bandy such pronouns around like that I will say that the vast majority of these people received between £200 and £1000 with no more than a very small number making tens of thousands. More swill from The Independent to feed its socialist herd.
Posted by Steve | 08.06.08, 19:36 GMT
These events can come as no surprise after the Savings and Loans crisis in the United States twenty years ago which cost the US taxpayer US$ 160 billion.
Jan
PS Interesting to note that one of the "Keating Five", a group of US senators very closely involved with the failed Lincoln Savings S&L was John McCain. Interestingly, Alan Greenspan was hired as a consultant to review the S&L and delivered a positive report only a few years before the collapse.
Posted by Jan Jansen | 08.06.08, 10:01 GMT
I lived in the UK during this period and the prevailing mood of the Thatcherite element was if it works and is regulated then break it! As any of the de-regulation stuff done anything other than bite everyone in the rear most?
People forget that nearly all of the regulations were put there initially to cure some financial hanky panky that had occurred. The financial sector has always had more than its fair share of greedy sharks. Why today's bunch should be considered any better than their Victorian or Edwardian predecessors beggars belief. The old adage is for ever true, "Those who fail to learn from history, are condemned to relive it".
Posted by Philaz | 07.06.08, 17:52 GMT
We need to ensure that Building Societies continue to thrive. This may require legislation, eg to prevent demutualisation.
Demutualisation is not a free lunch. The assets of a Building Society are built up over the years from the contribution of generations of members, and forms a bequest to future generations of members. What right have a Board, who should be acting like trustees to the Society, to steal these assets, via a bribe to current members?
Management of Building Societies also needs to be reformed. Despite voting at AGMs, it is almost impossible to get a member on to the Board of most societies unless they have been recommended by the current Board. Hence management is very often unresponsive to members concerns, and lead societies to behave much more like banks than Building Societies (as Bryan McGrath points out).
Jeremy Warner is proud of the role of the Independent in keeping Nationwide mutual. Maybe he would join a campaign to protect all Societies?
Posted by Phil | 07.06.08, 16:05 GMT
Spot on, Jeremy. I remember a friend who was right into carpet-bagging once asking me what was wrong with doing it? My answer was "Well, if you discovered Tony Blair was doing it would you vote for him?"
It looked sleazy and short-sighted then and it looks downright foolish now.
Posted by Andrew | 07.06.08, 15:57 GMT
I know people who still hold their demutualization shares in Northern Rock and HBOS.
They couldn't sell because they were scared that the share prices might go up.
Pure Greed.
Posted by Steven | 07.06.08, 14:37 GMT
Excellent analytic article but touching only the tip of the iceberg what is actually coming is an international crash that will make 1929 seem like a holiday prank in comparison! I.E welcome back Karl Marx, he never went away really or his economic relevance see the study of Blair loving house of lords economist peer on such matters!!!
Posted by M Stewart | 07.06.08, 10:31 GMT
I don't agree that the Building Societies avoid the "CDOs and hare-brained acquisition-making", I suggest you look at the accounts of The West Bromwich and Cheshire Building Societies
Posted by Bryan McGrath | 07.06.08, 10:05 GMT