Vote in Nationwide's AGM 2011

When voting to approve the re-election of the directors and their renumeration packages, remember they were the ones that approved charging for cash withdrawals when abroad, and ignored the large volumes of subsequent complaints.

Oh no, this is wrong, wrong, WRONG! I realise it's not going to be popular arguing against doing something that raises money for charity, but here goes....

Charities are, generally, a 'good thing', and from time to time we should all consider giving what we can afford to a worthy cause. But when directors raid their members' funds (note: not their own money), one must always ask whether the motives are entirely altruistic. After all, any fool can give away someone else's money. And mutuals are a charity of sorts anyway - they were founded as cooperative savings clubs with the specific purpose of financing the building of houses for their members - so it seems odd to align themselves with completely separate 'causes'.

I believe this is a cynical ploy by Nationwide directors to justify their positions and remuneration. Why? Because through a combination of the "charidee" angle and the additional bribe of the 'prize draw' they aim to significantly increase the turnout in the election (where members vote for directors, approve accounts etc). So why do they want an increased turnout?

At any election, the level of turnout can always be statistically calculated to favour a particular outcome and this is very much true in the case of Nationwide. A high turnout helps Nationwide directors in three ways:
1) Members who would not normally vote but are persuaded to do so by the charity donation / prize draw are less likely to vote against the wishes of the board (see below), hence increasing turnout in this way makes it more likely NW will get the result they want
2) A higher turnout gives a better impression (to the regulator amongst others) of how well they are running the 'mutual' model i.e. it makes it look as though members are properly engaged with 'their' society and taking an active interest.
3) It gets more members reading their election 'blurb' about how wonderful they are

(1) is the most important, so why do I think it's true?

The main reason is that the voting process, and in particular the ballot paper, is skewed in the board's favour. The ballot paper is accompanied by the board's propaganda about the great job they've been doing and why you should re-elect them. I wonder if many of the customers actually fully understand what the voting is all about. Do some just think: "My money is with this organisation, they are asking me to fill this in and they say it's very important so I'd better do it".

There is no dissenting opinion in the election blurb; to read any arguments about why you might not want to follow the board's recommendations you have to seek out online topics such as this one. What proportion of Nationwide's 10m members are going to take the time to do that? Particulary those who are just voting because 20p will go to charity or they might win an ipod!

And those independent-minded individuals who decide they are not necessarily going to rubber stamp the board's recommendations one more hurdle; they divide opposition by offering two different options for dissenting voices: AGAINST or ABSTAIN. They never used to have the ABSTAIN option; I'm sure they'll put up some argument about how that is more 'democratic' but I believe the practical effect will be to reduce the numbers who actively vote against.

Phew. Rant over. But I'm afraid I think, by promoting this 'charity' wheeze, MSE is perhaps unwittingly complicit in helping NW's directors remain secure against any 'revolting' members :mad:

Just voted no to everything.

I was actually abroad for a year when then brought about the new atm charges. They also dropped the interest rates to zero, and made the high paying one 'mysave', which means you have to receive a password at a UK address, then the application expires by the time it was forwarded to me.

The inheritance that I'm living on while I study was with them, so in atm fees and lost interest, I think I lost quite a bit, it's too sad to work it out. More than six hundred, easily.

So when I got back to UK I went to branch to move the money, and I did it online with the staffs help. But then one account was zero, meaning it was closed, and it forfeited a years interest, I should have kept a pound in.

I asked to complain to the manager, who took me to her office, explained it was all my fault, looked at the accounts i.e. a large sum of cash trapped in accounts that pay almost no interest, and asked, 'how, exactly, are you qualified to manage this much money?'

I started to explain it was all trapped in these rubbish accounts because of the way mysave is set up, but she just said, 'we both know you haven't done a good job,' and then started to try and sell me Nationwide investment rubbish,.

So, I moved bank and just left a token amount in. Soon after, I needed to show my finances for the past year for my educational fees being paid, and I realised that Nationwide don't let you access records older than eight months, AT ALL, not online, in branch or anything. This is probably to make it harder for people to complain about things, but it made my application harder. They did print off some statements and promise they were free, then a month later billed me a tenner.

Now I receive this document urging me to vote for a resolution, with no contrary/opposing voice, i.e. propaganda, and it was quite nice to check all the no boxes!

I will just say, to end this rant, I ended up moving to the new london bank metrobank, https://www.metrobankonline.co.uk , and am very happy, especially their free overseas card.

lifemagic wrote: »

Just voted no to everything.

You're a year late. This thread is about last year's AGM, hence the title: Vote in Nationwide's AGM 2011.