Nationwide - Not so different?

Daft_Monkey

In general I like Nationwide, but the tier based interest rates for savings accounts did not go down particularly well, nor did the sudden increases of mortgage arrangement fees. I remember about 3-4 years ago I got a 3.59% fixed rate mortgage with the arrangement fee in the region of £190. Can't see the logic behind the increases, as the rates are not as competitive as they used to be. I also fail to see the value of sponsorship for a building society. Charity I don't mind. Who will base their decision for buying a financial product on whether or not Nationwide sponsors the national team or somekind of an event? Is the products on offer that make the difference.
I might be wrong but I don't remember the sponsorship mentioned in an AGM.

Jake'sGran

cloud_dog wrote:

For those of you who feel NW are no longer offering top rates, etc I think you should take a look at the "a&l direct prem 6.1" thread:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=260068

This is just the type of rubbish that NW do not provide, i.e. limited time period, limited amounts, ridiculous rates if you go over the rate, changing the product in a very short time period.!!/QUOTE

You are right, absolutely. I have been taking part in the A & L, 6.1% thread and have just decided I will not be joining the A&L account. I had missed the bit about the penalty. It seems like rubbish as you say when, over a year, the mandatory £500 per month gets 6.1% for only 5 months and .1 for the rest. What is special about that!

ReportInvestor

ReportInvestor wrote:

It was also disappointing to see no members' Summer Bond offered this year .

Oh dear. That comment has proved more significant than I would have wished .

I've just received a letter telling me that the Members' Reward Bonds have also been cancelled (this doesn't affect existing Members' Reward Bonds that will run their 3 year course).

Instead there will be a "Loyalty Tracker Bond" @ 4.75%.

"In response to customer feedback" :rolleyes: , I will be able to put up to £2million into this new offering, compared to the £5K limit on the more competitive Members Reward Bond.

Nein danke .

ReportInvestor

This post is for everyone, but particularly for ED who expressed interest in my theories on the MSE Nationwide/Portman merger thread and for Liz who thought I worked for Nationwide on this MSE thread in the mortgage/endowment forum .

Why has Nationwide not been up to the mark in best buy saver products over the last five years? The Investors' Association thinks it has the answer.

It's because of its daft mortgage policy initiated in 2001 when they mistakenly thought they could transform the mortgage market - IA link

They couldn't offer top savings products because they had put themselves under so much unnecessary pressure in the mortgage market , but now the policy has finally unravelled , and they have got their mortgage rate back to where they started and savers might finally get some more attention with a bit of luck.

The IA link above contains a detailed table of stats comparing Nationwide mortgage rates over nearly six years with the base rate, C&G and Halifax. A brief summary of the key results is as follows:

[b]Date	Nationwide SVR/BMR[/b]
	[b]v C&G SVR[/b]	        
			
[b]Jan-01	-0.65[/b]	             
[b]Jul-01	-1.01[/b]	       
[b]Jan-02	-1.21[/b]           
[b]Jul-02	-1.21[/b]          
[b]Jan-03	-1.21[/b]	        
[b]Jul-03	-1.11[/b]	        
[b]Oct-04	-0.76[/b]	                
[b]Jan-06	-0.61[/b]           	        
[b]Oct-06	-0.51[/b]	        	        

Back to where a properly run mutual should be, IMHO.

CopperPlate_2

Yes, preparing for a DM... :rotfl: - not that I'll get a bean being a lifetime signaway member :eek:

LizEstelle

Actually, ReportInvestor, what I was hinting at was the fact that your pro-Nationwide enthusiasm was SO blatant, one could have mistaken you for an employee of their PR department.

Clearly, my hints will have to be heavier in future, as they don't seem to be sinking in.

CopperPlate_2

ReportInvestor - you're not StrategicInvestor of RPoints Mutual forum fame are you? Just wondering...

ReportInvestor

To CP

I believe she may have chosen her name with me in mind, (after first trying several others :rotfl: ) but the answer is no.

Why on earth would Nationwide be preparing for a demutualisation when the mutual model is starting to produce consistent success?

And it it were, preparing for demutualisation, which they aren't, they wouldn't exclude from a windfall - otherwise they could never get a 75% "yes" vote.

To Liz
I must remember to slag off the current and past Chief Executives more strongly next time :rolleyes:. Did you actually read the link?

CopperPlate_2

ReportInvestor wrote:

To CP

I believe she may have chosen her name with me in mind, (after first trying several others :rotfl: ) but the answer is no.

Why on earth would Nationwide be preparing for a demutualisation when the mutual model is starting to produce consistent success?

And it it were, preparing for demutualisation, which they aren't, they wouldn't exclude from a windfall - otherwise they could never get a 75% "yes" vote.[/
QUOTE]

just wondered. Imitation being the sincerest form and so on...

Sorry, I wasn't meaning that I thought NW would demutualise - just thought that it might be good if they got back to doing what mutuals do best...consolidating. And yes, you are quite right. NW now probably have more lifetime signaway members than non-signaway, so to get their 75% needed they'd probably have to find some way around the clause.

Of course, this is all purely academic, as NW is not gearing up for a DM and their takeover, sorry merger, of/with Portman is just adding to their presence on the high street.

LizEstelle

CopperPlate wrote:

ReportInvestor wrote:

To CP

I believe she may have chosen her name with me in mind, (after first trying several others :rotfl: ) but the answer is no.

Why on earth would Nationwide be preparing for a demutualisation when the mutual model is starting to produce consistent success?

And it it were, preparing for demutualisation, which they aren't, they wouldn't exclude from a windfall - otherwise they could never get a 75% "yes" vote.[/
QUOTE]

just wondered. Imitation being the sincerest form and so on...

Sorry, I wasn't meaning that I thought NW would demutualise - just thought that it might be good if they got back to doing what mutuals do best...consolidating. And yes, you are quite right. NW now probably have more lifetime signaway members than non-signaway, so to get their 75% needed they'd probably have to find some way around the clause.

Of course, this is all purely academic, as NW is not gearing up for a DM and their takeover, sorry merger, of/with Portman is just adding to their presence on the high street.

Actually what 'mutuals do best' of all seems to be to demutualise after years of singing the praises of mutuality and talking up the sins of those dreadful PLCs... just as soon as the directors reckon the trough depth matches that of their snouts...