Tonight:
4°c
On the face of it a 69% fall in annual pre-tax profits or even the slightly more modest 50% drop in underlying profits by Nationwide does not immediately present itself as the strongest argument for mutuality.
On a closer look, the case is made even worse by the fact that those underlying profits for the year - which matches the tax year - dropped from £322 million in the first half to just £71 million in the second half.
But the fact is that Nationwide, which hasn't taken a penny of Government bailout money or guarantees, still made a profit. That's more than be said for many of its rivals, like Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS, which lost billions of pounds last year.
It's going to be even harder for any of the banks to make money in the coming months, as Nationwide's Graham Beale made clear. What is even more evident from Beale's comments to me is that the collapse of Lehmans had far greater and more immediate impact on the British consumer than many people had imagined.
In the six months up to Lehmans' demise last September Nationwide had been powering ahead, capturing just over a third of the UK savings market, largely at the expense of its High Street banking rivals. In the next six months to the start of April its savings inflow went into reverse, as scared punters opted for the absolute safety of Government guaranteed homes like National Savings and a nationalised Northern Rock.
Beale is right to say that the Government's unlimited guarantee on savings, versus a guarantee limited to £50,000 for most other banks and building societies, means he cannot compete. He modestly says that an immediate rise in the limit to £100,000 would be a good start.
I'm not convinced that would be enough. Especially since Nationwide is already paying more than its fair share into the current Financial Services Compensation Scheme based on its share of the consumer market, which is high, as against its exposure to bad debts - well below the industry average.
I'm sure it's an unintended consequence, but we are gradually seeing more and more ways in which the Government's rescue of Northern Rock and other banks is hurting competitors.
Nationwide's Beale is sanguine. He views the events of the last year in the banking world as solid evidence why remaining mutual is good for building societies. Even if he has to bail a few more of them out, he reckons: "We can take the medium-term view and even tolerate lower profit levels for a considerable period of time."
Now, with the Government having had to pump hundreds of billions of pounds into Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, could be time to reassess mutuality. The European Union is looking very hard at the state aid being applied to those two banks. It could even rule that, given the scale of the enterprises, the level of aid is too much. After all, depending on your measure Lloyds now has 24% of High Street banking. That's miles ahead of anyone else.
The Government will fight the competition authorities in Brussels because it cannot afford to let a bank fail.
A compromise could be for Lloyds to get rid of Halifax. That would ensure a worthy competitor to Nationwide. Now it would be very complicated, but why not also give Halifax back from its current 43% taxpayer ownership to its own savers and borrowers? Open it up to attract new savers who became members keen to take part-ownership. And let's call it Our Mutual Friend.
Santander won't miss Abbey habit
My first mortgage was with Bradford & Bingley, so I took more than a passing interest when its Spanish owner said it is scrapping not only that name but also those of Abbey and Alliance & Leicester from our High Streets.
In the interest of scientific research I asked the experts Brand Finance where the three iconic names ranked in terms of the world's top banking and insurance brands.
Back came the answer. Abbey, obviously the most recognisable, was only 128th. A&L came in 187th place and my favourite, B&B, came in a lowly 387th position.
By contrast Santander is now the world's fourth most successful financial brand. Its flaming red torch now burns brightly in more than 40 countries. No contest was it?
Fingers on buttons - has Britain got enough talent to find a successor for Michael Grade?
I'm so bored of the corporate shenanigans at ITV that I admit I have started watching Britain's Got Talent. It's cringe-makingly great family entertainment.
So that set me thinking we could use the same format to select Michael Grade's replacement as chief executive when he is booted up to non-executive chairman later this year. Anyone could enter, thus saving probably tens of thousands of pounds in fees to headhunters.
The first auditions would be judged - in public - by a panel made up of Grade, Simon Cowell and (why not?) Amanda Holden. Heats would be held in city theatres across the country, with the judges deciding finalists using the same red button as on the variety show.
The finals could be broadcast live on Sky 1, with shareholders deciding the winner. But there would be no proxy voting and, rather than multiple block votes cast by institutions, it would be one vote per shareholder turning up.
Current chief operating officer John Cresswell has a good turn in one-line gags, commercial director Rupert Howell is probably a decent baritone, while outside front-runner Tony Ball looks like he's got a neat line in break-dancing.
It saves money, makes a great show and could even help the share price as we all buy a single share to get a vote. But where is the Susan Boyle?
