Lloyds v Nationwide

MoneySaverLog

Robisere wrote: »

MoneySaverLog & ajbell:

And after all that, it really is none of your business. You look after yours, I will do the same with mine.

I'm entitled to an opinion on director pay for mutual societies that I'm a member of too.

Banks are different to mutual societies. Banks have shareholders who expect a return on their investment. Paying a director of a bank to get that return forms part of the business plan. However a mutual Building Society is supposed to be run for it's members not for the greedy board of directors who vote for consistent excessive pay rises and bonuses year on year. When the average person in the street is getting below inflationary pay rises.

Just pointing out what people are voting for on these forms that get sent out, if people read (and understood them) they might feel the same way.

oldvicar

IanManc wrote: »

The compensation scheme protects savings in savings accounts up to £85000 in all UK institutions. So Nationwide is no safer a place for your money than any other provider, either bank or building society, which is covered by the scheme.

A bit naive.

Suppose you need to put more than £85K in one place ... is Nationwide any safer than some of the rest?

Even if you have under £85K, wouldn't you prefer to save with an institution which can repay you itself, rather than one which might fail and hope to be repaid from other savers assets?

Is there any point to the ratings agencies assesments ??

Archergirl

I have accounts a both, Nationwide and Lloyds (and a few others). I never keep much money in my Nationwide Flexaccount since it pays no interest. But I pass some money through the account, and have a couple of Direct Debits on it, so I can avail myself of their Flexclusive ISA, and the European Travel cover.

Innovate, I think you have to have £750 paid into the Flexaccount to get the Travel Insurance cover, plus direct debits (which you have)

oldvicar

FSCS protection can be compared, say, to having comprehensive breakdown cover from the AA or RAC (other breakdown companies are available). If you are sensible, you would rather not use it. In protection terms it doesn't matter which car you choose, or which bank or building society you choose. But in the case of the car, you have a better experience by choosing one which is less likely to break down. It is the same with banks,you want one which isn't going to collapse, and preferably gives reliable service and no niggly hassles along the way.

Plenty of ordinary people need to have over £85K in one institution at some point. A typical situation would be when making a large purchase, such as a house, it is normal to provide settlement from one account rather than in bits and pieces.

oldvicar

Just to add, its odd to be debating the merits of FSCS cover in a thread titled Lloyds v Nationwide - each in their own way one of the most robust and safe deposit takers in the country.

MoneySaverLog

oldvicar wrote: »

Plenty of ordinary people need to have over £85K in one institution at some point. A typical situation would be when making a large purchase, such as a house, it is normal to provide settlement from one account rather than in bits and pieces.

Yes but there would be nothing stopping you having the money split for protection then pooling it together to make the large purchase when it's needed.

oldvicar

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

Yes but there would be nothing stopping you having the money split for protection then pooling it together to make the large purchase when it's needed.

Of course you would do this. But for those few days when pooling it together you won't think all FSCS covered banks are just as good as each other. You will be scared - or just now at least I would be scared.

Sapphire

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

Voting which is next to useless as members are cajoled by staff to put their X's on the voting forms where they tell them too when they ask in branch. Nothing was mentioned about the alternative options like demutualisation (and getting a nice little bonus) when they had their vote for carpetbagging back in the 1990's.

Members keep voting in the Chief Executive on his 7 figure salary and same with his stock options. It's a disgrace this mutual building society saying it's there for the members and all Graham Beale and his board of directors are interested in is how big a slice of the pie they can get their grubby little hands on.

LTSB all the way with me over this building society any day.

Don't agree with you at all. I was with Lloyds for many years but got utterly fed up with them (among other things) when they continually phoned me trying to sell me products, though I specifically asked them several times not to do this.

I made the transition to Nationwide six years ago and they are terrific. The transfer of accounts, including direct debits, was straightforward and quick, and was arranged by them – I didn't have to do anything.

The service in the branches is excellent. My sisters are also with Nationwide and are very pleased with them. I've never had problems with the online banking side, either.

MoneySaverLog

I've never had Lloyds try to sell me anything I did not want or need. They've not done any sales calls either, my marketing preferences are set to no phone calls.

Nationwide on the other hand, when I used them for a while, tried to sell me stuff at every available opportunity.

mulronie

Nationwide is a very odd institution - it makes a tonne of profit each year (£179m last year after tax) from its members, but instead of returning it in the form of top savings rates or a divi, it sticks it into "retained earnings" and uses it to balloon its balance sheet - growth for the sake of growth (on which I'm sure the directors have their "pay for performance" measured).

At least Lloyds profit accrues in part to shareholders (including HM Taxpayer), instead of going into the black hole of a mutual's balance sheet never to be seen again.