Nationwide AGM

finder

Nationwide's AGM is around the corner:

Main points:
(1) 2011 underlying profit @ £267 mil, up 30% from previous years.
(2) CEO (Mr. G. Beale) total remuneration @ £1.884 mil, up 22.5% from previous year.
(3) 6 executive directors total remuneration @ £6.63 mil.
(4) Members remuneration? Paltry interest rates; the flexaccount has become a rather dull and uncompetitive account.

Is anyone heading to the AGM? I would like to vote against the director's reelection and remuneration report. I am not interested whatsoever in the society increasing its yearly benefits; I'd rather have those benefits being given back to the members via more competitively-priced products.

regards

apt

I have voted against everything for similar reasons plus the messing around of the flexaccount, not that it will do any good. You don't need to have someone attend. You can vote against online.

kevin52

I have voted enthusiastically in favour as it is a well run and profitable mutual organisation which returns the profits to it's members throught competitive products. It has not needed a government bailout, has not been guilty of mis-selling inappropriate investment products, and has low default rates on loans and mortgages.
The directors are paid a lot but would earn several times their salaries if they were employed in our near bankrupt government assisted banks.

boatman

How can you possibly justify £1m rates of pay!!? How about spreading the wealth and putting more money in to the hands of people who will spend it on goods and services and boost the economy, as it stands the majority of people are holding on to their hard earned money and are afraid to spend, making it extremely difficult for many companies to survive... So many companies are making millions despite the down turn but very little of it is filtering down the line, its about time it did... Have you actually looked at some of the pay rates for directors, it is pure greed.. and is way out of hand..

Mikhail

I have voted against everything as well. I personally don't see any benefits from them.

olly300

kevin52 wrote: »

I have voted enthusiastically in favour as it is a well run and profitable mutual organisation which returns the profits to it's members throught competitive products. It has not needed a government bailout, has not been guilty of mis-selling inappropriate investment products, and has low default rates on loans and mortgages.
The directors are paid a lot but would earn several times their salaries if they were employed in our near bankrupt government assisted banks.

The Nationwide directors have got greedy. They may be mutual but they have still got greedy thinking that they need to earn the same as the banking directors.

Well they don't.

There are plenty of people around who could do their job for less pay.

Nationwide have been involved in the PPI mis-selling but they were one of the first to stop selling it on their products. A simple google would have found this information out.

Their products aren't competitive. However if you are not going to be competitive on rates you need to be competitive in what you offer people. Nationwide unfortunately hasn't learnt this yet...

premierfella

I have no problem with Nationwide running the mutual business at a higher profit level as that is necessary given that it is a primary route to increasing the capital base for a building society (although it disappoints me personally that their pursuit of that goal has led to the closure of the majority of my local Nationwide branches in the last year - South East London).

However I was shocked by the telephone number remuneration packages and have thus voted against on items linked to that. Significant salaries are justified by the size of the business and the responsibilities attached, but £1m+ annual remuneration I consider excessive for a mutual organisation, whatever the size. Salaries should necessarily be lower for a mutual organisation, where job security at board level is normally greater than is the case at for-profit businesses with shareholders.

Lansdowne

There is no point in voting "against everything". That won't send any message to the board.
If you have something to say about the directors' remuneration, vote against accepting that item. If you dislike the way they appoint new directors first then ask members to "re-elect" them, vote against that one person. If you then post a suggestion for others to do the same there's an outside chance someone in the society may notice.

Chopperharris_2

For all those who like to bury their head in the sand and pretend everything is normal.

Ask yourself - Why has the voting form been rigged with a 'default' format since the year dot??? Are the board afraid of having a fair vote?

Why do the board choose their own new members and then get the sheep to 'rubber stamp' the decision THEY have made?
Ask yourself - When was the last time YOU actually had a choice about a board member?


Still want to bury your head in the sand? - Perhaps you should read this...

blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/2010/06/vote-against-nationwide-bumper-pay-packets.html


(You'll have to cut and paste the link, apparently I don't have enough posts to put links in)

Zambuco

I also voted against the re-election of all the directors in protest against the obscene bonuses that they gave themselves in spite of worse performance. Bonuses have no place in a mutual society.

zenbanana

Zambuco wrote: »

Bonuses have no place in a mutual society.

I think the principle of having bonuses is fine. I'd rather someone had to achieve a particular target to earn salary, rather than just be given it regardless. It comes down to whether the targets are challenging enough and work in the interests of us, the members

Looking at my voting paper, it does seem horribly skewed in favour of the Board and I can't see how members could EVER hope to challenge them at the ballot box.

I recall there was another thread somewhere here from a member who wanted to challenge the directors on their salaries, but I don't think it got anywhere