Nationwide - Not so different?

ReportInvestor

Shame on them.

I can't think that Nationwide has a hope in hell of pulling off that sort of stunt after their current advertising campaign :rotfl:.

And it's not as if their (plump cat) directors' aren't generously rewarded already.

They don't need the hassle, historical ignimony, national name calling a demutualisation would inevitably bring.

LizEstelle

ReportInvestor wrote:

Shame on them.

I can't think that Nationwide has a hope in hell of pulling off that sort of stunt after their current advertising campaign :rotfl:.

And it's not as if their (plump cat) directors' aren't generously rewarded already.

They don't need the hassle, historical ignimony, national name calling a demutualisation would inevitably bring.

As far as felis maximus directors are concerned, I've yet to see a touch of name calling outweigh their appreciation of filthy lucre.

Time will tell.

ReportInvestor

Liz - Why quote in full when replying to the last post, or to a small section of a previous post? It doesn't help the flow of any thread & creates unnecessary tedium.

The lucre is already in the mutual.

Risking a demutualisation could easily result in directors being voted off the board by a majority of members.

There's no point.

Parliament would be up in arms.

Anyway, are we debating the thread title, or is this slight tangent worthy of a separate thread?

LizEstelle

Ok, just for you I'm not quoting at all so you'll just have to guess what I'm referring to.

Yes, the lucre's in the mutual - but that won't stop them from trying to be inventively redistributive! Ever heard of creative accountancy?

In a weird way, it's quite touching in this day and age to find someone with this degree of faith in the Great and the Good...

Amyway, back to reality:

How many examples of personal/corporate greed do you want me to point to? There are enough around. The lucre was in mutuality of the C&G. The lucre was in the mutuality of the Woolwich. The lucre was in the mutuality of the Abbey 'National'.

They all trumpeted the benefits of mutuality - until the time came for some snout-in-trough fun.

Shall I go on..?

ReportInvestor

Nationwide is different. Given the commercial advantage that a combination of mutuality and its size bestows, it would be mad to demutualise.

£100 says Nationwide will be a mutual in 2016 [Long enough to see off the current board.]

I'm happy to bet with you face to face or by anonymous arrangement via MoneySaving Towers (interest on the £200 deposited to charities chosen by MSE members). I'm happy to forfeit the interest because I'm betting on a near certainty.

LizEstelle

ReportInvestor wrote:

I'm happy to bet with you face to face or by anonymous arrangement via MoneySaving Towers (interest on the £200 deposited to charities chosen by MSE members). I'm happy to forfeit the interest because I'm betting on a near certainty.

Kind of you to offer but I'm only interested in the force of argument, not swaggerings about 'betting' on a date 10 years from now.

In any event, my bets are already in place in the shape of a couple of £100 Nationwide accounts...

ReportInvestor

Hardly a "bet" since you can't lose your original stake.

But which way would you vote in the highly unlikely event of the directors asking you whether you would like Nationwide to demutualise? Or is that a stupid question?

LizEstelle

Guess. Hypocrisy rules ok.

ReportInvestor

That's a shame. The Nationwide can be the country's banking conscience and needs to be defended - but also to be goaded into acting ever more efficiently on behalf of all savers and borrowers.

I'm usually more than happy to criticise Nationwide when it deserves it, but a large, national mutual has its uses.

ReportInvestor

[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]	        	        

This is ironic. Nationwide has gone back to selling mortgages in the same way as the banks.

Now a foreign bank, ING, has just launched a mortgage range remarkably similar to the one Nationwide was aiming for around July 2001 i.e. a low 5.14% SVR produce suitable for new an existing customers, few hidden charges and flexible.

The different is that ING guarantees its SVR relative to the base rate, whereas Nationwide's SVR relied on "trust". And you can see from the table above how reliable that was :rolleyes:.

The Independent

ING outdoes Nationwide on a straightforward mortgage product with a low SVR and few hidden charges

"....With the 5.14% variable-rate product, there's neither an arrangement fee nor any ERC. ING says that this deal will always be less than 0.9 per cent above the Bank of England base rate [so it could go up to a maximum of 5.65% at current levels].... and you can overpay as much as you like...."

That compares to Nationwide's 6.24% SVR/BMR.

But Nationwide's policy change away from 2001 means that it can now play the commission game.

"......For the fix[ed rate deal], he compares ING [4.95%] with Nationwide, which offers a two-year deal at 4.47 per cent but with a high, £1,499 arrangement fee (and an extra £99 for remortgages). It also has a £90 exit fee, unlike ING....."

So is ING the new "consumers' champion" :rolleyes: ?