Nationwide ever becoming a bank?

ManAtHome

They did have a vote to float in the late 90s - result was a 'no thanks'. If we'd known they would effectively turn into a bank anyway might have been a 'yes please, where's the moolah'.

alanq

sauvignon wrote: »

BTW according to Wikipedia, it's the largest building society in the world...
Speaks for itself, doesn't it.

I recall a time when Halifax was the biggest building society in Britain (and the World?) and was so big that it said it didn't foresee any need to demutualise. I believed them but a couple of years later it did demutualise by which time I had paid off the mortgage and had closed my accounts. It was only because I had a little in the Leeds Permanent Building Society, which had by then been taken over by the Halifax, that I received a small payment. Things can change.

However, I think that things are different now for the Nationwide. Many/most members will have signed away their demutualisation rights to charity. That being the case there is no incentive for a majority to vote for demutualisation.

The Ts&Cs say re the assignment of any windfall benefits to charity
"You understand that this agreement is irrevocable and cannot be amended or varied without the consent of both the Society and the Foundation and that neither the Society nor the Foundation will release you from this agreement."

PeacefulWaters

pinkdalek wrote: »

Missed off Abbey National.......taken over by Santander.

Perhaps the best (only?) example of a successful demutualisation.

Halifax's biggest mistake was merging with BOS.

At the time it made sense. It was sold as an opportunity to diversify the bank's risk away from property related loans. It also plugged a big gap in the branch network in Scotland.

They then lent silly money to property developers. That was the big mistake.

roddydogs

ManAtHome wrote: »

They did have a vote to float in the late 90s - result was a 'no thanks'. If we'd known they would effectively turn into a bank anyway might have been a 'yes please, where's the moolah'.

Was just going to post this, NW pulled a crafty by getting all the old dears who were undecided to vote "No" with all sorts of scare nonsence, that customer service would suffer, etc, I would rather have had my £1k or so, as you say its a Bank in all than name & their bosses earn Zillions, just like a bank. But I bet if it went to a vote now, it would still be "No". I still have a Flex A/c, just moving £750 PM in and out to get the benifits, Travel ins, plus a good rate on my ISA, or should I say it was a good rate till the dropped that (as from June 1) from 1.6 to 1.2%

anoncol

ManAtHome wrote: »

They did have a vote to float in the late 90s - result was a 'no thanks'. If we'd known they would effectively turn into a bank anyway might have been a 'yes please, where's the moolah'.

Stupid question here, but what is the difference between a bank and a building society?

alanq

anoncol wrote: »

Stupid question here, but what is the difference between a bank and a building society?

A bank is owned by its shareholders who need to be paid dividends out of any profits.

A building society is owned by its members (savers and borrowers) . As there are no shareholders to pay, any profits remain with the society. In theory this should mean higher interest rates for savers and lower interest rates for borrowers. In practice there are better rates than Nationwide's to be found with some banks.

dreaming

roddydogs wrote: »

Was just going to post this, NW pulled a crafty by getting all the old dears who were undecided to vote "No" with all sorts of scare nonsence, that customer service would suffer, etc, I would rather have had my £1k or so, as you say its a Bank in all than name & their bosses earn Zillions, just like a bank. But I bet if it went to a vote now, it would still be "No". I still have a Flex A/c, just moving £750 PM in and out to get the benifits, Travel ins, plus a good rate on my ISA, or should I say it was a good rate till the dropped that (as from June 1) from 1.6 to 1.2%

I don't remember any scare tactics being used. As I remember it the vote was always emphatically "no" to demutualisation. It was only when the carpetbaggers started to join in larger numbers that the charity clause was introduced, and I actually agreed with it. For many years Nationwide did follow the spirit of being a mutual but then things gradually changed until they became as they are now.
It's always been a bit of a dichotomy to me - part of me understands the business sense of "acting as a bank", but part of me does look back to the days of the local building society with affection. But then, I also miss Spangle sweets, and Woolworths:rotfl:

gt94sss2

alanq wrote: »

The Ts&Cs say re the assignment of any windfall benefits to charity
"You understand that this agreement is irrevocable and cannot be amended or varied without the consent of both the Society and the Foundation and that neither the Society nor the Foundation will release you from this agreement."

To be honest, I doubt such a T&C is legally enforceable - Nationwide are probably just relying on the fact that no one has challenged it and the clamor for demutualisation has died down.

roddydogs

dreaming wrote: »

I don't remember any scare tactics being used. As I remember it the vote was always emphatically "no" to demutualisation. It was only when the carpetbaggers started to join in larger numbers that the charity clause was introduced, and I actually agreed with it. For many years Nationwide did follow the spirit of being a mutual but then things gradually changed until they became as they are now.
It's always been a bit of a dichotomy to me - part of me understands the business sense of "acting as a bank", but part of me does look back to the days of the local building society with affection. But then, I also miss Spangle sweets, and Woolworths:rotfl:

"Scare Tactics" is probably a little strong, but I heard that many people asked at the counter & were told vote No, it was "Keep it friendly, etc. Mind you after the B & B farce perhaps they were right!

sauvignon

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

Nationwide has twice the market share of First Direct.

Nationwide attracts more switchers than it loses. First Direct doesn't.

Out-stripped? I don't see it.

My source was the Which? Recommended/Customer Preferred Providers tables for Current Accounts where First Direct has an 82% customer score whereas Nationwide, the second best, has 69%. FD also leads the tables or is second best when some specific current account features are considered, while N is either not represented among the first four at all or is third. For many years all these tables were dominated by N. Something must have changed.