Skip to the content

Was the fad for demutualisation to blame for the mess we are in now?

By Tony Bonsignore | 12:10:00 | 13 June 2008

There’s certainly a good case for claiming so.

Let’s look at the facts.

Before the legislative changes introduced under Thatcher in the mid-eighties, banks and building societies both understood their functions pretty well. Banks did banking and lending, both personal and corporate; building societies helped people save (ie ‘build’ savings) and provided them with mortgages to help them buy their loans.  

The building societies were of course ‘mutual’ - in that they were owned by their members (ie customers) and run on a non-for-profit basis. Any excess cash generated would be ploughed back into the business for the benefit of members. This ownership model tended to lead to relatively conservative business strategies, as societies had no desire or need to take unnecessary risks. They lent prudently.

Then along came the Tories, and Loadsamoney, and Filofaxes, and brick-like mobile phones, and the whole horrible greedy era that was the late eighties. Banks and building societies wanted a piece of each other’s action, and they got it in the shape of the 1986 Building Societies Act. Suddenly banks were flogging mortgages left, right and centre and building societies were offering overdrafts and issuing credit cards. The banking world was turned upside down, and the City loved it.  

Except for one thing of course - the building societies still remained ‘mutual’. Young thrusting building society execs saw this as an unnecessary hindrance on their ambitions – they wanted to be set free and become masters of the banking universe.

Critics, of course, argued for mutuality as a welcome and natural brake on the finance industry’s worst excesses, ensuring that they didn’t take ridiculous risks with their members’ money (see where this is going?). Crucially, they had history on their side.

And then along the carpetbaggers.

These people – and younger readers may not know - craftily opened dozens of bank accounts in order to become members of building societies. They knew that societies who wanted to go private would need to ‘buy out’ members, sometimes to the tune of thousands of pounds. Having opened their accounts the ‘baggers then either simply waited or in some cases even tried to force societies into ‘demutualising’. ie giving up their mutual status and going ‘plc’.

It was fun while it lasted. One by one the societies fought in vain to preserve their mutual status; one by one they fell to the irresistible lure of lovely lucre. Abbey National in 1989; Cheltenham and Gloucester in 1994; Bristol and West, Halifax, Northern Rock and the Woolwich in 1997 (Blair must have loved that) – the list is as long as it is almost complete. Of the big boys, only a small handful – Nationwide and Yorkshire among them – have managed to hold out.

Hundreds of thousands of carpetbaggers, meanwhile, rubbed their hands in glee. It was a brilliant ruse which netted bags of cash – sometimes running into thousands of pounds at a time. And all for free!

Except it wasn’t, of course. For the new banks now had shareholders to satisfy, and these shareholders wanted growth, growth, growth. To hell with prudent lending; that was old-fashioned talk. And who was gonna stop them? The new Labour government, still in the early throes of its (now spent) passionate love-affair with the City? No chance. The Bank of England? ‘Sorry, not our job any more, guv’nor’. What about the new super-duper-regulator, the FSA? Don’t make me laugh.

So lend they did, and with such volume and lack of discrimination that it has now landed us in a financial mess of terrifying proportions. Like any illicit love affair it felt good for a while, but in the aftermath you inevitably suffer all the worse. In classic fashion we are currently going through the extreme guilt phase; the profound depression and regret may yet be round the corner.

And who were the biggest culprits? That’s right, the former mutuals - Northern Rock, Halifax Bank of Scotland, Bradford & Bingley, Alliance & Leicester…it’s a predictable list. They were the ones typically offering the 125% mortgages, targeting the buy-to-letters, lending indiscriminately to sub-prime borrowers. Indeed, they played a major part in inflating the housing bubble which is now so spectacularly busting.

And how are the demutualised societies doing today? To take a glance at a few, Bradford & Bingley fell from £4 to 70p in a year  having announced a profit warning and rights issue. There has been speculation that Alliance & Leicester will ask shareholders for more money. And then of course there’s Northern Rock – a real success story.

So, back to our original question: was the demutualisation fad of the 80s and 90s to blame for the mess we are now in? The answer must be yes - in part at least. We carpetbaggers all took the money and congratulated ourselves on being such clever souls, but the reality is that nothing is really free; it’s just that it sometimes takes years to work out who will pay, and when.

So looking back, a simple and honest question to the carpetbaggers: was it worth it?

How have those of you who owned shares in the demutualised companies fared?

Comments (9)

Ernie SWEENEY - The real culprits

12:10 | 13 Jun 2008

The carpetbaggers, and I was one, were not to blame or responsible for the recent banking disasters. The blame for that lies squarely on the City who knew what was going on and kept pocketing the bonuses and knighthoods.

It also falls, quite rightly ,on Parliament who also had their noses in the trough and failed to ensure an effective supervisory role over the banks and financial institutions. Both the Bank of England and the FSA are a complete failure in this respect mostly due to the greed of our so called 'leaders' .

The Serious Fraud Office is a classic example of how to prevent effective investigation and convictions.

Timothy Atkins - Equitable Life

15:01 | 13 Jun 2008

Of course Equitable life was a mutual, but that didn't stop it destroying itself.

Theo - The banking crisis

16:55 | 13 Jun 2008

The culprits for the banking crisis were not the demutualisation carpet baggers but Thatcher and her gang who opened the door for them. And the disgusting greed, selfishness and denial of the existence of society were fully supported by the press and the Church, whose inaudible sqeaks of protest did more harm than good.

Worse than the carpet baggers were also the top managers of the building societies who saw demutualisation as a sure way to directorship, hugely increased salaries and telephone number bonuses.

The ugly and unacceptable face of raw capitalism ushered in by Thatcher is still here and residing at 10 Downing Street. Vide the shift in the distribution of wealth from the poor to the rich since New

"Labour" (LOL) with Mr Brown came in. Can this successor of Thatcher and worse, really expect us to vote for him?

Cape Town - Capitalism needs rules

17:15 | 13 Jun 2008

The beneficiaries were the banks' and BSs' managers. All those bonuses. The cause was weak controls at the end of the cycle when there was too much, that banks and building socieities couoldn't get rid of fast enough, in silly imprudent loans.

But human nature is so greedy that we need rules to control it. And naive to think otherwise.

Look.

The money pumped back into the system by governments has been used not to lubricate it, but to speculate on commodities and energy, compounding our problems.

There's a second credit crunch around the corner now, broader than the first.

So the carpet baggers are just examples of the greed in all of us. We are seeing capitalism crack open in its present form. Money is moving out of the "West" and the now global monetary system will resturcutre around new rules and former weaker partners will come to the front.

It's too late to tax those baggers windfalls. It's always too late. Better to bolt the doors before. One good thing would be to make company's stick to their mission statements and not speculate with shareholders money - make the managers share the profits with the state (us tax payers) and the losses they can keep for themselves.

The baggers were just feral fat cats.

Cape

Cape Town

17:15 | 13 Jun 2008

The beneficiaries were the banks' and BSs' managers. All those bonuses. The cause was weak controls at the end of the cycle when there was too much, that banks and building socieities couoldn't get rid of fast enough, in silly imprudent loans.

But human nature is so greedy that we need rules to control it. And naive to think otherwise.

Look.

The money pumped back into the system by governments has been used not to lubricate it, but to speculate on commodities and energy, compounding our problems.

There's a second credit crunch around the corner now, broader than the first.

So the carpet baggers are just examples of the greed in all of us. We are seeing capitalism crack open in its present form. Money is moving out of the "West" and the now global monetary system will resturcutre around new rules and former weaker partners will come to the front.

It's too late to tax those baggers windfalls. It's always too late. Better to bolt the doors before. One good thing would be to make company's stick to their mission statements and not speculate with shareholders money - make the managers share the profits with the state (us tax payers) and the losses they can keep for themselves.

The baggers were just feral fat cats.

Cape

Shielin Faere

17:30 | 13 Jun 2008

What a badly written article. Example

"These people – and younger readers may not know - craftily opened dozens of bank accounts in order to become members of building societies."

How can one open a BANK a/c with a BUILDING SOCIETY ??

Just one of several errors of fact.

Another ;

The carpetbaggers had NOTHING whatsoever to do with ANY BS (or LIfe Office ) demutualisation.

All those who DMd did so because THEY wanted to, not because of carpetbagger pressure (witness the shenanigans at Standard Life).

Ernie SWEENEY

18:26 | 13 Jun 2008

Some highly intuitive comments coming up.

I was in fact a poor carpetbagger not a rich one!

The building societies had completely lost sight of what they were founded for and still have. Cooking the interest rates in favour of the rich and giving minimal interst to those desperately trying to save for a house is a fact of mutual and converted societies.

What did successive governments do about it? Answer Absolutely nothing!

Jamie B - Mutuals are Mutual

13:04 | 14 Jun 2008

Don't forget that for mutuals it's the members who get a vote on election of board members.

If the majority are too apathetic to bother thinking about what they're voting for are are simply too dumb, what else can one expect.

Greasybiker1 - Onlt part of the whole picture

15:16 | 15 Jun 2008

Good comments, nice article but ten years too late and only part of the picture.

I say this because when good old maggie took the self correcting brakes of the B S's off the finanance money machine -

it went into a frenzy hyperdrive.

With no governor to stop it , and being fuelled by greed and "massive state sell offs of the family silver" ( quote by Harold MacMillan),

Also being fueled by the endowment mis- selling fiasco and the relaxing of the old city regimes- it all added up to the newcomers and their managers filling there boots and every one jumping on the gravy train.

As if this wasn't bad enough some one added Nitro to the tank and squandered all the revenue of the north sea oil ( How much was invested? Where is it now?)

The carpet baggers, the lunatics, scoundrels and the charlatans were in control-- running the country like a provincial greengrocers- with the result that they all became drunk with power and did very well, but forgot that their children would inherit the consequences.

How do the kids today get affordable housing, answer they can't- the community stock was sold off with a right to buy bribe.

That fueled today's silly housing boom.

How do they get decent jobs? they can't Maggie killed the car and steel, ships and coal industry because she hated them and thought them a dirty job. Decimating them removed any real manufacturing base we had left apart from farming, because the fisheries were sold out as well.

When history is written next century we will view it like this;

A) that the two world wars as waste of the cream lives and brains of the best all of european countries- for no real gain. So that they were a total waste, that only let new immigrants in and ruined a hard working protestant family centred industrious country and europe forever.

B) we will view Maggie thatcher in her true light of a deluded leader who thought she knew better than the old guard. Wasted the oil, the technology and gave our city institutions, powers, navy, industrial history to a load of yuppies and freeloaders who fleeced the country and lowered it to the third world, with beggars and waste on the streets.

I wish I were wrong.

Have your say here:

Protected by FormShield