Become a Nationwide member without "windfall" signaway

baby_boomer

Here's one for the experts.

My daughter has a Nationwide a/c opened in 2001 which is a trustee account. The trustee is a non-signaway member of Nationwide. She also has a Portman account in her own name from 1998.

Can I assume that she has not signed away her rights at the Nationwide and that the Portman account would qualify her for windfall rights at Nationwide in the unlikely event of a demutualisation? Or does she have to close the Nationwide account before 28 August to be sure?

My guess is that Nationwide and other societies will make children sign away their rights when they move from (non-signed away) trustee accounts to accounts in their own names.

If that is the case then Nationwide surely can't have it both ways and enforce a signaway on my daughter in spite of her Portman account, can they?

Newbie22_2

Just so i'm clear on all this, if i register now will i be eligible for the windfall in 5 years? Thanks.

EDIT

I have never had a nationwide account or a portman account if that's relevant. Also which account exactly do i have to sign up to?

IvanOpinion

bristolleedsfan wrote: »

totally agree with you bar the above point, nationwide didnt devise the signaway with the intention that they would demutalise with some members entitlements going to the charitable foundation, nore are the charitable foundation under any illusions about that.

An interesting thought though, could a customer who has had one or more accounts for several years not send a letter saying that they no longer agreed to the sign away. nationwide would have one of two choices, either they remove the clause or they would have to insist on closing the account(s) ... I doubt if they would do the latter

Ivan

bristolleedsfan

IvanOpinion wrote: »

An interesting thought though, could a customer who has had one or more accounts for several years not send a letter saying that they no longer agreed to the sign away. nationwide would have one of two choices, either they remove the clause or they would have to insist on closing the account(s) ... I doubt if they would do the latter

Ivan

nationwide would only remove the clause when it suits them, nationwide wouldnt worry about a few account closures after all nationwide were threatening to close flexi accounts where people were challenging fees charged.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/6422905.stm

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/54-nationwide-charges-lies.html

off topic but might interest those who have keen interest in nationwide BS

http://www.penaltychargesforum.co.uk/archive/index.php?f-180.html

if there was a mass campaign from "signed away" members coupled with threat of them withdrawing most their funds unless signaway was made defunct, who knows what the outcome might be.

kennyboy66_2

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I dislike all this carpetbagging stuff. I guess I'll be alone on this site.

When it comes to voting for a building society to become a bank, I think all those who want the bank should choose one of the many that we already have on the high street. Leave the building societies to those of us who choose to borrow/invest with them.

With Birmingham Midshires, I felt as if my building society was stolen by people wanting to make a quick buck. I would not want the same for Britannia or Nationwide.

This country is suffering from the children of Margaret Thatcher, I guess.



GG

You are dead right there. Greedy parasites would be a better description than carpet baggers.

kennyboy66_2

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

A good article here about Nationwide's supposed mutual benefits. Agrees with my view that people support Nationwide for woolly reasons rather than because they are actually good value.

The article goes a bit soft when it relies on anecdotal evidence from a mortgage broker that Nationwide are "usually good value". Not sure why the best buy review approach failed them there?

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/your-money/manage-your-finances/2007/08/07/nationwide-vs-the-rest.aspx?source=ioowftxt0010011

Would you like to show us how Nationwide products compare to the large banks? eg HBSC, Lloyds, Barclays, Natwest Abbey.

Their main products of mortgages, savings and current accounts outperform almost all of them in each category year after year after year.

Milarky

kennyboy66 wrote: »

You are dead right there. Greedy parasites would be a better description than carpet baggers.

You're being ironic, I hope? "Carpetbagger" was a term used by the building societies themselves (I don't know if they were the ones to coin it) - as a pejorative that was applied to many of their own long standing customers as well a recent joiners - and also as a way to distract discussion of the merits of any change of status (a balanced arguments at all times) by questioning the motives of those who either raised it or sought to have it discussed.

As for 'greed', that suggests benefiting disproportionately - whereas Board members would never seek to characterize their own 'compensation' packages as other than in proportion to the mythical 'going rate' - They never actually seek to pay themselves either on the basis of the things they do or in comparison to the staff that do the actual work of the society. Why doesn't a building society board ever put its money (it's 'ours' actually) where its mouth is and

-Work for the same rate as a branch manager?

-Have staff elect their own board representatives (at the same basic salaries) from BM levels?

-Have members able to elect their own board representatives also (this never happens because member nominated candidates have to stand against board 'insider' candidates - and usually there are a 'slate' of places to fill so the board can't lose all their seats whatever happens)?

But instead building societies all insist they much have the governance of a public listed company -apart from shareholders- and with that the perks (pay decided by remuneration committees not staff or members)

'black' and 'kettle' come to mind

bristolleedsfan

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Would you like to show us how Nationwide products compare to the large banks? eg HBSC, Lloyds, Barclays, Natwest .

Their main products of mortgages, savings and current accounts outperform almost all of them in each category year after year after year.

"big four banks" offer completely different services and appeal to a completely different market than a building society so a comparison, nationwide with "big four banks" would not be comparing like with like and would be like comparing a high mileage car with a "runaround town car".

compare nationwide BS with "ex building societies" the ones that converted to plc status ( plc does not automatically mean "bank") and exisiting building societies for a level comparison.

gordylad

Looking at the portman site it looks as though 1000 pounds is required to open the savings account by post:

From portman.
Opening balance of £250 (£1,000 by post)

bristolleedsfan

gordylad wrote: »

Looking at the portman site it looks as though 1000 pounds is required to open the savings account by post:

From portman.
Opening balance of £250 (£1,000 by post)

absolutely correct, has been for some considerable time, unless it says minimum opening balance has to be maintained then once cheque has cleared, can withdraw 900.00 to leave 100.00 balance ( nationwide takeover of portman will be complete by cheque clearance so merely withdraw 900.00 out and transfer 100.00 to a better paying nationwide account once takeover/cheque is complete/cleared.)