It is no wonder that in times of uncertainty savers are turning to building societies. These mutual organisations are owned by their members and are considered “a safe pair of hands”. Rightly or wrongly, the public perceive banks, which have shareholders to please, as more likely to take risks in the pursuit of profits and are therefore at a greater risk of becoming the “next Northern Rock”.

To some extent, this is true. Building Societies have been more conservative than most banks in their lending practices. Also, few have a heavy reliance on wholesale money markets. Instead they use savers’ deposits to fund most of their lending. However, the public should not think that they are necessarily going to get a better rate on their savings with a building society.

Although public limited companies (plcs) have to make a profit and pay a dividend, they also operate in a (mostly) competitive market that forces them to innovate and offer attractive products. Usually, they are also run on a much greater scale and (in most cases) with such efficiency that costs are low enough to allow them to offer competitive products.

Yet this is not to argue that we would be better off without mutuals or that the plcs are wonderfully benign. The mutual industry is particularly strong in certain areas, such as with-profits funds, while the banks often take advantage of hapless customers by aggressively selling unnecessary products such as payment protection insurance.

The ability of mutuals to take the long-term view also means that the sector provides a disproportionate number of the less profitable but socially valuable products such as stakeholder pensions, Child Trust Funds and shared-equity mortgages. In many cases, mutuals also appear to offer a better standard of customer service.

Put simply, there are good plcs and bad mutual organisations, and vice versa. But nobody should assume that a financial services company without shareholders to please will automatically give a better deal.