Nationwide BS Vote 2007 - Don't 'Quick Vote'

[Deleted User]

Secret_Wookie wrote: »

Are there really loads of people who can run banks and other large organisations. Does everyone have the leadership skills, commercial acumen, abilty to define stratgey, financial understanding, abilty to deal with the work load and pressure etc etc etc?

If you have the skills, the energy and the desire then surely you have a good chance of getting on gravy train?

I do as I have a first class MA maths degree, a chartered management accountant and part way through a MBA while doing a full time management job in investment appraisal for the civil service :P doesnt mean i can predict the future and make decisions that will make every memebr of a building society a millionaire though.

But seriously you recon these guys are something special, I have met countless senior managers earning 100K+ who are just as incompetent as the the guyz earning 13K. Most directors are simply old boy network dossers that joined the right stone cutters society, esp in england titles still go a long way unfortunatly. But there are some that are worth there money but not many! I guess the problem lies in that most directors are professional directors, they have never done a real job, been on the shop floor or even have any contact with the none-gold plated society throughout their lifes. Look at there CVs they start off as a director at 23 and they go from one to the next there successes are merely what teh company did and not what they did. More often then not its the 20K-30K per year research group that does the work for the 60K secretary group that does the reports and the findings for the directors

Our companys are about 50 years behind places like japan that have better management structures. Its little wonder why we are so uncompetitive on the world stage its only the fact that we own the money that owns the foreign companys that we get anywhere and even thats a con as money is thin air. :rotfl:

olly300

fwor wrote: »

Thanks to the OP for pointing this out. As a result I've just voted online, "against" the Directors Renumeration Report.

.

Every year I have bothered to vote. (Only the last 4 years) I've always vote No. Then I discover something like 90% have voted yes. :mad:

Secret_Wookie

Yant1 wrote: »

I do as I have a first class MA maths degree, a chartered management accountant and part way through a MBA while doing a full time management job in investment appraisal for the civil service :P doesnt mean i can predict the future and make decisions that will make every memebr of a building society a millionaire though.

But seriously you recon these guys are something special, I have met countless senior managers earning 100K+ who are just as incompetent as the the guyz earning 13K. Most directors are simply old boy network dossers that joined the right stone cutters society, esp in england titles still go a long way unfortunatly.]




Is this because you work with the civil service :rotfl: Anyone want people in the civil service to run their bank?

[Deleted User]

I mainly deal with industry senior management + PMs.

MattB_4

Yant1 wrote: »

I do as I have a first class MA maths degree, a chartered management accountant and part way through a MBA while doing a full time management job in investment appraisal for the civil service :P doesnt mean i can predict the future and make decisions that will make every memebr of a building society a millionaire though.

But seriously you recon these guys are something special, I have met countless senior managers earning 100K+ who are just as incompetent as the the guyz earning 13K. Most directors are simply old boy network dossers that joined the right stone cutters society, esp in england titles still go a long way unfortunatly. But there are some that are worth there money but not many! I guess the problem lies in that most directors are professional directors, they have never done a real job, been on the shop floor or even have any contact with the none-gold plated society throughout their lifes. Look at there CVs they start off as a director at 23 and they go from one to the next there successes are merely what teh company did and not what they did. More often then not its the 20K-30K per year research group that does the work for the 60K secretary group that does the reports and the findings for the directors

Our companys are about 50 years behind places like japan that have better management structures. Its little wonder why we are so uncompetitive on the world stage its only the fact that we own the money that owns the foreign companys that we get anywhere and even thats a con as money is thin air. :rotfl:

Much as i did snigger through most of that and have no doubt that it's true in a many companies I would like to defend the current Nationwide exec directors. Most of them have come from the bottom of their professions after leaving university and have done very well in numerous positions within Nationwide to get where they are. The particular director in my reporting line is a top guy. Very passionate not only about the business and its people but the customer.

Are they worth the hundred of thousands and in some cases millions? Well, it's hard to say. It's certainly a lot of money any way you cut it and I think every director in every company knows this. Much as i know we are a very skeptical bunch on here you can't fail to see some validity in the argument that you have to pay market rates if you want to get and retain the right people. I'd certainly agree that it's self perpetuating though.

Working for the company I'd say I'm more bothered by how overpaid my friends who work in IT are compared to me doing a similar level job elsewhere! On that point i have no idea what makes me worth double the salary i was picking up when i started at the bottom 5 years ago!

When it comes down to it would i say no to the job? Probably. I don't want to go on TV or turn up at work at stupid times of the day and not spend time with my family. I'd take their salary and happily do my job though

steady__eddie

Yes: 920,519
No: 47,643
Abstentions: 10,919

The gravy train has not been derailed.

bristolleedsfan

have nationwide stated anywhere how much they spend on tv advertising :rolleyes:

Thomas_Crown

bristolleedsfan wrote: »

id love to know how much nationwides constant peak time television advertising costs.

when nationwide slags off the banks, nationwide appears to forget 2 things

1. it couldnt exist without a bank
2. it once wanted to merge with national + provincial building society and had it done so it would have converted to PLC status

Just to try & clarify the above 2 points.

1) Are you saying that Nationwide need a clearing bank to process cheques?
I know that cheques deposited into a FlexAccount clear in 3 working days.
I assumed that Nationwide cleared their own cheques.

2) I had an account with National & Provincial & I thought that they were mutual until they were swallowed up by the (then) Abbey National.
Incidentally N&P needed 10 working days to clear cheques as they relied on a bank to do this for them!

Thomas_Crown

bristolleedsfan, I was thinking about your first point regarding Nationwide not being able to exist without a bank so I decided to satisfy my curiosity by looking at my NBS cheque book.

The sort code for a Nationwide FlexAccount begins with '07' which iirc is the sort code for TSB accounts. Not Lloyds however as their current account sort code begins with '30'.

bristolleedsfan

Thomas_Crown wrote: »

Just to try & clarify the above 2 points.

1) Are you saying that Nationwide need a clearing bank to process cheques?
I know that cheques deposited into a FlexAccount clear in 3 working days.
I assumed that Nationwide cleared their own cheques.

2) I had an account with National & Provincial & I thought that they were mutual until they were swallowed up by the (then) Abbey National.
Incidentally N&P needed 10 working days to clear cheques as they relied on a bank to do this for them!

yep nationwide need a clearing bank to process cheques, cheques paid into current accounts appear to clear quicker than those paid into savings accounts, this is not really the case, withdrawals are "allowed" against cheques paid into current accounts quicker than cheques paid into savings accounts.

In theory a cheque could come back returned unpaid after 3 days, if a withdrawal has already been made from a savings account the society in some circumstances would have to retrieve the money as savings accounts cant go overdrawn whereas if a cheque comes back returned after 3 days paid in via a current account, the current account would merely go overdrawn if their arent other funds in the account.

national and provincial were mutual before they were swallowed up by abbey ( if national provincial had done current accounts ud have been "allowed" to have withdrawn against cheques paid into its current account after 3 days ( 10 days re savings accounts) see above reasoning

u will c within this article reference to nationwide and N+P rumours and ref to conversion to bank had it done so, all nationwide has done is decided to be a big fish in a small pond and imo made themselves to be a laughing stock as many people remember the ideas they had re N+P and conversion to PLC status. :rotfl: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19960922/ai_n14065353

it should be remembered that while nationwide might be now largest building society it was miles behind halifax and abbey national.