Assertion: building society | /r/HasProperty | mutual
Facets:
value: by law
type: OTHER
Source sentences:
text: Before 1986's 'Big Bang' regulations, building societies were all 'mutuals', owned by their members who were mostly savings account holders and mortgagees.
text: A building society is a mutual institution owned and run by its members
text: Instead, building societies are mutual institutions.
text: Building societies are mutual societies, are owned by their members for the benefit of members, that is of both savers and borrowers alike.
text: What makes building societies different from banks is that they are mutual organisations -
text: I agree with the 'unmarried bachelor' statement, I beleive a building society has to be mutual by law (i.e. non PLC, hence why all the de-mutualised building societies that became PLCs didn't retain the name building society in their legal titles or brand names).
text: Building societies, which are mutuals and so owned by their customers, do not have to pay dividends to sharesholders like their rival banks.
text: Nowadays, there are many “mutuals”, not just friendly societies – for instance, all building societies are mutuals.
text: A building society is a mutual institution, which means that it doesn't hold PLC (Public Limited Company) status.
text: A building society is a mutual institution.
text: A building society is a mutual institution.
text: Building societies, however, are not commercial businesses, they are ‘mutual institutions’ – owned by, and working for, their customers.