Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 11-15 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, or e-mail to dcoyle@irish-times.ie. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice. Due to the volume of mail, there may be a delay in answering queries. All suitable queries will be answered through the columns of the newspaper. No personal correspondence will be entered into.

Standard Life

I contributed to a Standard Life pension group scheme as an employee of a company a few years ago. I understand from the company that I have no entitlement to a vote on the forthcoming demutualisation and that it is the group scheme trustees who will cast a single vote on our behalf on the matter. Also the company indicated that, even if the company were to demutualise, the group scheme trustees were under no obligation to consult with the members of the scheme on what to do with the benefits (if any) on the demutualisation. Surely as an exmember of the scheme my own pension should be more like a personal pension scheme (where I can cast the vote as I choose).

Mr M.C., e-mail

If you were the holder of a personal pension policy with Standard Life, you would, as you point out, have no problem exercising your right to vote in any ballot on demutualisation. However, you are in this case but one of a number of members of a group pension scheme.

As with such schemes in general, the responsibility for investment decisions rests with the trustees, whose role, rights and responsibilities are defined in law. The vote on demutualisation would come under this role and the trustees would have the same rights and responsibility in this regard as they would in any other decision regarding the investment of the funds under their control. They would not be allowed to pass along this responsibility even if they wanted to.

On a practical level, there would be difficulties as well. The group pension scheme will be counted as a single investment despite the fact that it provides for a large number of people. As such it attracts one vote. As it happens, given the rules of the demutualisation vote, the trustees would get only one vote in any case as the vote attaches to the policyholder - in this case determined to be the trustees - and not the policies, however great the number.

Similarly, whatever the outcome of the vote, the trustees have a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of the members of the fund. This means that they have a responsibility, never mind a right, to determine how any benefits accruing from the outcome of the demutualisation ballot would be used.

Securitisation

My building society has informed me that my mortgage may be used in a securitisation process. I'm not sure what this is about and would like to know if it affects me in any way. The explanation document given to me is a bit of legalese and makes no sense. Do I have the same flexibility with the securitisation company as I do with the building society? Am I at risk in any way for any reason or is this just a technical move to allow the EBS to lend more money? I have very little time to instruct them in writing whether I consent to this. Is there any good reason why I should give my consent?

Mr D.R., e-mail

As you are probably aware from the documentation sent to you by the building society, securitisation is a process by which a financial institution sells off some of its debt to investors. The reason they do so is that institutions can only lend so much money in relation to their deposits. At a time of low interest rates, such as the Republic has recently seen, the rates on offer to savers are very unattractive. Conversely, the rates are attractive to borrowers and the demand for loans on the institutions rises just as their ability to increase lending falls, as savers look to the stock market and elsewhere to secure a better return on their money.

Offloading part of their borrowing, such as mortgages, means that the loans outstanding on the institutions' books fall in relation to the deposits, allowing the bank or building society to lend more money.

The securitised assets provide an income stream to the investors who purchase them by way of the interest payments made on them. However, the management of the loans is still carried out by the original institutions - in this case EBS - for a management fee from the new investors. Thus the same rules apply to the treatment of the loan as before. As you say, it is mostly a technical move to release funds for lending.

Essentially, you should notice no difference. Your flexibility should be unimpaired and your risk the same as before. In relation to why you should or should not give your consent, it is a personal call. Without seeing the actual letter, I would not be aware precisely what influence you have on such a decision. As a member of the mutual building society, it might be seen as in your interests not to limit its ability to profit from the current boom in lending by opposing securitisation.

Premium Bonds

I spent my working life in Britain where I bought Premium Bonds (similar to Prize Bonds) and won some small prizes. I recently returned to Ireland and National Savings has told me that Irish law prevents residents of the Republic from buying Premium Bonds. Surely these petty restrictions had been swept away by EU harmonisation? I had no problem buying Prize Bonds when I lived in Britain.

Mr B.McS., e-mail

I am not sure who told you that you cannot buy British Premium Bonds as an Irish resident, but it is not so. What is true is that the Prize Bonds section of An Post would be precluded from selling them to you, but there is nothing to stop you from buying them directly from Britain. I gather the British Premium Bond operation is based in Lytham-St-Anne's. As you say, it would have been incredible to think you could buy Irish bonds from Britain but not vice versa.