BUILDING SOCIETY

Southland Times, Issue 18837, 2 June 1920, Page 7

BUILDING SOCIETY

. . ANNUAL MEETING. The annual meeting of the Southland Building and Investment Society last., night was attended by about 31) shareholders. The president (Mr R. Krskinel occup td the chair.

In moving the adoption of the report, which has been published, the president said that the year finished the 40th of his cervices on the board of directors. They were quite accustomed to progress and that was continuing. Of course, there was a certain amount of stagnation during the war, 'nut the previous year's and that year’s returns had reflected the very greatly increased commercial activity of the town, especially as regarded property. Referring directly to the balance sheet. Mr Erskine said that about £15.000 of the loans had been upaid in the ordinary way through maturity but something like £60,000 worth had been repaid on properties sold. He declared that caution was necessary now if ever owing to the great rise in land values. Besides having one per cent of the moneys on loan as a reserve the Society also had the office premises as an additional reserve. He had noticed various letters dealing with the Society in the press, continued Mr Erskine. He did not know who any of the writers were, but some of the letters, such as those signed "Shareholder,” contained a poor! many fallacies. Whether ‘‘Shareholder” had not gone properly into the position or whether,he wanted to influence the election of directors was .bard to say. This writer had referred to "the hardship to shareholdeis” withdrawing. Surely it would be absurd .to let a holder withdraw with liis profits, undiminished after he .had held shares for only a short time.' - . If a shareholder began his fortnightly, payments and kept them up to the end of the. year he would pet (U per cent added at. the end.. He would be nut of pocket only for about

six inunihs, and his investment would earn . 13 per cent. If a holder could withdraw at the end of the year he would'keep' ou lining so and renewing. If he could withdraw at the end of the second year hisearnings ■ would he equal to about 10 per ie.nt. These conditions would l>e too tetnp. ' ' ting to people to leave their money in the ! Society—they would be constantly withI drawing anti re-investing. "Shareholder” i had also objected to the fines. These averaged £327 for the year just : closed., said the ■ peaker, and. when there was only £73,-00U < n loan, they amounted to £33 S. Therefore, it would lie seen that, although the Society had grown greatly, the fines had not kept pace. “Why should a shareholder befitted for paying his arrears?” ‘'Shareholder” haul asked. Say, saitl tlie president, that a man had a loan for 2!) years. If, i.tiring the first six months, he did not pay a cent and paid it in at the end of that term he would receive £.'! 7s 7 1 1 in profits, .and his fines would amount to £3 (is Sd. Such a -ysli'in was not hard, Mr Krskine contended. There had also, been objections to lhe tight of directors to raise the rate of interest on loans. This had aiw-ays been the custom. The directors should certainly have power !o raise or lower the rate ns the case might be. Everyone in work or miriness was now earning extra money to t meet the increased cost of living and it was 'ml; right that those living on invested earnings should be in uv same position. ■'Shareholder” posed as the friend of the borrower nnd contended that the Society should lower the rate of loan interest. If this was done the Society would have no chance of meeting the demand that would arise. There were a great many advantages to the borrower at present. An dinged monopoly of insurance premiums nad been referred to. There was no molijopoly, and, although half the directors were ' insurance agents, he could testify that they had always done the best fur the Society and had not considered their business inter i'sts in any matter.- (Applause!. There had been a suggestion that the Society catered for the'rich man the holder paying in advance by giving him a discount. . As n matter of fact this holder got nil per cent on his first year's investments while the man paying fortnightly .got 13 per cent, lie went ou to explain that it was con- \ indent for the Society to have money pauT in advance, and it was to its interest to gi\e the two and a half discount to those doing so. Mr Krskine also referred to the investment question in the case of the Society.The body, he declared, must be in the position to meet its debentures every .month. The Society bail been contrasted with another body which, it was declared, was more prosperous. As a matter of fact, the piofits of the Building Society were far above those of the other body. He was sure that no injustice had ever been done to any member of .the Society. Mr ,1. .1. Wesney seconded the motion, which was supported in congratulatory terms by Messrs [’. Meek. D, M. Seandrctl and A. \V. Jones. The last named said that ‘‘Sharcholdrr” had not aimed in hi? letters at thi abolition of fines; neither had lie aimed at the total abolition of the withdrawal fee- only at an easing, and in this Mr .lone- agreed with him. Tie- motion was earned.

No other candidate having been noitiin ali’d. Mr Kr.-kine v. a- re-elected president. In returning thanks Mr Hrskine said that that was Ids Pith year in the presidency. He did not intend to stand before them for another year in the same position. Mr G. H. Borne was elected shareholders' auditor, and it was decided to increase the two auditor--' salaries to £SO each.

The elect ion of directors rendered necessary by the retirement of Mes-rs A. S. Froggatt. (; tk A. Todd and .1. .1. Wesncy, all of whom sought re-elect ioh. resulted in their being returned in trie following order: Mr Todd Mi-12 v otes i. Mr Wesney 1430), Mr Froggatt i.JS-l I . The other candidates finished as follows: Messrs ,1. Ward (31Sl. I). M. Scandrctt i2l)3>, A. W. Jones (257!, ii,. P. Meek (2-Pi l , G. K. Hannah (1(51)).