Demutualisation and the Credit Crunch

Why Building Societies are a better model than newly created PLCs - and why we should say so


In all the coverage and comment on the credit crunch it surprises me how little has been said about the impact of the demutualisation of building societies and the consequential free market funding arrangements adopted by the newly created banks. Today's news is all about Bradford and Bingley, another former mutual that has followed a questionable business model once converted to a PLC. 

The remaining Building Societies, who still rely heavily on savers for their capital funds to support mortgages, are not struggling in the same way that these banks are. They are impacted by the general state of the economy and the housing market, of course, but not by their funding model. 

Those who forced through the demutualisation ballots a decade ago have left us with a poor legacy. The Chairman of Northern Rock when it hit problems was the son of Tory cabinet minister Nicholas Ridley, a comitted de-regulation campaigner just like his Dad. But who really now believes that the problem with the banking sector is too much regulation?

Our Labour values, our Co-operative values, have proven their worth through this sorry episode, but nobody in the Labour movement seems to be saying so.

Display: Sort:

Re: Demutualisation and the Credit Crunch (#1)

Some of us are already saying so - you're not alone! You should read the latest publication by the Left Economics Advisory Panel (LEAP) - Credit Crunch: Learning the Lessons.

Download and debate online at http://leap-lrc.blogspot.com/2008/05/credit-crunch.html.

Northern Rock demutualised in 1997 - the year New Labour took power. I guess 'greed is good' dominated the labour and co-operative movement back then!
 

Re: Demutualisation and the Credit Crunch (#2)

Great post. The whole deregulative, laissez faire outlook of the last 30 years needs re-examination.

So many of the country's troubles stem from the growth of consumerism, endless deregulation of financial services and subsequent obsession with home-ownership. As it all goes wrong as many predicted, New Labour deserve a beating for swallowing the Thatcherite agenda whole.

But it says very little about the current level of political debate and understanding that the consequence will be to return a Tory govt. On virtually every one of these issues, their position has been free-market fundamentalist. Does anyone really think the people best positioned to deal with a housing market crisis are a party who called only last summer for the removal of all mortgage regulations?

Re: Demutualisation and the Credit Crunch (#3)

Building Societies are the property of their members. Nobody "forced through demutualisation". The members voted for it enthusiastically at some building societies and voted against it at other societies (like Nationwide and Britannia). You talk about "Labour values" as though it is a given that members of building societies support Labour - this is not the case. Unlike the Co-operative Bank, Building Societies have not really been part of the Labour movement, except at the very beginning.

Make no mistake, the Northern Rock members voted in favour of Northern Rock becoming a PLC. When they became shareholders, they also had the chance to control the company. For instance under law that New Labour introduced in 2002, shareholders can vote against the pay packages of directors (and in 2003, Glaxo shareholders voted against the chief exec's package and there have also been revolts at Shell and HSBC). This is a power that shareholders in the USA and France do not have.

However, Northern Rock shareholders (who were former building society members) happily voted for their chief exec to have a big bonus last year - in payment for his "daring" strategy in increasing mortgage share! the shareholders should have been asking hard questions at the AGM about strategy, but they didn't. These shareholders have now lost a lot of money. What can government do about this? Nothing! You can give shareholders the power to protect their money, but you can't make them use said power, or act sensibly or legislate them into intelligent thought! Humankind will always be stupid and greedy and foolish!

Re: Demutualisation and the Credit Crunch (#7)

Re the comment "Humankind will always be stupid and greedy and foolish!", I don't think many people would deny the tendency towards this - we all have our daft moments. But surely the point of politics and the value of leadership is to use our collective wisdom to minimise the damage?

Re: Demutualisation and the Credit Crunch (#4)

How true this is. Don't worry, you're not alone! I think this whole sorry episode will bring more regulation on rampant free market capitalism, which is a good thing.

To be honest I have gave misgivings about the international economy stemming from the fact that the oil will eventually run out. Sure the price will drop a bit in the short term - it must, but the longterm trend is gonna be up up up. It is a finite resource after all.

Re: Demutualisation and the Credit Crunch (#5)

A lack of proper regulation on the banks has caused this 'recession' (which is not being helped by the coverage from the right-wing media). To give you a clue, of why this isn't just, 'the global economic downturn', as Messer Brown puts it, a hard-right Republican congressman recently called for deregulation of rules on banks, mortgages, and the stock markets. He called for a system "like they have in the United Kingdom".

Re: Demutualisation and the Credit Crunch (#6)

Actually Building Societies do not rely on their savers for their capital funds. Most Building Society capital is derived from "profits accumulated over many years". Note that funding and capital are two different things in the world of banking. Which is really the whole point about the Credit Crunch, in that many banks chose to get their funding from the mortgage securitisation markets because that way they could avoid having to find the capital to support the lending being securitised. 

In any case, I'm guessing that the reason the Labour movement isn't making a big noise over the issue, is that we don't want to remind the public that the man minding the shop at the time was our very own Mr G. Brown.