PORTMAN BUILDING SOCIETY-bonus

mystic_trev

I've voted NO too. I stood to get the max payout, but after reading the Merger document it seems the only real benefits for the merger is for the Portman Board Directors!

MarkyMarkD

Bristolleedsfan

If I'm quoting official stuff I'll show it like this

official quote

Most of my post is common sense/interpretation of what's been written.

I know it may seem rubbish to a long-term Portman member that the Lambeth members are getting the same as them. I'm also a long-term Portman member who wasn't a Lambeth member, and I agree that it's rubbish. But it's also fair, because upon the merger of the two institutions into the new Portman, the Lambeth members should have equal rights with the existing Portman members.

How do you consider it's fair that the Lambeth members should get nothing following the merger of their new society (the combined Lambeth/Portman) with Nationwide?

The only way for this to have been done in a fairer way, would have been to cancel the Lambeth/Portman merger and to do a mega Lambeth/Portman/Nationwide merger all at the same time. This would have been a lot fairer in terms of payouts as all Lambeth/Portman members would have got a single payout (or two if they were members of both pre-merger), rather than Lambeth members getting the biggest share of the cake.

I'm sure that Nationwide thought about this, but the Lambeth/Portman merger was almost definitely too far along to be canned.

Tony_Webster

The more I look at this 'merger', the less impressed I am. Apart from the payout, which seems fairly low to me anyway, I can't see what's in it for Portman members.

The documents say that you will be treated as having been a Nationwide member since you became a Portman member. But what about membership of the Greenwich prior to merger with the Portman ? Does that count ? Could be important one day.....

Given Nationwide's overall behaviour these days, I don't think their case for mutuality really stands up any more. What do we really get out of it ? Are we being treated any better by the Portman and Nationwide than bank customers ? Is Nationwide's savings range better value than say, Alliance and Leicester or Icesave ? I think the ING experience shows you're better off voting with your feet rather than a tick box at Portman's AGM.

So my view - vote 'yes', demutualise as quickly as possible afterwards then move to a provider who doesn't pretend they care.

Lorian

Tony_Webster wrote: »

The documents say that you will be treated as having been a Nationwide member since you became a Portman member. But what about membership of the Greenwich prior to merger with the Portman ? Does that count ? Could be important one day.....

I don't think length of membership has ever made a difference, except when it allowed you to escape from a sign-away clause, or qualify under the "first balance" date.

ReportInvestor

It's kind of a sweet afterthought by the Portman to let the Lambeth members get a windfall bonus [and they will] , in spite of the timescale discrepancies.

Portman scandalously expelled hundreds of members in 2000 for just exercising their democratic right to support a members' resolution.

A fair few of those expelled may have finally regained their Portman membership through the Lambeth merger as many of those expelled, but by no means all, are likely to have been carpetbaggers who may also have held Lambeth membership.

MarkyMarkD

I agree with Lorian.

And I still don't believe that ex-Portman members will actually be forced to comply with Nationwide's sign-away, as they have not signed accepting it, and they are not choosing to become Nationwide members but are having it imposed on them.

But others disagree with me, and there's no published word on this that I've ever seen. Probably because it's far too embarrassing for Nationwide that they are actually disenfranchising their own members whilst giving the rights away to the newer ex-Portman members.

But then, I may be completely wrong.

MarkyMarkD

bristolleedsfan wrote: »

nationwide the biggest building society appear unable to be able to afford to pay 6.25 gross on its monthly saver ( without strings) yet rates around and above 6.25 on regular saver accounts is common in the market place including many that last longer than a year

Whilst I'm not normally one to defend Nationwide, NO savings institution (irrespective of size) can offer 6.25% gross on a monthly saver account without taking a significant loss. So any institution that does so is loss leading - which for a building society means stealing from its other members to subsidise those who choose this loss-leading account. I can't agree that this is correct mutual behaviour, and therefore I can't agree with criticising Nationwide for not doing so. Heaven knows what the Loughborough, for example, think they are doing offering 8% on a monthly saver.

bristolleedsfan

Lorian wrote: »

I don't think length of membership has ever made a difference, except when it allowed you to escape from a sign-away clause, or qualify under the "first balance" date.

length of membership did matter once upon a time, while back i think around the C@G takeover period people had to be a member for 2 years which was y building societies to become plcs started giving shares rather than cash or why they introduced cash payouts in some circumstances someone else im sure will have a better memory of this than me but i do know that at 1 time there was a 2 year membership issue

bristolleedsfan

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Whilst I'm not normally one to defend Nationwide, NO savings institution (irrespective of size) can offer 6.25% gross on a monthly saver account without taking a significant loss. So any institution that does so is loss leading - which for a building society means stealing from its other members to subsidise those who choose this loss-leading account. I can't agree that this is correct mutual behaviour, and therefore I can't agree with criticising Nationwide for not doing so. Heaven knows what the Loughborough, for example, think they are doing offering 8% on a monthly saver.

nationwide are offering monthly saver rates of up to 6.25 gross lmao lmao my criticism is that nationwide are spending a lot of money advertising it and theres strings attached to achieving the 6.25 gross rate(and small savers kicked in teeth by worlds biggest building society) whereas bath bs/monmouth/yorkshire/scarborough to name a few offer this rate and higher on an ongoing basis without major strings and without massive peak time advertising the product lmao

so markymarkD u must be accusing nationwide of "stealing" ......lmao...............http://www.nationwide.co.uk/savings/

im not sure what big deal is about 6.25 gross leeds building society launch a 60 day loyalty account ( limited issue) at start of march each year with a interest rate guarantee until year end current issue is 6.25 gross variable on 1.00+ max investment 10000.00( per member) and principality issued a 1 year fixed term bond at start of march paying 6.20 gross again for existing members from memory

btw nationwide is only building society in bristol where u cant open a savings account on the spot u have to make an appointment even if the branch is not busy ..all other building societies in bristol u can open a savings account on demand ...last summer i took my daughter( who lives elsewhere) to nationwide branch in school holidays so she could open it in person and was told nope need an appointment, branch was not busy guess nationwide is " proud to be different "

MarkyMarkD

We also had to make an appointment to open an account at Nationwide, but at least we managed to make an appointment for later the same day. As you say, almost every other organisation will let you open an account there and then.