Nationwide Flex Account Worth Keeping?

BobQ

Mikhail wrote: »

'share' of what? Problems, low interest rates or NW directors 1m bonuses?

Just in case its a serious question from a naive Russian vistor;), a share in the Nationwide, which is a mutual institution owned by its investing and borrowing members who each have a share in its value were it ever sold.

olly300

bankersmug wrote: »

Can anyone think of a good reason to keep a Nationwide Flex Account open?

So you have more than one bank account so if your main bank screws you up i.e. freezes your account (or in my case ensure I didn't have a card I could use for a month) you have another bank account you can use.

Bloomberg

bankersmug wrote: »

Can anyone think of a good reason to keep a Nationwide Flex Account open?
It's now cheaper to withdraw money abroad on a Halifax Clarity Credit Card, and there are plenty of banks who don't have those annoying card readers.
The only thing I can think of is if there's some kind of sale or buyout in the future there might be a payout to members.
Any thoughts?

Realistically the Nationwide flexaccount was really good. It paid interest and the free overseas withdrawals put the account in a league of it's own. I closed my inactive flexaccount two weeks ago. I just could not think of any reason to keep it. All the people hoping for a demutualisation, don't hold your breath.

W1zz

bankersmug wrote: »

Can anyone think of a good reason to keep a Nationwide Flex Account open?

Have you just got a 'Notice of Account Closure' letter? I got one of them the other day

I opened up the account in 2007 and used it a few times when going to the states, but now I just use my regular debit card for cash withdrawels and credit card for £50+ purchases.

I'm going to let my account close - It only has a balance of £2.62 anyway

MoneySaverLog

peanutnboo wrote: »

I cannot think of many good reasons to not keep a nationwide account.

Or just keep it open with a pound and set up regular standing order for £1 that gets floated around the inactive accounts like this. The directors are just money grabbing fat cats. It's time to take back this building society for it's members instead of paying 6/7 figure salaries.

InsideInsurance wrote: »

their ISA had a very good rate recently and required you to haev a current account

Does not beat the AA's 3.35% I get, probably because what they should pay out in interest is lining the pockets of their fat cats.

W1zz

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

Or just keep it open with a pound and set up regular standing order for £1 that gets floated around the inactive accounts like this. The directors are just money grabbing fat cats. It's time to take back this building society for it's members instead of paying 6/7 figure salaries.

You've just talked me into keeping this account open :beer:

simax

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

Or just keep it open with a pound and set up regular standing order for £1 that gets floated around the inactive accounts like this. The directors are just money grabbing fat cats. It's time to take back this building society for it's members instead of paying 6/7 figure salaries.



Does not beat the AA's 3.35% I get, probably because what they should pay out in interest is lining the pockets of their fat cats.

So the bosses of part nationalised banks like Lloyds Banking Group, Northern Rock, RBS etc are not fat cats??

I decided a few weeks ago that I was ditching LTSB and going back to Nationwide as my main account as I don't want my money in an institution that was so badly run it needed a state bail-out.

MoneySaverLog

simax wrote: »

So the bosses of part nationalised banks like Lloyds Banking Group, Northern Rock, RBS etc are not fat cats??

I decided a few weeks ago that I was ditching LTSB and going back to Nationwide as my main account as I don't want my money in an institution that was so badly run it needed a state bail-out.

The difference being that this building society is a mutual and supposed to be run by it's members for it's members interest. Not that of some fat cat.

simax

But if the people at the top are skilled enough to run the business so it doesn't go to the wall, then they deserve to be paid well, no?

tagq2

simax wrote: »

But if the people at the top are skilled enough to run the business so it doesn't go to the wall, then they deserve to be paid well, no?

No. If requisite talent is so rare that only high pay will deliver that talent then high pay is required.

But only then.